HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical ReportSediment Deposition Mitigation -Lake Houses at Eagle Cove
Geotechnical Report {12-eopleS)
Applicability:
Item 13 -Grade and Fill Permit
Item 22 -Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Sediment Sampling Report Prepared by Lloyd *& Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Laboratory Analysis by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotchnical Investigation -Geotech Consultants, 2010 and 2011
Per Clark Clu~c_ Cit) pf Rcntun. onl) 3 copies must b\.' SUblllitlcJ
Lloyd & Associates. Inc.
21116-213 ~edllTIellt :'-,CllTIpling H.I:~lII1~ UM\'ll -I
Sediment Sampling and Analytical Results
Barbee Maintenance Dredging
Barbee Company, P.O. Box 359
Renton, Washington
SUHM1TTfD To:
USACEI
DREDGE MATERIAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by:
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
255 Camaloch Dr.
Camano Island. W i\ 98282
Revised: December 12. 2016
Page I of 30
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
Site History -Historical Dredging
Sediment Sampling Results Summary
Suitability for Open Water Disposal
2.0 Sediment Sampling
Sample Stations
Sampling Equipment
Field Sampling Procedure
Equipment Decontamination
Composite Preparation
Chain-of Custody
Grain Size Distribution/Field Observations
3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses
Sediment Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides and PCBs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Dioxins and Furans
4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary
5.0
r ,]0;' d &. AssoCluks. lilt
Sediment Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides and PCBs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Dioxins and F urans
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sediment Sampling Considerations
Page:2 of 30
~lllh-~ 1-' ~edllncnt ~'-1mpilllg Kc<.,ulh 1)\,11\11 -I
Table of Contents (continued)
Figures and Tables
Figure 1-\: Site Photograph
Figure 2-\: Sediment Sampling Stations
Figure 2-2: Sediment core 071 02 I IBarbee/G-
Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution
Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations
Table 2-2: Grain Size Data
Table 3-1: Sediment Results I Conventional Parameters
Table 3-2: Sediment Results I Total Metals
Table 3-3: Sediment Results I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Table 3-4: Sediment Results I Pesticides and PCBs
Table 3-5: Sediment Results I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 3-6: Sediment Results I Dioxins & Furans
Table 4-1: QA Summary I Conventional Parameters
Table 4-2: QA Summary I Total Metals
Table 4-3: QA Summary I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Table 4-4: QA Summary I Pesticides and PCBs
Table 4-5: QA Summary I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 4-6: QA Summary I Dioxins & Furans
Attachments
Attachment A -Sediment Sampling Logs
Attachment B -Grain Size Distribution
Attachment C -Laboratory Reports and Quality Control Summary
Attachment D -Historical Sampling and Analysis Results
:\ole ;\llachll1enh ( an d subll1illed seraratcl)
I ,i{l\'d & Associates. Inc Page 3 ono
1.0 Introduction
This report provides results of sediment sampling and chemical testing of sediments
in conjunction with proposed Maintenance Dredging. The purposes of this sampling
and analysis program are: (l) to chemical collect data regarding the level(s) of
contamination that mayor may not be present within sediments of the permitted
dredge area; and (2) to assess the suitability of dredged materials for open-water
disposal. The purpose of the proposed dredging is to maintain navigational and
recreational access. As currently permitted, we anticipate approximately 2500 to
2700 CY of material will be dredged in 2017 based on 2016 hydrographic data.
Site History -Historical Dredging
The project area (see Figure I-I) has been dredged for many decades. In recent
history, the area was dredged in 1994, 1997,2001/2002 and 2011. The boathouse
was constructed in the 1950's, and has been in continuous use. A portion of the
Barbee Boathouse Navigational Dredge area was last dredged in 2011, concurrent
with boathouse renovation under USACE Permit Reference #NWS-2007-1 0 19.
Figure I-I: Site Navigational Access Photograph. Photograph looking west toward
,\Iereer Island showing the current slatus or the Yavigalional Access to the Boathouse. Ihe
navigatiunal assess "channef'" is immediately 10 Ihe leII qflhe line qfpiling and boom logs
Page -t of ~O
2() 1 1\-'213 ScdllnCllt S:lInpl mg Rl'~lIll~ ])IVI Ml -I
North of the former Barbee Mill facility (approximately 2000 ft), is Quendall
Terminals. Quendall Terminals is a CERCLA (superfund) site managed by EPA.
Primary contaminants at this site are creosote residues (PAH compounds) and
petroleum hydrocarbons. Barbee Lumber Mill operations occurred north of the May
Creek Delta, and south of Quendall Terminals. Lumber mill operations were
essentially shut down in 1999. The boathouse area has been periodically dredged
since the early 1950's to maintain navigational access to the boathouse. There is no
record of spills or other discharges impacting sediments in the proposed dredge area
although low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected during sampling and
chemical analysis in 2008. Sediments in the proposed dredge area arise principally
from deposition during severe storm events (high energy) when sediment loadings
carried from the May Valley Drainage Basin are substantial.
Sediments to be dredged in the future are derived from depositional events that have
occurred at the May Creek Delta for many years. The project proponents seek to
dredge depositional sediments that have infilled the navigational access to the
boathouse. The Barbee Company has secured all permits to dredge the area from the
USACE and is currently updating permits from state and local jurisdictions.
As permitted by USACE, our proposal is to dredge the permitted profile approved by
USACE. This profile will not reach depths that will encounter sediments that are
older than dredging work completed in 2011 or in previous dredging events. In all
respects we will not be dredging to depths that at or below 10-12' elevation (MSL,
Corps Datum). In 2002 the depth at the western edge of the dredge footprint was
approximately 15-20 feet deep, well below proposed dredge profile. In 2005, for
example, the water depth at the Eagle Roost (also periodically referred to the Osprey
Nest) was approximately 10' (12' El. MSL). Since 2005, there has been over 10' of
depositional infill from on going erosional events. While the numbers are not well
developed, the volume of material deposited in Lake Washington at the May Creek
Delta is at least 25,000 CY (and likely substantially higher).
The point is that the project proponents are not dredging older lake bed sediments by
any means. We are simply looking at dredging the least amount of depositional
material possible to maintain access to the boathouse, boat ramp, and shoreline access
for protected recreational uses. The proposed depth profile for dredging will occur
within recent infillideposition.
These results are also to be considered a supplement to previous sediment sampling
and analysis work conducted in 2007 (reported in 2008) and years prior (see
Attachment D -Historical Summary Data Summary).
Sediment Sampling Results -Summary
Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-l) is very
limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for
all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some
motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel
Page 5 of 30
range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry
basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis).
Suitability of Dredged Material for Open Water Disposal
All data indicate that detected chemical contamination levels are below all low-level
screening criteria, and that the materials are acceptable for disposal at a DMMP open-
water disposal site.
Lloyd & ASSOCiates. Illc Page 6 of 30
2.0 Sediment Sampling
Sediment sampling at the Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area was conducted on Monday
July 4, 2016. Sediment samples were collected, compo sited and preserved for next
day delivery to Analytical Resources, Inc. (Seattle, W A). This section provides a
summary of sediment sampling information. Sediment Sampling Logs are provided
in Attachment A.
Sample Stations
Differential GPS was utilized to locate sediment sample stations. Sampling occurred
close to proposed locations as moderated by observed field and gusty weather
conditions. Sampling locations are summarized in Table 2-1 below. All data was
collected using North America Datum (NAD83-Washington North). Lake Elevation
at the time of sampling was provided by the USACE at Chittenden Locks. Lake
elevation was 20.6 feet (MSL), approximately 1.2 feet below the Ordinary High
Water Line (OHWL).
Table 2-1 Sample Stationing
Actual Sampling
Sample Location
State Plane (It)
Easting Northing
Monday. July 04, 2016
Mudline Proposed Sampling
Elevation Design EL. Thickness (It)
SED-1 SSE about 39' from Osprey pole 1301394.0 195430.7 18.5 14.5 4.0
3.1
1.0
2.7
SED-2 South of peninsula about 38'
SED-3 Adjacent to Boathouse Door
Notes
1301509.0 195448.0 19.1 16.0
1301612.5 195476.9 13.0 12.0
Average Thickness (It) =
SEO-1 Moved south nearer to sharp increase in depth
SEO-3 Boathouse door locked, sampled just outside of boathouse door
All elevations are in feet. MSL (USACE Datum)
Sampling Equipment
Samples SED-I and SED-2 were collected as drive samples using a gravity corer
from University of Washington. Sample recoveries were generally very good fro
Sample SED-2(> 70%) as shown in Sediment Sampling Logs provided in
Attachment A. However, recovery at SED-I was poor due to nature of materials
sampled. The middle section of the drive met little resistance, and it is believed that
we hit a homogeneous loose sandy layer that was lost with extraction of the gravity
corer. A repeat drive was conducted with the same results. At no time did it appear
that we hit a hard substrate such as might be anticipated in a lake bottom. Because of
the consistency of core results (mostly fine 10 medium sand) all sediments appear to
[.hl\'d & ASSOCiates. Inc Page 7 of 30
21116-213 ~eJIIlK'll1 S,\lllpill1g I<.l'suils [)Mlvll "1
of recent depositional origin. Because of the shallow sampling thickness, SED-3,
was collected with a small vanVeeen sampler with 100% recovery. Sediment
Sampling Stations are shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations (Proposed and Actual)
Field Sampling Procedure
Because of the recent substantial deposition (arising from May Creek), sampling was
accomplished by walking out to the sampling locations with the exception of the
boathouse sample (SED-3) which was collected just outside the boathouse from an
adjacent float. Depth to mudline (something of a misnomer, since no mud was
encountered) was measured with a weighted line. The 8' gravity corer included a 24"
extension with an added drive weight. The sampler was generally easily extracted
and raised out of the water. The only problem encountered with sampling recovery
occurred at SED-l where we hit a pocket of low resistance, believed to be
homogeneous sandy materials. Sediment cores at SED-I and SED-2 had low water
content when extracted.
Once extracted from the lined sampler, the sample core was visually inspected and
logged. Core contents from within the dredge profile were retained in individual
stainless steel bowls. Mixing of the core contents was with a clean stainless steel
spoon. No attempt was made to select layers or otherwise alter the sample contents.
Equipment Decontamination
Prior to sampling, all sampling equipment was decontaminated by scrubbing with a
dilute solution of Alconox, rinsed with tap water, and then followed by two rinses of
distilled water. In the field, the samplers were rinsed with lake water and visually
inspected prior to moving to the next sampling station. A solvent rinse was not
utilized at any time.
Composite Preparation
r .10\ d & A"soclaks. Ille Page 80f30
1() I (1-213 Scdlll1l.'nt S'1111rl ,ng Rc:-;ulh 1)\-1 t'l1 ! ;-1
A composite sample was constructed from SED-I, SED-2 and SED-3 sediments. The
composite was weighted 45% each of SED-I and SED-2, and 10% of SED-3. It is
unlikely that dredging will occur at the boathouse (SED-3) in the near future because
recent sediment deposition patterns to the west predominate, and there is currently
adequate navigational depth. A pre-cleaned stainless steel bowl and spoon was
utilized to composite samples. Portions were well mixed to a homogenous
consistency. The composite sample was identified as 07042016/SED-C.
Chain-of Custody
The laboratory provided chain of custody was utilized to record basic sample
information and requested analyses. All samples were labeled, bagged in Ziploc
bags, chilled with ice, and delivered to the laboratory the next day under chain of
custody. A copy of the Chain of Custody is provided in Attachment C.
Grain Size Distribution Logs I Field Observations
Sediment Sampling Logs are provided in Attachment A. In general, sediment
sampling yielded good recoveries because of the cohesive nature of the sediment in
the sampling profile. However, recoveries at SED-! were marginal as the lower
portions of the core were lost during sampler extraction. Grain Size Data is provided
in Table 2-2 and graphically presented in Figure 2-2. These sands appear to be
relatively recent origin and do not suggest that sediments below the proposed dredge
profile were encountered. Sediments from SED-l and SED-2 were odor free and no
apparent sheen was observed in any grab sample although a light stringy sheen was
observed in SED-3. A transient "rotten" smell was also noticed in SED-3 The upper
few inches of each core was layered with coarse sand and pebbles with the exception
of SED-3 which had twigs, leaf litter, and mil foil stringers. Milfoil distribution was
extensive throughout shallow waters. However, in those areas of recent sediment
deposition, the surface was bare of vegetative growth as observed at SED-l and SED-
2 Sampling Stations. All samples, as collected, were sandy and gritty to the touch.
Table 2-2 Grain Size Distribution Data
Sample: 070420168.,_-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSEP Methodology
Sieve Microns Rel:!.·1 ReI:!. -2 Ref!-- 3
Average (%)
3/8" 100 100 100 100
#4 4,750 83.6 80.9 84.6 83.0
#10 2000 80.1 76.4 80.6 79.0
#18 1000 75.9 72.4 76.6 75.0
#35 500 62.4 59.9 63.4 61.9
#60 250 24.0 23.6 25.6 24.4
#120 125 5.5 6.0 7.2 6.2
#230 63 2.2 2.9 4.0 3.0
31.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2
15.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
7.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3
3.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
2.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Gravel
Very Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Sand
Very Fine Sand
Silt
Clay
Page 9 of30
~
~
'" r g
" D
i'?
" .,
'10 " o
o ....,
'~ o
PSEP Grain Size Distribution
T"pllcate Sample Plot
CLAY 11:° rhl" I GR,AVEL
I ' I " I i I I
SAND
I II
SIU
I I -,
I
-~--I
I
I
r
80
70
60 I
l
------i
II -_<,-,---!I ~!--------~ I I I
-, 50 ~ .. ,
40 ~ -ill
• 1-
_~I
I I I -i---------l----,----L 30
--r 2C
I I I , U'O
'=-0
I 1 _. : Ltl ~' I J I j. . i'JI,.l
10000 1000 tOO to
P8rtlcle DIIIrneter(mlcrMls)
-+-07042016BARBEE-C ___ 070420 16BARBEE-C _____ 07042016BARBEE-C
I::;:
:r
Ie
'""
~
C
~
" ..., ~
cjil"
=
F
... 1 to
N ,r. ,
N '" "C }
'" tol
"C ~ ;;: ., , ... .,
S"
'" ,,"
to
S!
'" .... ...
5' = .... c" =
3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses
All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources, Inc.,
Seattle, WA) on ice under Chain of Custody. The composite sample was analyzed for both
conventional parameters, and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have
been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were
utilized to provide low level detection limits for COe's. A rinsate sample was not collected,
as recommended by USACE/DMMP.
As provided in the Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan, I the sediment samples, as a composite
was submitted for chemical analysis for the following parameters:
• Conventional Parameters -EPA/PSEP Methods
• Semi-Volatile Organics -EPA 8270D GC/MS (8270D SIM to achieve the required
screening level for 2,4-Dimethylphenol)
• Total Metals -EPA 200.8; (Except as noted).2
• Pesticides/PCBS -EPA 808118082 GC/ECD
• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -NWTPH-D
• Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction/time to analysis) were acceptable
and in compliance with accepted PSEP protocols.
Conventional Testing Results
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for Total Solids, Preserved Total
Solids, N-Ammonia, Total Sulfides, and Total Organic Carbon. These results are provided in
Table 3-1 at the end of this section. Laboratory report forms for this data are provided in
Attachment C. Hexavalent Chromium was not detected, reported by ARI as a conventional
parameter. Total solids were reported at 80.5% and Total Organic carbon was reported at
less than 0.2%. These results are consistent with field observations of well draining sands
and gravels with only traces of organic matter.
There are no Marine or Fresh water screening levels for conventional parameters. Ammonia
levels were detected at 19.6 mg-N/Kg (dry basis), Total Sulfide was reported at 1.8 mg/Kg
(dry basis).
~ Draft Barbee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan. (L&AL 2016)
-Ru\\-ilm compound" \\crc nol reqUIred for l..'hcl11l\'al anal~ ~IS_ rer IIS·'\CEI
Page II 000
Total Metals
Composite Sample 070420l6/Barbee-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are
provided in Table 3-2. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Traces of
Arsenic. Cadmium, and silver were detected along with Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel,
and Zinc. Mercury was not detected. Antimony was analyzed as a supplemental parameter.
All detected and undetected metal concentrations were less than DMMP Screening Levels for
both Marine and Fresh Water.3
As requested by USACE, antimony is reported as a supplemental parameter extracted and
analyzed by ARl. All detected and undetected results were less than low-level Screening
Levels for both Marine (SL I) and Fresh Water (SL I).
Semivolatile Organics
Composite Sample 070420 l6/Barbee-C was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds by
GCMS Method 8270D per PSEP protocols. Results are provided in Table 3-3. Laboratory
report forms are provided in Attachment C. Several semivolatile organics were detected,
including: PAHs, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The total HPAH concentration was 328
ug/Kg-dry. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg-dry, just above the detection limit.
The carcinogenic PAH (cPAH, calculated quantity, as TEQ) was 36.3 ug/Kg-dry. Detected
and undetected parameters for all semivolatile organic compounds were less than DMMP
Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
Pesticides and PCBs
Composite Sample 070420 16lBarbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/ECD
(Dual Column -Methods 808lA and Method 8082, respectively). Results are provided in
Table 3-4. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. As shown in Table 3-4,
no pesticides or PCBs were detected above detection limits. All reporting limits for all
pesticides and PCB's were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh
Water.
Several supplemental parameters were subsequently analyzed by ARl. Results are included
in the data set tables, as requested by USACE I DMMP. All detected and undetected results
were less than DMMPSLl Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Composite Sample 070420l6/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by
GC/FID (Method NWTPH-Dx). Results are provided in Table 3-5. Laboratory report forms
are provided in Attachment C. Diesel was detected at 8.3 mg/Kg-dry, and Motor Oil was
detected at 39 mg/Kg-dry. As noted in sampling logs, a light stringy oily substance was
observed when sampling at Station SED-3. This transient type of sheen is typical of
decaying organic malter. There were no visible indications of a petroleum sheen in any grab
sample or the composite. All detected and undetected results were less than Screening
Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
. Sedinwnl Quail!) CiUldelllles ti.H Standard Chemicals (lrC(ln("~>rn anu thlill DM\-lP L,('r's Manual (ulrrent eUillOTl)
I ,!twd &. ASSOl'lales. Inc Page 12 of 30
11116-213 :-'edllnelll SampliTlg R!:\ulb D!V1lvll -I
Dioxins and Furans
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method
1613B. Results are provided in Table 3-6. Laboratory report forms are provided in
Attachment C. Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents were measured and calculated at 0.65 pg/g-dry
(ppt or ug/Kg), substantially below the Marine Screening Level of 4 pg/g-dry (ppt).
Page 13 anO
Table 3-1: Sediment Results / Conventional Parameters
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte>
MTCA Screening Levels (2)
Conventional Parameters Units Result Q RL Method A(l) Manne ISL 1) Fresh ISL 1)
Hexavalent Chromium mglKg-dry < 0.493 U < 0.493 19
Total Solids Percent 80.75 0.01
Preserved Total Solids Percent 74.44 0.01
Total Volatile Solids Percent 1.12 0.01
N-Ammonia mg-N/Kg 19.6 0.98
Sulfide mg/Kg-dry 1.8 1.28
Total Organic Carbon Percent 0.182 0.02
Notes:
Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1) Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are shown above.
12) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
Table 3-2: Sediment Results / Total Metals
Sample:
Description:
Analytical Methods:
07042016/Barbee-C
Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
EPA 200.8 (Except as noted),
Resulls MTCA Screening Levels (2)
METALS m~/K~-d!:l': a LOa Method All) Marine (SL 1) Fresh ISL 1)
Antimony 0.25 U 0.25 150
Arsenic 2.1 0.2 20 57 14
Cadmium 0.081 J 0.115 2 5.1 2.1
Chromium 22.1 0.6 2,000 260 72
Chromium + 6 (see Conventionals)
Copper 13.9 0.6 390 400
Lead 4 0.1 250 450 360
Mercury (EPA 7471A) 0.03 U 0.03 2 0.41 0.66
Nickel 28.2 0.6 38
Selenium 0.577 J 0.577 11
Silver 0.023 J 0.231 6.1 0.57
Zinc 48 5 410 3200
Noles:
Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
Soil Cleanup Levels for Unreslricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mglKg (I)
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
Lloyd & Associates. !nc Page 14 anO
20Ih-21.' Sediment Sampllllg RL'~ulh 1)1\'1M11. I
Table 3-3: Sediment Results / Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample OMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSOOA Samivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS'"
Extraction Method: SW3546
Results MTCA Screening Levels l '"
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS u~/K~-d!:i a LOa Method All, Marine (8L 1)
CHLORINATED ORGANICS
1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 110
1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 35
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 31
Hexachlorobutadiene < 9.6 U 9.6
Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 22
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 0.49 7.2
PAHs
Naphthalene < 19 U 19 5000\~) 2,100
Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 560
Acenapthene 8.7 J 19 500
Fluorene 8.7 J 19 540
Phenanthrene 40 19 1,500
Anthracene 9.6 J 19 960
2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000\~' 670
1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000\~'
Total LPAH I31 67 5,200
Fluoranthene 88 19 1,700
Pyrene 66 19 2,600
Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c 1,300
Chrysene 30 19 c 1,400
Benzofluoranthenes 55 38 c 3,2001'"
Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 10010) 1,600
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c 600
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 U 19 c 230
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19 670
Total HPAH{OI 328 12,000
Total cPAH (calc. wi TEFl 36.3
Total PAH''' 395
PHTHALATES
Dimethylphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 71
Di-n-Sutylphthalate 8.7 J 19 1.400
bis(2·Ethylhexyllphthalate 48 50 a 1,300
Diethylphthalale < 19 U 19 200
Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 63
Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19 6,200
PHENOLS
Phenol < 19 U 19 420
2-Methylphenol < 9.6 U 9.6
4-Melh~phenol < 19 U 19 670
2,4-Dimethylphenol\~1 < 19.1 U 19.1
Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 400
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACT/BLES
Benzoic Acid <190 U <190 650
Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19
Carbazole < 19 U 19
Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19 540
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 9.6 28
Notes:
'" 1"
'" ,.,
'" 1"
''I
'" ",
Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 9B168-3240)
MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestncted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are uglKg)
Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and DMMP User's Manual
Total shown for Naphthalene. I-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Me\hyl Napthahalene
Totals shown are for both band k Benzonuoranthenes
Does not include undetected parameters or I-and 2·methylnaphthalene, estimated (J) parameters at 1/2 reported
Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenz{a,h)anthracene, Indeno{1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene,8enzo(bfjfk)nuoranthenes
and Benzo(a)anthracene Total does not inGlude undetected parameters.
Total PAHs calculated er Table 8.2.3 DMMP User Manual
Method 8 -Soil Ingestion Pathway
Initial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re analyzed 2,4-dimethylphenol via B2700 81M.
I loyJ &. ASSOl:l<lles. 11K
Fresh (SL 1)
17,000
380
500
39
120
260
1,200
2900
900
200
Page 15 of30
~[llh-~ 13 Sedimell[ Salllplmg Re~lIlls [)Mrvll -I
Sample: 070420161Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSDDA Samivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS*
Extraction Method: SW3546
Results MTCA Screening LevelslL
)
Method AI') Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
lA-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 110
1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 35
1,2A-Trichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 31
Hexachlorobutadiene < 9.6 U 9.6
Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 22
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 0.49 7.2
PAHs
Naphthalene < 19 U 19 50001~) 2,100
Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 560
Acenapthene 8.7 J 19 500
Fluorene 8,7 J 19 540
Phenanthrene 40 19 1,500
Anthracene 9.6 J 19 960
24 Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 50001') 670
14 Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000\~1
Total LPAHI"J 67 5,200
Fluoranthene 88 19 1,700
Pyrene 66 19 2,600
Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c 1,300
Chrysene 30 19 c 1,400
Benzo(blj/k)fluoranthenes 55 38 c 3,200 1"1
Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 100 10 ) 1,600
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c 600
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 U 19 c 230
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene 19 19 670
Total HPAH\oJ 328 12,000
Total cPAH (calc. wI TEF) 36.3
Total PAW" 395 17,000
PHTHALATES
Dimethylphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 71
Di-n-Butylphthalate 8.7 J 19 1,400 380
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48 50 Q 1,300 500
Diethylphthalate < 19 U 19 200
Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 63
Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19 6,200 39
PHENOLS
Phenol < 19 U 19 420 120
2~Methylphenol < 9.6 U 9.6
4~Methylphenol < 19 U 19 670 260
2 ,4~Dimethylphenol\~! < 19.1 U 19.1
Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 400 1,200
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACT/BLES
Benzoic Acid <190 U <190 650 2900
Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19
Carbazole < 19 U 19 900
Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19 540 200
N~Nitrosodiphenylamine < 9.6 U 9.6 28
Notes:
Analytical Resources Inc (Tukwila_ WA 98168-3240)
'" MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1) Units are uglKg)
'" Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality GUidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concem and DMMP Users Manual
'" Total shown for Naphthalene_ 1-Melhyl Naphthalene. and 2-Methyl Napthahalene ,., Totals shown are for both band k Benzofluoranihenes ,.,
Does not include undetected parameters or 1-and 2-methylnaphthalene. estimated (J) parameters at 112 reported ,., Be!1Zo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenzo( e, h )anthracene. Indeno( 1 2, 3-cd)pyrene. Benzo(b/jlk)fluoranlhenes
and Benzo(a)anthracene Tolal does not include undelecled parameters
'" Total PAHs calculated er Table a 2_3 DMMP User Manual , .. Method B -5011 Inges\lon Pathway ,.,
Initial value higher than SL of 29_ ARI re analyzed 2,4-dimethylphenol via 62700 SIM
1.1()~d & Assocrah.!s.lnc Page 16 of30
::'(116-213 Sedimellt ~ilrnpllllg Ih'''ulh fJ\lMl -I
Table 3-4: Sediment Results / Pesticides and PCBs
Sample: 07042016/Barbee~
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analy1ical Method: GC/ECD -Pesticides IPCBs'
MTCA Screening Levels(2)
Results Method A(1)
PESTICIDES & PCBS uS/Kg-d!:X Q LOQ/RL ug/Kg(1) Manne (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
Heptachlor < 0.49 U 0.49 1.5
Aldrin < 0.49 U 0.49 9.5
Dieldrin < 0.98 U 0.98 1.9 4.9
4,4 '-DOE < 0.98 U 0.98 9
4,4 '-DOD < 0.98 U 0.98 16
4,4 '-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 12
Endrin Ketone < 0.98 U 0.98 8.5
trans-Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49
cis-Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49
2,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98
2,4'-ODE < 0.98 U 0.98
2,4'-000 < 0.98 U 0.98
Oxychlordane < 0.98 U 0.98
cis-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98
trans-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98
sum of 2,4'-000 & 4,4'000 < 0.98 U 0.98 310
sum of 2,4'-00E & 4,4'DOE < 0.98 U 0.98 21
sum of 2,4'-DOT & 4,4'-00T < 0.98 U 0.98 100
Total 00T(4)(5) < 0.98 U 0.98 3000
Total Chlorodane(5) < 1.47 U 0.98 2.8
Aroclor 1 016 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1242 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1248 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1254 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1260 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1221 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1232 < 3.9 U 3.9 130 110
Total Aroclors < 3.9 U 1000 130 110
Notes:
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1) MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and OMMP User's Manual (current edition)
(4) Includes DOE, DOD, DDT
(5) Sum of cis & trans chlordane, cis & trans nona chi or, and oxychlorodane
Lloyd & Associi.ltes, Illc Page 17 of30
2()16-21.~ \~dIllWIll Samrlills lh''>llib ])J\.1vll !-I
Table 3.5: Sediment Results / Petroleum Hydrocarbons
NWTPHD
Notes:
Diesel
Motor Oil
Sample:
Description:
Analytical Method:
070420161Barbee-C
Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
GCIFID -NWTPHD'
Resu;ts
mglKg-dry
8.3
39
Q RL
6.3
12
MTCA
Method A(1 )
2000
2000
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
Screening Levels (2)
Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
340
3600
(1)
(2)
MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mglKg
Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual (current edition)
L!(1\'(1 & Ass{)(:idtes. Inc Page 18 of30
20 1 h-21.~ SeJIlTlCllt S<'l!npllllg RC~Lllh IYvll\ll l ·1
Table 3-6: Sediment Resnlts Dioxins / Furans
Sample: I072016/Barbee/C
Description: Sediment Sample DMMU·l
Analytical Method: Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B"
Results
Dioxins I Furans (ng/Kgl Q RL
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.0776 BJEMPC 0.970
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.145 JEMPC 0.970
1,2,3,7,B·PeCDF 0.0737 BJEMPC 0.970
2,3,4,7,B·PeCDF < 0.0563 U 0.970
1,2,3,7,B·PeCDD 0.lB2 BJEMPC 0.970
1,2,3,4,7,B·HxCDF 0.114 BJEMPC 0.970
1,2,3,6,7,B·HxCDF 0.111 BJ 0.970
2,3,4,6,7,B·HxCDF 0.136 BJEMPC 0.970
1,2,3,7,B,9·HxCDF 0.130 BJEMPC 0.970
1,2,3,4,7,B·HxCDD 0.242 BJEMPC 0.970
1,2,3,6,7,B·HxCDD 0.532 BJEMPC 0.970
1,2,3,6,7,B·HxCDD 0.464 BJ 0.970
1.2,3,4,6,7,8·HpCDE 1.59 0.970
1,2,3,4.7,B,9·HpCDD < 0.101 U 0.970
1,2,3,4,6,7,S·HpCDD 993 B 242
OCFD 2.62 1.94
OCDD 629 B 0.970
Total TCDF 0.911 EM PC 0.970
Total TCDD 1.52 EM PC 0.970
Total PeCDF 1.43 EMPC 1.94
Total PeeDJ 1.06 EM PC 0.970
Total HxCDE' 3.15 EM PC 1.94
Total HxCDD 5.46 EM PC 1.94
Total HpCDF 4.34 1.94
Total HpCDD 21.2 1.94
TotaI2,3,7,S Equivalents 0.64
(NO = 0, Including EMPC)
TotaI2,3,7,B Equivalents 0.65
(NO = 0.5 Including EMPC)
Notes
Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila. WA 9S16S·3240)
MTCA Screening Levels (2
)
Method A (1
)
ng/Kg(1) Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
4,0
4.0
(1) MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740·1). Units are nglKg or pglg
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual
Liovd & !\"~O(,lUtc~. Inc Page 19 of30
~{116-213 :-'l'Uillll'll\ ~'-lll'pllTlg R""ulh 1)'vlMl -I
4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary
All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources,
Inc" Seattle, W A) on ice under Chain of Custody. As described in the previous
section, the composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters and the
measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have been identified by DMMP
as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide
low level detection limits for 07042016Barbee-C. Quality Assurance for the project
included (where applicable):
• Matrix Spikes
• Matrix Spike Duplicates
• Blank Spikes
• Certified Standard Reference Material SRM 1944
• Puget Sound Reference SRM.
• Laboratory controls
Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were
acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and PSEP
protocols (see Attachment C)
Conventional Testing Results
The QA review summary for Conventional Parameters is provide in Attachment C /
Conventionals. Precision data was acceptable with an RPD less than 4 % (except for
Sulfide at less than 17%) for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was
acceptable for all parameters, and Standard Reference recoveries were greater than
80%. All Method Blanks were at or below reporting/detection limits. All
conventional data reported in Table 3-1 is believed acceptable as reported by ARl.
Total Metals
Composite Sample 070420 16/SED-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are
provided in Table 3-2. Hexavalent Chromium was also analyzed and reported by
ARI as a conventional parameter.
As summarized in Attachment C / Metals. Precision data for metals (except
Mercury and Hexavalent Chromium) was with control limits for all matrix spike
duplicate data. Spike recoveries ranged from 90.3 to 120% and were deemed
acceptable. Laboratory Control Sample Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate
I.Imd &. AS::'O(l8tl'$, Inl.' Page 20 of 30
2111«: I.i ~I'Jlllll'11\ ~wlpl1llg Rl'~llll~ 1)1\11\'1\ -I
data were within acceptable limits. Method Blank spike recoveries were acceptable.
although trace quantities of zinc and silver were detected in the method blank.
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met the Advisory Range for all
metals. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All metals
data presented in Table 3-2 are acceptable as qualified by the laboratory.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Composite Sample 070420l6/Barbee/C was analyzed for semivolatile organics by
EPA GCMS Method 82700, following PSDDA protocols. Sample reports and QC
reports are provided in Attachment C. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with
RPDs less than 20% for all parameters. Matrix spike and matrix spike recovery data
were acceptable, as well acceptably reproducible. Surrogate recoveries met EPA
method recovery limits/action criteria. Surrogate recovers were with QC warning
limits. Initial instrument calibration for bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate was out of control
and appropriately qualified, as Q.
Standard Reference (SRM-0707l6) recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory
acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits.
All semivolatile organic data reported in Table 3-4 is deemed acceptable as qualified.
Pesticides and PCBs
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by
GC/ECD (Dual Column -Methods 808lA and Method 8082, respectively) following
PSDDA protocols. As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PCBs were detected at
reporting limits. All reporting limits for all pesticides and PCB's were not detected
and less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally, all
undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A -Soil Cleanup Levels for
Unrestricted Land Use.
A detailed quality assurance summary of pesticide and PCB data, respectively is
provided in Attachment 3. Surrogate recoveries were acceptable and duplicate
precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 17% for all pesticide parameters
and less that 6% for PCB's. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50%. Spike
recoveries were greater than zero for all parameters and within acceptance criteria.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all
surrogates.
Standard Reference recoveries for Laboratory Controls for pesticides and PCBs
(SRM PSR) were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blanks
results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-5 is
deemed acceptable as reported by the laboratory.
Lkwd & ASSOCiates. Inc Page 21 afJO
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by
GC/FID (Method NWTHH-D). Results are provided in Table 3-6.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance
criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. Spike
recoveries gave acceptable precision, and spike duplicate analyses indicated
acceptable accuracy. All data reported in Table 3-6 for petroleum hydrocarbons is
acceptable as reported.
Dioxins and Furans
Analysis was performed using the application specific RTX-Dioxin 2 column, which
has a unique isomer separation for the 23 78-TCDF, eliminating the need for second
column confirmation. Initial calibration and continuing calibration verifications were
within method requirements. However, the initial calibration verification fell outside
the control limits low for 13CI2-2,3,7,8-TCDF, I3CI2-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, and
13CI2-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF. All other compounds were within control limits.
Both extraction and cleanup surrogates had recoveries within control limits, and the
method blank contained reportable responses for several compounds. "8" qualifiers
were applied to associated results that were less than ten times the levels found in the
method blank.
The laboratory control sample gave percent recoveries were within control limits.
The PSR SRM (SRM-072116) was analyzed as a reference material. Specific results
have been flagged "EMPC", indicating a response not meeting all requirements of
positive identification. The EM PC values were treated as undetects.
Llo)d & ASSOl'l<.lteS. Ille Page 22 of 30
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Sediment Sampling
Sampling work conducted at the Barbee Navigational -Maintenance Dredging area
was informative. Prior to sampling we had anticipated that medium to course sandy
materials would be encountered based on previous experience. Portions of the
proposed dredge area outside of the boathouse were most recently dredged in 20 II
and previously in 2002. Depositional infill sediments. currently within the proposed
dredge profile. tend to be finer sediments unsuitable for shallow water fish habitat
enhancement along the rockery to the immediate south. Therefore, all dredged
materials will be disposed in open water.
Core sampling in sandy sediments was marginal at best at SED-J where recoveries
were low at 37.5% Nevertheless. we arrived on site with a number of sampling
devices. The gravity corer worked out reasonable well, and the vanVeen sampler
worked great for the shallow sample near the boathouse. However, given the poor
recoveries at SED-I, a better choice for sample collection might be a vibrocore
sampler where a longer continuous core is desirable. Nevertheless, vibrocore
samplers have similar limitations in dealing with fine sands, as were encountered at
the project site. Based on our experience in sampling conditions encountered, it is not
clear that a vibrocore sampler would have worked out better.
Because actual proposed dredging depths are relatively shallow and generally less
than 10 feet, additional sampling data seems unnecessary although a Z sample could
be collected for conformational analyses. At no time will dredging reach former
lake bed elevations as dredged in 2002 or 20 II. [n major part the growth of the May
Creek Delta severely limits the steepness of slopes that can be sustained within the
project area. There are also financial considerations. The project proponent is not
interested dredging to the maximum that may be possible. The purpose is to maintain
navigational access, not see how much money can be spent to restore historical
lakebed elevations in Lake Washington.
Sediment Sampling Results -Summary
Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-I) is very
limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for
Lloyd & As~m:idtt's. Illc Page 23 of 30
all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some
motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel
range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry
basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis).
Based on Analytical Testing Data and Screening Level comparisons, sediments to be
dredged in 2017 at the project site are suitable for open-water disposal.
Llmd & i\sSO"18ll'~. Jill' Page 24 of 30
20 I b-2 I _, SC-d1111c1l1 Samrlll1~ I{c<;lII1~ [)M\1ll-1
Attachment A -Sediment Sampling Logs
Page 25 of 30
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sample Location: 07042016SED-1
Sediment Sampling -Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Sample Time: 1235
Sample Type: Gravity core
Location: About 45' S. of Osprey Nesting Pole Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL o (ft) Lithology Description
State Plane: NAD83 -WA South (ft) 20.6 Lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual Water is very clear
Easting: 1,301,380 1,301,394
Northing: 195,438 195,431 18.5 21 '1 Mudline Contact
Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 SP Fine to medium grained sand
Depth (D) to Mudline: 2.08 Scatered gravel at surface
Dredged Profile EI. (ft. MSL): 14.5
SED Design Thickness: 4.0 16.0 4.6 Loose material in middle of drive
% Recovery: 37.5% fine sand to bottom with low
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT resistance to penetration.
2" Gravity corer driven to depth
Low recovery attributed to fine to medium 145 6.1 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
sand lost during extraction of corer Second core
drive gave same results
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Fine to medium sand (SP)
DenSity: Compact (very loose middrive)
Color: Grey
Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel
Odor: None Note: Sediments collected have very little water
Stratification: Fine sand at 15.5 feet observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly
draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content
Vegetation: None greater than 75%
Debris: None
Oily Sheen: None
Other:
NOTESICOMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Station moved to avoid milloil bottom and deeper
water than anticipated
DenSity 1 Consistency estimated by resistance
to penetration of sampler. Sediment description
based on visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected: SED-1
/Mz2~~ff~~ cof va-J</f~
R Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered GeologisUEngineering Geologist #2272
Lloyd & Associates, Inc, Sample Location: 07042016SED-2
Sediment Sampling -Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Sample Time: 1115
Sample Type: Gravity core
Location: Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL D (ft) Litholo!lY Description
State Plane: NAD83 -WA South (ft) 20,6 Lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual
Easting: 1,301,509 1,301,509
Northing: 195,448 195,448
Lake EL (MSL-ftJ: 20,6 19.1' 1.5 \] Mudline Contact
Depth (01 to Mudline: 1.5 SP Surfce gravelldense
Dredged Profile EI. (ft. MSL): 16.0 Medium to fine sand
SED Thickness: 3.1
% Recovery: 80.0% 16.0 4.6 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
2" Gravity corer driven to depth
Bottom 8" believed to be fine to medium sand
Sand lost during extraction of corer Second core
drive gave same results Note: Sediments collected have very little water
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly
draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content
Sediment Type: SP greater than 75%
Density: moderately dense
Color: Grey , Revised 12/12 to correct lypgraphical error.
Consistency: fine to medium sand
Odor: None
Stratification: Coarse grading to fine sand
Vegetation: None
Debris: None
Oily Sheen: None
other:
NOTES/COMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Density / Consistency estimated by resistance
to penetration of sampler. Sediment description
based on visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected: SED-2
It?wki2~$~~ c(J V~~~
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist/Engineering Geologist #2272
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sample Location: 07042016SED-3
Sediment Sampling -Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Sunny and warm Sample Time: 0930
Sample Type: Grab
Location: Adjacent to Boathouse on west side Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL D (ftl Lithology Description
State Plane: NAD83 -WA South (ft) 20.6 lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual 13.0 7.6 \l Mudline Contact
Easting: 1201635 1.301.612 Leaf litter, stems
Northing: 195475 195,477 Milfoil
Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 Silty with some coaser sand
Depth (D) to Mudline: 7.6 12.6 8.0 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
predged Profile EI. (ft. MSL): 8.0
SED Thickness: 0.4
% Recovery: 100.0%
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
2" Van Veen Sampler
Penetration about 6"
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Grab
Density: Loose/soupy
Color: Grey to blackish brown
Consistency: poorly Qraded. trace of Qravel
Odor: Slight rotting smell
Stratification: None
Vegetation: Milfoil
Debris: twigs. leaf litter (25)
Oily Sheen: None. looks like decayinQ leaf
Other:
NOTES/COMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Boathouse locked no access. Sampled near entry
of garage door.
Sample collected with a van Veen sampler
Sediment description based on
visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected: SED-3
It?wkL.;J/~ ~f :O~rf~
R. Michael Lloyd. PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist/Engineering Geologist #2272
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sample Location: 07042016SED-C
Sediment Sampling -Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Composite Time: 1300
Sample Type: Composite
Location: Barbee Sediment Section: DMMU-1
COMPOSITE SUMMARY COMMENTS
SED-1 45% of SED-1 The majority of material to be dredged arises near SED-1
SED-2 45% of SED-2
and SED-2. It is unlikely that more than 1% of all material
to be dredged arises at SED-3 near the boathouse.
SED-3 10% of SED-3 Weighting at 10 % is on the high side and may skew
chemical and physical testing data.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Composite
DenSity: Compact, rapidly draining
Color: Grey to Black
Consistency: gritty
Odor: None
Stratification: NIA
Vegetation: Minor leaf litter
Debris:
Oily Sheen: None
l~kkLff~ <-I Z;~rf~
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist
Revised to
~111f>-~ 13 ~edllnellt SUlTlflllTlg Re~llih j)f\.Hvll -I
Attachment B -Grain Size Distribution
Page 26 of 30
Geotechnical Analysis
Report and Summary QC Fonns
ARI Job 10: BCWl
aCWi;002ii2i
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materia1& Testing • Environmental Cons.ulting
Date Rocei.ed'.;JU2,It,Y =5."'2,,0'-'16'-_____ _
Sampled By: -';Oth"2""~=':'L------
Date Tes/ed: July 2l, 2016
Teotod By: B. Goble. K. O'Connell
CASE NARRATIVE
! 1. One sample w';";~b;;;i;;;f; grain size analysis according to Puget Sound Estuary Protocol
i (PSEP) methodology.
i 2. The sample was run in a single batch and was run in triplicate. The triplicate data is reported on
! the QA summary.
f 3. Two of the sub samples did not contain the required amount of fines (5-25 grams). A sample
, could not be resplit to meet the required amount of fines and stay within the capacity of the balance.
: The samples have been qualified on the QA summary.
I 4. The data is provided in summary tables and plots.
i 5. There were no other noted anomalies in this project
;
1II1, .. ..JI'''Pl'I)·oni)!o ....... I'''* __ maen$Jt$IIIl AI.IIIIIllII~lCdlllolu.lbeI"JKt_~ ... I ..... tIWCSllbnLJQlld.asIllilOlllll4calllllpro;ipft1)'tf(liaIs.D<I~i .. b
'"*'11C.lOC1or_~taodLl>l .... aralnil:lll'oo«~<lUt...,...,.;.~~_...;lIcD~1.
~~G.:-Rev!ewedby: _____________ _
Corporate -m Chrysler Drlv. • Burtlngton, WA '18233 • PIIoo. (360) 755-1990 • Fa. (360) 755-1980
Regional Ollk:es, Olympia -360.534.9777 Bellingbarn -360.647.6111 Silverdale -360.698.6787 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Visit our website; www.mtc-inc.net
uCWi ~!lP.2i, 1.
0) ,-, , .
iE;
I~'
lSi
lSI
1\1 '"',
1\1
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • SpeciallMpection • Material,. Testing • Bnvi{oomen'al Cons.ulting
Projeet: BARBEE DREDGING
Proj«U: BCWI
Clieut: Analytical Resources, Inc.
Date Re<eIved: ~lul~y75,:"2;;;0~16~----------
Dat. T_: July 21, 2016
Samplod by: .;;Other,:;::,:,-,-"..,==-,,-_____ _
T .... d by: B. Gable, K. O'Connell
Sample No. Gravel VecyCoacse
Sond
Phi Size -3 -2 -1 0
Siew: Size (mictorul) }Ill' .. '10 0'8
(4750) (2000) (1000)
07042016BARBEE-100.0 83.6 SO.I 75.9
C 100.0 80.9 76.4 72.4
100.0 84.6 SO.6 76.6
App .... nt GraiD Size DistributieD Swmnary
Percent Finer Than Indicated Size
Coarse Medium Fine Sand Very Fine
Sand Sand Sand
I 2 3 4
'" """ t12() 0130
"'''" (2!SO) (123) (63)
62.4 24_0 5.5 2.2
59.9 23.6 6_0 2.9
63.4 25.6 7.2 4.0
Silt
5 6
31.0 1.5.6
2.2 1.6
2.2 1.6
2.3 1.7
Clay
7 8 9 10
7.B 3 .• 2.0 1.0
1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6
1.4 0.9 0.7 0.6
1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6
I Nota to the Testln&:: ~ ~U;~ -;;t~~ prior to lcsti.nJ, Ih~th;~-~~;;-tbc "apPllImt" grain aill: disuibutiOil Ste narrative for discuasion af~-~ ---~
Reviewed by:
~-{"...b~
Corporate -777 Cbry.ler Drive • BurliDaton, WA!IIIl33 • PIlon. (360) 755-1'190 • F .. (360) 755-1980
Regioo.IOInc .. : Olympia -360.534.9777 Bellingham -360.647.6111 Silverdale -360.698.6787 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Vi5it our website: www.mtc-mc.net
,.." tJlol
(")
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Project II: BCW I
Clleut: Analytical Resources, Inc.
Date Received: -;lu::=;I"y';'S.'-:2::;0~16:;------------
DateTtsted: luly21. 2016
~by:-;om~.~~~~~~~,-______ __
Tested by: B. Goble. K. O'Connell
Sample No. Gravel Vory Como Come Medium
SaDd Sand Sand
Phi Size < ·1 -I toO 0001 1<02
Sieve Size (microns) >.10 10-18 (2000 18·35 35-<;0
(2""'l) 1000) (1000-500) (5(X)...250)
19.9 4.2 13.6 38.3
P7042016BARBEE. 23.6 4.1 12.5 36.3
19.4 4.0 13.2 37.8
Apparent Groin Size Distribulioo Summary
Percent Retained in Each Size Fraction
Fine Sand Very Fine Coarse Silt Medium
Sand Silt
2003 3 to 4 4to 5 5106
60-120 (250 120-230 152,5-31,0 )I,{)...IS,ti 125) (L25.62)
18.6 3.2 0.0 0.6
17.6 3.1 0.7 0.6
18.4 3.2 1.7 0.6
Fine Silt Very Fine
SU,
6007 7 to 8
IS.6-7.8 7.8-3.9
0.4 0.3
0.2 05
0.4 0.4
t: ~~ INetes witte T..tiDJ: Organic matler wa!l DOt taDOVed prior co testin&, Ihu, the reported values an: the "nppaRIlt~ gnlin size distribution.. See nMntive for di.JcuDiOllof!be 1eJtia1.
lSI
lSI
1\.
",.
Reviewed by: ~
8009
3.9·2.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
f'ii Ce<ponte -777 Chrysler Drive • BurlIdgtoo, WA 98233 • Pboo< (360)755-1990 • F .. (360) 755·1980
Clay
9to \0
20-1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
Rqiooai Offi ... : Olympia -360.534.9777 Bellingham -360.647.6111 Silveldaie -360.698.6787 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.ne{
Total Fines
>10 >4
<LO <230
(42)
0.6 2.2
0.6 2.9
0.6 4.0
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering .. Specia1In.'ipcction .. Materials Testing" Environmental Consulting
Projo<t, BARBEE DREDGING ~~',~§CW~;1~~~~~~~~~~~~ OieGt: AnaIy!Ica! Resourc:es, Inc.
Da .. R ... I .... , JuWS, 2016
Date Tested: JU~21! 2018
Sam.lelD .J ·2 ·1 0
100.0 83 .• SO.I 75.9
07042016BARBEE'{; 100.0 SO .• 76.4 72.4
IOCtO "'.6 SO.6 76.6
AVE 100.0 83.0 79.0 75.0
STDEV 0.0 I.. I.B I.B
%RSD 0.0 1.9 2.3 2.S
Samplod by,
Te&ted. by:
----_ ............ " &> ........ Rt=lative Standard De' . Bv Phi S'
I 2 3
62.' 24.0 55
59.9 23.' 6.0
63.4 25.6 72
61!J 24.4 6.2
1.5 0 .• 0.7
2.3 3.S 11.8
'C<iiiniiIJ
4
2.2
2 .•
4.0
3.0
0.7
24.0
5
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2
0.0
2.0
The Triplicare Applies To The Foll0win2 Samplc:s
ill n
:1::
Client ID
01042016BARBEE-C
t-I. .. M"rC Iaklrmd.QA limits =-9S·I05*
Dale Sampled Dale Extracted
11412016 7nno16
7/412016 7n/2016
7/412016 7n1201.
Notes til dH 'hIdlIf:: Orpruc _ .......... DQl:ranmoecl prior In tes4ing..Ibus!he ~ values.-the -lIfIIHUOl" pain ,a.e.d..mbutlOll.. Sec narralive for discu!lllli.ono€w fatiJ1~
151
lSI 1\1 Re';ewod by, cg r1.~k.
I~'
.t:
6
1.6
I..
1.7
1.6
0.0
2.4
Date Complete
712012016
112012016
712012016
C...,.... •• -777 Cbryller Orin • 81I1'1III....., WA 98233 • Ph ... (360,755-1990 • Fu (3<iO) 755-19110
7 8
1.2 0.9
1.4 0.9
1.3 0 .•
1.3 0.9
0.1 0.0
5 .• 2.9
QARalio
(95-IOS)
99.1
99.7
100.6
Itecianal otritelill Olympia -360.534.9777 Bellingham -360.647.6111 Silverdale -360.698.6181 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Visit our w.::bsite: www.m«-inc.net
9 10
0.7 0.6
0.7 0.6
0.7 0 .•
0.7 0 .•
0.0 0.0
2,-4 __ L-.. 0.8
Data Pipene
Portion (5.0-Qualifiers 2S.Qg)
SS 2.7
SS 3.6
5.1
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspectioo • Materials Testing • Environmental ConsHitlng
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Pro~':~~~~~~~ ________ __
D.teR_ved:-;lul~y=5,,,2::.0:..:16,-_____ __
Sampled By: O<hers
Client Dote Tested:-';lul::;:::y;;'21;-,-;;:20;;;176-------
Tested By: B. Goble, K. O'Connell
Data Qualifiers
PSEP Grain Size Analysis
SM -The sample lI1IIuix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This normally refm to sa"llies cont.atrUnated with an
organic product that intctf~ with the sieving process and/or nDistwe content, porosity and saturation calculations.
SS -The >IIIlIPle did DOl contain Ibe proportion of "fines" required to perform lbe pipette portion of the grain si,. analysis.
W -The weight of the sample in some pipette .aliquots was below the level required for accurate weighing.
F -The sample$ were frozen prior to particle size determination.
LV -Due 10 low "mple volume provided, the samples could not be rerun to meet QA requirements.
Corporate -777 Cbry ..... Drive • BIlI'IlnIfOD. WA 93233 • Pbon. (360) 7SS-I9!IG • Fu (360) 755-1'80
RegIonaIOIIIa:s: Olympia -360.534.9777 Bellingham -360.647.6111 Silv<r<lale -360.698.6787 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Visit our website: www.mtc-inC.Det
tlC;Wi 002i ~!
CP rl
:£: "",
lSI
lSI
1\1
I'" en
I
10000
~
,,~
~
------
GRAVEL
- -----..,.
f-
--- -
I
PSEP Grain Size Distribution
Triplicate Sample Plot
SAND SILT CLAY 100
90 -
I
!
80
70
60
l
50 II
!I
" lit
40
-
~ ,
""
,
--r----
I r-.. ~
" I
i\ -------
--,
30
20 1\ ----
10 ~ ---------'--" 0
1000 100 10 1
PIIIticlB 1lIam_ (.,1"""".)
-+-07042016BARBEE-C ....... 07042016BARBEE-C __ 07042016BARBEE-C
Materials Testing & Consulting. Inc.
PSEP GRAIN SlZE ANALYSIS
MIC Job No.: 1\1"100 \ -1:6'lMTC Sample 1D1l!. -11,,\31 ClientSampie No.: CJ 1 ()'-( lo 1 Cp@'W.BkE <:
Setup Date: T /1·1 \ .. Sample Descripbon: l:xu6 ScI ad \ bl·\1 In ~cl
SOLIDS CONTENT
Moisture Content Initials:
Container No.
Tare Weight
Wet Weigl'lt + Tare
Dry Weight + Tare
TestSamp/e Initials:
Container No.
Tare Weight
Wet Weight + Tare
Dry Weight + Tare
Calgon Batch II: ...;~::...?:-. ..::'C~ __
711912018
Temp:22
TIME
12:30:00
12:30:20
12:31:49
12:37:15
12:56:59
14:26:00
" ...
]j I SF A
PIPETrE ANAlYSIS
Initials: bf-
PSEP Particle Size Distribution
-------rj . ..-
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve Date: -=f. ( t· II./'
Sieve Set II: L Inijials:~
Sieve Size Weight Retained
Tare r;v. qf:31r
4 =l'1. \ "2-1 D
10 :j.S'. '3S 1 \
18 80 . Lt 'C '2,,(,
35 '11-.\~
60 1'·\Y.\'t,13
120 \~u. .'H"'\o
230 1~.t'O\A
PAN O.~(p+-=t-
SALT CORRECTION
Date: ____ Initials:_
Rev. 001
9/21/13
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
MTC Job No.: '\[too I1lS9ATC Sample IOTlII-\)"IJ-LClientSample No.: Q -f O~W\~e:,AW(.ff. -(
SetUp Data; -=t 1'1 ) 111 Sample Description: \:)(1t.I!\ ~I\d. 1J.J\\n bcw10.
1
SOLIDS CONTENT
Moisture Content Initials: .&
Container No. (Oft>
Tare Weight ,. l\.. <; :<;,<-(
Wet Weight + Tare (,,( ' ..... ')4 q
Dry Weight + Tare ~. oI9-\-
Test Sample Initials;~
Container No.
TareWeighl
Wet Weight + Tare
Dry Weight + Tare
Calgon Batch #:'> .;:.:!<O"e~ __ _
7/1912016
remp:22
TiME
12;3:1;00
12:3:1;20
12;34:49
12;-40:15
13:01:59
14;29:00
1'~
11'":1»
1I1SF A
PIPETTE ANALYSIS
Initial$:~
ra",ID TareW!
I14rl. UI(.,{~~
14":3-'Z
"L \ .1.\:\0120
1I~-7-\ .t.\-1;--l':Y
\1\ 2 1.t/£N'3
14 -1-l.4-v11t <:;
~-Z I{ ;. \.i.f(pl,\.p
1~7-I.'ft,DI
PSEP Particle Size Distribution
Dry W! & Tare
/. S C;<;.'-!
!·SZtO
I. Sl ~O
1.5111-
\,Sr:>Oc:::;.
V-\" 1"\
L4SI.\O
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve Date:? . Il -I (.,
Sieve Set #: llnitialS; .E:r-
Sieve SIze Weight Retained
Tare S"o . .;2:i VI
4 ~.4-?;11)
10 BO.01-"~
18 8S;. ~?;,\'+
35 IOl.o323
60 14-fR.OII?, C1-1
120 IlA'3OlAr
230 n-3.'2."1<+
PAN 0. '"':\-S~ 1-
SALT CORRECTION
Da18: ___ Inltiats:
I Tare Weight I Dry Weight + Tare
Rev. 001
9121113
Materials Testing & Consulting,lnc,
PSEP GRAIN Size ANALYSIS
MTC Job No,:llj)))')I' (%2. MTC Sample ID:1l(p-\1'=\51£Iient Sample No,;O 104l-D \ 0fbO:t..:btl: --<...
Set UpDate'. '1/"f k sample DescriptiOn: ~ '=nV\r\ \Ni <&aP/Q.,~
\ '
SOLIDS CONTENT
Moisture Content Initials:
Container No.
Tare Weight
Wet Weight + Tare
Dry Weight + Tare
Test Sample Initials: i":rL
Container No,
t> " Tare Weight S:;I. n~'-f
Wet Weight + Tatll '2Oe.. .i..et ~ f
Dry Weight + Tare I~-05'!..f"2-
Calgon Batch #: _?';;..:~:::..:::.. __ _
711~16
Temp;22
nME
12;36;00
12;36:20
12:37;49
12:43:15
13:04:59
14:32:00 ......
'M:.~
1liSF A
PIPETTE ANALYSIS
Initials: .l2:t-
Tare 10 Tarewt
tLf;'d
\ 14~<1t:;
1\4·:t~ 14DJ..\.
1Lll3 LtJ-ItDO
H4J3 \.4-1-\ \
1I~'3 Ltf~S-
1\l(~·3' III It+~'/jf
\I~'3 \.t/{p:tS"
PSEP Particle Size Distriburion
DryWt& rare
I 5SCt> I.{
\.5'LOS
\-S\3.o
11-51-\0
I '-\'130
I . '-\ " ~'=-.
l.~ \lo
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve Date; T' \ \. \ "'"
Sieve Set #: jL Initials:.h:tf
Sieve Size Weight Retained
Tare S-!.L "'2'1-+
4 1-\. \ '?>5tl
10 l'lr . ?'?it I
18 ~1-SOto'O
36 9ro. S\t'£"S"
60 'Lf 1-. 3(PSO
120 ('1-1.( I~'+
230 nS.2.9t+2
PAN O.£'I?-l...1
SALT CORRECTION
Date: Initials
I Tare Weight
Rev. 001
912l!13
CnJr 3~'6 +. n·\ II G)
?) 1>r~ Wr .\-~ 'lJt( ~ ~\jtmw+{"I) \~w\(.,)
\t!. L LKt.\-\ \. q -:,e\\ D.L\~
.... _.--. ~\.~ \.'lL\\'8' (i .4~~':l..
{, (). L tfS"lf 1-\.q.;l?2; C.l.\ ~?'\e
4-~ !.4lt-f'b I ,q-'-\ Icf5 (I.4~~s-
?~IA1c,q). \ q~~'( ('1.4-'¥\ I...( -..
) ~
'f'Ne v'()'fj e ~ ~ 1...\ I:Q 'L":j ~
i i
~ ~ ~L~I ... oJ!io'd ...... &~A~Siis .. o~c .. i .. a .. t~e .. s ,~Iiin!'ic"'iiii~""ii'~' ... 5~_7'!!8~'.' _~I ,:'!,'!'7 iim~ll,ii" .. '!'doii",."oc·"a·t,,"!s9!""'2:"miia'·~1 c""miiiii __ iiii ~ 38210 SE 92no Streel. Snof]ufllmic. Washington Qg(]65"f ,_ • a.: ~ 1(1 _, "
August 10, 2011
SUBMITIAL
To:
From:
Subject:
Larry Meckling, Building Official
City of Renton
Michael Lloyd
Special Inspection-Geotechnical
Cugini Boathouse
Building Permit #B080077
Dear Mr. Meckling:
Attached please find a copy of GEOTECH CONSULTANTS' report of geotechnical
Observations during pile Installatio, Installed piles were galvanized W14X74 H-piles
as rquired in approved plans, All piles were driven to refusal/ embendment with a
vibro-hammer. Hard copy of report to follow in the mail.
If you have any questions regarding this work, please call.
Sincerely,
LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC!,
~/t:~tv~~ ~t
R. Michael Lloyd' (,/
425, 785-1357 (cell)
Attachments:
2011-121 Piling Inspection ~eport IGeotech Consultants)
Installation Photographs
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
38210 Southeast 92"d Street
Snoqualmie, Washington 98065
Attention R Michael Lloyd
Subject: Geotechnical Design Parameters for Anchor Piles
New Cugini Boathouse
North of 4011 Wells Avenue North
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
1 J25f, Nllrtheasl 20th Street. Suite 16
Bellevue. Wa.shington 98005
(425) 747~561X FAX (425) 747~8561
January 14, 2010
JN 10004
via email
This report presents our geotechnical observations and conclusions related to design of the anchor
piles to be installed for the new Cugini boathouse. The scope of our services consisted of exploring
site subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for design
of the piles to withstand lateral loading conditions. This work was authorized by your acceptance of
our proposal, P-7895 dated December 2, 2009.
Based on our discussions with you, the existing boathouse, which is supported on driven timber
piles, will be replaced with a floating boathouse The existing boathouse and its supporting piles
will be entirely removed as a part of this work. The new boathouse will be approximately the same
size, and will be close to the existing location, possibly a few feet further toward the west. Anchor
piles consisting of driven steel pipes will be installed to laterally restrain the boathouse against wind
and impact loads. Collars around the piles will allow the boathouse to rise and fall with the
approximate 2-foot seasonal fluctuation in the level of Lake Washington. Excavation of the lake
bottom will likely occur at the eastem, shore side of the boathouse, where the water depth is only a
few feet.
SITE CONDITIONS
SURFACE
The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The existing boathouse is
located on the eastem shore of Lake Washington, just north of the existing residence having an
address of 4011 Wells Avenue North This metal structure is supported over Lake Washington on
timber piles. A wood dock also supported on driven timber piles extends over the shallower water
along the north side of the boathouse. Neither the boathouse or the dock move with the water level
in the lake. To the north of the boathouse is the old Barbee Mill property, which is being
redeveloped with detached single-family homes. The storm detention pond for this neighboring
development is situated on land immediately north of the dock.
At the time of our field explorations on January 7, 2010, the level of Lake Washington was low.
Based on review of the Corps of Engineers' website (www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil) the elevation of
the water surface in Lake Washington typically varies between a maximum of 22 feet in mid-
Uoyd & Associates, Inc.
January 14.2010
IN 10004
Page 2
summer and 1.95 to 20 feet in winter. The monitoring stations at Kenmore and the Ballard Locks
showed a lake elevation of approximately 20.2 feet and 20.0 feet, respectively on the day of our
field explorations. These elevations are based on the Corps of Engineers' datum. Infomnation
reg arding seasonal and recent lake levels is included as an appendix to this report.
The lake bottom is relatively shallow underneath the northern side of the dock, but deepens quickly
to the south toward the boathouse. At the boring location, the lake bottom was at a measured
depth of approximately 13 inches below the current level of the lake. This would result in a lake
bottom elevation of approximately 19 feet at the location of the exploration. Measurements taken
by Lloyd and Associates indicate that the current water depth at the western, outboard end of the
boathouse is approximately 8 feet. Currently, the water depth at the eastern end of the boathouse
is less than 3 feel.
SUBSURFACE
The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling a single test boring at the approximate location
shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The drill rig was set up on the western end of the
existing wood dock that is located immediately to the north of the current boathouse.
The boring was drilled on January 7, 2010 using a small track-mounted hollow-stem auger drill.
Samples were taken at approximate 5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split-
spoon sampler, which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance
is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed
the drilling process, logged the test boring, and obtained representative samples of the soil
encountered. The Test Boring Log is attached as Plate 3. Depths on the log are measured from
the lake bottom at the drill ing location.
The soil encountered to a depth of approximately 5 to 6 feet below' the lake bottom conSisted of
very loose, slightly gravelly sand. A piece of chain link fencing became wrapped around the auger
within this soil, indicating that this soil may be old fill. We next observed very loose sand that
contained lenses of organiCS and sandy sm. This soil unit, which extended to a depth of
approximately 18 feet, is likely old lake sediments. Dense, slightly gravelly, silty sand was then
encountered between 18 feet and the bottom of the boring at a depth of 34 feet.
The sand soils encountered to a depth of approximately 18 feet were wet in the samples and are
probably saturated from the over1ying lake. The dense soil beneath was not as wet, but it was not
possible to detemnine if it is saturated.
The stratification lines on the log represents the approximate boundaries between soil types at the
exploration location. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface
conditions can vary away from the exploration location The log provides specific subsurface
infomnation only at the location tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the
boring, the depth of the transition was interpreted.
Lloyd & Associates, Inc
January 14. 2010
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS
IN 100()4
Page 3
Large-diameter steel pipe piles appear suitable to support lateral loads from the planned floating
boathouse. These piles can be installed using either vibratory or impact hammers. Even though
the piles will not be subjected to any appreciable vertical loading, it is still important that they be
embedded into dense soils. This is necessary to maximize lateral load resistance and prevent
vertical settlement under any axial loads that may be transferred to the pile. To achieve this, we
recommend that the piles be embedded at least 15 feet into the dense soil. This would require a
pile tip elevation of approximately ·15 feet, based on the Corps of Engineer's datum.
For rough calculation of the maximum allowable lateral load for a pile, the allowable passive
resistance for the very loose soils can be assumed to be provided by an equivalent fluid unit weight
of 90 pounds per cubic foot (pet). This passive resistance acts on 1.5 times the diameter of the pile.
The passive resistance is not mobilized into the dense soils further down along the pile. USing this
method of calculation, an allowable lateral capacity of 23,000 pounds results for an l8·inch·
diameter pile.
The pile diameter that will be chosen will likely depend largely on the deflection that will result from
lateral loading at the collar. The unsupported length of the pile has the most Significant impact on
the lateral deflection of a vertical pile under loading. Using the current maximum 8-foot water depth
at the boathouse, a maximum l0-foot water depth would be present when the lake level rises in
summer. We expect that the collar encircling the pile will be 2 to 3 feet above the lake's surface,
yielding an unsupported design pile length of approximately 13 feet. In order to assist with pile
sizing, we completed an LPile analysis for both an 18-inch and 24-inch diameter steel pile having a
pile wall thickness of 0.5 inches. We applied a lateral load of 11,000 pounds to the pile, which is a
preliminary load estimated by B & T Design and Engineering for a single pile. Under this loading,
the LPile analysis yields a top of pile deflection of approximately 2.8 inches and 1.4 inches for an
l8-inch and 24-inch pile, respectively. Considering the potential variability in the upper, looser soils
and the potential for repeated loading, it appears that a 24·inch pile would be more appropriate for
at least the western end of the boathouse, where the water depth will be the greatest.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Lloyd & ASSOciates, the Cugini Family, and
their representatives, for specifiC application to this project and site. Our conclusions and
recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of
practice within the limited scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope
of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our
recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or
procedures, except as specifically described in our report for conSideration in design.
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
January 14, 2010
IN 10004
Page 4
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments:
• Vicinity Map
• Site Exploration Plan
• Boring Log
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Marc R. McGinnis, P.E.
Principal
• Appendix -Lake Washington Elevation Data
• Appendix -LPile Results
MRM: jyb
cc: B & T Design and Engineering -Jim Trueblood
via email
~.( ,
i
i
~i! GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
'~~\~~7~~~----~
4
(Source. Th6 Thomas GUIde, King County, Washfngton, 1998)
VICINITY MAP
North of 4011 Wells Avenue North
Renton, Washington
1 Job No-;0004 1
Dale:
• Jan. 2010 I PIa"':
Lake Washtnglon
~_.:l ..... GEOTECH
.., CONSULTANTS, INC.
1'l.-~' ~,~~~~ ~t /
{Source Kmg Count}' AsseS5or, 20(4)
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN
North of 4011 Wells Avenue North
Renton, Washington
I Job N~: 0004 I oatf~n 201 0 I No Scale I Plate: 2 I
25
30
3
2
3
5
38
22
46
~iI
BORING 1
,wet. very
IlTrm~GrifVSiWEiW1ihOroa;mCsamfi9rlse:-oEandy si~, 'fine-to medium-grained, wet. very 100
~
SM
I
i
H II "" Greenish gray, slightly gravelly, silty SAND, fine-grained, very moist. loose -----
-becomes gray, dense to very dense
I,
I
I
• Test boring was terminated at 34 feet on January 7, 2010 .
• Ground surface at boring location was 13 inches below the
current water level of Lake Washington.
BORING LOG
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
~~~t~~?~~-------
North of 4011 Wells Avenue North
Renton, Washington
IDllte: 1 Logged by: IPlate: 31
1(\n(\.4 I~n ?n1n MRM
APPENDIX -Lake Washington Elevation Data
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC
APPENDIX -Lake Washington Elevation Data
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC
Rivers: Lake Washington Basin -Lake Washington Summary I-Jydrograph Page 1 of 1
Lake Washington Basin
Lake Washington Summary Hydrograph
lAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL
~ ~
~ l--: -~ -~ r II / <J~ "-
. ~
I .. j "': i '~ ... , •
( ' .. \' '"
I .-
1
"
I .. \. ~ * . , , ,
'" '-• ,
.-""" . .. ti 'r \
i .. 7 \ .
+ \ ;,." '. , 1;' \ "'"~. ~, r I i,1 ~ i ,'",
" ~.t .. J " >
,
.~ ~
i
LEGEND
" l \,
"'loxlITIUrfi E.le\· .... __ Minimum Elev
• Average Eie','
, , ~ S
Jan Fet> Mar ~I May Jun Jul AlIg Sep Ocl No." PIiC
(SUMMARY HYDROGRAPH 1919-1999)
Notes:
1. Summary hydrographs are a family of graphs which sho ......... for each day of the calendar year, the maximum, minimum, and average water
surface elevatiun over the period of record.
2. Lake Washington water surface data were collected at eight am each day,
3. The Lake Washington Ship Canal is operated prnnarily as a navigation facility connecting Puget Sound and Lakes Union and Washington.
Project authorization documents state that under nonnal operation the Lake Washington Ship Canal should be maintained within a 2-foot
range between 20.0 feet and 22.0 feet (Corps of Engineers Datum). respectively. The minimum elevation is maintained during the winter
months to aUow for annual maintenance on docks. walls, etc .. by businesses and lakeside residents, minimize wave and erosion damage
during winter stonns and provide storage space for high inflow. The storage betv.reen 20 and 22 feet is used to augment Lake Washington
Ship Canal inflows for use in operating the locks. the saltwaLer return system, the smolt pa.<;sage nume, and the fish ladder facility.
4. The locks and spillway dam regulate the t:ievalioI1 of Salmon Bay. Lake Union, Lake Washington and the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
The level of Lake Washington wa'i lowered ahout 8 feet by the construction of the Lake Wa...;;hington Ship Canal, but it is still the second
largest natural lake in the state, with a sunace area or 22.138 acre:; and shoreline of about 91 miles at elevation 22 feel.
All Data Provided is Provisional
Questions
Rivers: Lake Washington Basin -Lake Washington Elevation at Kenmore Page 1 of2
Lake Washington Basin
Lake Washington Elevation at Kenmore
Confidence: ..
What does the light mean?
Graphical Data
L~ke Hz.hin ~on -Elvvation ~t Kenmor& G~ e
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 01 03 05 07 09 11
I Dec2009 I Jan2010
Lake W ... hinqton at Kenmo:t:e
I~SfJ~QU~'f,t~·1
p _.. ~.. Why do I see a black hoe at the bottgm ofthe graph?
All Data Provided are Provisional
Mon Jan 11 09:20:07 2010
Tabular Data
Kenmore E',l~vation
Sun lOJan 2010 0900 20.;8
Sun 10Jar: 2010 1000 20.23
Sun lCJan 2010 1100 20.18
Sun lOJan 2010 1200 20.20
Sun lOJan 2010 1300 20.23
Sun lOJan 2010 1400 20.23
Sun lOJan 2010 1500 20.23
Sun lOJan 2010 1600 20.24
Sun lOJan 2010 1700 20.23
Rivers: Lake Washington Basin -Lake Washington Ship Canal Elevation at Locks Page 1 of2
Lake Washington Basin
Lake Washington Ship Canal Elevation at Locks
Confid~l1ce: ..
What does the light mean?
Graphical Data
22.0 Li.k.e W'''Eibj.n ton Shl C:e.n.c.l Elevi.t.ion l.t LockE
21. 8
21.6
21.4
E
L 21.2
E v
21.0
I
N 20.8
F
E 20.6 E
T
20.4
20.2
20.0
19.8
12 14 16 IB 20 22 24 26 2B 30 01 03 05 07 09 11
I Dec2009 I Jan2010
LHSC Hva~omet Ob.erved Elev.
L~ke W~&hj,nqton 0800 Project Observed
If~Qiji"iffjl. How do 1 read the graphs?
1~'''Sl;ejllOliS''''WI • -Why do I see a black line at the bottom of the graoh'!
All Data Provided are Provisional
Mon Jan 11 09:20:192010
Tabular Data
Locks Boathouse Observed
Sun lOJan 2010 0900 2C.01
Sun lCJan 2010 1000 20.01
Sun JQCan 2010 1l0O 20.02
SUD JOJ8n 2010 1200 20.0:-
Sun 10Jan 2010 1300 20. OJ
Sun iOJan 2010 J400 20.02
Sun lOJan 2010 1500 20.01
Sun lOJan 20]0 1600 20.00
APPENDIX -LPile Results
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC,
JN10004 Case 1.lpo
LPILE plus for windows, version 5.0 (5.0.17)
Analysis of Individual Piles and Drilled Shafts
subjected to Lateral Loading using the p-y Method
(c) 1985-2005 by Ensoft, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
==============================================================================
This program is licensed to:
Marc MCGinnis
Geotech consultants, Inc.
path to file locations:
Results\
Name of input data file:
Name of output file:
Name of plot output file:
Name of runtime file:
C:\Documents and settings\marcm\My Documents\LPile
JN10004 case 1.lpd
JN10004 Case 1.lpo
JN10004 Case 1.lpp
JN10004 Case l.lpr
Time and Date of Analysis
Date: January 13, 2010 Time: 15:47:46
problem Title
IN l0004/cugini Boathouse-18 inch pipe with 0.5 inch wall thickness ~4~-------
program options
units used in Computations -us customary units, inches, pounds
Basic program Options:
Analysis Type 1:
-computation of Lateral Pile Response Using user-specified Constant EI
computation Options:
-only internally-generated p-y curves used in analysis
Analysis does not use p-y multipliers (individual pile or shaft action only)
-Analysis assumes no shear resistance at pile tip
-Analysis includes automatic computation of pile-top deflection vs.
pile embedment length
-NO computation of foundation stiffness matrix elements
-output pile response for full length of pile
Analysis assumes no soil movements acting on pile
NO additional p-y curves to be computed at user-specified depths
solution control parameters:
Page 1
JN10004
Number of pile increments
Maximum number of iterations allowed
Deflection tolerance for convergence =
Maximum allowable deflection =
Case 1.1 po
80
100
1. 0000E-05 in
1. 0000E+02 in
printing options:
-values of pile-head deflection, bending moment, shear force, and
soil reaction are printed for full length of pile.
-printing Increment (spacing of output points) = 1
pile structural properties and Geometry
pile Length 480.00 in
Depth of lround surface below top of pile = 156.00 in
Slope ang e of ground surface = .00 deg.
structural properties of pile defi ned using 2 poi nts
point Depth pi 1 e Moment of Pile Modulus of
x Diameter Inertia Area Elasticity
in in ; n**4 Sq. in lbs/sq.in
---------------------------------------------------
1 0.0000 18.00000000 1053.0000 27.5000 30000000.
2 480.0000 18.00000000 1053.0000 27.5000 30000000.
soil and Rock Layering Information
The soil profile is modelled using 2 layers
Layer 1 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al.,
Distance from top of pile to top of layer =
Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer =
p-y subgrade modulus k for top of soil layer =
p-y subgrade modulus k for bottom of layer =
1974
156.000 in
300.000 in
20.000 lbs/in**3
20.000 1bs/in*"3
Layer 2 is sand, p-y criteria by API RP-2A, 1987
Distance from top of pile to top of layer =
Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer =
p-y subgrade modulus k for top of soil layer =
p-y subgrade modulus k for bottom of layer =
300.000 in
480.000 in
125.000 lbs/in**3
125.000 lbs/in w*3
(Depth of lowest layer extends .00 in below pile tip)
Effective Unit weight of soil vs. Depth
Distribution of effective unit weight of soil with depth
is defined using 4 points
point
No.
1
2
Depth x
in
156.00
300.00
Eff. unit weight
1 bs/i n*" 3
.06400
.06400
page 2
3
4
300.00
480.00
JN10004 Case 1.lpo
.07500
.07500
-------------~----------------------------------------------------------------
shear strength of soils
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of shear strength parameters with depth
defined using 4 points
Point De~th X cohesion c Angle of Fri cti on
No. ,n lbs/in**2 Deg.
------------------------------------
1 156.000 .00000 25.00
2 300.000 .00000 25.00
3 300.000 .00000 40.00
4 480.000 .00000 40.00
Notes:
E50 or RQD
Ic.rm %
------------
------ ------
------------
------------
------------
(1) cohesion; uniaxial compressive strength for rock materials.
(2) values of E50 are reported for clay strata.
(3) Default values will be generated for E50 when input values are O.
(4) RQD and Ic.rm are reported only for weak rock strata.
Loading Type
Static loading criteria was used for computation of p-y curves
pile-head Loading and Pile-head Fixity conditions
Number of loads specified ~ 1
Load case Number 1
Pile-head boundary conditions
shear force at pile head ~
Bending moment at pile head;
Axial load at pile head ~
are shear and Moment (BC Type 1)
11000.000 lbs
.000 in-lbs
.000 lbs
(Zero moment at pile head for this load indicates a free-head condition)
computed values of Load Distribution and Deflection
for Lateral Loading for Load case Number 1
Pile-head boundary conditions are shear and
specified shear force at pile head ~
Specified moment at pile head ~
Moment (BC Type 1)
11000.000 lbs
.000 in-lbs
page 3
JN10004 Case 1.lpo
specified axial load at pile head .000 1 bs
(zero moment for this load indicates free-head condi ti ons)
Depth Defl ect. Moment shear slope Total soi 1 Res
x ¥ M V 5 Stress p
in In 1 bs-i n lbs Rad. 1 bs/i n**2 1 bs/i n
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 2.790 -5.4556E-06 11000.0000 -.0141655 4.6629E-08 0.0000
6.000 2.705 66000.0000 11000.0000 -.0141592 564.1026 0.0000
12.000 2.620 132000. 11000.0000 -.0141404 1128.2051 0.0000
18.000 2.535 198000. 11000.0000 -.0141091 1692.3077 0.0000
24.000 2.450 264000. 11000.0000 -.0140652 2256.4103 0.0000
30.000 2.366 330000. 11000.0000 -.0140088 2820.5128 0.0000
36.000 2.282 396000. 11000.0000 -. 0139399 3384.6154 0.0000
42.000 2.199 462000. 11000.0000 -. 0138584 3948.7179 0.0000
48.000 2.116 528000. 11000.0000 -. 0137644 4512.8205 0.0000
54.000 2.034 594000. 11000.0000 -.0136578 5076.9231 0.0000
60.000 1. 952 660000. 11000.0000 -.0135387 5641. 0256 0.0000
66.000 1.871 726000. 11000.0000 -.0134071 6205.1282 0.0000
72.000 1. 791 792000. 11000.0000 -.0132629 6769.2308 0.0000
78.000 1. 712 858000. 11000.0000 -.0131062 7333.3333 0.0000
84.000 1.634 924000. 11000.0000 -.0129370 7897.4359 0.0000
90.000 1. 557 990000. 11000.0000 -.0127552 8461. 5385 0.0000
96.000 1.481 1056000. 11000.0000 -.0125609 9025.6410 0.0000
102.000 1.406 1122000. 11000.0000 -.0123541 9589.7436 0.0000
108.000 1. 333 1188000. 11000.0000 -.0121347 10153.8462 0.0000
114.000 1.260 1254000. 11000.0000 -.0119028 10717.9487 0.0000
120.000 1.190 1320000. 11000.0000 -.0116584 11282.0513 0.0000
126.000 1.121 1386000. 11000.0000 -.0114014 11846.1538 0.0000
132.000 1.053 1452000. 11000.0000 -.0111319 12410.2564 0.0000
138.000 . 986954 1518000 . 11000.0000 -.0108498 12974.3590 0.0000
144.000 . 922720 1584000 . 11000.0000 -.0105552 13538.4615 0.0000
150.000 . 860291 1650000 . 11000.0000 -.0102481 14102.5641 0.0000
156.000 .799742 1716000. 11000.0000 -.0099285 14666.6667 0.0000
162.000 .741149 1782000. 10867.3224 -.0095963 15230.7692 -44.2259
168.000 .684587 1846408. 10454.1321 -.0092517 15781. 2638 -93.5043
174.000 .630129 1907450. 9757.4972 -.0088952 16302.9879 -138.7074
180.000 . 577845 1963498 . 8809.0977 -.0085276 16782.0328 -177 .4258
186.000 . 527798 2013159 . 7648.5805 -.0081499 17206.4851 -209.4133
192.000 .480045 2055281. 6317.7917 -.0077636 17566.5026 -234.1830
198.000 . 434635 2088972 . 4858.8994 -.0073700 17854.4637 -252.1144
204.000 . 391605 2113588 . 3311.4288 -.0069709 18064.8512 -263.7091
210.000 . 350984 2128709 . 1712.6754 -.0065680 18194.0975 -269.2087
216.000 .312789 2134140. 64.9638 -.0061632 18240.5102 -280.0285
222.000 . 277026 2129489 . -1619.3523 -.0057583 18200.7604 -281. 4103
228.000 . 243690 2114707 . -3277.3808 -.0053552 18074.4228 -271. 2659
234.000 . 212763 2090160 . -4935.3809 -.0049559 17864.6188 -281.4008
240.000 . 184219 2055483 . -6638.9258 -.0045622 17568.2299 -286.4475
246.000 . 158017 2010493 . -8351. 5 574 -.0041761 17183.7033 -284.4297
252.000 . 134106 1955264 . -9977 . 2950 -.0037995 16711.6599 -257.4828
258.000 . 112423 1890766 . -11437.7717 -.0034342 16160.3910 -229.3428
264.000 . 092895 1818011 . -12727.7594 -.0030820 15538.5551 -200.6531
270.000 . 075439 1738033 . -13845.7203 -.0027443 14854.9798 -172.0005
276.000 . 059963 1651862 . -14793.4577 -.0024224 14118.4813 -143.9120
282.000 .046370 1560511. -15575.7531 -.0021173 13337.7021 -116.8531
288.000 . 034556 1464953 . -16199.9930 -.0018300 12520.9681 -91. 2269
294.000 .024410 1366111. -16675.7919 -.0015611 11676.1644 -67.3728
300.000 . 015822 1264844 . -17550.2614 -.0013113 10810.6305 -224.1171
306.000 .008675 1155508. -18612.0278 -.0010814 9876.1375 -129.8051
312.000 . 002845 1041499 . -19135.5832 -.0008728 8901.7046 -44.7134
318.000 -.001798 925881. -19180.8831 -.0006859 7913.5136 29.6134
324.000 -.005386 811329. -18813.8453 -.0005210 6934.4345 92.7325
page 4
JN10004 Case 1.lpo
330.000 -.008050 700115. -18101. 8129 -.0003774 5983.8885
336.000 -.009916 594107. -17111. 3288 -.0002545 5077.8383
342.000 -.011104 494779. -15906.3489 -.0001511 4228.8804
348.000 -.011729 403231. -14546.8332 -6.5836E-05 3446.4179
354.000 -.011894 320217. -13087.6786 2.8671E-06 2736.8975
360.000 -.011695 246179. -11577.9687 5.6656E-05 2104.0919
366.000 -.011214 181281. -10060.5136 9.7250E-05 1549.4135
372.000 -.010528 125453. -8571. 6562 .0001264 1072.2443
378.000 -.009698 78421. 5072 -7141. 3136 .0001457 670.2693
384.000 -.008779 39756.8253 -5793.2214 .0001570 339.8019
390.000 -.007814 8902.8507 -4545.3474 .0001616 76.0927
396.000 -.006840 -14787.3439 -3410.4381 .0001610 126.3876
402.000 -.005882 -32022.4061 -2396.6638 .0001566 273.6958
408.000 -.004961 -43547.3094 -1508.3310 .0001494 372 .1992
414.000 -.004089 -50122.3785 -746.6294 .0001405 428.3964
420.000 -.003275 -52506.8617 -110.3867 .0001308 448.7766
426.000 -.002520 -51447.0195 403.1920 .0001209 439.7181
432.000 -.001824 -47668.5580 797.8257 .0001115 407.4236
438.000 -.001182 -41873.1117 1077 . 5159 .0001030 357.8898
444.000 -.000588 -34738.3676 1245.9824 9.5699E-05 296.9091
450.000 -3.39E-05 -26921.3228 1306.1917 8.9843E-05 230.0968
456.000 .000490 -19064.0670 1259.9946 8.5476E-05 162.9407
462.000 .000992 -11801.3876 1107.8893 8.2545E-05 100.8666
468.000 .001480 -5769.3950 848.9277 8.0876E-05 49.3111
474.000 .001962 -1614.2550 480.7829 8.0175E-05 13.7971
480.000 .002442 0.0000 0.0000 8.0022E-05 0.0000
output verification:
computed forces and moments are within specified convergence limits.
output summary for Load Case NO.1:
pile-head deflection
computed slope at pile head
Maximum bending moment
Maximum shear force
Depth of maximum bending moment =
Depth of maximum shear force
Number of iterations =
Number of zero deflection points =
2.78956014 in
-.01416550
2134140. lbs-in
-19180.88314 lbs
216.00000 in
318.00000 in
11
2
Summary of Pile-Head Response(s)
Definition of symbols for Pile-Head Loading conditions:
Type 1 = Shear and Moment,
Type 2 = Shear and slope,
y = pile-head displacment in
M = Pile-head Moment lbs-in
144.6116
185.5497
216.1102
237.0617
249.3232
253.9135
251. 9049
244.3809
232.4000
216.9641
198.9939
179.3092
158.6155
137.4954
116.4052
95.6757
75.5172
56.0274
37.2027
18.9528
1.1170
-16.5160
-34.1857
-52.1348
-70.5801
-89.6808
Type 3 = shear and Rot. Stiffness,
Type 4 = Deflection and Moment,
Type 5 = Deflection and slope,
v = Pile-head shear Force lbs
S = pile-head Slope, radians
R = Rot. Stiffness of pile-head in-lbs/rad
Load Boundary
Type condition
1
Boundary
condition
2
Axial
Load
1 bs
pile-Head Maximum
Deflection Moment
in in-lbs
page 5
Maximum
shear
1 bs
1 V= 11000. M=
JN10004 case 1.lpo
0.000 0.0000 2.7896 2134140. -19180.8831
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pile-head Deflection vs. pile Length
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary condition Type I, shear and Moment
shear
Moment =
Axial Load =
pi 1 e
Lel)gth
In
-----------
480.000
456.000
432.000
408.000
384.000
360.000
336.000
312.000
The analysis
11000. 1 bs
pile Head
Deflection
in
------------
2.78956014
2.79288486
2.79440014
2.79376768
2.81797293
2.93523583
3.37521707
5.61683639
O. in-lbs
O. 1 bs
Maximum
Moment
i n-l bs
------------
2134140.
2132072.
2132835.
2131404.
2129709.
2121594.
2109850.
2108529.
ended normally.
Maximum
shear
lbs
------------
-19180.88314
-18459.17426
-18359.19249
-18676.33585
-20081. 75230
-23461.49858
-27577 . 33455
-34711.69306
page 6
Lateral Deflection vs. Depl
17-Loading Case 1
Q)
.!!
Deflection, in.
012
o~=~=~~
1 2 --------,-
4 ___ -1 ____ 1 --
6 - - -~ --1---
8 - - -+ - --I - - -
1 10---; - --I - - -
____ :___ p;)e...
;..,-----,--+_ lA "" ~frDrf, J 14 - - --, ----, - - -le."j fl.,
16 -_-'-____ 1 __ _
12
18 - -~ ---_I _ _ _ . , ,
.c 20 .-/-- --I - - --I -
I
g-22
0 24 '
26
28
30
32
1 1
----~----,-
1 1 - - - T - - --: - - -
I 1 -------------
1 1
_ _ _ -'----_, ---
1 1
___ -L __ --I _ ---
1 ,
---+----1---
1 1 34 ---t----I---
1 ' 36 - - - -T - - - - - - -
1 1 38 - - --, - - --, - - -
1PLE Plus 5.0, (1;) 12004 by Enso~, Inc.
Bending Moment vs. Dept
17-Loading Case 1 I Maximum Moment, kips-
!~\1r::2r
\ : I ~~~~~>\-:~=~~=:
1 1 1
10 1 -----: -----~
12 fr -----,---"\ -I
14~-----'----\~
1 1 ~
+-' 16 ' _____ ' _____ ~
Q) 1 1 ' \
~ 18-'----_1 _____ 1-
:5 20~-----:-----J c.. 1 1 1 8 22~~~---:---/~
24 1 --.. , --/ --I
26~ ----y ---~
28~--/1-----~
,/ 1 1
301"-7--. -1----1-
1 1 I
32 IV -----1---. -,
1 34 _. ----1------
I 1 361r . ----..... ----1
38' I 1 ------,-----I
4P,LE Plus 5.0. (e) 2004 by Ensoff. Inc. 1
JN10004 Case 2.1po
=====;~=======================================================================
LPILE plus for windows, version 5.0 (5.0.17)
Analysis of Individual Piles and Drilled Shafts
subjected to Lateral Loading using the p-y Method
(c) 1985-2005 by Ensoft, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
==============================================================================
This program is licensed to:
Marc McGinnis
Geotech Consultants, Inc.
Path to file locations:
Results\
Name of input data file:
Name of output file:
Name of plot output file:
Name of runtime file:
C:\Documents and settings\marcm\My Documents\LPile
JN10004 Case 2.lpd
JN10004 Case 2.lpo
JN10004 Case 2.lpp
JN10004 Case 2.lpr
Time and Date of Analysis
Date: January 13, 2010 Time: 15:51:49
Problem Title
IN 10004/cugini Boathouse-24 inch pipe with 0.5 inch wall thickness~~~---------
program Options
units used in computations -us Customary units, inches, pounds
Basic program Options:
Analysis Type 1:
-computation of Lateral Pile Response using user-specified constant EI
Computation options:
-Only internally-generated p-y curves used in analysis
Analysis does not use p-y multipliers (individual pile or shaft action only)
-Analysis assumes no shear resistance at pile tip
-Analysis includes automatic computation of pile-top deflection vs.
pile embedment length
-No computation of foundation stiffness matrix elements
-output pile response for full length of pile
Analysis assumes no soil movements acting on pile
NO additional p-y curves to be computed at user-specified depths
solution Control Parameters:
page 1
JN10004
Number of pile increments
-Maximum number of iterations allowed;
Deflection tolerance for convergence;
Maximum allowable deflection
Case 2.1 po
80
100
1.0000E-05 in
1. 0000E+02 in
printing options;
-values of pile-head deflection, bending moment, shear force, and
soil reaction are printed for full length of pile.
-printing Increment (spacing of output points); 1
Pile Structural properties and Geometry
pi 1 e Length ; 480.00 in
Depth of ~round surface below top of pile; 156.00 in
slope ang e of ground surface ; .00 deg.
Structural properties of pi 1 e defined using 2 points
Point Depth pi 1 e Moment of pi 1 e Modulus of
x Diameter Inertia Area El asti ci ty
in in i n**4 sq. i n 1 bs/sq. i n
---------------------------------------------------
1 0.0000 24.00000000 2549.0000 36.9000 30000000.
2 480.0000 24.00000000 2549.0000 36.9000 30000000.
soil and Rock Layering Information
The soil profile is modelled using 2 layers
L~yer 1 is sand, p-y criteria by Reese et al.,
Dlstance from top of pile to top of layer ;
Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer;
p-y subgrade modulus k for top of soil layer;
p-y subgrade modulus k for bottom of layer ;
1974
156.000 in
300.000 in
20.000 lbs/in**3
20.000 lbs/in**3
Layer 2 is sand, p-y criteria by API RP-2A, 1987
Distance from top of pile to top of layer ;
Distance from top of pile to bottom of layer;
p-y subgrade modulus k for top of soil layer;
p-y subgrade modulus k for bottom of layer ;
300.000 in
480.000 in
125.000 lbs/in**3
125.000 lbs/in**3
(Depth of lowest layer extends .00 in below pile tip)
Effective Unit weight of soil vs. Depth
Distribution of effective unit weight of soil with depth
is defined using 4 points
Point
NO.
1
2
Depth X
in
156.00
300.00
Eff. unit weight
1 bs/i n**3
.06400
.06400
page 2
3
4
300.00
480.00
JN10004 case 2.lpo
.07500
.07500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shear Strength of Soils
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of shear strength parameters with depth
defined using 4 points
Poi nt Depth x cohesion c Angle of Friction
NO. in lbs/in**2 Deg.
------------------------------------
1 156.000 .00000 25.00
2 300.000 .00000 25.00
3 300.000 .00000 40.00
4 480.000 .00000 40.00
Notes:
EsO or RQD
k_rm %
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
(1) cohesion = uniaxial compressive strength for rock materials.
(2) values of EsO are reported for clay strata.
(3) Default values will be generated for EsO when input values are O.
(4) RQD and k_rm are reported only for weak rock strata.
Loading Type
static loading criteria was used for computation of p-y curves
pile-head Loading and Pile-head Fixity conditions
Number of loads specified = 1
Load case Number 1
pile-head boundary conditions
shear force at pile head =
Bending moment at pile head =
Axial load at pile head =
are shear and Moment (BC Type 1)
11000.000 lbs
.000 in-lbs
.000 lbs
(zero moment at pile head for this load indicates a free-head condition)
computed values of Load Distribution and Deflection
for Lateral Loading for Load case Number 1
pile-head boundary conditions are shear and
specified shear force at pile head =
specified moment at pile head =
Moment (BC Type 1)
11000.000 lbs
.000 in-lbs
Page 3
JN10004 Case 2.lpo
specified axial load at pile head .000 lbs
(Zero moment for this load indicates free-head conditions)
Depth Deflect. Moment Shear slope Total Soil Res
X \:' M V S Stress p
in ln 1 bs-i n lbs Rad. lbsjin**2 1 bsji n
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 1. 353 9.4332E-07 11000.0000 -.0064856 4.4409E-09 0.0000
6.000 1. 314 66000.0000 11000.0000 -.0064830 310.7101 0.0000
12.000 1. 275 132000. 11000.0000 -.0064752 621.4202 0.0000
18.000 1.236 198000. 11000.0000 -.0064623 932.1302 0.0000
24.000 1.197 264000. 11000.0000 -.0064442 1242.8403 0.0000
30.000 1.159 330000. 11000.0000 -.0064209 1553.5504 0.0000
36.000 1.120 396000. 11000.0000 -.0063924 1864.2605 0.0000
42.000 1.082 462000. 11000.0000 -.0063587 2174.9706 0.0000
48.000 1.044 528000. 11000.0000 -.0063199 2485.6807 0.0000
54.000 1.006 594000. 11000.0000 -.0062759 2796.3907 0.0000
60.000 . 968809 660000 . 11000.0000 -.0062267 3107.1008 0.0000
66.000 . 931604 726000 . 11000.0000 -.0061723 3417.8109 0.0000
72 .000 .894741 792000. 11000.0000 -.0061127 3728.5210 0.0000
78.000 . 858251 858000 . 11000.0000 -.0060480 4039.2311 0.0000
84.000 . 822165 924000 . 11000.0000 -.0059781 4349.9412 0.0000
90.000 . 786514 990000 . 11000.0000 -.0059030 4660.6512 0.0000
96.000 .751329 1056000. 11000.0000 -.0058227 4971.3613 0.0000
102.000 . 716641 1122000 . 11000.0000 -.0057373 5282.0714 0.0000
108.000 . 682481 1188000 . 11000.0000 -.0056467 5592.7815 0.0000
114.000 . 648881 1254000 . 11000.0000 -.0055509 5903.4916 0.0000
120.000 . 615871 1320000 . 11000.0000 -.0054499 6214.2016 0.0000
126.000 . 583482 1386000 . 11000.0000 -.0053437 6524.9117 0.0000
132.000 .551746 1452000. 11000.0000 -.0052324 6835.6218 0.0000
138.000 . 520693 1518000 . 11000.0000 -.0051159 7146.3319 0.0000
144.000 . 490355 1584000 . 11000.0000 -.0049942 7457.0420 0.0000
150.000 .460763 1650000. 11000.0000 -.0048673 7767.7521 0.0000
156.000 .431948 1716000. 11000.0000 -.0047353 8078.4621 0.0000
162.000 . 403940 1782000 . 10869.9940 -.0045980 8389.1722 -43.3353
168.000 . 376771 1846440 . 10474.6494 -.0044557 8692.5379 -88.4462
174.000 . 350472 1907696 . 9830.8011 -.0043084 8980.9139 -126.1699
180.000 . 325071 1964410 . 8984.1900 -.0041565 9247.9068 -156.0338
186.000 . 300594 2015506 . 7975.0193 -.0040004 9488.4554 -180.3564
192.000 . 277066 2060110 . 6835.4872 -.0038405 9698.4375 -199.4877
198.000 .254508 2097532. 5595.6632 -.0036774 9874.6108 -213.7870
204.000 . 232938 2127258 . 4283.4411 -.0035116 10014.5519 -223.6204
210.000 . 212369 2148933 . 2924.5046 -.0033439 10116.5942 -229.3584
216.000 .192812 2162352. 1542.3075 -.0031747 10179.7652 -231.3739
222 .000 .174272 2167441. 158.0674 -.0030049 10203.7233 -230.0394
228.000 . 156753 2164249 . -1209.2252 -.0028349 10188.6948 -225.7248
234.000 . 140253 2152930 . -2542.7846 -.0026656 10135.4109 -218.7950
240.000 . 124767 2133735 . -3827.9938 -.0024974 10045.0460 -209.6080
246.000 .110285 2106994. -5052.3548 -.0023310 9919.1570 -198.5123
252.000 . 096794 2073107 . -6205.4282 -.0021670 9759.6246 -185.8454
258.000 . 084280 2032529 . -7278.7601 -.0020060 9568.5954 -171. 9319
264.000 . 072723 1985762 . -8265.8009 -.0018483 9348.4275 -157.0817
270.000 . 062101 1933340 . -9161.8138 -.0016946 9101.6376 -141. 5893
276.000 . 052388 1875820 . -9963.7770 -.0015451 8830.8515 -125.7318
282.000 . 043559 1813774 . -10670.2787 -.0014004 8538.7565 -109.7688
288.000 .035584 1747777. -11281.4079 -.0012607 8228.0582 -93.9409
294.000 . 028431 1678397 . -11798.6407 -.0011262 7901.4389 -78.4700
300.000 . 022069 1606193 . -12951.4660 -.0009974 7561.5206 -305.8051
306.000 .016463 1522980. -14594.1177 -.0008746 7169.7750 -241.7454
312.000 . 011573 1431064 . -15855.5079 -.0007587 6737.0589 -178.7180
318.000 . 007358 1332714 . -16749.1702 -.0006503 6274.0539 -119.1694
324.000 .003770 1230074. -17298.3439 -.0005498 5790.8523 -63.8885
page 4
JN10004 Case 2.lpo
330.000 . 000760 1125133 . -17530.3893 -.0004574 5296.8230
336.000 -.001719 1019709. -17475.6330 -.0003732 4800.5126
342.000 -.003718 915426. -17166.3418 -.0002973 4309.5766
348.000 -.005287 813713. -16635.8138 -.0002295 3830.7388
354.000 -.006472 715796. -15917.5823 -.0001695 3369.7739
360.000 -.007320 622702. -15044.7285 -.0001170 2931. 5110
366.000 -.007875 535259. -14049.3033 -7.1530E-05 2519.8559
372 .000 -.008179 454110. -12961.8547 -3.2716E-05 2137.8273
378.000 -.008268 379717. -11811.0590 -3.9952E-09 1787.6052
384.000 -.008179 312377 . -10623.4528 2.7148E-05 1470.5882
390.000 -.007942 252236. -9423.2586 4.9298E-05 1187.4572
396.000 -.007587 199298. -8232.2998 6.7012E-05 938.2425
402.000 -.007138 153448. -7069.9961 8.0851E-05 722.3920
408.000 -.006617 114458. -5953.4297 9. 1361E-05 538.8390
414.000 -.006042 82006.9442 -4897.4750 9.9069E-05 386.0664
420.000 -.005428 55688.6840 -3914.9786 .0001045 262.1672
426.000 -.004788 35027.2009 -3016.9813 .0001080 164.8986
432.000 -.004132 19484.9087 -2212.9688 .0001102 91. 7297
438.000 -.003466 8471. 5758 -1511.1416 .0001113 39.8819
444.000 -.002796 1351. 2094 -918.6915 .0001117 6.3611
450.000 -.002126 -2552.7224 -442.0729 .0001116 12.0175
456.000 -.001457 -3953.6652 -87.2577 .0001113 18.6128
462.000 -.000790 -3599.8150 140.0382 .0001111 16.9470
468.000 -.000125 -2273.2067 234.1703 .0001108 10.7016
474.000 .000540 -789.7714 189.4339 .0001107 3.7180
480.000 .001204 0.0000 0.0000 .0001107 0.0000
output verification:
computed forces and moments are within specified convergence limits.
output Summary for Load Case NO.
pile-head deflection
Computed slope at pile head
Maximum bending moment
Maximum shear force
= =
=
Depth of maximum bending moment =
Depth of maximum shear force
Number of iterations
Number of zero deflection points =
1:
1. 35281736 in
-.00648559
2167441. 1 bs-i n
-17530.38929 lbs
222.00000 in
330.00000 in
5
2
-13.4600
31. 7121
71. 3850
105.4577
133.9528
156.9984
174.8100
187.6729
195.9256
199.9431
200.1216
196.8646
190.5700
181. 6188
170.3661
157.1327
142.1997
125.8044
108.1380
89.3454
69.5275
48.7443
27.0211
4.3563
-19.2684
-43.8762
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of Pile-Head Response(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of symbols for pile-Head Loading conditions:
Type 1 = shear and Moment,
Type 2 = shear and Slope,
Type 3 = shear and Rot. stiffness,
Type 4 = Deflection and Moment,
Type 5 = Deflection and slope,
Load Boundary
Type condition
1
Boundary
condition
2
y = pile-head displacment in
M = pile-head Moment lbs-in
v = pile-head shear Force lbs
s = pile-head slope, radians
R = Rot. Stiffness of pile-head in-lbs/rad
Axial
Load
1 bs
pile-Head Maximum
Deflection Moment
in in-lbs
Maximum
shear
lbs
--------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Page 5
1 v; 11000. M;
JN10004 case 2.1po
0.000 0.0000 1.3528 2167441. -17530.3893
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pile-head Deflection vs. pile Length
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary condition Type 1, shear and Moment
shear ;
Moment ;
Axial Load;
pile
Le~gth
ln
-----------
480.000
456.000
432.000
408.000
384.000
360.000
336.000
312.000
The analysis
11000. 1 bs
pile Head
Deflection
in
------------
1. 35281736
1. 35601874
1. 35894303
1. 37041005
1.41731734
1. 54282857
1. 88843431
3.15317353
O. in-lbs
O. lbs
Maximum
Moment
i n-l bs
------------
2167441.
2163462.
2162819.
2156423.
2140625.
2116627.
2094347.
2056524.
ended normally.
Maximum
shear
1 bs
------------
-17530.38929
-16652.94318
-17241. 25578
-18908.92386
-21241. 71319
-23456.23830
-25930.98877
-29896.00962
Page 6
Lateral Deflection vs. Depl
p--Loading Case 1 Deflection, in.
00 0.5 1
2 ---1 ---_1-.-
1 1
4 ___ .1 ___ 1 --
6 .. --l - - - -,---
8 -----1 -1-- -
1 0 - - ---t -- -,-- -
1 12 - ---,--
14 --Ii ----,---
1i5 16 -1--; ----:---
~ 18 -j - -~ -- --:-- -
£-20 f ----t - - --1-- -
0. I 1 1 ~ 22 r--~ ----:---
24 . ----I ----,-- -
26 - - -~ - - --:-- -
28 -- - -! - - - -,-- -
1 1
30 - - -..1_ - - -1-- -
1 1
32 - --4 - - - -1-- -
1 1 34 -----t - - - -1-- -
1 1 36 -- --I - ---,-- -
38 ---- - --,-- -
1
1RLE Plus 5.0, (c) ~004 by Enso~, Inc.
P"~ Loading Case 1
Bending Moment vs. Dept
Maximum Moment, kips-
00 1,000 2,000
I I
2~ - - -~ - - - - :
4f------~-----L
I I
6~---~ _____ L
I I
8----~----~
10 f--- - - -~ -~ - - -r-
I \ 1 12~----,--\-,
14~ - - - ---' - - --1'-I 1
Q) 161------:-----,
~ 181-- - - -..J - -.. --L
-I I £; 20 I-- - - --I - - - - -J
Co I f ~ ~!: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/-~ --:-
261-- - - --' -----I-I I
28 f--- - - -~ - - - -,-
301-- -~ ~ ---~
321-(( - -~ - - - - -~
I I 341-----1-----r-
! I I 36 - - ---, --- - -,-
38 I-- - - --' - - - --I-I I
1,gLE Plus 5.0, (c) 200
1
4 by Ensoft. Inc. i
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS. INC.
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
38210 Southeast 92nd Street
Snoqualmie, Washington 98065
Attention: R. Michael Lloyd
1.1':.'::;(1 :\(lnhL<l,t 211th Strt'l'I. SUllL' jh
Iklll'\"Ut:, Wa~hinp()[\ 9~()05
(-4.2.'\) -:-1:-)61:-1 F~X (-1-2:'i) 7-1-:-X56]
August9,2011
JN 10004
via email rml@centurytel.net
Subject: Geotechnical Observations During Pile Installation
New Cugini Boathouse
40xx Wells Avenue North
.R!?:lton, vVashngton
Dear Mr. lloyd:
Geotech Consultants, Inc. provided geotechnical observations and testing services during the
installation of the piles that will provide vertical and lateral support for the new Cugini boathouse.
The design approved by the City of Renton called for a total of 12 wide-flange beams driven to
refusal to carry the new bUilding loads. Six piles were located on each of the north and south sides
of the new boathouse. A minimum of 15·foot embedment into dense soils was required by the
structural engineer to achieve sufficient vertical capacity and lateral bending reSistance.
Representatives from our firm observed the installation of the piles on July 25 through 27, 2011.
Pacific Piling utilized a large vibratory hammer to install the H-piles vertically. As required by the
plan, galvanized W14x74 beams were installed for the boathouse. Through observation of the
penetration rate, we were able to verify that all piles were installed to at least 15 feet of embedment
into the dense soils. The pile lengths necessary to reach sufficient embedment increased from east
to west, as was expected.
Based on our observations, it is our professional opinion that the piles were driven an acceptable
manner and reached sufficient embedment into dense soils to support the design loading.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we can be of further
assistance.
, ,
MRM: jyb
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Marc R. McGinnis, P.E.
PrinCipal
.'
-----
20] (1-213 'icdl111cnL Smnpllllg Rl')lIi1~ ])l\lMl"-]
Attachment C -Laboratory Reports and QC Forms
This attachment includes the following:
1. Chain of Custody -Cooler Report
2. Case Narrative
3. Conventionals
4. Total Solids
5. Metals (Includes supplemental Analysis for Antimony (Sb)
6. Semivolatile Organics (Includes supplemental analysis for 2,4-dimethylphenol)
7. Pesticides
8. PCBs
9. Dioxins / Furans
10. TPH
The full data set, as revised by Analytical Resources, is available (1478+ pages) on request. This
data set provides the original analyses and requested supplement parameters as recommended by
USACE / DMMP.
Llo~d & :\SS(\CI(\tcS. Inc
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
August 11, 2016
Michael Lloyd
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
38210 SE 92 nd Street
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
RE: Project: Barbee Dredging, 2016-1 Barbee
ARI Job No.: BeW1
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Please find enclosed the Chain of Custody record (COC), sample receipt documentalion, and
the final data package for samples from the project referenced above.
Sample receipt and details of these analyses are discussed in the Case Narrative.
An electronic copy of this package will remain on file with ARI. Should you have any questions or
problems, please feel free to contact me al your convenience.
Sincerely,
ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
Cheronne Oreiro
Project Manager
(206) 695-6214
cheronneo@arilabs.com
www.arilabs.com
cc: eFile: BCW1
Enclosures
Page10f \)41\
j
4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100. Tukwila WA 98168.206-695.6200.206-695-6201 fax
Chain of Custody Documentation
ARI Job ID: BCWl
BCWi.00002
Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request
, , Analytical Resources, Incorporated
ARI Assigned Number: ~L~ \ Tum-around Requested:
5'rA.JJ '" 41?b
Page: , of • Analytical Chemists and Consultant!
!I'
~
t
1-"
IS
ARI Client Company: ,Jl Phone' '-, fJji I.j I Z-CW;, I ~...."t? 'les LI-<>YD..l-~f~r£' 4'10<1' L/zS -785-t~
Clie~;;~tact: L,--~!> No. of t CooIor )~& ,uA-e.L-CoaIOfS: Temps:
Cij.n~:, ::~ PR t:?,l>Gr",L> C:r
Analysis Requ~ted
~~ ~ ~~ I~~ ~ cl;ent-'2°~l: ~j SD!~rs: I. "". {ilM ~~ £.,-/ O~ Ala, ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ Sample ID Oate Time Matrix No. CooUllnet'!l \<~ ~ 'v.l ~
{; 7Ojt-zett. Ii t/~4 /3 6D ~f;). 13 ;L / I Z-Z-I
CommentslSpeciallnstructions ~;~D.' "-""''I;.. _~~ I~hedby.
r!.-~o.s('1£-. ~ (Signalu (Signature) "'/', ~ .Slonaturn) ___
.,' .... Nan." <./ """""'N_ ~~\Cr i2c.~/::.." Printed Name:
R. M,cA. /.1..", LLqb
SI=N J Se0~ CoZ;;/F~ C"""",,,,, M'L """'" "",
t.€7:r'3. ""'J.J'ir /2b/ I ~ OC/ 2. ;
Dale & Time: ~ Date & Time:
I-7 J:;_I "" 0')1-)
4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98168
206-695-6200 206-695-6201 (fax)
WWW'.arilabs.com
NotesiComments
~ ~1lJ ~ IN ~ VI'
z... 2-
Received by:
(Sigrlature) ---Pril11ed Name:
r--.
"""-", ----
oate 5. Tune:
tSl Umlts 01 Usblllly: ARJ wifl perform all requested services In accordance with appropriate methodology following ARI Standard Operating Procedures and the ARI Quality Assurance Program. This program ~I meets standards for the industry. The tola/liability of ARI, its officers, agsnts, emplo)'6lJS, or successors, arising out of Of In connection with the requestBfi services, shall not exceed thB Invoiced amount for ~I said SBrvices. The acceptance by the client of a proposal for services by ARI release ARI from any liability in BXceSS thereof, not withstanding any provision to the contrary in any contract, purchase order or co-
1,1 signed agreement between ARI and Ihe Clien/.
Sam~e Retentk)n Policy: All samples submitted 10 ARI will be appropriately discarded no sooner Ihan 90 days after receipt or 60 days after submission ot hardcopy data, whichever is longer, unless alternate
retention schedules have been established by work·order or contract.
I
I
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants Cooler Receipt Form
i
ARI Cnent [\"'1<h ~ ~SC0-....\e5
CQCNo(s): @ Project Name:'_.J..<;~=-~h.:::e-=-e.~::':;:;'5t-~r-__
Assigned ARI Job ND ~ (. vJ -
Delivered by: Fed-Ex UPS Courier
Tracking No: _______ .... _-:_-:_-_-_-_-____ G1.>::c
Preliminary Examlnaticn Phas~
Were intact, properly signed and dated custody seals attached to the outside of to cooler?
Were custody papeffi included with the cooler? .............. _-...................... ","'-'
Were custody papers properly filled out (ink, signed, etc.) "'_' __ ........................ " ....... ,,_
Temperature of Cooler(s) rC) (recommended 2.0-6_0 ·C for chemistry) ')·8
YES
(fiP
§
NO
NO
,me: ____ _
If cooler temperature is out of comJlliance fill out foRn 00070F Temp Gun 10#: i5(i) S' i:7t
Cooler Accepted by: ___ S-I...:.I'-________ ,Date '7-~ -r l:, Tim. 0'17-J
Complefe custody forms and attach .11 shipping documents
Log-I n Phase:
Was a temperature blank included in the cooler? " ...... " .............................. ". YES
What kind of packing material was used? ... 8ubble Wrap @ Gel Pad<s Baggl.s Foam Block Paper Other..,---___ _
Was sufficient ice used r~ appropnate)? .... __ ................... ____ ...... ________ .... __ ............ _....... NA ~
Were all bottles sealed in individual plas.tic bags? .... , ..... , .................................... -......... ..
Did all bottles arrive in good condition (unbroken}? .................................. " .......... -....................... .
Were all bottle labe~ complete and legible? .. ______ .............. __ .............. __ .............. __ ................ ..
Did the number of containers listed on COC match with the number of containers received? ...
Did all bottle labol. and tags agree with custody papers?
Were aU bottles used corred for the requested analyses? ............... , ............... " ...... " ......... _-", ..... .
00 any of the analyses (bottles) require preservation? (attach preservation sheet, excludmg VOCS) ...
Were all voe Vials free of air bubbles? ................................... ' .. .
~
@
Was sufficient amount of sample sent 1!1 each bottle? .... , ...... __ ..... " .. _,"
Date VOC Trip 8lankwa. made atAR!.... .. __ ............ _____ ........ @
~ @';>.
~
diP
®
®
YES
YES
@
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Was Sample Spltt by ARJ : ~ YES Dalell"".: Equlpment ______ _ Split by:. __ _
YVA-1 r I / q : l[ ""J-. Samples Logged by: ___ --.:-::-,)::.... ______ Oate: __ ~-_';:;,=__-...:...!6!I.L. __ Time: _____ l-'--__
..... Notify Project Manag&r of diSCrepancies or concerns ..
Sample tD on 80ttle SamDi. ID on CDC SamdelD on Bottle Sam Ie 10 on COC
Additional Notes. Discrepancies, & Reso!utlons:
Bt
SmollAjr_
•
0Il16F
312/10
-'2mm • • •
DalO:
""'bubbleo'
2,",mm
• ••• •
LARGE Ai eut>tIe, Small 7 ~sm" «2 mm)
.4mm P,abubbles ~ "ph" ( 1 to < 4 mm ) • • • Large--)-"'Jg" (4 t(}<6mm)
.... -.. -.. _-H~~dspatt ~ "'hs" (> 6 mm)
Cooler Receipt Form
~ ... -.
Revision 014
7fT12JJ16 Re: _ Mill _yo ... CherQmo Oreiro
Re: Barbee Mill Analyses
Cheronne Oreiro
TI,u 7/7/2016 9:52 AM
70 Michael Lloyd <mlloydassociates@gmaILcom>;
Hi Michael,
Thank youl This email is good enough for my records.
-Cheronne
I will be out of the office July 14th thru July 19th.
Cheronne Oreiro
Project Manager
Analytical Resources, Inc,
4611 S 134th Place, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98168
www.ari!qbs.com
Email: cheranneo@arilabs.com
Direct: 206-695-6214
Fax: 206-695-6201
From: Michael lloyd <mlloydassoc;iates@gmail.c;om>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 7:20:46 AM
To: Cheronne Oreiro
Subject: Re: Barbee Mill Analyses
You are correct. My error. Do you need an initial or document of change> Hopefully the samples arrived in good
shape. M
On Wed, Ju16, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Cheronne Oreiro <cheronneo@arilabs.com>wrote:
! Hi Michael,
; Your cac is missing NWTPH-Dx and requests TBT. I just want to confirm that you do nm need TST and you
, 22 need NWTPH-Dx,
: Thank you,
, -Cheronne
, I will be out of the office July 14th thru July 19th.
Cheronne Oreiro
, Project Manager
Analytical Resources, Inc.
4611 S 134th Place, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98168
, www.ariJabs.com
1'IItp6:11_,oIIice.comIowat?viewmodel=Roact.1oss"98ftem&_ID=AAMkADg5NTNiMWI2LTZJ-MGElNGQyMy1hOG,1lLTb'tZT JmNm.Yjf!W,9ztI_~., 1/2 o L,; W:!. : v.l1O ID ID ~~'l
7f1/2016
Email: cheronnea@arilabs.cQm
Direct: 206-695-6214
Fax: 206-695-6201
How was your customer experience?
Please take our 5 minute Online eu tomer Surv
Re: _ Mill Analyses -Ct.!ronno Or,,,o
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemisls and Consultants
This correspondence contains confidentiiili information from Analytical Resources, Inc. (ARJ) The information cont1ined herein is intended solely for the
use of the indlviduat(s} named above. If you are not the intended reclpleht, any copying, distribution. disclo5uTe, or use ofthe text and/or attached
documen,[s) is strictly prohibited.
tryou have received this correspondence in error. please notify sender and delete this message from your computer immediately. 'fha.nk you.
ARI Labs. Inc.
Michael Lloyd
Lloyd & Associates, Inc,
38210SE 92nd Street
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
425-785·1357
https:ll_.affice.oomICMIal'1vl .... m_= ReadMessagoftem&IIemIll=w.N,kADgSNTNjMWIa.TZhMGEtNGQyMy1hOGJILTAwZT JmNm\ljMWQzNQIlGA.. 212
6i~~Wi . in000k
Case Narrative, Data Qualifiers, Control Limits
ARI Job 10: BCWI
BCWi;ii!i0007
Case Narrative
Client: Lloyd & Assol!iates, Inc.
Project: Barbee Dredging, 2016·1 Barbee
ARI Job No.: BeWI
Sample Receipt
ANALYTICAL <I
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
One sediment sample was received on July 5,2016 under ARljob BCWl. The cooler
temperature measured by lR thermometer following ARI SOP was S.8°C. For further details
regarding sample receipt, please refer to the Cooler Receipt Form.
Semivolatiles by SW8270D
The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method
recommended holding times.
Initial calibrations were within method requirements.
The initial calibration verification (ICV) was outside the 20% control limit high for bis(2·
Ethylhexyl)phthalate. All detected results associated with this ICV have been flagged with a
"Q" qualifier. No further corrective action was taken.
The ICV fell outside the 20% control limit low for Carbazole. The ICV was also outside the
control limit high for Di-n-butylphthalate, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, and the surrogate
pdS-Nitrobenzene. All detected results associated with this ICV have been flagged with a
"Q" qualifier. No further corrective action was taken.
Internal standard areas were within limits.
The surrogate percent recoveries of dS-Nitrobenzene, d14-p-Terphenyl, and 2,4,6-
Tribromophenol were outside the control limits high for LCS-070716. All other percent
recoveries were within control limits. No corrective action was taken.
The surrogate percent recoveries of d14-p-Terphenyl and 2,4,6-Tribromophenol were
outside the control limits high for sample 07042016BARBEE-C. All other percent
recoveries were within control limits. No corrective action was taken.
The surrogate percent recoveries of d14-p. Terphenyl were outside the control limits high for
the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate of sample 07042016BARBEE-C. No corrective
action is required for matrix QC.
Case Narrative BCW] Page 1 of4
• Clients are responsible for reporting Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material results to EPA.
ANALYTICAL <I
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
The method blank was clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within
control limits. CRM143-050 was analyzed as a reference material.
The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within control limits.
DioxinlFurans by EPA 1613B
The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method
recommended holding times.
Analysis was performed using the application specific RTX-Dioxln 2 column, which has a
unique isomer separation for the 2378-TCDF, eliminating the need for second column
confirmation.
Initial calibmtion and continuing calibration verifications were within method requirements.
The initial calibration verification fell outside the control limits low for 13CI2-2,3,7,8-TCDF,
13CI2-l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF, and 13CI2-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF. All other compounds were within
control limits. No corrective action was taken.
Both extraction and cleanup surrogates had recoveries within control limits.
The method blank contained reportable responses for several compounds. "B" qualifiers were
applied to associated results that were less than ten times the levels found in the method
blank. No further corrective action was taken.
The OPR (Ongoing Precision and Accuracy or LCS) percent recoveries were within control
limits. *The PSSRM was analyzed as a reference material.
Specific results have been "EMPC"-flagged indicating a response not meeting requirements
of positive identification. The EMPC values are treated as undetects under some programs
and as hits under progmms with more conservative protocols.
The TEQ is presented with WH0200S with ND=O for undetects and ND=112 for undetects,
with EMPCs included as hits.
Pesticides by SW8Q81
The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method
recommended holding times.
Initial calibrations and initial calibration verifications were within method requirements.
Case N8lTative BCW] Page 2 of4
• Clients are responsible for reporting Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material results to EPA.
ANALYTICAL _
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
The continuing calibration verification on 7/14/16 at 20:36 was outside the 20% control
limit high for 2,4' -DOE on the first column, but was within the control limit on the second
column. No corrective action was taken.
The internal standard areas were within control limits
The surrogate percent recoveries were within control limits.
The method blank was clean at the reporting limit. The LCS percent recoveries were within
control limits. NIST 1944 was analyzed as a reference material.
The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within control limits.
PCB Aroc\ol'5 by SW8082
The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method
recommended holding times.
Initial calibrations were within method requirements.
The initial calibration verification on 7115116 at 17:29 and the continuing calibration
verification on 7/15/16 at 23:30 fell outside the 20% control limit low for Aroclor 1260 on
the second column, but both verifications were within the controllitnit on the first column.
No corrective action was taken.
The internal standard areas were within control litnits
The surrogate percent recoveries were within control limits.
The method blank was clean at the reporting limit. The LCS percent recoveries were within
control limits. The PSSRM * was analyzed as a reference material.
The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within controllitnits.
NWTPH-Dx
The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the method
recommended holding times.
Initial calibrations, initial calibration verifications, and continuing calibration verifications
were within method requirements.
Case Narrative SCW) Page 3 of4
• CI ients are responsible for reporting Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material results to EPA.
The surrogate percent recoveries were within control limits.
ANALYTICAL _
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
The method blank was clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within
control limits.
The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within control limits.
MetalslMenuD' by SW602017471
The sample and associated laboratory QC were digested and analyzed within the method
recommended holding times.
The method blanks were clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were
within control limits. ERA D088540 was analyzed as a reference material.
The matrix spike percent recoveries and duplicate RPDs were within control limits.
General Chemistry Parameters
The sample and associated laboratory QC were prepared and analyzed within the method
recommended holding times.
The method blanks were clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within
control limits.
The SRM percent recoveries were within limits.
The matrix spike percent recovery soluble hexavalent chromium fell outside the control limits
low for sample BARBEE-C. A post verification spike was analyzed and the recovery was
within matrix spike control limits. No further corrective action was taken.
The replicate RPDs were within control limits.
Geotechnical Paramete"
All sample volumes for grain size were subcontracted to Materials Testing and Consulting
(MTC) in Tukwila, W A. All subcontracted data have been included in this data package.
Case Narrative BCWI Page 4 of4
• Clients are responsible for reporting Puget Sound Sediment Reference Material results to EPA.
bCWi;0~0ii
8ampl. ID
1. 07042016BARBEE-C
Sample IO Cross Reference Report
ARI Job No: BCWI
Client: Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project Event: 2016-1 BARBEE
Project Name: BARBEE DREDGING
ARI ARI
Lab ID LlMS ID Matrix Sample Data/Time VTSR
BCW1A 16-10088 Sediment 07/04/16 13:00 87/05/16 09:27
Printed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 1
BCW i • !2l00 i -:;>
• Analytical Resources,
Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and
Consultants
Data Reporting Qualifiers
Effective 12131/13
InorganiC Data
u
•
B
N
NA
H
L
Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported
concentration
Duplicate RPD is not within established control limits
Reported value is less than the CRDL but ~ the Reporting Limit
Matrix Spike recovery not within established control limits
Not Applicable, analyte not spiked
The natural concentration of the spiked element is so much greater
than the concentration spiked that an accurate determination of
spike recovery is not possible
Analyte concentration is :55 times the Reporting Limit and the
replicate control limit defaults to ±1 RL instead of the normal 20%
RPD
Organic Data
u
*
B
J
D
E
Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported
concentration
Flagged value is not within established control limits
Analyte detected in an associated Method Blank at a concentration
greater than one-half of ARI's Reporting Limit or 5% of the
regulatory limit or 5% of the analyte concentration in the sample.
Estimated concentration when the value is less than ARI's
established reporting limits
The spiked compound was not detected due to sample extract
dilution
Estimated concentration calculated for an analyte response above
the valid instrument calibration range. A dilution is required to
obtain an accurate quantification of the analyte.
Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan Page 1 of 3 Version 14-003
12131113
•
Q
S
NA
NR
NS
M
N
y
EMPC
C
P
x
z
Analytical Resources,
Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and
Consultants
Indicates a detected analyte with an initial or continuing calibration
that does not meet established acceptance criteria «200/0RSD,
<200/0Drift or minimum RRF).
Indicates an analyte response that has saturated the detector. The
calculated concentration is not valid; a dilution is required to obtain
valid quantification of the analyte
The flagged analyte was not analyzed for
Spiked compound recovery is not reported due to chromatographic
interference
The flagged analyte was not spiked into the sample
Estimated value for an analyte detected and confirmed by an
analyst but with low spectral match parameters. This flag is used
only for GC-MS analyses
The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is
presumptive evidence to make a "tentative identification"
The analyte is not detected at or above the reported concentration.
The reporting limit is raised due to chromatographic interference.
The Y flag is equivalent to the U flag with a raised reporting limit.
Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EM PC) defined in
EPA Statement of Work DLM02.2 as a value "calculated for
2,3,7,8-substituted isomers for which the quantitation and lor
confirmation ion(s) has signal to noise in excess of 2.5, but does
not meet identification criteria" (DioxlnIFuran analysis only)
The analyte was positively identified on only one of two
chromatographic columns. Chromatographic interference
prevented a positive identification on the second column
The analyte was detected on both chromatographic columns but
the quantified values differ by 2:40% RPD with no obvious
chromatographic interference
Analyte signal includes interference from polychlorinated diphenyl
ethers. (DloxlnlFuran analysis only)
Analyte signal includes interference from the sample matrix or
perfluorokerosene ions. (Dloxin/Furan analysis only)
Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan Page 2 of3 Version 14-003
12131/13
Analytical Resources,
Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and
Consultants
Geotechnical Data
A The total of all fines fractions. This flag is used to report total fines
when only sieve analysis is requested and balances total grain size
with sample weight.
F Samples were frozen prior to particle size determination
SM Sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This
normally refers to samples contaminated with an organic product
thai interferes with the sieving process and/or moisture content.
porosity and saturation calculations
S5 Sample did not contain the proportion of "fines' required to perform
the pipette portion of the grain size analysis
W Weight of sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level
required for accurate weighting
Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan Page 3 of3 Version 14-003
12131/13
Certificate of Analysis tjFluka' ~ Analytical
Certified Reference Material
BNAs -Sandy Loam
Number CRM 143-50G
Lot LRAA4754
80_ (MatrIx) Sandy Loam Soil
Hazard Irritant
510"90 MI ..... Ung Slore at 4'C.
Expiration Date So. Sample Label
c.ntflmlon Date: April 02, 2013
ce.t1l10Cl By: 0<, MP Christopher Rucinski -QA Director
Analy/9
Cerlitied 1,4
If>
Stand8rrI , ConPdence -IIni/s v_ Dsv/8Ifcn ,--1,2-Dlchlorobenzene ~Q11<9 6250: 602 1.96 1850 5710 -6790 2590 -9910
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene I'QIKg 6340: 630 1.96 1960 5700·6890 2460 ·10200
Hexachloroethane I'QIKg 5830:577 1.96 1810 5200·6380 2230·9430
Naph1halene I'QIKg 563Ot448 1.96 1430 5230· 6020 2800 ·8450
Pyridine jIQ/Kg 132O±32O 2.20. 374 .969 ·1660 423 -2210
Acenaphthene I'QIKg 6380: 404 U6 1300 5990 -6780 3610 -9960
Acenaphlhylene jIQ/Kg 6320:409 1.96 1340 5Il3O·6710 3660 -8980
Anthra<:ene I'QIKg 7080:394 1.96 1250 Il6IlO • 7480 4590 -9570
Benzo(a)anthracene fJ9IKg 7970±470 1.96 1490 7500 -8430 =-10900
Benzo(a)pyrene I'QIKg 977 t81.2 1.96 256 896·1060 469·1480
Benzo(b)ftuoranttlene I'QIKg 3070 ± 216 1.96 703 2650·3290 1670 ·4400
Benzo(g.h.i)perylene I'QIKg 2710 ± 287 1.96 919 2450·2980 692 -4530
Benzo(k)ftuoranlllene IIQIKg 3720 ±280 1.96 903 3450 -3990 1930 -5510
Butyl benzyl phthalate I'QIKg 5000:262 1.96 884 4720 -5270 3240 -6750
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol I'QIKg 9520 :466 1.96 1500 9040 -9990 6530 -12500
bls(2-Chtoroelhoxy)melhene I'QIKg 9280 ± 770 1.96 2420 8540 -9980 4470 -14100
bis(2-ChIoroeIhyl) ether IJ9/Kg 6770: 500 1.96 1540 6290·7250 3710 -9830
bis(2-Chlorolsopropyl) ether ~lKg 3250: 233 1.96 692 3030·3480 1880 -4630
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether I'QIKg 1540 ± 90.0 1.96 2Ii6 1450 -1630 1010 -2070
Chrysene I'QiKg 1160 179.4 1.96 247 1000 ·1240 669 -1850
Dlbenzo(a,h)anlhracene ~lKg 3490: 330 1.96 1070 3100 -3790 1370 -5610
Dl-n-butyl phthalate I'QiKg 7700 :478 1.96 1500 7250 -8150 4730 -10700
2,4-Dichlorophenot I'QiKg 5820:355 1.96 1090 5490 -6160 3660 -7990
bis(2.Ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) I'QiKg 8960:549 1.96 1670 8420 -9510 5640 ·12300
Pago 1 of 3 !~!:AL~~~':t'~u~ !S>.
1 307-742-5452
rtctechgroUp@llll.l.COIn www.$lgma-aldtlctl.eom
BCWi :0Vi0i6
Certificate of Analysis tlFlukae
S! Analytical
Certified Reference Material
Cettified 1,4
if'
SIand8rd 2 Confidenoe Predic50n Ana/yfB Units VaIIAo Devilllion Intervs/ 1-
Dlethyt phthalate IlQIKg B450 ±558 1.96 1750 7910 -9000 4980 -11900
2,4-Dimelhytphenol 1lQIK9 10500 H37 1.96 2310 9610-11200 5940-15100
Dimelhyt phthalate 1lQIK9 7420 ± 519 1.96 1610 6910·7930 4230-10600
2.4-OinHrotoluene (2.4-OND 1lQIK9 6390 ± 420 1.96 1300 5970 -6800 3810-8960
2.6-0initrotoluene (2,6-0ND IlQIKg 2690:1: 196 1.96 598 2690 -3080 1700 -40&1
Fluoranthene IlQIKg 4160:1: 239 1.96 774 3920 -4390 2620 -5690
Fluorene 11911<9 7950:1: 512 1.96 1640 7440 -8470 4690-11200
Hexachlorobenzene I19iKg 6100 ± 360 1.96 1110 5750 -8450 3!lOO -6300
Indeno(1,2,:k:d) pyrene II9iKO 1970 ± 188 1.96 595 1750 -2160 788-3150
lsophcrone II9iKO 2250 ± 167 1.96 503 2080 -2420 1250-3250
2-Methyl-4,&<llnltrophenol I19iKg 6160± 1040 1.96 2980 5300 -7060 263 -12100
2-Methylnapl1thalene IlQIKg 7510 ± 559 1.96 1730 6960-SOW 4070 -10900
4-Methylphenol (p-CresoI) 1lQIK9 11100:1: 1610 2. 11 2630 9490 -12700 5310 -16900
2-Nitrcpl1enol IlQIKg 6930 :1:614 1.96 1930 6320 -7530 3090 -10800
4-Nl1ropl1enol IlQIKg 2630:1:246 1.96 m 2390 -2880 1200 -4070
n-Nl1rosodlphenyiamine 1lQIK9 4100:1: 316 1.96 914 3770 -4440 2280 -5!130
Phenanthrene I19iKg 3290:1: 191 1.96 613 3100 -3470 2070 -4500
Phenol ~gA<g 7350 ± 578 1.96 1810 6790 -7910 3750-11000
Pyrena IlQIKg 5630 ± 300 1.96 972 5350 -5920 3710 -7560
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ~gI1<g 8770 ± 602 1.96 1840 8170 -9380 5120-12400
Addilionalinformation
DesCription
This sample consists of 10g of 5011 containing baselnoutralo and acids in soli.
Four .. mples have been provided for yaos coovenience (multiple methods, mU1iple ..... 1ys1S, etc.)
The soil has been chemically stabiltzed with 1 mL of acetone to minimize degfadBtion of the sample.
The soil Is a Sandy L.cam by ASTM -.rtzaIion methods.
Sample Preparation
• ---Page 2 of 3
Certificate of Analysis
Certified Reference Material
BNAs -Sandy Loam
Humtiel' CRM143-50G
Lot LRAA4754
Solvent (liotri.) Sandy Loam Soil
Huord Irritant
Storago "Handling Store.t 4'C.
E'1Ill"1IIIon Date See Sample Label
Certlftcotlon DaI8: April 02. 2013
CertIIIod By: c:::A"!« r:;-;p Christopher Rucinski -QA Director
Sample Preparation
Extract the complete contents of • siIVe vial. Transfer _ contents of one vial to extraction """"01. Rlnee """and cap ~th ..-solvenL
Note; Samp\<I extracts and cali_on solutions should be In tho same solvent.
Assume a10g sample size for all calculatioos.
Values ~en se based on wet weight.
1 CQrtified values aN the robust statlsitk:al mean when prepared accotding tcJ instructions from an Interlaboratory Study and internal rigorous lesting.
2 Th9 standard deviation is the robust statistical standard deviation frorn the round robin intertaboratory :!Iludy.
4 Expanded Uncer1ainty (lJ<::rm) -All uncertainty values in this doc:umEint 6xpfesSed u :t value are expanded uncertainties.
5 Ie: COverage faetor derived from a t-distribution table, based on the degrees of freadom of the data set. Confklence IntlrV8l = 16%
TRACEABIUTY: The standard was manufactured under an ISO 17025 _Ified quality system. The balance used to weigh raw matoriaio to accurate to ./-
O.OOOlg and calibrated regularly usilg mass standards tracaabte to NIST. All dlluUons were preformed gravimatricarly. Addillonalty, individual ana/yles are
traceable to NIST SRMs whara available and speclJlad above.
HOMOGENEITY ASSESSMENT: Betwe&n-banl9 homogeneity was assessed in accordanCE! with ISO Guida as. Compl9tecl l.Jnlts wem sampled over the
course of the oottling operalion. samples Mr, taken in the following manner; the units produoed in the bottling operation were divided Into three
chronological group •• thas. lrom the Early third. the Middle third. and the Lat. thl," (Groups). A pro-dotermlned number of oample unRo wore then
randomly selected from each group. A subset of each gro~ was then randomly selected for chemical analysis. The results of the chemical analysis were
thon compared by Single Factor Analysis of Yarlance (ANOYA).
UNCERTAINTY STATEMENT: t.lne.~atnty values in this document are expressed as Expandod Uncertainty (UCrm) corresponding to tho 95% oonftdenee
Intetval. Ucnn is derived from the combined slandard uncertainty mtAtiplted by the coverage factor k, which Is obtained from a t-distributlon and degrees of
keedom. The components of combined standard uncertainty Include the uncertalntlas due to characterization, homogeneity, long term stability. and Short
torm stability (transport). The components due to stability are gonerally oonsidored 10 be nogllglble unless otherwise indicated by stability studies.
lH~ PRODUCT WAS DESIGNED, PROOUCED AND VEAIf'IEO FOR PlCCUAACYAND STABILITY IN ACOORDANCE WITH ISO 17025 (A.Class CertAT·14417) and ISO aUICE
34 (AClass Clill" AR·147Q).
MSDS reports tot' components comprising grut.er thn 1.0"/ .. 01 the scfution or 0.1 % lor componerM knOYlln to be carCinogens are avallat:h upon request.
Manufactured and _ified by Sigma-Aldrich RTe. tnc.
Page 3 of 3
Standard Reference Material® 1944
New YorklNew Jersey Waterway Sediment
Standard Referenee Material (SRM) 1944 is a mixture of marine sedimenc collected near urban areas in New York and
New Jersey. SRM 1944 is incended foruse in evaluating analytical methodsforthe determination ofselecled polycyclic
aromatic hydroc.rbons (PAHs). polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, chlorinaled pesticides, and l!aCe elements in
marine sediment and similar matrices. Reference 1r'alues are also provided for selected polybrominated diphenyl
ether (PBDE) congeners, selected dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofi"an congeners, 10t.1 organic carbon. total extractable
material, and particle size characteristics. Information values arc: provided for selected polychlorinated
naphthalenes (PCNs) and hexabromocyclOOodecanes (HBCDs). All of the constituents for which certified, reference.
and informalion values are provided in SRM 1944 were naturally presenl in the sediment before processing. A unit of
SRM 1944 consists ofa bollle containing 50 g of radiation-sterilized, freeze-<lried sediment.
Certified Mass Fraction Values: Certified values for rna .. fraction, ofPAHs, PCB congeners. chlorinated peslicides,
and lrace elements .re provided in Tables 1 through 4. A NIST eertifoed value is a value for which N1ST has the highest
confidence in its accuracy in thal,ll known or suspected sources of bias have been investigaled or taken into account [I J.
The certified values for the P AHs, PCB congenerS, and chlorinated pesticides are based on tbe agreement of results
obtained al NIST using IWO or more chemically independent analytical teehniques. Th~ certified valut's for the [raCe
elements are based on NlST measurements by one technique and additional results from several collaborating
laboralories.
Reference Mllss FTac:tion Values: Reference values an:: provided for mass fractions of additional PAHs (some in
combination) in Tables 5 and 6, additional PCB congeners and chlorinated pesticides in Table 7, PBDE congeners in
Table 8, and additional inorganic constituents in robles 9 and 10. Reference value. are provided in Table II for the
2.3.7.8-substituted polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners aOO totalteua-, penta-, hexa-, and
bepl8-congeners of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran. Reference values for particle size characleristics
are provided in Table) 2 and 13. Reference valuC5 fOT total organic carbon and percent extractable mass are provided in
Table 14. Referenee values are noncertified vaines thatare the besl estimate efthe true value; however, the values do not
meet tbe NIST enleri. for certification and .reprovided with associated uncenainties that may reflect only measurement
precision, may not include Btl sources of uncertainty, or may reflect a lack of sufficient statistical agreement among
multiple analytical methods [I).
Information Mau Fraction Values: InfonnatioD valu~s are provided in Table 15 for mass fractions ofadditjonal trace
elements, in Table 16 for peN congeners (some in combination), and in Table 17 for HBCD isomers. An information
value is conside~d to be a value that will be of interest and use 10 the SRM user~ but insufficient infonnation is available
to assess the uncertainty associated with the value or only a limited number of analyses were perfonned [I J,
Expiration of Certification: The certification ofSRM 1944 is v.IId, within the measurement uncertainties specified,
until 31 March 1011, provided the SRM is handled and stored in accordance with th. instructions given in this certificate
(see "Instructions for Handling. Storage, and Use"). The certification is nullified ifthe SRM is damaged, contaminated,
or otherwise modified.
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Certificate Issue Date: 27 September 2011
C,,1,{ir:OIe k{'l'jlJOIt Hl$lory 011 P"Ht! 20
SRM 1944
Stephen A. Wise, Chief
Analytical Chemistry Division
Robert L. Watters, Jr., Chief
Measurement Services Division
Page I of22
Maintenance of SRM Certification: NIST will monitor this SRM over the period of its certification, If substantive
technical changes OCCur that affect the certification before the e.pintion of this certificate, NIST will notify the
purchaser. Registntion (see attached sheet) will facilitate notification.
The coordination of the technical measurements leading 10 the certification was performed by M,M. Schantz and
S.A. Wise of the NIST Analytical Chemistry Division,
Consultation on the statistical design of the .. perimental work and evaluation of the dalO were provided by S,D. Leigh,
M,G. Vangel, and M.S, Levenson of the NIST Statistical Engineering Division,
Support aspects involved in the issuance of this SRM were coordinated through the NIST Measurement Services
Division.
The sediment was collected with the assistance of the New York District of the U.S. Anny Corp of
Engineers (ACENYD). who provided the expertise in the sile selection, the ship, sampling equipment, and personnel.
L. Rosman of ACENYD and R. Parris (NTSn coordinated the collection of this sediment. Colleclion and preparation of
SRM 1944 were perfonned by R. Parris, M, Cronise, and C. Fales (NIST); L. Rosman and P. Higgins (ACENYD), and
the crew of the G.lhtrman from the ACE Caven Point facility in Caven Point, Nl.
Analytical meosuremeDlS for the certification of SRM 1944 were performed at NIST by E,S. Beary, D.A. Becker,
R,R. Greenberg, l.M, Keller, l.R. Kucldick, M. Lopez de Aida, K.E, Murphy, R,Olfaz, B.l. Porter, D,L, Poster,
L,C. Sander, p, Schubert, M.M. Schantz, 5,5. Vander Pol, and L. Wallon of .he Analytical Chemistry Division,
Measurements for percent total organiC carbon measwe~nts were provided by three commercial laboratories and
T.L. Wade of the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, TexasA&M University (College Station, TX, USA).
The particle-size distribution data were provided by Honeywell, Inc. (Clearwater, FL, USA). Additional results for
PBDE congeners were used from ten laboratories (s<e Appendix A) that participated in an interlaboratory study
specifically for PBDEs in Marine Sediment coordinated by H.M. Stapleton of the NIST Analytical Chemislry Division,
M. laGuardia of Virginia Institute ofMaril1c Science (Gloucester Point, VA, USA) provided one set ofmeasuremcnfs
for th. HBCDs.
Values for the polychlorinated dibenzo-p·dioxins and dibenzofuJ1lDs were the results of an interlabontory comparison
study among fourteen laboratories (see Appendix B) coordinated by S.A. Wise of the NIST Analytical Chemistry
Division and R. Turlc and C. Chiu of Environment Canada Environmental Teclmology Centre, Analysis and Air Quality
Division (Ottawa, ON, Canada). Analytical measurements for selected trace elements were provided by the Intematiotla!
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, SeibeTsdorf, Austria) by M. Makarewicz and R. Zeisler, Results were also used from
seven laboratories (see Appendix C) that participated in an intercomparison exercise coordinated by S, Willie ofthe
Institute for National Measurement SlOndards, Nalional Research Council Canada (NRCC; Ottawa, ON, Canada),
INSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLING, STORAGE, AND USE
Handling: This material is naturally occurring marine sediment from an urban area and may contain consriruents of
unknown toxicities; therefore, caul'on and care should be exercised during its handling and use.
Storag~: SRM 1944 must be stored in its Original bottle al temperatures less than 30'C away from direct sunlight.
Us.: Prior to removal of test portions for analysis, the contents of the bottle should be mixed, The concentrations of
constituents in SRM 1944 are report~d on a dry-mass basis_ The SRM. as received, contains a mass fraction of
approximately 1 J % moisture. The sediment samph:: should be dried to a constant mass before weighing for analysis or,
iftbc constituents ofinterestare volatile, a separate test portion of the sediment should be removed from the bottle at the
time of analysis and dried to delennine the mass fraction on a dry-mass basis.
SRM 1944 Page 2 of 22
PREPARATION AND ANALYSIs'''
Sample Collodion and Preparation: The sediment us«! to prepare this SRM was collected ftom si. sites in the
vicinity of New York Bay and Newark Bay in October 1994. Site selection was based on contaminant levds measured in
previous samples from these sites and was intended to provide relatively high concentrations for a vanety of chtmical
classes of conlaminanlS, The sediment was collected using an epo.y·coated modified Van Vecn-type grab sampler
designed to sample the sediment to a depth oflO em, A total ofapproximately 2100 kg oCwet sediment was collected
from the six sites. The sediment was freeze-dried, sieved (nominally 250 I"" to 61 ~m), homogenized in a con. blender.
radiation sterilized at an estimated minimum dose of32 kilograys ("Co), and then paCKaged in screw-capped amber glass
holtles.
Conversion to Dry-M ... Basis: The result. fur the constituents in SRM 1944 are reported on a dry-mass basis;
however. tbe material as received conlain. residual moisture, The amount of moisture in SRM 1944 was determined by
measuring the mass loss after free .. drying test portions of 1.6 g to 2.5 g for five duys.t 1 Po with a -10°C .helf
temperature and a-50°C condenser temperature, The mass fraction of moisture in SRM 1944 at the time of the
certification analyses was 1.25 % ± 0.03 % (95 % confidence level).
Polycyclie Aromatic Hyd ...... rbons: The general approach used for Ibe value assignment of the PAHs in SRM 1944
consisted of combining results from anal yses using various combinations of different extraction techniques aoo solvents.
cleanUp/isolation procedures, and <hromatograpbic separation and dete<:tion techniques [2). Te<:hniques and solvents
involved were Soxhlej extn!ction and pressurized fluid extracrion (PFE) using dichloromethane (DCM) or a
hexane/acetone mixlure~ clean up of the extracts using solid-phase exnaction (SPE). or nonnal-phase liquid
chromatography (LC). followed by analysis using tbe following techniques: (I) reversed-phase liquidcbromatography
with fluorescence detection (LC-FL) analysis ofth. total PAH fraction. (2) revers<d-phas. iC-FL analysis ofisameric
PAH tractions isolated by normal-phase LC (i.e., multidimensional LC), (3) gas chromatographylrnass spectrometry
(GClMS) analysis of the PAH fraction on four stationary phases of different sele<:tivity, i.c" a 5 % (mole fraction)
phenyl-substituted methyipolysiloxlUle phase. a 50 % phenyl-substituted methylpolysilox.ne ph .... a proprietary
non-polar polysiloxane phase, and a smecric liquid crystalline stationary phase.
Seven set. of GClMS results. designated as GClMS (I), GCIMS (II). GCIMS (Ill), GCIMS (IV), GCIMS (V),
GClMS (VI), and GC/MS (Sm). were obtained using four columns with different selectivities for the sepa!1Ition of PAHs.
For GeIMS (I) analyses, duplicate test portions ofl g from eight bottles ofSRM 1944 were Soxhlet extracted for 24 h
with DCM, Copper powder was added to the extract to remove elemental sulfur. The concentrated extract was passed
through a silica SPE cartridge and eluted with 2 % DCM in bexane. (All extraction and LC solvent compositions are
expressed as volume fractions unless otherwise noted.) The processed extrac( was then analyzed by GCIMS using a
0.25 mm i.d. " 60 m fused silica capillary col= with a 5 % phenyl·substituted methylpolysiloxane phase (0.25 ~m film
thickness) (DB-5 MS, J&W Scientific. Folsom. CAl. The GCIMS (11) analyses were performed using I g to 2 g test
portions from three boltles ofSRM 1944 and 2 g to 3 g test portions from three bonle.s ofSRM 1944 that had been mixed
with a similar amount or water {i.e., a welted sediment), These test portions were Soxhle1 extracted with DCM and
pcocessed through the silica SPE as described above: however, the .xtract was further fractionated using normal-phase
LC on a semi-preparative aminopropylsiJane column to isolate the PAH fraction. The PAH fraction was then analy<ed
using the same column as destribed above for GefMS (I); however, the tesl ponions were extracted, processed, and
analyzed as part of three different sample sets .t different times using different calibrations for each set. For the
GClMS (lH), I g to 2 g test portions from six hollIes of SRM 1944 were Soxhlct extracted for 18 h with 250 mL of a
mixture of 50 % hexanel50 % acetone. The extracts were then proces.ed and analy .. d .. described for GCIMS (II). For
GClMS (IV) analyses. I g to 2 g test portionsfrom six bottles ofSRM 1944 were extn!cted using PFE with a mixture of
SO % bexane/50 % acetone, and the extracts were processed as described above for GCIMS (II), The GCIMS (V) results
were obtained by analyzing three of the same PAH fractions that were analyzed in GC/MS (III) and three of the PAH
fractions that were analy.ed in GeIMS (IV) using a SO % (mole fraction) phenyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane
stationary phase (0.25 mm Ld, x 60 m. 0.25 ~m film thickness) (DB-17MS, J&W Scientific, Folsom, CAl, For
GClMS (VI) analyses. three test portions ofO,7 g from one bailIe ofSRM 1944 were Soxhletextracted for 24 h with
DeM. Copper powder was added to the extract to remove elemental sulfur, The conc-enlraled extract was passed
through an aminopropyl SPE cartridge and eluted with 20 % DCM in hex.ne. The pcoce"ed extract was then analyzed
by GC/MS using a 0.25 mm i,d. x 60 m fused silica capillary column with a propcietary non-polar polysiloxane phase
(0.251'1l1 film thickness) (DB-XLB, J&W Scientific), For GCIMS (Sm) I g to 2 g test portion, from six bottles of
SRM 1944 were Soxhlet extracted for 24 h with 250 mL ofDCM, The extracts were processed as described above for
(It::ertAin commercial equipment, instruments. or materials are identified in Ibis report to adequately specify the
experimental procedure. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the N,ptjonallnstitllte ofSmndards
and TedUlology. nor does it imply tDat the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the besl available for the purpose.
SRM 1944 Page 3 of 22
8Cwi 0002i
GClMS (i) using an aminopropylsilane SPE canridge followed by GCIMS analysis u'ingO.2 mm i.d. x 25 m (0.15 ~m
film thickness) smectic liquid crystalline phase (SB-Smectic, Dionex, Lee Scientific Division, Salt Lake City, Un.
Two set, ofLC-FL results, designated as LC·FL (Total) and LC·FL (Fraction), were used in the certification process.
Test portions of appro,imately I g from six bonles ofSRM 1944 were S"hlet extracted for 20 h using 200 mL of 50 %
hexane/SO % acetone. The extracts were concentrated and then processed through two aminopropylsilane SPE canridges
connected in series to obtain tbe total P AH fraction. A second I g test portion from the six bottles was Soxhlet extrncted
and processed as described above; the PAH fraction was then fractionated further on a semi-preparative
aminopropylsilane column (flBondapak NH" 9 mm i.d. x 30 cm, Waters Associates, Milford, MA) to isolate isomeric
PAll fractions. The total PAH fraction and the isomeric PAH fractions were analyzed using a 5·1U'l particle·size
polymeric octadecrlsilane (C,,) column (4.6 mm i.d, x 25 em, Hypersil.PAH, Keystone Scientific, inc., Bellefonte, PAl
with wavelength-programmed fluorescence detection. For all of the GCIMS and LC-FL mea,urement, described above,
selected perdeuterated PAHs were added to the sediment prior to solvent extraction for use as internal standards for
quantification purposes.
Homogeneity A ........ entfor PAHs: The homogeneity ofSRM 1944 was .. """,,,sed by analyzing duplicate lest portions
of I g from eight bottles selected by 'tmtified random sampling. Test portions were extracted, processed, and analyzed
as described above for GC/MS (1). No statistically significant differences among bottles were observed for the PAHs at
the I g test portion size.
PAH 150men of Molecular Mus 300 and 301: For the detennination of the molecular mass 300 and 302 PAH
isomer5~ three test portions of approximately 5 g each were extracted using PFE with DCM. The extracts were then
concentrated with a solvent change to hexane and passed through an aminopropyl SPE cartridge and eluted with 10 %
DCM in hexane. The processed extract w •• then analyzed by GClMS using. 0.25 mm i.d, x 60 m fused siliclcapillary
column with a 50 % phenyl·,ub,titued methylpolysiloxane phase (0.25 ~m film thickness; DB-I 7MS, 1& W Scientific,
Folsom, CAl. Perdeuterated dibenzo[a,rJpyrene was added to the sediment prior to extraction for usc as an internal
standard.
PCBo and Chlorinated Pesticides: The general approach used for the determination of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides
in SRM ]944 consisted of combining results from analyses using various combinations of different extraction techniques
and solvents, cleanup/isolation procedures, and chromatographic separation and detection techniques (2]. This approach
consisted ofSoxhlet extraction and PFE using DCM or a hexane/acetone mixture, clean up/isolation using SPE or Le,
followed by analysis using GCIMS and gas chromatography wilb electron capture detection (GC·ECD) on two columns
with different selectivity,
Eight sets of results were obtained designated as GC·ECD (I) A and B, GC·ECD (II) A and B. GCIMS (I), GClMS (II),
GC/MS (III), and QA Exercise. for lbe GC-ECD (I) analyses, I g test portions from four bonles ofSRM 1944 were
Soxhlet extracted with DCM for 18 h. Copper powder was added to the extract to remove elemental sulfur. The
concentrated extract was passed through a ,i lica SPE cartridge and eluted with I 0 % DCM in hexane. The concentrated
eluant was then fractionated on a semi-preparative aminopropylsilane column to isolate two fractions containing: (I) tbe
PCBs and lower polarity pesticides and, (2) the more polar pesticides. GC-ECD analyse. of the two fractions were
performed on two columns of different selectivities for PCB separations: 0.25 mm x 60 m fused silica capil1ary column
with as % phenyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane phase (0.25 ~ film thickness) (DB-5, J&W Scientific, Folsom, CAl
and a 0,32 mnt x 100 m fused silica capillary column with a 50 % (mole fraction) octadecyl (Cl8) methylpolysiloxane
phase (0.1 ~m film thicknessHCPSil 5 C 18 CB, Chrompack International, Middelburg, The Netherlands). The result,
from the S % phenyl phase are designated as GC·ECD riA) and the results from the CI8 phase are designated as
GC·ECD (IB). A second set of samples was also analyzed by GC·ECD (i.e., GC·ECD IIA and U8). Test portions of I g
to 2 g from three bottle, of SRM 1944 and 2 g to 3 g test portions from three bottles of SRM 1944 that had been mixed
with a similar amount ofwaler (i.e., a wetted sediment) w~re extracted, processed. and analyzed as described above for
GC· ECD (I); however, tbe test portions were extracted, processed and analyzed as part of three di fferent sample seto at
different times using different calibrations for each set.
SRM 1944 Page 4 of22
5;';",i 1000:22
Three sels of resuhs were obtained by GCIMS, For GCIMS (I), I g to 2 g test portions from six boltle< were Soxhle,
eXlraCted with a mixture of 50 % hexane/50 % acelone, Copper powder was added to the extract to remove elemental
sulfur. The concentrated extract was passed through a silica SPE cartridge and eluled with 10 % DCM in hexane. The
extract was then analyzed by GC/MS using a 0.25 mm x 60 m fused silica cap~lary column with a 5 %
phenyl-substituted m<thylpolysiloxane phase (0,25 ~m film thickness). The GC/MS (II) results were obtained in the
same manner as the GCIMS (I) analyses except that the six test portions were extracted using PFE. The GCIMS (III)
analyses were performed on the sarne extract fractions analyzed in GC-ECD (Il) using the 5 % phenyl-substituted
methylpolysiloxane phase describe above for GClMS (I). For both the GC-ECD and GCIMS analyses, two PCB
congeners Ihat are 001 significantly present in the sedimenl extract (PCB 103 and PCB 198 (3]), and 4,4'-DDT -d, were
added to Ihe sediment prior to extraction for usc as internal standards for quantificalion purposes,
In addition to the analyses performedal NISr, SRM 1944 was used in an interlaboratory comparison exercise in 1995 as
part ofthe NISr Intercomparison Exercise Program for Organic Contaminants in the Marine Environment [4], Resuhs
from nineteen laboratories that participated in this exercise were used as the eighth data set in the detennination of the
certified values for PCB congeners and chlorinated pesticides in SRM 1944. The laboratories participating in this
exercise used the analytical procedures routinely used in Iheir laboratories to measure PCB congeners and chlorinated
pesticides.
Polybrominated Dlphenyl Etbers: Value assigrunent ofth. concentrations of eight PBDE congeners was based on the
means of results from two interlaboratory studies [5,6) and two sets of data from NIST. The laboratories participating in
the interlaboratory e.ereises (sec Appendix A) employed the analytical procedures routinely used in their laboratories to
measure PBDEs, For the two methods used at NIST, six test portions (between 1 g and 2 g) were extracted using PFE at
100°C with DCM, The extracts were cleaned up using an alumina column (5 % deactivated) SPE wlumn, Siz< exclusion
chromatograpby (SEC) 011 a divinylbenzene-polystyrene column (10 ~ particle si .. , 10 nmCIOO angstrom)poresize, 7.5 mm
i.d, x 300 mm, PL-Gel, Polymer Labs, Inc.) was then used to remove the sulfur. The PBDEs, as well as PCBs and pesticides,
wmquantified usingGCIMS in the electron impactmodeonaO.18 mmi.d, , 30 m fused silica capillary column with a 5 %
(moleflaction) phenyl methylpolysiloxane phase (0, 18 ~ film tlric1m ... ; DB-5MS. AgilentTeo;hnologies). The PBDEs were
alsoquantifiedusingGC!MS in the negative chemical ionization mode 00 a 0.18 mm i.d.' 10 m fused silica capillary column
with a 5 % (mole fraction) phenyl methylpolysilo""",, phasc (0,18!U11 mm thickness; DB-5MS, Agilent Technologies),
Selected Carboo-13 labeled PBDE and PCB congener> were added to the sediment prior to .. traction for use as internal
standards for quantificotion purposes,
Polychlorinated Dlben....."..tiollins and Dibenzofurans: Value assignment of the concentrations of the
polychlorinated dibenzo-p.dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners and the total tetra-through hepta-substituted
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans was accomplished by combining resuhs from the .nalysis of
SRM 1944 by fourteen laboratories that participated in an interlaboratory comparison study (see Appendix B), Each
laboratory analyzed three test portions (typically I g) ofSRM 1944 using their routine analytical procedures and high
resolution gas chromatography with high resolution mass spectrometry det""tion (GC-HRMS), The analytical
procedures used by all of the l.bon!1ories included spiking with JJC-Iabeled surrogates (internal standards); Soxhlet
ex.traction with toluene; sample extract cleanup with acidlbase silica, alumina, and carbon columns; and finally analysis
ofthe cleaned up extract with GC-HRMS, Most of the laboratories used a 5 % phenyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane
pha .. capIllary column (DB·5), and about hall' of the laboratories confirmed 2.3,7,8-te\ntchlorodibenzofuran using a
50 % cyanopropylphenyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane (DB-225, J& W Scientific, FolS<lm, CAl capillary column.
Analytlcal Approach for Inorganic Constituents: Value assignment for the concentrations of sel""ted trace elements
was accomplisbed by combining resuhs of the analyses ofSRM 1944 from NIST, NRCC,IAEA, and seven laboratories
that participated in an interlaboratory comparison exercise coordinated by NRCC (7] (see Appendix C). Th. analytical
methods used for the determination of each elemenl are summarized in Table 18. For the cenified concentration values
listed in Table 4, results were combined from: (I) analyses at NIST using isotope dilution inductively coupled plasma
mass spectrometry (ID-ICPMS) or instrumental neutron activation analysis (rNAA). (2) analyaes at NRCC using
ID-ICPMS, graphite fuma« atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS), and/or inductively cuupled plasma optical
emission spectroscopy (ICPOES), (3) analys.s at IAEA using INAA' and (4) the mean of the results from seven
laboratories that participated in the NRCC interlaboratory comparison exercise. The reference mass fraction values in
Table 9 w~re determined by combining results from (I ) analyses perfonned at NIST using INAA; (2) analy.es at NRCC'
using ID-ICPMS, Gf AAS,ICPOES, andlorcold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy (CV AAS); (3) analyses at IAEA
using INAA; and (4) the mean of the results from five to seven laboratories that participated in the NRCC interlaboratory
comparison exercise. The information ooncentration values in Table 15 were det.nnined by INAA at NIST and IAEA.
NIST Analyses using II).ICPMS: Lead, cadmium, and nickel were determined by ID-ICPMS [8], rest portions (0.4 g
10 0.5 g) from six bottles of the SRM were spiked with 206 Pb. J II Cd, .. oo 6:!Ni and wet ashed using a combination of nitric.
SRM 1944 Page 5 of 22
SCW i 000?:-=<
hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, and perchloric acids. Lead and cadmium were detennined in the same test portions; nickel
was delcnnincd in a second sample set. A small amount of crystalline material remained after the acid dissolution.
Lithium metaborate fusion was performed on this residue to confinn that the residue contained insignificant amounts of
the analytes. Cadmium and nickel were separated from the matrix material to eliminate the possibility of spectral
inrerferences, and concentrations were detennined from the measurement of the 11:!Cdl tll Cd and b.2 N ifONi ratios,
respectively. The ""'Pb/""'pb I1Itios were measured directly because interferences at these masses are negligible.
NIST Analyse. using INAA: Analyses were perfonned in two steps [9). Elements with shon-lived irradiation produets
(AI, em, Cl, K. Mg, Mn, No, Ti, and V) were determined by measuring duplicate 300 mg test portions from each of
ten bonles of SRM 1944. The samples, standards, and conlTo), were packaged in clean polyethylene bags and were
individually irradiated for 15 s in the NJST Reactor Pneumatic Facility RT-4. Reactor power was 20 MW, which
corre'pondSlo a neutron fluence rate ofabout 8 x \0 13 em'" s' '. After inadiation, the samples, controls, and stondards
were repackaged in clean polyethylene bags and counted (gamma-ray spectrometry) three limes at different decay
intervals. A sample-to-detector distance (countiDg geometTY) 0[20 cm was used. Elements with long-lived i""diation
products (Ag, As, Br, Co, Cr, Cs, Fe, Rb. Sb, So. Se, Th, and Zn) were determined by mea,uringone 300 mg test portion
from each of nine bottles of SRM 1944. The samples, standards, control., and blank polyethylene bags were irradiated
together for a total of] h at a reactor powerof20 MW. Approximately four days after irradiation, the polyethylene bags
were removed, and each sample, standard, control. and blank was counted at 20 em from the detector. The samples were
then recounted at 10 em from anolher delector. After an additional decay time of about one month, the samples.
standards, controls, and blanks were counted a third lime (al 10 em) from the second deteclor.
Homogeneity Assessment ror Inorganic Con.lilutenls: For some of the trace elements. most notably Cd. Fe. Pb, Rb,
Sb. Sc, and Th, the variations among the test portions measured at NIST (belween OJ g and 0.5 g) were larger than
expected from the measurement process. Based on experience. it was ooncluded that there is some material
inhomogeneity for trace elements in the test portions used. Sample variations arnol'lg the NIST measurements are used as
slightly conservative estimates of the: sample inhomogeneities.
Particle Size Informalion: DIy plll1icle-size disuibution measurements for SRM 1944 were obtained as part of a
collaborative effort with Honeywell's Panicle and Components Measurements Laboratory (Clearwaler, FL). A Mlcrotrac
particle analyzer, which makes use of light-scattering techniques, was used to measure the particle-size distnbution of
SRM 1944. Briefly, a reference beam is used to penetrate a field of particles and the light that seallers in the forward
direction from the field is measured and the particle 4 size as a volume distribution is derived via a computer-assisted
analysiS. From these data, the total volume, average size, and a chartleteristic width of the particle size distribution are
calculated. The syslem bas • working range from O. 7 ~m to 700 f1ID.
Total Organic Carbon and Percent Extractable Mass: Four laboratories provided results for lotal organic
carbon (TOC) using similar procedures. Briefly, test portions of approximately 200 mg were reacted with 6 moVL
hydrochloric acid and rinsed with deionized water prior to combustion in a gas fusion furnace. The carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide produced were measured and compared 10 a blank for calculation oftbe percenl TOC. Each laboralory
analyzed lest portions from six bonles ofSRM 1944. Forth. determination of percent extraClable mass, six test portions
ofapproximately I g to 2 g ofSRM 1944 were extracted using Soxhltt extraclion for 18 h with DeM. Tbe extraction
thimbles were allowed to air dry. After reaching constant mass. the difference in the mass before and after extraction
was detennined.
Polychlorinated Naphlhal ..... : Value assignmenl ofPCN congener concentrations was accomplished by combining
resulls from the analysis ofSRM 1944 by six laboratories that participated in an interlaboratory comparison study (see
Appendix 0). Each laboratory analyzed three test portions (typically ) g 10 2 g) of SRM 1944 using their routine
analytical procedures that included high-resolution gas chromatography with either high-resolution mass spectromeuy
detection (GC ~HRMS) or low·resohnion MS in the negative chemical ioniution mode. Calibration mixrures included
eitber Halowax mixtures with known volume fractions of ilXlividual congeners or individual PCN congeners.
SRM 1944 Page 6 of 22
HBeDs: Value ... ignmenl of the concenlratlons of three HBCD isomers was accomplished by combining results from
Ihe analysis ofSRM 1944 in two sel' from NIST and one set from Virginia Institute of Marine Science. For the two sets
analyzed at NlST. the second fraction from iill acidifierl silica SPE clean-up was anaiyDXl by LO'MSIMS for the HBCDs using
both e1ectrospray ionization (ES!) and almospheric pr=uriud photoionization (APP!). A C 18 column (3.0 mm x 150 mrn x
3.5 ~m column. Eclipse Plus. Agilent Technologies) and YMC Carotenoid SS C30 column (4.6 mm x 250 mm x 5 jUl'I
column) were used with a solvent gradient using 2.5 mmoVL ammonium acetate in 12.5 % water in metbaool and acetonitrile
at a flow rate of 0.3 mUmin. Carbon-I 3 labelerl HBeDs were adderlto the sediment prior to solvtl1t extrnction for use as
internal standards for quantification purposes.
Tabl_ I. Certified Mass Fraction Values for Selected PAHs in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
Mass Fraction C3,b·j
(mglkg)
Phenanthrene(l.d,~r"J 5.27 ± 0.22
Fluoranthene(C,d,t.t'..&) 8.92 ± 0.32
Pyrenc(I;.d·~.r .. ) 9.70 ± 0.42
Benzo[ C jphenatbrene,,···,·f>t 0.76 ± 0.10
Benz{ a ] anthracem:{~·d,c.f",hl 4.72 ± 0.11
Chrysene"h . ., 4.86 ± 0.10")
Ttiphenylcneth,k) 1.04 ± 0.21
Benzol b jfluoranthene"'·JJ ).87 ± 0.42
BenroUjfluorantl!enelh .) 2.09 ± 0.44
Benzo[ k )fluoranthene' c:.4I • .:..f",hJ l 2.30 ± 0.20
Benzol a1 fluoranthenel~.d.d.h,o! t 0.78 ± 0.12
Benzo[ e jpyrene"·d,.r.,,,) 3.28 ± 0.11
8enzo[ a 1 pyrene i~,d.<e..r ".hJ) 4.30 ± 0.13
Per)' lenel<:.d.t',fPJ) 1.17 ± 0.24
Benzo[ghi]perylene(l:·o.I·d,,,.k t 2.84 ± 0.10
Indeno[ I ,2.3-cdjpy", •• "A-,,>1 2.78 ± 0.10
Dibenz[aJlanthracenelt:.d.~.r.J.11 0.500 ± 0.044
Dibenz[ a, c janthracene"" 0.335 ± 0.013
Dibenz[ a. "janthraceneu," 0.424 ± 0.069
Pentaphene{c,d·~·f..l.k' 0.288 ± 0.026
Benzo[bjchrysene'''-'''''' .... bJ 0.63 ± 0.10
Pi.cenekd..c,r'J.k) 0.518 ± 0.093
(-) Mass fractions are reported OD dry-mass basis~ material as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture.
fbt Each cenified value is a mean ofthe means from two or more a.nalylical methods, weiShted as descn'bed in Paule and Mandel [10].
Each uncertainty. computed according to the Comite International des Poids et Mesures (CIPM) approach as descnbed in ilie ISO
Guide [11.12], is an expanded uDcenaimy at th~ 95 % level of confHiencc, which includes random sources of unccrt8mty wilhin
each analytical method as well as uneertainty due to the drying study. The expanded uncenainty defines a range of values wilhin
which the true value is ~Iieved to lie, al a level of confidence of approximately 95 %.
Ie) Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCIMS) (I) On 5 % phenyl-substituted melhyipolysiloxane phase: after SoKhiet extraction
with DCM.
ldlGClMS (II) on 5 % phenyl-substituted methylpoJysiloxilne phase after Soxhlet extraction with DeM.
t~) GC/MS (JII) on S % phenyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane phase a.fter Soxhlel ex.traction wlth SO % he:llanef50 % acetone
mixture.
H) GCIMS (IV) on 50/. phenyl-substituLed me1hylpoJysiloxane phase after PFE with 50 % hexane/50 % acetone mixlure.
1St LC-FL of total PAH traction ana Sm.hlet extraction with 50 % huanel50 % acetone mlxture.
(h) GC/MS (8m) using il smecticliquid crystalline phase OlDer Soxhlet extraction with DCM.
(~t The uncertainty inlCT'1al for chryscne was Widened in accordance with expert consideration of the analytical procedures. along with
the analysis of the data 8S a wbole. which suggests thal the lullf-widths of the expanded. uncertainties should not be less than 2 !Io.
II' GClMS (V) on 50 % phenyl.substituted methylpoly.lIoune ph ... of e.tracts from GCIMS (Ill) and GCIMS (IV).
al LC-FL of isomeric PAH frachOfls after Soxhlcl extraction with 50 % hexanel50 % acetone m1Xture.
SRM 1944 Page 7 of22
Table 2. Certified Mass Fraction V.lues for Selected PCB Congeners'" in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
Mass Fraction(b,cl
(~gIkg)
PCB 8 (2.4·-Dichlorobiphenylj'd.,,f""·'J·k) 22.3 ± 2.3
PCB 18 (2,2'.5 -Trich lorobipbeny \ )',.d •.• "., 51.0 ± 2.6
PCB 28 (2,4,4'-Trichlorobipheny I )' d.,J.~,." 80.8 ± 2.7
PCB 31 (2.4'.5-Trichlorobipbenyl)"""· ... ) 78.7 ± 1.6'"
PCB 44 (2,2'3,5'-Tetrachlorobipbenyl )'d,e-.l.!-k,',J.k) 60.2 ± 2.0
PCB 49 (2.2'4,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)"" r .. ,."." 53.0 ± 1.1
PCB 52 (2.2'.5,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)"·,·'··h",, 79.4 ± 2.0
PCBM (2.3',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)"~'''''') 71.9 ± 4.3
PCB 95 (2.2',3,5',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl )",J •. ," 65.0 ± 8.9
PCB 87 (212',3,4,5'-PentachiorobiphenyJ)[d.,d ... ",,,) 29.9 ± 4.3
PCI! 99 (2,2'.4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)'d.'.1"-.,, kl. 37.5 ± 2.4
PCB 101 (2.2'.4.5.5'-Pentachlorobiphenyll' .. ,.'~h.'J kl 73.4 ± 2.5
PCB 105 (2.3.3'.4,4'-Pentachlorobiphenyl)'~·:~'J,k) 24.5 ± 1.1
PCB 110 (2,3.3·,4'.6-P.ntachlorobiphenyll' .... ") 63.5 ± 4.7
PCB 118 (2,3·,4,4·.5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)'··""tw " S8.0 ± 4.3
PCB 128 (2 .2', 3,3',4,4' -H elt8chloro biphenyl)'d.f:.r~IuJJ.1 8.47 ± 0.28
PCB 138 (2,2'.3,4.4',S'-Hex8chlorobiphenyltd d.&-tuJ.k) 62.1 ± 3.0
PCB 149 (2.2',3,4·.5',6-He.achlorobiphenylyJ·d.<h.·,>l 49.7 ± 1.2
PCB 151 (2,2·,3.5,5·.6-Hexachlorobiph.nyl>,"'·I"~"J,Jo) 16.93 ± 0.36
PCB 153 (2,2',4.4',5.5'-He.achlorobiphenyl)" d ~b"" 74.0 ± 2.9
PCB 156 (2,3)3',4,4',5.Hex8chlorobiphenyl)lcl':.',I,h.IJI 6.52 ± 0.66
PCB 110 (2.2',3,3',4.4',5-Heplachlorobiphenyl)"··,r.,·h.,,., 22.6 ± 1.4
PCB 180 (2,2" 3,4,4',5,5'-H eptachlorobipheny 1 )((1 t,t .,.h .• J.t) 44.3 ± 1.2
PCB 183 (2,2'.3,4,4',5' ,6-Heptachlorobiphenyl)"J (J.c b.IJI 12.19 ± 0.57
PCB 187 (2,2',3,4'.5,5',6-H <ptachlorobipheny I)' d ',I .• "., J') 25.1 ± 1.0
PCB 194 (2,2',3.3',4.4',S,5'-Octachlorobiphenyl)"<.r.~·'JI 11.2 ± 1.4
PCB 195 (2,2,,3,3',4,4',5 ,6-Octathlorbipheny I )td,c,t.:4" LJ.kJ 3.75 ± 0.39
PCB 206 (2,2',1,3',4,4',5 ,5',6-N onach lorobiphenyl)4d.~.r-t!.h., J,k) 9.2\ ± 0.51
PCB 209 Decachlorobiphenylld,ll,f.ab.lJ,k} 6.81 ± 0.33
411 PCB congeners are numbered act:ording to the scheme proposed by BaUschmiter and ZelJ {13] and later revised by Schulte and
Malisch [3] to confonn with IUPAC rules~ for the specifIC congeners mentioned i.o this SRM, the Ballschmiter-Zell nwnben
correspond to those of Schulte and Malisch.
(b) Mass fractions are reported 00 dry-mass basis; material as received contajn$lIppro~lmately I.J % moisture.
(~) Ea(;h et:rtirled value is a mean oflhe means from two or man: analytical mc:thods, weighted:lS described in Paule Bfld Mandel [10].
Each uncertainty, compuled oecolding to the CIPM approach os described in the ISO Guide [11,12 J. is an expanded uncertainty .t
the 9S % level or confidence. which indudes random sources of uncernuoty within each analytical method as well as uncenainty
due to the drying study. The expanded t}ncertainty defines a range ofvailles within which the ltUe value is believed to lie. at a level
of confidence of approximately 9.5 %.
(d) GC.ECD (lA) on S % phenyl·:;ub:;tituted methylpolysiloxanc phase after SO:llhlel e:tl;trM:tion with DCM.
(tl GC.ECO (18) on the: 50 % C·18 dimetbyJpoJyslloxane phase; same extracis analyzed as in GC·ECD (lA).
{I} GC.ECD (IlA) on 5 % phenyJ.substiUlled rncthylpolysiloxane pmse after Soxhlet extraction with OCM.
4¥~ GC-ECD (liB) on t~ 50 % octadecyl (C-I iii) methylpolysiloxane phase; umc ex1raets analyzed at; in GC·ECD (IIA).
4h) GC/MS (I) OIl S % phenyl.substinned methylpolysiloxane phase after SoxhJel extraction with 50 % hexane/50 % acetone mixture.
11) GClMS (II) on .5 % phenyl.substitutcd meth}'lpolysiloxane phase ancr PFE extraction with 50 % hexane/50 % acetone mixture.
lJl GClMS (lll) on 5 % phenyl-substItuted methylpotysilox~nc phase. same extracts analyzed as in GC·ECD (IlA).
It) Results from nineteen laboratories panidpating. in an interLaboratory comparison exercise.
(I) The uncertainty interval for PCB 31 was wjdened. in accordance with expert consideration of the 8Jlalytical procedures, a.long with
the analysis of the data as a wIIole, which sug.gest, that the half·widths of the expanded uncertainties should not be: le~5 than 2 %.
SRM 1944 Page 8 of22
Table 3. Certified Mass Frlctlon Values for Selected Chlorinated Pesticides in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
Hexachlorobenzene(It,f..(l,h,.,.,I)
cis-Chlordane (a-Chlordsn<)"·d.<J~.h.'"
rranshNonachlor {c,d.c.f,&h.IJl
Mass Fnctionle,b)
(~glkg)
6.03 ±
16.51 ±
8.20 t
0.35
0.83
0.51
(I] MilSS frac:tions ilTC reported on dry·mass baSIS; materia! 3! received contains approximately I,) % moisture.
(b) Euchi;crtified value: 15 a mean of the means. from. two or more al\3lytjcal methods, weighted as described in Paule nnd Mandel [IOJ.
Each uncertBinty, computed according to the CIPM approach as described in the ISO Guide (11.12], is tlIl expanded uO(.ertainty al
the 95 % level of confidence. which includes random sources of uncertainty wlthin each Malytical method as well as uncertainty
due to the drying study. The expanded uncertainty defines a range of values within which the true value is believed to lie, at a I~vel
of confidence ofapproximalc:ly 95 %.
l"] GC-ECD (lA) on 5 % phenyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet c:"traction with DCM.
", GC-ECD (IB) on the SO", ocladccyl «("-18) melhylpolysiloxane phase; same extraets analyzed as in GC-ECD (IA).
(f) GC-ECD (llA) on 5 % phenyl-substituted methylpol)'silo~e plwse after Soxhlet extraction with OCM.
'" GC-ECD (lIB) on the SO % ocladccyi «("-18) melhylpoJysiloxan" phase; .. me e.tracts analyzed as in GC-ECD (IIA),
I,) GelMS (I) on 5 0/. phenyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane pha~ after So"hlete"tmclion with SO % bexane/SO % acetone ml~ture.
I" GClMS (11) on oS % phenyl-substituted metbylpolysiloxane phase after P"'I:: cxtrnc;:Cion wilh ~O % hcx8flei50 % acetone mi"ture.
,,' GCIMS (lIn on j % phenyl-substituted melhylpolysiloxane phase; same extract, analyzed as in GC-ECD (IIA).
IJI Results from nineteen laborarories particIpating: in an inlerlaboratory comparison exercise.
Table 4. Cenified Mass Fraction Values for Selected Elements in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
AluminumCt.d.e)
Ironlc•tlS)
Arseni<:(t,:·~·e.r..)
Cadmiumlt',~. h I)
Chromjumf~A.r-¥-l)
Leadre,h,l)
Manganese[l.,d.r)
Nickel tt'.J.h,o
Zinc4..:.,d.r&,11
Degrees of
Freedom
4
6
10
6
9
5
8
6
9
Mass Fractions CiLb )
(%)
5.33 ± 0.49
3.53 ± 0.16
Mass Fractions'il.b)
(mglkg)
18.9 ± 2,8
8.8 ± 1.4
266 ± 24
330 ± 48
505 ± 25
71'>.1 ± 5.6
656 ± 75
(11 The certified value is the mean of four result,; (1) the mean ofNIST INAA or ID-ICPMS analyses. (2) thr: mean "ftwo methods
performed at NRCC. and (3) the mean of rc:su115 from seven sel«:led laboratories paniclpating in the NRCC intc:rcomparison
exercise, and (4) the mean resul1s from INAA analyses at lAEA. The expanded uncertainty jIl tile certified value is equal to
U.= J.u, when: u.: is lhe oombtned standard Ull(;erlamty and l. is the coverage factor, both calculated according: to the (SO
Guide [ll.121. The value of lot, is intended to reprrse:nt at the level of one stmdard deviation the combined effect of all the
uncertainties in the certified value. Here We 3CCoLlnts fOI" both possible method biases, within-method varialion. and material
inhomogeneity, The coverage factor, Ie. is the Student's t-vnluc for a 9S % confidence interval with the oorrespondmg degrees of
freedom. Because oftbe material inhomogeneity, the variilbi1ity among tne measurementsofmuJtiple ~les can be expected to
be greater than that due to measurement variabil1ty alone.
fbi Mass fractions are reported on dry-mass basis; material as received contains appro"jrnalely 1.3 % moisture:.
lc) RC50ults from five to seven laboratories participating in the NRCC interlaboratory comparison exercise.
I'" Me<lSUred at NIST using INAA.
4e) Measured at NRCC using ICPOES.
tn Measured at NRCC using GF AAS.
It 1 Measured al JAFA using INAA.
,., Mea<ured at NIST using ID-ICPMS,
'" Meosured at NRC(" u>ing ID-ICPMS.
SRM 1944 Page 9 of22
6C;"';1 0.002 (
Table 5. Reference Mass Fraction Values for Selected PAHs in SRM 1944
Mass FTactionsj·~
(mglkg)
Naphlhalene'hJ 1.28 ± 0.04'"
I-Methylnapbthalene'" 0.47 ± 0.02")
2-Methylnaphthalene'" 0.74 ± 0.06'"
Biphenyl'bl 0.25 ± 0.02'<)
Acenaphthene'" 0.39 ± 0,03")
Fluorene,h) 0.48 ± 0.041<.1
Dibenzothiopbene(bl 0,50 ± 0.03")
AnthraceneCb ) 1.13 ± 0.071<)
I.Metbylphenanthrcneln.~.f,,) 1.7 ± 0.1 ")
2~Methylphcnanthreneld.eJ.s) 1.90 ± 0.06'"
3-M"hylphenanth .. ne'd,.,~, 2,1 ± O.I(hI
4-Methylphenanthrene
8l')d 9-Me1hylphen.nthrene'd.,.r~) 1.6 ± 0.2'"
2-Methylanthracene"""') 0.58 ± 0.04'"
3.5-Dimethylphenanthreneid ) 1.31 ± 0.041"
2.6-Dim ethylphenanthrone fd ' 0.79 ± O.02(h.lJ
2,7 -Dimethylphenanthrene,dJ 0.67 ± o.oi ll•l)
3,9-Dimelhylphenanlhrene,d\ 2.42 ± 0.05""
1,6-,2,9-, and 2.5-Dimetbylphenanlhrene'" 1.67 ± 0.03'"")
1.7-Dimelhylphenanthrene,dl 0.62 ± 0.02"'"
1,9-and 4,9-Dimcthylphenanthrene'dJ 1.20 ± 0.03"'"
1,8-Dimethylphenanthrene,d\ 0.24 ± 0.0) (h,l)
1,2-DimethyJphenanthrene'" 0.28 ± 0.01 (h,l)
8-MethyJf1uoranthene'dl 0,86 ± 0.02"'"
7-MethyJf1uoranthene,d, 0.69 ± 0.02'"
I-Methylf1uornnlhene'hJ 0,39 ± 0.01")
3-Methylfluoranthene'" 0.56 ± 0.02'"
2-Melhylpyrene'd) 1.81 ± O.04(h,l)
4-Methylpyrcne'd) 1.44 ± 0.03'"")
l-Methylpyrene(d, 1.29 ± 0,03'"
AnthiiJnthrene ul 0.9 ± 0_1'"
(~) Mass fractions are reported on dry-mass basis; material as received contnins approxiD'Ultely 1.3 % moisture.
fbI GeIMS (VI) on propriew:y non~polar metbylpoiysilo;une: phase after So):.hh:t r:"tp~on with OeM.
M Reference values arc the means of results obtained by NTST using ooe analylicallcchniquc, TItc expanded u~jnty. U. is
cakulatcd as U ::; kll(. where ~je is one standard deviation of the analyte mean, and the oovernge factor, k, is determined from the
Student's ,-<hstribution corresponding to the associated degrees of freedom (df = 2) and 95 % confidence level for each analyle.
Id) GerMS (I) on 5 % phenyl-subStituted methylpolysilo •• ne phase after Soxhle! extraction with oeM.
Ie} GC'tMS (II) on 5 % phenyl-substituted methyJpolysiJoxane phase after SoxbJet exll1lction with OCM.
10 GCIMS (III) on 5 % pheny]~substiruted melhylpolyslloxane phase after Soxhlel extraction with 50 % hexane/50 % acetone
mixture,
(rt GCIMS (IV) on 5 % phenyl-substituted methylpoly.siloxane phase after PFE with SO % hex:aneISO % ncetone mixture.
(l) The reference value for eo.ch anal)'tc is the equally-weighted mean of the meanS from two or more analylical metnods or the mean
from one ;malytical techniquc_ The uncertainty in the reference value defmes a rang!! ofvalues that is intended 10 function as an
interval thllt conlains the lrue vnlue at a level ofconfidefl(!e of9S V •. This uncertmnly Includes sources of uncertainty within each
analytical method. among methods. and from the drying study.
(i)Tbe uncerlainty interval for this compound was widened in accordance with expert consideration of the analytlcaJ procedures.
along with the analysis of the data as a whole, which suggests that the hillf-widths of the expanded uncertainties 9houldnot be Jess
than 2 %_
lJJ LC-FL of isomeric PAH fractio",! after Soxhlel extraclion with SO % hexane/50 0/. acetone mixture.
SRM J 944 Page 10 of22
Table 6. Reference Mass Fractions for Selected PAHs of
Rel.tive Molecular Mass 300 and 302 in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basi,)
Mass Fraction(a,b,C}
(mslkg)
Corooene 0.53 ± 0.04
Dibenzo[b,eJftuoranthene 0.076 ± 0008
Naphtho[ I ,l-b lfluoranthe •• 0.70 ± 0.06
Naphtho[ 1,2-klfluoranthene
and Naphtho[2,3-Jlfluoranthene 0.66 ± 0.05
Naphtno(2,3-b)lluorantnene 0.21 ± 0.01
Dihenzo[b,kJlluoranthene 0.75 ± 0.06
Dibenzo[ ',k Jlluoranthene 0.22 ± 0.02
Dibenzo[i,I]f1uonlnlhene 0.56 ± 0.03
Dihenzo[ a,ljpyrene 0.12 ± 0.02
Napbtho[2,3-k)fluoranthene 0.11 ± 0.01
Napntho[2,3-eJpyrene 0,33 ± 0.02
Dihenzo[ a,e )pyrene 0.67 ± 0.05
N.phtho[2, I -a Jpyrene 0.76 ± 0.05
Dibenzo[e.l)pyr .... 0.28 ± 0.02
Naphtho[2,3-a]pyrene 0.23 ± 0.01
Benzo(b)perylene 0.43 ± 0.04
Dibenzo[a,i)pyrene 0.30 ± 0.03
Dibenzo[ a,h ]pyrene 0.11 ± om
ttl Mass fractions are reponed on dry~mas5 basis; ma.terial as received contains approximately }.3 % moisture.
[b) Reference values are the means of results obtatned by NIST using one analytical technique. The expanded uncertainty. U. is
calculared as U = Mire. where Ite i!; one standard deviation ofthe analyte meM,. and the coverage factor. k. is determined from lIle
Student's I-<)i,tributioll «lrresponding 10 the assoeiatod degrees of f....!om (df ~ 2) and 9S % coofoden .. level for each anaIyle.
{~, GCIMS on SO % phenyl-substituted methylpolysiloxane phase :lfter PFE with OCM.
SRM 1944 Page 11 of22
Table 7. Reference Mass Fractions for Selected PCB Congeners'"
and Chlorinated Pesticides in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
Mass Fraction!b)
(j.lglkg)
PCB 45 (2,2',3,6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)'<' 10.8 ± I.4Cd )
PCB 146 (2.2',3,4 ',S,S'-Hexachlorobiphenyl)'<' 10.1 ± 1.9'''
PCB 163 (2,3,3'.4' ,S,6-Hexachlorobiphenyl)'" 14.4 ± 2.0'"
PCB 174 (2,2',),3' ,4,5,6' -lleptachiorobiphenyl)'" 16.0 ± 0.6'"
a_HCHtr,a.h.,. 2.0 ± O.3 IC'1
trans-Chlordane (r-Chlordane)'" 19.0 ± 1.7!d)
cis_Nonachlor'!·h.I.I·ml 3.7 ± O.iC'l
2,4'-DDE"~""'>'''''' 19 ± 3~C)
2,4'_DDD",,·"m' 38 ± stt')
4,4'_DDE cf.l-h"hJ,kJ.ml 86 ± 121,,)
4,4'-DDD if .. .h,I,J .. U.m) 108 i 16it)
4,4' -DDT'" 170 ± 32''')
(a) PCB con,generi are numbered accotdmg to th~ scheme propo~ by Ballschmiter and Zell [13) and later revised by Schulte W1d
Malisch [3] to confonn with ruPAC rulf:3; for the specifk congeners mentioned in ~hts SRM. the BaJJschmiler-Zell numbers
correspond to thcse of Schulte and Malisch.
Ib) MWiS fractions Me reported on dry-mass basis; materia) as received contains. approximately 1.3 % mOISfUre.
I~) NIST participation jn the 2007 interlaboratory study using GC'IMS.
~dl Reference values are the means of results obtained by NIST using one analytical technique. The expanded tS1Certairuy~ V, is
calculated as U = b~, where Ifc is one standard de...ialion of the anaIyte mean. and the covmlse flK:lor? Ie. is determined from the
Student'$I-distribulion corresponding to the ilssodated degrees offreedom (df-2) and 9S % conf~~ lev~1 for each analyte.
~cl The reference value for each analyte is the equally-weighted mean of the means from two or more analytical methods or he rnCWl
from one analytical technique. The UD(:erlainlY in the ref~~ value defmc::s a range of values that lS intended to function a5 an
interval that contains the true value at a level of confidence of95 %. This un~nainty Includes ~ ofuneertainty within each
analytical method. among methods, and from the drying 51.udy.
(I) GC-ECD (TA) on 5 % phenyl-substituted methyJpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with DCM.
'" GC·ECD (IB) on !be 50 % oetadeoyl (C-18) methylpolysiloxane ph.se; same ext .. cts analyzed as in GC-ECD (IA).
(b) GC-ECD (llA) on S % phenyl-substituted metbylpolysiloxane phase after So:lthlet eXlraction with OCM.
I"~ GC-ECD (lIB) on !be 50 % octadecyl (C-IS) methylpolysiloxane phase; same extr.cts analyzed" in GC-ECD (IIA).
u) GelMS (1) on S % pheDyl-subslituted methylpolysiloxane phase after Soxhlet extraction with 50 % hex3Jlel50 % acetone mixture:.
(t.)GClMS (n) on 5 % phenyl-substituted methylpolysiJoxane phase after PFE extrBclion With 50 % hexane/50 % acetone mixture.
(I) GC/MS (tIl) on S % phenyl-substituted methylpolysilox1ilM phn~; same extracts anlayzed as In GC-ECD (lLA).
(rn)Resuils from nineteen laboratories participating in an intcriabonnory comparison e~ercis.e.
SRM 1944 Page 12 of22
Table 8. Reference Mass Fraction Values for Selected PBDEs in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
Mass Fractions(a)
(~glkg)
PBDE 47 (2,2',4,4'-Tetrabromodiphenyl ether)"""o 1.72 ± 0,28'"
PBDE 99 (2,2',4,4' ,5-Pentabromodiphenyl ether)""'o 1.98 t 0.26'"
PBDE 100 (2,2',4,4',6-Pentabromodiphenyl ether)"'" 0.447 ± 0.027'"
PBDE 153 (2,2',4,4',S,s"-Hexabromodiphenyl ether)',···n
PBOE 154 (2,2',4,4',S,6'-Hexabromodipnenyl ether),,···n
PBDE 183 (2,2',3,4,4',5',6-Heptabromodiphenyl ether)",~·n
PBDE 206 (2,2',3,3' ,4,4',5,5',6-Nonabromodiphenyl ether)'d,"
PBDE 209 (Decabromodiphenyl ether) ",<1,0.0
6.44 ± 0,17'"
106 ± 0.08""
31.8 ± O,I~'
6,2 ± I.O lb)
935 ± 4,4'"
(.) MoilSS frEU;tions are p:ported on dry-mass basis; material as rtceived contains approximately 1.3 % moisture.
(b) Ref~c values are weighted means of the remits from two 10 four analytical methods {14). The uncertainly lisled WIth cacti
value is an expanded uncertainty about the mean, with coverage factor 2 (appro:lliimately 95 % confidence), cZl1cu1ated by
combining a between-method variance incorporating jmer~melhod bi!13 with a pooloo within-source vari.[U)ce following the
IS0INJST GuKJe to the Expression of Uncertainry in Measurements [11.12l
(el Results from ten laboratOries partjcipaling in an interlaboratory study for PBDEs in sediment {12].
(d) Results: from four Iabonnoncs participating in the 2007 interlaboratory study [13].
(r, NIST p4l'hcipatioo in the 2007 interlaboratory sbJdy using GC/MS.
II) DaI8 se' from NIST for PBOEs using GClMS following PFE with .hunino SPE and SEC clean-up.
Table 9. Reference Mass Fraction Value. for Selected Elements in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
Antimonyf~.ot.r ... )
Beryllium,Cbl
Coppe~'·dn
Mercury(t .• ,
Selenium(L.cJ)
Silve~'·d.<··'
Thallium(l.O
Tinl~.o
Degrees of
Freedom
81
18
17
101
18
24
8
12
22
Mass Fraction(~.t')
('Yo)
31 ± 3
Mass Fractionia.b)
(mglkg)
4.6 ± 0.9
1.6 ± 0.3
380 ± 40
3.4 ± 0.5
1.4 ± 0.2
6.4 ± 1.7
0.59 ± 0.1
42 ± 6
,., The reference value is the equally weighted mean ofavllilable results from: (1) NIST INAA analyses, (2) two metnods pertormed
at NRCC, (3) rcsulls from seven sclecled laboratories participaling in the NRCC mtercomparison exercise, and (4) results from
INAA arudyses at IAEA. The expanded uncertainty in the reference vlllue is equal to U = kl,~ where lie is the combined standard
uncertainty ami k is the coverage factor. both calculated accontlng [0 the JSO Guide [11.12J. The value of It .. is Intended to
represent at the level of one standard deviation the uncertainty in the value. Here Uc accounts for possible method differences,
within-method variation. and material inhomogeneity. The coverage factor, k, is the Stud~nt's t-value for a 9.5 % confidence
interval with the corresponding degrees offieedom. Because of material inhomogeneily. the \,adability among the measurements
of multiple test portions can be expected to be greater than that due to measurement variability ~Ione.
III) Mass fractions are reported on dry-mass basis; materi~L as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisrure.
'c) Re~ults: from five to seven laboratories panlcipating in the NRCC interlaboratory comparison exercise.
i<lJ Measured at NRCC usmg OF AAS.
ie-I Measured al NIST using INAA.
if) Measured at NRCC U$ing TD-1CPMS.
4" Measured at IAEA u~ing IN AA.
(hi Measured at NRCC using JCPOES_
(I) Measured at NRCC using cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy (CVAAS).
SRM 1944 Page 13 of22
Table 10, Reference Mass Fraction Values for Elements in SRM 1944
as Detennined by lNAA (Dry-Mass Basis)
Calcium
Chlorine
Potassium
Sodium
Bromine
Cesium
Cobalt
Rubidium
Scandium
Titanium
Vanadium
Effective Degrees
of Freedom
21
21
21
25
10
11
10
14
37
21
21
1.0
1.4
1.6
1.9
86
3.0
14
75
10,2
4300
100
Mass FractionCa..b,
(%)
± 0.1
± 0.2
± 0,2
± 0.1
Mass Fraction1a..b)
(mg/kg)
± 10
± 0.3
± 2
± 2
± 0,2
± 300
± 9
(,i The reference value is based on the results from an INAA study. The associ.ted uncertainly accounts. for both random and
5>ystematic effects. but because only one method was used. the results should be tlsed with taution. The expanded uncertaJDty in
the reference value i5 equal to U = ~,~ where If .. is the combined standard uncertainty and k is the coverage factor. both calculated
according to the lS0 Guide [11.l2]. The value ofut is intended to represent ilt the level orone st,JndPrd deviat~n the uncertainty
in the value. Here u, accounts for poss.ible method differences. withio9method variation, and material inhomogeneity. The
coverage fac:tor, k. is the Student's I·yalue for a 9S % confidc:JN;c iruervaJ wi\!] tbc: corresponding ckgrees offreedom. B~ause I;)f
material inhomogeneity. the variability among the measurements of multiple test portions tan be cx~ted to be greater chon thllt
due 10 measure-mmt variability alone.
(b) MllSS fractionsllTt reported on dry~mass baSIS~ malerial as received contains approximately 1.3 % moisture.
SRM 1944 Page 14 of22
BeWi 0il:032
Table II. Reference Mass Fraction Values for
Selected Dibcnzo-p-Dioxin and Dibenzofuran Congeners in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
Mass Fraction(~,b)
(l'gIlcg)
2,3,7,8-T etrachtorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.133 ± 0.009
1,2,3,7,8-Penlachlorodibenzo-p·dioxin 0.019 ± 0.002
, ,2,3,4,7 ,8-HexachlorodibenzO-p·dioxin 0.026 ± 0.003
1.2,3,6,7,8-Heuchlorodibenzo-p·dioxin 0.056 ± 0.006
1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p·dioxin 0.053 ± 0.007
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hepiachiorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.80 ± 0.07
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 5.8 ± 0.7
2,3,7,8-T etraehlorodibeozofuran") 0.039 ± 0.015'"
1,2,3,7,8-Penlachlorodibenzofuran 0.045 ± 0.007
2,3,4,7,8· Penlachlorodibenzofuran 0.045 ± 0.004
1.2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuron 0.22 ± O.oJ
1,2,3,6.7,8-Heucblorodibenzofuron 0.09 ± om
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hex.chlorodibeozofuron 0.054 ± O.OO6(e l
1.2.3,4,6,7.8-Heptachlorodibenzofu .. n 1.0 ± 0.1
1,2.3,4.7,8.9-HeptachlorodibenzofufIlll 0.040 ± 0.006(1'1
Oclachlorodibenzofuran 1.0 ± 0.1
Total Toxic Equivalents (TEQ1'" 0.25 ± 0.01
Tolal Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 0.25 ± 0.05")
Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 0.19 ± 0.06
Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 0.63 ± 0.09
Total Heplachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 1.8 ± 0.2
Total Telrochlorodibcnzofurans 0.7 ± 0.2
Total Pentachlorodibenzofurans 0.74 ± 0.07
Total Hexachlorodibenzofurans 1.0 ± 0.1
Total Heplachlorodibcnzofurans 1.5 ± 0.1
Total Dibenzo-p-dioxins(ll) 8.7 ± 0.9
Total Diben7.ofurans tpJ 5.0 ± 0.5
(0) Eacb reference value is the mean oflhc rc:sults from up to fourteen laboralOri~ participating in an interlaboralory exercise:. The
expanded uncertainty in the reference value is equal to U -kIA t where ~ is lhecombined standard ul'K'crtainty calculs'cd according
to the ISO Guide [11.121 and k is the coverage factor. The value of lie lS intended tOR!PKsent at me level orone s.tandnrddeviation
the combined efTccl of all the uncertainties in the rde~nce value. Here,Ac; is the uncertainty in the mean arising from th~ variation
among (he laooratory results. The degrees of freedom is equal to tbe number of available results minus one (13 unless noted
OIherwise). The coverage factor, k. is the value from a Student's t-distribulion for a 95 % confidence interval.
(til Mass. fractions are reported on dry-mass baSIS; material as received conlam'S approximately 1.3 % moisture.
Ie) Confinnation results using a 50 % cyanopropyJ phenyl po)ysil~ane or 90 % bis~cyanopropyl 10 % cyanopropylphenyJ
polysiloxanc phase: columns.
(d) Degrees of freedom ::: 7 for this compound.
Id Degrees offtec:dom = l2 for this compound.
(0 TEQ is the sum of the products of each of the 2,3,7,8-substitUled congeners mliitiplied by their mdividual tOXIC equi\lalency
faclors(TEFs) recommended by !he Nonh Atlantic Treaty Or~antzatlOn (NATO}[15] With re80fd to
2.3.7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran. the results of the confinnation coitmlfl were used when "vaiJable to calculate the TEQ.
ll/)Total of tetra-through octachiorinared congeners.
SRM 1944 Page IS of22
Table 12. Reference Values for Particle Size Characlerislics for 8RM 1944
Particle Measurement
Mean diameter (volume distribution, MV. r-un}lbl
Mean diameter (area distribution. 11m)'"
Mean diameter (number distribution, J.UTl)(d J
Surface Area (m'/cm')")
Value(&}
151.2 ±
120.4 ±
75.7 ±
0.050 ±
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.013
(&)The reference value is the mean vallre ofm.easuremcnu from the analysis of test portions from four bottles. E~b 'UlKertainty.
compuled .ccording'o .he CIPM approach as described in the ISO Guide [II, 12J. is an expanded u.cmainly al the 9j % level of
confidence, which includes random 5OUl'ces Dfuncertainty. The expanded uncertainty defines a range Qfv31ucs fQT the reference
value within which the true value is believed trJ lie. :jIt .. I~el of confidence of 95 O/U.
Ib) The mean diameter of the volume distribution rt::ptesenls the ccnttr of gravity of the distribution and compensntc$ for scattering
efficiency and refractive index. This parameter is strongly innuenced by coarse panicles.
(~) The mean diameter oftbe area distribution, calculated from the volume distribution with lcss wel~ting by the pr~e:nce: of (:oarsc
particle$ than MV.
(dl The mean diameter of the number distribution. calculated using the volume distribution weighti:d to sma II particles.
(e) Calculated 5p~ific surface area assuming solid. spherical paniclcs:. This is a computation and should pot be inlcrchangcrl with an
adsorption method of surface arelI determination as thjs value does not reflect porosity or topographical characferistics.
Table 13. Percentage oftbe Volume That is Smaller Than the lndicatcd Size
Percentile Particle Diamete(ill
(JlITI)
95 296 ± 5
90 247 ± 2
80 201 ± 1
70 174 ± 1
60 152 ±
50(b) J3S ±
40 120 ±
30 100 ±
20 91 ±
10 74 ±
1M The reference value: for pa.rticl~ diameter is thc mean value of measurements from the anaiys.is of test portionS. from four bottles.
Each uncertainly. compuled acoording to theCiPM opproach as de"ribed in the ISOOuide (J 1.121. is on expanded UDtenainly al
the 95 % level of confidence, which includes random sourccs ofuncenainty. The cxponded uncertainly defines a range of va. lues
for the reference vaJlle within which the true value is. believed to l~ at il level of contldencc of 95 %.
(b) Median diameter (50 % of tbe volume is less Ihan 135 1AIll).
SRM 1944 Page 16 of22
Table 14. Reference Values for TOIaI Organic Caroon and Percent Extractable Mass in SRM 1944
Tolal Organic Carbon (TOC)""
Extractable Masslc,dl
Mass Fraction
(%)
4.4 ±
1.15 ±
0.3
0.04
(lI) Mass fraction is reported on a dry-mass basis~ materiaJ as received contams approximately 1.3 % moisture.
(b~ The reference value for total organic earbon is 3Jl equally weighted mean value from murine :meaSurements made by three
laboratories. Each uncertainty, computed according to the CIPM Dppr~h as described in the ISO Ggide {J 1,12 J. is an expanded
UDCertClmry at the 95 % level of CQnfiden(c, which includes random sources of uncertainty. The expanded uncertainty defines a
range orvalul$ for the Ttferencc value within which [he true value is believed 10 lie, at a le ... el of ccmfidence of95 %.
11:1 ExtnK:tablc mass as delennined from Soxhlet extraction using OeM.
(<I) The reference value for extraclable mas~ is the mc:an value of six measw-ements. Each WlCertainty, computed according to the
CIPM approach asdesc;ribed in the ISO Guide [1 1,12], is an expanded unec:rtniAfy at the 95 % level of confidence, which includes
random sources of uncertainty. The-expanded uncertainty defines a range of values for the reference \lj]ue within which the true
~alue is beheved to lie, :;Lt a level of confidence of95 %,
T.ble 15. Information Mass fraction V.lues for Selected Elements in SRM 1944
as Determined by INAA (Dry-Mass Basis)
Cerium(b)
Europiumib )
Gold'''
Lantbanum fb)
Tllonum!b)
Uranium(bl
Mass Fractionl .. )
('Yo)
1.0
Mass. Fraction(Q)
(mglkg)
65
1.3
0.10
39
IJ
3.1
(-) Mass fraction is reported on a dry·mOlss basis; matenal as received contains approxima1ety 1.) % moisture.
("'I Measured at IAEA uSing INAA
SRM 1944 Page 17 of22
Table 16. Information Mass Fraction Values for
Selected Polychlorinated Naphthalenes in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basi.)
Mass Fraction l.,))
(Ilg!kg)
PCN 19 (1,3,5-Trichloronaphthalene) 1.4
peN 23 (1.4,5-T,ichloronaphthalene) 2.4
peN 42 (1,3,5,7-Tetrachloronaphthalene) 2.7
peN 47 (1,4,6,7-T etrachloronaphthalene) 3.5
peN 52 (1,2.3,5,7-Penlachloronapbtbalene. 2.5
60 (1.2,4,6,7-Pent.chloronaphthalene)
PCN 50 ( 1.2,3,4.6-Penlachloronaphthaleoe) 1.0
PCN 66 (1,2,3,4,6,7 ·Hexachlorooaphthalene) 0.63
67 (1,2,3,5,6,7-Hexachloronaphtbalene)
peN 69 (1.2,3,5,7.8-Hexachloronaphthalene) 1.6
PCN 73 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1-Heptachloronaphthalene) 0.51
peN 75 (O<tacbloronaphthalene) 0.20
tal Mass fractions reported on dry-mass basls~ material as received contains approJlimattly I .3 % moisture. InfonDntion values arethe
median of the Jaull$ from six iaooIlltOOes participating in an interlaboratory comparison exercise (Appendix D).
Table 17. [nfannation Mass fraction Values for Three HBCD Isomers in SRM 1944 (Dry-Mass Basis)
alplla-HBCD'"
""ta-HBCD'"
gamma-HBCD 1bl
(~I The information vaJue i-s the median of the results from three analytical methods.
Mass Fraction",b-l
()lg/kg)
2.2
1.0
18
(h) Mass fraccions are reported on dry-ma5s oo51s; material as recei'Yed contains approximately 1.3 % moisture.
SRM 1944 Page 18 of22
BCWi 0003&
SRMI944
Table 18. Analytical Methods Used forth. Measurement of Elements in SRM 1944
Elements
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gold
Iron
I.anthanum
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassimn
Rubidium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Methods
CVAAS
FAAS
GFAAS
HGAAS
ICPOES
ICPMS
ID·ICPMS
INAA
XRF
Analytical Methods
FAAS,ICPOES,INAA, XRF
GFAAS, HGAAS,ICP-MS, ID.ICPMS, INAA
GFAAS, HGAAS,ICPMS, INAA, XRF
GFAAS,ICP·AES,ICPMS
INAA
FAAS, GFAAS, ICPMS, ID·ICPMS
INAA
INAA
INAA
INAA
FAAS, GFAAS, ICPMS, ID-ICPMS, INAA, XRF
INAA
FAAS, GFAAS, ICPOES, ICPMS, ID-ICPMS, XRF
INAA
INAA
FAAS,ICPOES, ICPMS,ID.ICPMS, INAA, XRF
INAA
FAAS, GFAAS,ICPMS, ID·ICPMS, XRF
INAA
FAAS, ICPOES, ICPMS, INAA, XRF
CV AAS, ICPMS
GFAAS, ICPOES,ICPMS, ID-ICPMS,INAA, XRF
INAA
INAA
INAA
GFAAS, HGAAS, ICPMS, INAA
FAAS, ICPOES, XRF
FAAS, GFAAS, ICPMS, INAA
INAA
GFAAS, ICPOES, tCPMS, ID·ICPMS,
INAA
GfAAS,ICPMS,ID-ICPMS
INAA
INAA
lNAA
FAAS, ICPOES,ICPMS, ID-ICPMS, XRF,INAA
Cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry
Flame alomic absorption spectrometry
Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry
Hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry
Tnductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry
Inductively coupled plum. rna" spectrometry
Isotope dilution inductively coupled pl."na mass spectrometry
Instrumental neutron activation analysis
X-ray fluorescence spe~lromelry
Page 19 of22
REFERENCES
[II May, W.; Parris, R.; Beck, c.; FOSsell, J.; Greenberg. R.; Guenther, F.; Kramer, G.; Wise, S.; Gills, T.; Colbert, J.;
Gelling:;, R.; MaCDonald, B.; Definition., of renns and Modes Used al NIST for Vulile-A.fsignmelll 01 Reference
Materials for Chemical Measilremellt.,; NIST Special Publication 260-136, U.S. Governmenl Printing Office:
Gailhe"burg, MD (2000); avai I.bl. at
http;llts.nist.gov/MeasurementServicesIReferenccMaterialsiPUBLlCATlONS.cfm (accessed Sep 20 II)
[2] Wis., S.A.; Poster,D.L.; Schantz, M.M.; Kucklick, l.R.; Sander, L.C.; Lopez de Aida, M.; Schuben, P.;
Parris, R.M.; Porter, BJ,; Two New MQrill~ &dim~nt Standard R~Jerence Materials (SRMs)/or thL INl~rminatio" of
OrRQJlic Co"tamillanlS; Anal. Bioanal. Chem., Vol. 378, pp. 1251·1264 (2004).
[3] Schulte E.; Malisch. R.; Calculation of the Real PCB Conlent ill Envinmmelltal Sample,\'. I. IIIvf!stigation of the
Compositio" Of Two Technical PCB Mixtures; Frescni", Z. Anal. Chern., Vol. 314, pp. 545-551 (1983).
[4) Parris, R.M.; Schantz, M.M.; Wise, SA.; NISTINOAA NS&TIEPA £MAP inlercomparison Exercise Programfor
Organic CrJnlaminams in the Mar;ne Env;ronmenl: De.'lcriplion and ReS!4iu of /995 Orgo,,;c lnltrcomparisoll
Exerdses: NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 104, Silver Spring, MD (1996).
[5) Siapleton, H.M.; Keller,I.M.; Schantz, M.M.; Kucklick,I.R.; Wise, SA; Nlsr Inter· Comparison Exercise
Programfor Pol.\·brominaled nip/len},1 Elhers (PBDE,\');II Marine Sediment; Description Qnd Rf!.mlts of,he 1004
Inter-Comparil'un Exercise; NISTIR 7278 (2005).
[6) Schantz, M.M.; Parris, R.M.; Wise, S.A.;NIST intercompariron li<.rcise ProgramforOrganic Contominalllsin th~
Marille Em'ironment: Description and Results oj the 2007 Orga.ic intercolllpllrison Ex"cises; NISTIR 7501
(2008).
[7] Willie, S; Berman, S.; NOAA N(uiollal Slatu.s and Tre,uis Program Temh Round In.tercomparisOII Exercise Results
jor Trace Metab in Marine Stdiments and Biological Tissue; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 106,
Silver Spring. MD (1996).
[8) Beaty1 E.S.; Paulson, P.1.; Selective Application a/Chemical SepartJlion$/o Isotope Dilulion Indllcril'ely C014pJed
Plasma Moss S!"ctrOlFU'tric Anal,l'Sis of Standard &Ieren<e Marerials: Anal. Chem., Vol. 65, pp. 1602·1608 (1993).
(9J Greenberg~ R.R.; Flemming. R.F.; zeisler, R.; HiRh Sen.rUi."iry Nell/ron Actiwrtion Analysis o/Enl'ironmenlo/ and
Riological Standard Reference Materiab; Environ. Intern., Vol. 10, pp. 129·136 (1984).
[IO)Paule. R.C.; Mandel, J.: Con.fensus Values and WeiShtillS Factors; I. Res. NaL Bur. Stand .. Vol. 87 pp. 377·385
(1982).
[ 11] JCGM 100;2008; Evaloali,m of Mra.,urement Dula -Guiderl! the li<pre.l.,iOlI of U"'·<r/lIinr:.· in Mea.,uremelll (ISO
GUM 1995 wilh Minor Corrections); Joint Conunillee for Guides in Metrology (2008); available at
hltp:/lwww.bipm.orgiutilsicornmon/documentsljcgmlJCGM_IOO_2008_E.pdf (accessed Sep 2011); see also
Taylor, B.N.; Kuyatt. C.E.~ Gm'defines for EI'aiuQtinK and Expres.finR the Uncertainty of NISI' M~asuremellt
Res"lt .• ; NIST Technical Note 1297; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC (1994); available al
hllp:/lwww.nist.gov/physlablpubsiindex.cfm(accessedSop2011).
(l2)JCGM 101:2008; Evaluation ojmeasurernent data -S"pplement 1 to tire Guide to E.tprrssioll "JUllcertaint)' in
Measuremell/; Propagation ofDislributions U'inga Monte Carlo Melhod; Ioinl Committee for Guides in Metrology
{BIPM,IEC, IFCC.ILAC, ISO, IUPAC,IUPAP and OIML),lnlcmalional Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM),
s,;vres. France (2008); available at http://www.bipm.org!utilslccrnmonldo<umentsljcgmlJCGM_1 0 1_2008_ E.pdf
(accessed Sep 2011).
f13] BaJlschmiter, K.;Zell, M.; Analysis of Pol.l'clJ/orinaled Biphenyls (PCR) 1»' Glass Capillary Ga, Chromatograph)'·
Composition of Technical Aroclor-alld Clophen-PCB MLfllrrtS: Freseniu, Z. Anal. Chem,.VoI302, pp.20·31
(1980).
(l4) Ruhkin, A.L.;Vangel. M.G. E,·timatioll "fa Commol/Mean alld Weighted Mean.' Slalfstics; 1. Am. Sialist. Assoc.,
Vol. 93, pp. 303·308 (1998).
(1 5] Internatirma{ Toxicity Equil'alenC)' Faclor(/-TEF, Method QfR;skA.f.~eSSmE'nlfor Cmnplex Mixwres of Dioxins QJld
Related Compoullds, Nonll Allantic Trealy Organization Committee on Challenges in the Modern So<iety, Report
No. 176, Nonll Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Brussels, Belgium (1988).
CcrtJlkalc hvWon HbtM)': 21 Stptmaber 1011 (AdditIon of IT\atS ft'tlctjon ... ttlues for PBOE lind PeN con8C"t'~~ change or mBM. fractIon
reference Y3lua. cdilonal chang~); 22 Dtcembrr 2818 (fulcm.ion of ccrtlftaltion pt'nod); 14 MIY 1999 (Onvina' ccrhticatc date).
Users oftllis SRM sllOuld enSlirt that the Certificau of Analysis in thti, possession is cun-ent. This can IN accomplished
by contocting tire SRM Program at: te/.pholle (301) 975.2200;Jax (301) 9264751; .·",ai/ srminjo@nist.gol·; or via the
Imenu .. , ClI htrp;//wWYo·"Ji.ff,govl.,"mr.
SRM 1944 Page 200f22
;:: ... -:w i 00038
APPENDIX A
The analysts and laboratories listed below panicipated in the interlaboratory comparison exercise for the
determination of PBDE, in SRM 1944 [4J.
D. Hoover and C. Hamilton. AXYS Analytical. Sidney. BC, Canada
S. Klo'teThaus and J. Baker, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons. MD. USA
S. Backus, Environment Canada, Ecosystem Health Division, Burlington, ON, Canada
E. Sverko, Environment Canada. Canada Centre for Inland Waters. Burlington, ON. Canada
P. Lepom, Fedenl Environmental Agency. Berlin. Germany
R. Hites and L Zhu. Indiana University. Bloomington, IN. USA
G. Jiang, Research Center for EcC)-Environmental Sciences, Beijing. China
H. Takada, Tokyo Universi1y of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo. Japan
A. Covaei and S. Vorspoels, University of Antwerp, Antwerp. Belgium
A. Li. Universtiy of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
APPENDlXB
The analysts and laboratories listed below partiCipated in the interlaboratory comparison ex"",i .. for the
determination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in SRM 1944.
WJ. Luksemburg, Alta Analylical Laboratory, In<; .• EI Dorado Hills. CA, USA
L. Phillips, AXYS Analytical Services Ltd .. Sidney. British Columbia. Canada
M.J. Annbruster. BaneUe Columbus Laboratories, Columbus. Oll, USA
G. Reuel, Canviro Analytical Laboratories Ltd., Waterloo. Ontario, Canada
C. Brochu. Envirorullent Quebec. Laval. Quebec. Canada
G. Poole. Environment Canada Environmental Technology Centre. Ottawa, Ontario. Canada
B. Henkelmann. GSF National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Germany
R. Andersun.lnstitute of Environmental Chemistry. VmeA University. UmeA. Sweden
C. Lastorio. Maxxom Analytics Inc .. Mis.i.sauSa, Ontorio, Canada
E. Reiner, Ontario Ministry of Environmenl.nd Energy, Etobicoke. Ontario, Canada
J. Macaulay, Research and Produclivity Council, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
T.L. Wade. Texas A&M University. College Station. TX. USA
C. Tashiro. Wellington Laboratories. Guelph. Ontario. Canada
T.O. Tieman, Wright State University. Dayton. OH, USA
APPENDlXC
The analysts and laboratories listed below participated in the interlaboratory comparison exercise for the
delennination of trace elements in SRM 1944.
A. Abbgy. Applied Marine Research Laboratory. Old Dominion University. Norfolk. VA. USA
A. Scott, Australian Government Analytical Laboratories, Pymble, Austra[ia
H. Mawhinney, Animal Research Institute, Queen,land Department of Primary Industries. Queensland. Australia
E. Crecelius. Battelle Pacific Northwest. Sequim. WA. USA
M. Stephenson, Catifornia Department of Fish and Game. Moss Landing. CA. USA
B. Presley. Department of Oceanography. Texas A&M University. College Station. TX. USA
K. Elrick. U.S. Geological Survey. Atlanta. GA. USA
SRM 1944 Page 21 of22
APPENDIXn
The analysts and laboratories listed below participated in the interlaboratOlY comparison exercise for tbe
determin.tion of polychlorinated naphthalenes in SRM 1944.
J. Kucklick. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Charleston, SC, USA
E. Sverko, Environment Canada, Canada Cenue for Inland Water>, Burlington, ON, Canada
P. Helm, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Elobieoke, ON, Canada
N. Yamashita, NationallnSlitute of Advanced Industrial Science and Techrology (AIST), T,ukuba, Japan
T.llamer, Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada
R. Leg., Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Etobicoke, ON, Canada
SRM 1944 Page 22 of22
• Analytical Resources, Incorporated
AnM1yticai Cltemi.8t8 and Consultants
Analytical Standard Record
Standard m: 0003371
Description:
StlIndard Type:
Solvent:
Final Volume (mls):
Vials:
Vendor:
Vendor Catalog #:
Commenb
Puget Sound reference-SRM
Analyte Spike
NA
30
I
QATS Lab
PSRM0056 Mukilteo Multomodal For Cberonne Oreiro
Analyt.
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
I,Z,3,7,8-PeCDD
OCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCOF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCOf
Aroclor 1260
Aroclor 1260 [2C]
OCOD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Expires:
Prepared:
Prepared By:
Department:
Last Edit:
Lot #:
CAS Number
57117-41-6
67562-39-4
58200-70-7
39227-28-6
70648-26-9
57653-85-7
57117-44-9
19408-74-3
35822-46-9
40321-76-4
39OO1-OZ-O
60851-34-5
57117-31-4
1746-01-6
51207-31·9
11096-82-5
11096-82-5
3268-87-9
72918-21-9
Rev1ewed By
Printed: 8111/2016 3:07:40PM
ll-Aug-2016
II-Aug-2015
Amanda Volgardsen
QC
07-Oct-2015 16:16 by VTS
SR0431
Con •• ntration Un'"
0.00000123 mg/Kg
0.0000187 mg/Kg
0.00000163 mg/Kg
0.00000159 mg/Kg
0.00000302 mg/Kg
0.00000388 mg/Kg
0.00000109 mgiKg
0.00000304 mg/Kg
0.0000906 mg/Kg
0.00000108 mg/Kg
0.0000584 mgIKg
0.00000183 mg/Kg
0.00000107 mgIKg
0.00000105 mg/K!I,
0.00000\11 mgiKg
0.108 mg/Kg
0.108 mg/Kg
0.000811 mg/Kg
0.000000511 mg/Kg
Date
Page 1 of 1
[;;CWj . 0ViViiH
• Analytical Resources, Incorporated
ADoIyIi<aI a.-iet. oacI CoouuItaaI.
AIUIlytkalStandlrd Record
~ ___________________________ Sm __ ~ ____ ID_'_.DOO ___ ~_7_1 ___________ P_riR_Qd __ :_~_11_a_&_15 __ 4_:1_&_:2_7P_~~
DeocriptiOll:
Stlndard Type:
Solvent:
Filial Volume (mil):
Vials:
Vendor:
\'eddor CaIIlog #:
Puget SoImd referenu-SRM
ReferenI:e MIIIel
NA
30
I
QATSLab
rSR.Moo~ Mukilteo Mullomoda/ For Cberonnc Oreiro
~
~
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCOF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCOF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDO
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6, 7,8-HxCOO
1.2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-lbtCDD
1,2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDO
1,2.3,7,8-PeCOO
OCOF
2,3,4,6,1,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,1,8-PeCOF
2,3,7,8-TCOO
2,3,1,8-rCDF
Aroclor 1260
Aroclot 1260 [2CJ
OCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Expires:
Prepared:
Prepa!ed By:
Dep8I hnent:
Last Edit:
Lot II:
CASN ......
57117-41-6
67562-39-4
58200-70·1
39221-28-6
7064J..26-9
57653-83-7
51117-44-9
19408-74·3
35822-46-9
40321-76-4
39001-{)2.4
60851-34-5
57117-31-4
1746-01-6
51201-31·9
11096-82-5
11096-82-5
3268-87-9
72918-21-9
II·Aug·2016
lI·Aug·20I~
Amanda Volp'dsen
QC
I1-Aug·20U 16:09 by AV
SR0431
C .. lllltntion Units SI\M Cntrvl Llmlto
0_00000123 mafKg 50-ISO
0.0000187 mWI<sI 50-ISO
0.00000163 JD&iKg 50-ISO
0.00000159 mWKR 50-ISO
0.00000302 mWK& 50-ISO
0.00000388 IIlJ!iKx 5O-ISO
0.00000109 mgIKg 50-150
0.00000304 IIlJ!iKx 'O-ISO
0.0000906 mNKg 50·150
0.00000108 IIlJ!iKx 50-ISO
0.0000584 mgIKg 50-150
0.00000183 m~ SO-ISO
0.00000107 mglKg 50-150
0.00000105 m~ 50-150
0.00000111 IIIfIKg 50·1 SO
0.108 tnWKI\ 38-167
0.108 m&fKg 38.167
0.000811 mWKR 50-ISO
0.00000051l mgIKg SO-ISO
DIIONI,
PugotScuol ..... SRM _/l.CII:,....
,.,. &'I11311511yAV
Elv. &'1113118
~
Pase I ofl
J
•
•
Recipient Copy CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
Order Number: CBOI2892 Dale Shipped: 611012015
From: OATBI.ABORATORY To: CHERONHE OREIRO
2700 CHANDLER AVENUE, BLDG. B ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
LAS \/EOAS, NV 89120 4811 S. 134Tli PlACE, SUITE 100
COC No. 13435
AirBili No(S):
560847855403
PHONE: 1·702-896-8712 TUKWILA WA Mlee
FAX: 1·702·~210
SamplelD -+ Catalogue Number
PSRMIJOe8 1 PUGET SOUND SEDIMENT RM PS-SRM
PROJECT SITE NAME: MUKILTI:O MULTOMOOAl
by.
(SIgn )
•~----~--+-----~----------~----~ RoHnquiohed by. _ by:
(SIgnaIvto) (SIgn.ture)
.~
•
•
•
QUALITY ASSURANCE TECHNICAL SUPPORT LABORATORY
"An ISO fKJ01:2OOI CerlHIed Program"
Instructions for QAT'S Catalog Number: PSoSRM
",."". Sedment: CDDlCDFICB CongetJeT!lAtodonJ
PUGET SOUND SEDIMENT REFERENCE MATERIAL
QATS LABORATORY INSTRUCnONS FOR
HRGCIHRMS CDDlCDFICB CONGENER AND GClECD AROCLOR ANALYSIS
NOTE: TheSe inStructions are for advisory purpoeel only. If any apparent conflict exi8t1l between
Iheae Instructions and the analytical protocols or your contract, disregard these Instructions.
APPUCATlON: For the analysis of CDDICOF and CB Congener analyles using project-speclfied
HRGCJHRMS methods. and ArocIors using project-specified GClECD methods.
CAlD1ON; Read Instructions carefuIy before opening bottlea and proceeding with the
analyses.
(AI SAMPLE DESCRIPT10N
EncIoMd i$ a Pugel Sound (Washington State) Sediment Reference Material (SRM) set for
chlorinated dlbenzo-p-dioxinslchlorinated dibenzofurans (CDO/COF), and/or chlorinated biphenyl
(CB) congener anaIyIill using project-specified high rasoIution gaa chromatographyl high
reIIOIuIIon mass specIrometry (HRGClHRMS) methods. This SRM Is also llUitabie for ArocIors
analysis using project-specified gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GClECD)
methods. This set consists of one (1) or more bottles, each with approximately 30 grams of
Pug« Sound SRM containing CDDlCOF, CB Congener, and/or Aroclor analylea. Check the
chain-Df-custody record 10 determine the number of bottles provided for CDDlCDF, CB
Congener, and/or Aroc1or analysis. None of the bottles are 10 be opened until SRM
prepanllionlanalysis is to occur.
CAUTION: The SRM could contain compounds that 818 light sensItIVe and should be protected
from light during storage. Store the SRM at :s f!' C, pnlferably at < r1' C, until SRM preparation
and analysis is to occur. Allow the bott\e(s) to reach ambient temperature before opening.
(B) BREAKAGE OR MISSING ITEMS
Check the contents of the shipment carefully for any broken, leaking, or misling items. Refer to
the enclosed chaln-of-custody record. Report any problems to Mr. Keith Stroot, CB&I Federal
Servk:es LLC. at (702)895-8722. If requested, retum the chain-of-custody record with
appropriate annotation. and signatures to the address provided below.
QUALITY ASSURANCE TECHNICAL SUPPORT LABORATORY
CB&I Federal s.rvrCM LLC
2700 Chandler Avenue -Building C
.... V ••• NV 89120
Poge'oI2
OATS Form 20-u07FleeR03. 0&-15-2014
•
•
•
QUALITY ASSURANCE TECHNICAL SUPPORT LABORATORY
"An ISO t001:2008 Cat/lied Progrwm"
(C) ANAL YS'S REQUIREMENTS
Instructlona for QA 15 cataJog Number: PS-aRM
Manna SedIment: CDDICDFICB Conp!~Aroc/Ol8
The SRM II to be analyzed as described in the project-specllled meOlods employed for the
enalysis of CDDICOF andlor CB Cong_ enalytes uaing HRGClHRMS Instrumentation andlor
ArocIors uaing GClECD instrumentation. Thee inaIructions are for advisory purposea only. If
any apparent conflict elCists betIMIen these instructions and the projed-speclfled methods, or
your contract, dilregeld these inatructiona.
(D) SAMPLE ANAL VSlS
Gtmara11nstruct!OOl
The SRM contains CODICOF, CB Congener, and Aroclor analytM which are known or
_peeled to have severe health effects. Employing appropriate safety precautions, this SRM is
to be handled, prepared, and analyzed exactly as you would process sampiea received from a
known or suspected hazaldous wallie alte. The SRM should be handled only by trained and
experienced analysts In facilities expressly designed to handle such materials. When calculating
the concentratlona of analytes, use 0% 88 the soil moisture content.
Allow the bottIe(s) to reach ambient temperature before opening and removing gravimetric
amounts for aample preparation. To begin the extraction and analysis procedure, break the &eal
and open the bottle carefully. Weigh out the appropriate aliquot fOt' extraction and analyels as
preecrlbed in !he projeci-1.lpaclfied methods (typically 10 grams for HRGClHRMS methods and
30 grams for GClECO melhoda), or in acco!dan<:e with your contract.
Prooeed Immediately with the extraction and analyais 88 described in the projecl-lpIIcified
methods or your contract.
IE) REPORTING
Report the results for the prepared SRM al received.
Report the analytical reaulte for the SRM to EPA or oIher appropriate Agency, using the format
and other instructiona for submission of data packages a8 apecifled In your contract.
Poge2012
OATS Fo'" 20-007FI56R03, 09-15-2014
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:07 pm
8270D SVOC (20-200 ug/kg) or (0.2-2 ug/L SepF) In Solid (EPA 8270D)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 8 oz Amount Required: 300 9 Hold nme: 14 days
Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike------Blank Spike / LCS--
Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
Phenol 8.23 20.0 ug/kg 30 34-120 30 34-120 30
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 6.78 20.0 ug/kg 30 36-120 30 36-120 30
2-(hlorophenol 6.47 20.0 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 5.07 20.0 ug/kg 30 40-120 30 40-120 30
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4.39 20.0 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30
I)-Dichlorobenzene 4.66 20.0 u9/kg 30 40-120 30 40-120 30
Benzyl Alcohol 14.9 20.0 ug/kg 30 19-120 30 19-120 30
2,2'-Oxybis( 1-chloropropane) 5.67 20.0 ug/kg 30 32-120 30 32-120 30
2-Methylphenol 7.84 20.0 ug/kg 30 28-120 30 28-120 30
Hexachloroetl1ane 5.65 20.0 ug/kg 30 38-120 30 38-120 30
N-Nitroso-di-n-Propylamine 10.8 20.0 ug/kg 30 34-120 30 34-120 30
4-Methylphenol 14.7 20.0 ug/kg 30 29-120 30 29-120 30
Nitrobenzene 7.95 20.0 ug/kg 30 36-120 30 36-120 30
lsophorone 7.75 20.0 ug/kg 30 37-120 30 37-120 30
2-Nitrophenol 6.92 20.0 ug/kg 30 30-120 30 30-120 30
2,4-Dimethylphenol 26.8 100 ug/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30
Bis(2-(hloroethoxy)methane 6.34 20.0 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30
2,4-Dichlorophenol 32.0 100 ug/kg 30 28-120 30 28-120 30
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 5.96 20.0 ug/kg 30 35-120 30 35-120 30
Naphthalene 5.25 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-120 30 43-120 30
Benzoic acid 59.1 200 ug/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30
4-(hloroaniline 33.7 100 ug/kg 30 11-120 30 11-120 30
Hexachlorobutadiene 5.01 20.0 ug/kg 30 37-120 30 37-120 30
4-chloro-3-Methylphenol 28.9 100 ug/kg 30 32-120 30 32-120 30
2-Methylnaphthalene 5.67 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-120 30 43-120 30
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene 41.3 100 u9/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 25.4 100 ugfkg 30 30-120 30 30-120 30
2,4,S-Trichlorophenol 26.9 100 ug/kg 30 28-120 30 28-120 30
2-(hloronaphthalene 4.44 20.0 ug/kg 30 40-120 30 40-120 30
2-Nitroaniline 30.2 100 ug/kg 30 31-126 30 31-126 30
Acenaphthylene 4.77 20.0 ug/kg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30
Dimethylphthalate 6.44 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-120 30 43-120 30
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 26.7 100 ug/kg 30 33-123 30 33-123 30
Acenaphthene 5.13 20.0 ug/kg 30 45-120 30 45-120 30
3-Nitroaniline 37.7 100 ug/kg 30 22-120 30 22-120 30
2,4-Dinitrophenol 41.3 200 uQ/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30
Dibenzofuran 4.61 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-120 30 43-120 30
4-Nitrophenol 44.4 100 ug/kg 30 15-138 30 15-138 30
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 22.9 100 ug/kg 30 35-127 30 35-127 30
Fluorene 4.95 20.0 ug/kg 30 45-120 30 45-120 30
4-Ch Iorophenylphenyl ether 6.96 20.0 ug/kg 30 32-120 30 32-120 30
Diethyl phthalate 17.7 20.0 Ugfkg 30 50-120 30 50-120 30
4-Nitroan.ine 34.9 100 u9/kg 30 24-125 30 24-125 30
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 50.5 200 ug/kg 30 24-120 30 24-120 30
N-N itrosodiphenylamine 9.57 20.0 ug/kg 30 36-120 30 36-120 30
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 6.07 20.0 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30
Hexachlorobenzene 4.74 20.0 ug/kg 30 33-120 30 33-120 30
Pentachlorophenol 31.3 100 ug/kg 30 16-120 30 16-120 30
Phenanthrene 4.69 20.0 ug/kg 30 49-120 30 49-120 30
Anthracene 5.93 20.0 ug/kg 30 45-120 30 45-120 30
carbazole 7.37 20.0 ug/kg 30 43-135 30 43-135 30
Di-n-Butylphthalate 5.31 20.0 ugfkg 30 48-126 30 48-126 30
Fluora nthene 4.52 20.0 ug/kg 30 53-120 30 53-120 30
Pyrene 5.55 20.0 ug/kg 30 48-121 30 48-121 30
Page 1 of 2 B~::Wi . 00Vi46
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:07 pm
(Continued)
82700 svoe (20-200 ug/kg) or (0.2-2 ug/L SepF) in Solid (EPA 82700) (Continued)
Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike------Blank Spike I Le5--
Analyte MDL Limit O/ORec RPD O/ORec RPD O/ORec RPO
Butylbenzytphtha late 8.05 20.0 ugfkg 30 45-132 30 45-132 30
Benzo(a)anthracene 5,18 20.0 ugfkg 30 49-120 30 49-120 30
3,3'-Dichlorobenzldine 31.2 100 ug/kg 30 10-120 30 10-120 30
Chrysene 5.22 20.0 uglkg 30 47-120 30 47-120 30
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 28.8 50,0 ugfkg 30 34-130 30 34-130 30
Di-n-Octylphthalate 8,72 20,0 ugfkg 30 28-124 30 28-124 30
Benzo(b )fluoranthene 7,02 20,0 ugfkg 30 42-132 30 42-132 30
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.01 20,0 ugfkg 30 39-129 30 39-129 30
Benzofluoranthenes, Total 10.2 40,0 ugfkg 30 3D-160 30 3D-160 30
Benzo(a)pyrene 6.48 20,0 ugfkg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30
Indeno(I,2,3-<d)pyrene 5.99 20.0 ugfkg 30 42-123 30 42-123 30
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.16 20.0 ugfkg 30 3D-133 30 30-133 30
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5.82 20.0 ugfkg 30 38-126 30 38-126 30
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 22.4 40.0 ugfkg 30 17-120 30 17-120 30
Aniline 16.9 100 ug/kg 30 10-134 30 10-134 30
Retene 4.01 20.0 ugfkg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30
Pyrtdine 86.6 100 ug/kg 30 10-147 30 10-147 30
I-Methyl naphtha lene 5.95 20.0 ug/kg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30
Azobenzene (1,2-DP-Hydrazine) 4.61 20,0 ug/kg 30 35-120 30 35-120 30
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 5.37 20,0 ugfkg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30
Benzidine 100 200 ug/kg 30 57-120 30 57-120 30
Tetrachloroguaiacol 10.1 40.0 ugfkg 30 30 30
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol 3,90 20.0 ug/kg 30 30 30
3,4,6-Trlchloroguaiacol 20.0 ug/kg 30 30 30
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol 7.91 20.0 ugfkg 30 30 30
Guaiacol 6.47 20.0 ug/kg 30 30 30
Surr: 2·Fluorophenol 27·120
Surr: Phenol-d5 29·120
Surr: 2-<l1lorophenol-d4 31-120
Surr: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4 32-120
Surr: Nitrobenzene-(J5 30-120
Surr: 2-FluorObiphenyl 35-120
Surr: 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 24-134
Surr: p-Terphenyl-d 14 37-120
1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Naphthalene-dB
Acenaphthene-dlO
Phena nthrene-dl 0
Chrysene-d 12
Di-n-Octylphthalate-d4
Perylene-d 12
Page 2 of 2
Analytical Method Information Pnnte<!: 08/03/2016 12:07 pm
16138 Dioxin In Solid (EPA 16138)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Amber, 80z
Analyte
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
l,2,3,4,7,S-HxCDF
l,2,3,6,7,S-HxCDF
2,3,4,5,7,S-HxCDF
l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
l,2,3,4,7,S-HxCDD
1.2,3,5,7,S-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDF
OCDD
TotalTCDF
Total TCDD
Total PeCDF
Total PeCDD
Total HxCDF
Total HxCDD
Total HpCDF
Total HpCDD
Surr: 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF
Surr: 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCOO
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
Surr: 13C12-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDf
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,S-HxCDF
Surr: 13C12-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Surr: 13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,S-HpCDO
Surr: 13C12-OCOD
Surr: 37C14-2,3,7,8-TCDD
13C12-1,2,3,4-TCDD
13C12-1,2,3, 7,8, 9-HxCDD
MDL
0.244
0.214
0.472
0.625
0.590
0.784
0.623
0.574
0.953
0.479
0.702
0.722
0.881
0.703
1.14
1.77
9.42
Reporting
Umit
1.00 ng/kg
LOOng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
2.50 ng/kg
2.00 ng/kg
10.0 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
1.00 ng/kg
Amount Required: 1509 Hold Time: 365 days
SUrrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike------Blank Spike I LC5--
%Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
24-169
25-164
24-1S5
21-178
25-lSI
26-152
25-123
28-135
29-147
32-14/
2S-130
28-143
26-138
23-140
17-157
35-197
25 75-158 25
25 67-158 25
25 80-134 25
25 68-160 25
25 70-142 25
25 72-134 25
25 84-130 25
25 70-156 25
25 78-130 25
25 70-164 25
25 76-134 25
25 64-152 25
25 82-122 25
25 78-138 25
25 70-140 25
25 63-170 25
25 78-144 25
Page 1 of!
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:07 pm
80818 Pest (PSDDA I Low Level) in SOlid (EPA 8081B)
Preservation: Cool <GOC
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 8 oz Amount Required: 150 9 Hold Time: 14 days
Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Splke------Blank Spike I LC5--
Analyte MDL Umlt "IoRec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
alpha-SHC 0.0836 0.500 ug/kg 30 41-120 30 41-120 3D
alpha-BHC [2C] 0.0836 0.500 ug/kg 30 41-120 30 41-120 30
beta-SHC 0.0915 0.500 ug/kg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30
beta-SHC [2C] 0.0915 0.500 ug/kg 30 42-120 30 42-120 30
gamma-SHC (lindane) 0.0677 0.500 ug/kg 30 49-120 30 49-120 30
gamma-SHC (lindane) [2C] 0.0677 0.500 ugtkg 30 49-120 30 49-120 30
de~a-BHC 0.0655 0.500 ug/kg 30 19-140 3D 19-140 3D
de~a-SHC [2C] 0.0655 0.500 ugtkg 30 19-140 3D 19-140 30
Heptachlor 0.0464 0.500 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30
Heptachlor [2C] 0.0464 0.500 ug/kg 30 39-120 30 39-120 30
Aldrin 0.369 0.500 ug/kg 30 41-120 3D 41-120 30
Aldrin [2C] 0.369 0.500 ug/kg 3D 41-120 30 4H20 30
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.170 0.500 ug/kg 30 42-132 30 42-132 30
Heptachlor Epoxide [2C] 0.170 0.500 ug/kg 30 42-132 30 42-132 30
trans-chlordane (beta-chlordane) 0.327 0.500 ug/kg 30 45-130 30 45-130 30
trans-chlordane (beta-chlordane) 0.327 0.500 ug/kg 30 45-130 30 45-130 30
[2C]
cis-Chlordane (alpha-{;hlordane) 0.111 0.500 ug/kg 30 44-129 30 44-129 30
cis-Chlordane (alpha~lordane) [2C] 0.111 0.500 ug/kg 30 44-129 30 44-129 30
Endosulfan I 0.0691 0.500 ug/kg 30 39-141 30 39·141 3D
Endosulfan I [2C] 0.0691 0.500 ug/kg 30 39-141 3D 39-141 30
4,4'-DDE 0.135 1.00 ug/kg 30 57-143 30 57·143 30
4,4'-DDE [2C] 0.135 1.00 ug/kg 30 57-143 30 57·143 30
Dieldrin 0.115 1.00 ug/kg 3D 44-135 3D 44·135 30
Dieldrin [2C] 0.115 1.00 ug/kg 30 44-135 30 44-135 30
Endrin 0.142 1.00 ug/kg 30 53-129 3D 53-129 30
Endrin [2C] 0.142 1.00 ug/kg 30 5H29 30 53-129 30
Endosulfan II 0.313 1.00 ug/kg 30 32-139 30 32-139 30
Endosulfan II [2C] 0.313 1.00 ug/kg 30 32-139 30 32-139 30
4,4'-DDD 0.320 1.00 ug/kg 30 55-124 30 55-124 30
4,4'-DOD [2C] 0.320 1.00 ug/kg 30 55-124 30 55·124 30
Endrin Aldehyde 0.390 1.00 ug/kg 30 13-120 30 13-120 3D
Endrin Aldehyde [2C] 0.390 1.00 ug/kg 30 13·120 30 13-120 30
4,4'-DDT 0.325 1.00 ugtkg 30 45·133 30 45-133 30
4,4'-DDT [2C] 0.325 1.00 ug/kg 30 45-133 30 45·133 30
Endosulfan Sulfate 0.123 1.00 ug/kg 30 16·152 30 16-152 30
Endosulfan Sulfate [2C] 0.123 1.00 ug/kg 30 16·152 30 16-152 30
Endrin Ketone 0.282 1.00 ug/kg 30 26-144 30 26-144 30
Endrin Ketone [2C] 0.282 1.00 ug/kg 30 26-144 30 26-144 30
Methoxychlor 0.298 5.00 ug/kg 30 43-125 30 43-125 30
Methoxychlor [2C] 0.298 5.00 ug/kg 30 43-125 30 43-125 30
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.342 1.00 ug/kg 30 30-120 30 3D-120 30
Hexachlorobutadiene [2C] 0.342 0.500 ug/kg 30 30-120 30 3D-120 30
Hexachlorobenzene 0.145 1.00 ug/kg 30 26-120 30 26-120 30
Hexach lorobenzene [2C] 0.145 0.500 ug/kg 30 26-120 30 26-120 30
2,4'-DDE 0.249 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30
2,4'-DDE [2C] 0.249 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30
2,4'-DDD 0.195 1.00 ugtkg 30 30 30
2,4'-DDD [2C] 0.195 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 3D
2,4'-DDT 0.187 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30
2,4'-DDT [2C] 0.187 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30
Oxychlordane 0.128 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30
Oxychlordane [2C] 0.128 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30
cis·Nonachlor 0.210 1.00 ug/kg 30 30 30
Page 1 of 2 BCWi ·!D100Q9
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:07 pm
(Continued)
8081B Pest (PSDDA I Low Level) In SOlid (EPA 808lB) (Continued)
Analyte
cis-Nonachlor [2C]
trans-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor [2C)
Mirex
Mirex [2C]
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloroethane [2C)
Toxaphene
Toxaphene [2C)
Chlordane, technical
Chlordane, technical [2C)
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl [2C)
Surr: Tetrachlorometaxylene
Surr: Tetrachlorometaxylene [2C]
1-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene
Hexabromobiphenyl
1-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene [2C]
Hexabromobiphenyi [2C)
MDL
0.210
0.228
0.228
0.644
0.644
0.571
0.571
4.48
4.48
Reporting
Umlt
1.00 ug/kg
1.00 ug/kg
1.00 ug/kg
1.00 ug/kg
1.00 ug/kg
1.00 ug/kg
1.00 ug/kg
25.0 ug/kg
25.0 ug/kg
10.0 ug/kg
10.0 ug/kg
Sunogate Duplicate ----Matrix Splke------Blank Spike I LC5--
"IoRec RPD "IoRec RPD "IoRec RPD
30-160
30-160
30-160
30-160
30 30 30
30 30 30
30 30 30
30 30 30
30 30 30
30 30 30
30 30 30
30 30 30
30 30 30
Page 2 of 2
Analytical Method Information Printe<!: 08/03/2016 11:08 pm
BOBlA PCB Solid 41n Solid (EPA SOBlA)
Preservatlon: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Oear, 8 OZ Amount Required: 150 9 Hold Time: 14 days
Reporting Surrogate Dllplicate ----Matrix Spike------Blank Spike I LCS--
Analyte MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
Arodof 1016 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor-1016 (I) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor-1016 (2) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor-1016 (3) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Aroclor-lOl6 (4) 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor 1016 [2C] 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor-IOI6 (I) [2C] 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor-1016 (2) [2C] 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor-1016 (3) [2C] 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor-1016 (4) [2C] 30 56-120 30 56-120 30
Arodor 1221 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30
Aroclor-1221 (I) 30
Aroclor-1221 (2) 30
Aroclor-1221 (3) 30
Aroclor 1221 [2C] 1.56 4.00 ugfkg 30
Aroclor-1221 (I) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1221 (2) [2C] 30
Arodor-1221 (3) [2C] 30
Arodor-1221 (4) [2C] 30
Aroder 1232 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30
Arodor-1232 (I) 30
Arodor-1232 (2) 30
Arodor-1232 (3) 30
Aroclor-1232 (4) 30
Arodor 1232 [2C] 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30
Arodar-1232 (I) [2C] 30
Arodor-1232 (2) [2C] 30
Arodor-1232 (3) [2C] 30
Arodor-I232 (4) [2C] 30
Arodor 1242 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30
Aroclor-1242 (I) 30
Aroclor-1242 (2) 30
Aroclor-1242 (3) 30
Aroclor-1242 (4) 30
Aroclor 1242 [2CJ 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30
Aroclor-1242 (I) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1242 (2) [2CJ 30
Aroclor-1242 (3) [2C] 30
Arocler-1242 (4) [2C) 30
Aroclor 1246 1.56 4.00 ugfkg 30
Aroclor-1248 (I) 30
Arodor-1248 (2) 30
Arodor-1248 (3) 30
Arodor-1248 (4) 30
Arodor 1248 [2C] 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30
Arodor-1248 (I) [2C] 30
Arodor-1248 (2) [2C] 30
Arodor-1248 (3) [2C] 30
Arodor-1248 (4) [2C] 30
Aroclor 1254 1.56 4.00 ug/kg 30
Aroclor-1254 (I) 30
Arodor-1254 (2) 30
Arodor-1254 (3) 30
Aroclor-1254 (4) 30
Page 1 of 2 B;--:Wi . Qi00Si
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:08 pm
(Continued)
8D82A PCB SOlid 4 in SOlid (EPA 8D82A) (Continued)
Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike------Blank Spike J LCS--
Analyte MOl Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
Aroclar-1254 (5) 30
Arador 1254 [2C] 1.56 4.00 lJ9/kg 30
Arodor-1254 (I) [2C] 30
Amdor-1254 (2) [2C] 30
Amdor-1254 (3) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1254 (4) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1254 (5) [2C] 30
Aroclor 1260 0.589 4.00 ugjkg 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Aroclor-1260 (1) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Aroclor-1260 (2) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Aroclor-126O (3) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Aroclor-126O (4) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Arodor-1260 (5) 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Aroder 1260 [2C] 0.589 4.00 ugjkg 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Arodar-1260 (I) [2C] 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Arodor-126O (2l [2C] 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Aroclar-126O (3) [2C] 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Aroclor-126O (4) [2C] 30 58-120 30 58-120 30
Arodor 1262 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30
Arodor-1262 (1) 30
Arodor-1262 (2) 30
Arodor-1262 (3) 30
Arodor-1262 (4) 30
Aroclor-1262 (5) 30
Aroclor 1262 [2C] 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30
Aroclor-1262 (1) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1262 (2) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1262 (3) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1262 (4) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1262 (5) [2C] 30
Aroclor 1268 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30
Arodor-1268 (I) 30
Arodor-1268 (2) 30
Arodor-1268 (3) 30
Arodar-1268 (4) 30
Arodar 1268 [2C] 0.589 4.00 ug/kg 30
Aroclor-1268 (1) [2C] 30
Aroclor-1268 (2) [2C] 30
Arodor-1268 (3) [2C] 30
Arodor-1268 (4) [2C] 30
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl 40-126
Surr: Tetrachlorometaxylene 44-120
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl [2C] 40-126
Surr: Tetrachlorometaxylene [2C] 44-120
l-Bromo-2 -Nitrobenzene
Hexabromobiphenyl
I-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene [2C]
Hexabromobiphenyl [2C]
Page 2 of 2
Analytical Method Information
TPH NW (Extractables) In Solid (NWTPH-Dx)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 8 oz Amount Required: 15 9
Printed: 08/03[201612:08 pm
Hold Time: 14 days
Reporting SUrrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Splke------Blank Spike I LCS--
Analyte MOL Umlt %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
Diesel Range Organics (CI2-C24) 2.34 5.00 mgfkg 30 63-120 30 63-120 30
Diesel Range Organics (CIO-C25) 1.98 5.00 mgtkg 30 30-160 30 75-125 30
Diesel Range Organics (Tol-C18) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30
Diesel Range Organics (CI0-24) 2.50 5.00 mgfkg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30
Diesel Range Organics (ClO-C28) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30
Diesel Range Organics (CI2-C22) 2.50 5.00 mgfkg 30 30-160 30 30-160 30
Motor Oil Range Organics (C24-(38) 2.99 10.0 mgfkg 30 30 30
Motor Oil Range Organics (C25-C36) 3.42 10.0 mgfkg 30 30 30
Motor Oil Range Organics (C24-C40) 5.00 10.0 mg/kg 30 30 30
Residual Range Organics (C23-(32) 5.00 10.0 mg/kg 30 30 30
Mineral Oil Rang€ Organics (CI6-C28) 5.00 10.0 mg/kg 30 30 30
Mineral Spirits Range Organics 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30
(Tol-C12)
JPS Range Organics (C8-CIB) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30
JP5 Range Organics (CIG-C16) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30
JP4 Range Organics (Tol-C14) 2.50 5.00 mgfkg 30 30 30
Jet-A Range Organics (CI0-ClB) 2.22 5.00 mgfkg 30 30 30
Kerosene Range Organics (Tal-CI8) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30
Stoddard Rang€ Organics (C8-CI2) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30
Creosote Range Organics (CI2-C22) 2.50 5.00 mg/kg 30 30 30
Bunker C Range Organics (CIO-C38) 2.50 5.00 mgfkg 30 30 30
Transformer Oil Range Organics 2.50 5.00 mgfkg 30 30 30
(02-C28)
Surr: o-Terphenyl 50-ISO
Surr: n-Triaoontane 50-ISO
Page 1 of 1
Analytical Method Information Printed: 0810]12016 12:08 pm
Met 74718 Hg In Solid (EPA 74718)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 2 oz
Analyte MDL
Mercury 0,002100
Reporting
Limit
0.02500 mg/kg
Amount Required: 100 9 Hold Time: 28 days
SUlTogate DupUcate ----Matrix Spike------Blank Spike I LCS--
"IoRec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
20 75-125 20 80-120 20
P0ge 1 of 1
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:08 pm
Met 200.8/6020A Master List in Solid (EPA 6020A)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Oear, 4 OZ Amount Required: 100 9 Hold Time: 180 days
Reporting SUlTO!Jate Duplicate ----Matrix Splke---· --Blank Spike I LCS-·
Analyte MOL Umlt %Rec RPD %Rec RPD oA.Rec RPD
Aluminum-27 0.550 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Antimony-121 0.0199 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 60-120 20
Antimony-123 0.0183 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Arsenic-75a 0.0298 0.200 mglkg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Arsenic-75b 0.120 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Barium-135 0.0314 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Barium-137 0.0336 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Berytlium-9 0.00954 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
cadmium-111 0.00716 0.100 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Gldmium-114 0.00500 0.100 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 So-120 20
Calcium-44 3.81 50.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Chromium-52 0.0685 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Chromium-53 0.0373 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Coba~-59 0.00572 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Copper-63 0.0372 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Copper-65 0.0259 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 8D-120 20
Iron-54 4.01 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Iron-57 1.31 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Lead-208 0.00800 0.100 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Magneslum-24 0.614 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Manganese-55 0.0133 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Molybdenum-98 0.0100 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Nickel-50 0.0168 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Nickel-52 0.268 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
PotaSSium-39 2.81 20.0 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Selenium-82 0.0322 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Selenium-78 0.391 2.00 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Silver-I07 0.00310 0.200 mrVkg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Sodium-23 14.4 100 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Thallium-205 0.00619 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Vanadium-51a 0.0214 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Vanadium-Sib 0.0214 0.200 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Zinc-66 0.285 4.00 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Zinc-67 0.226 4.00 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Zinc-68 0.326 4.00 mg/kg 20 75-125 20 80-120 20
Uthium
Scandium
Germanium
[ndium
Terbium
Page 1 011
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/2016 12:09 pm
Chromium, Hexavalent,. 7196A Solid In Solid (EPA 7196A)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 40z Amount Required: 100 9 Hold Time: 30 days
Reporting Sunvgate Duplicate "'-Matrix Spike-·----Blank Spike I LCS··
Analyte MDL Limit OfoRec RPD OfoRec RPD 'YoRec RPD
Hexavalent Chromium 0.0100 0.400 mg/kg 20 75-125 90-110 20
Page 1 of 1 5CW:i'00056
Analytical Method Information
Solids, Total Volatile (lVS) PSEp In Solid (PSEP 1986)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 4 OZ Amount Required: 100 9
Printed: 08/03/201612:10 pm
Hold Time: 7 days
Reporting Surrogate DupliQlte ····Matrix Spike-··· ··Blank Spike I LCS--
Analyle MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
Volatile Solids 0.0100 % 20
Page 1 af 1
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/201612:10 pm
Ammonla·N, SM 4500·NH3 H·97 Solid In SOlid (SM 4500·NH3 H·97)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 40z Amount Required: 100 9 Hold Time: 28 days
Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ····Matrlx Splke-··· ··Blank Spike I LCS-·
Analyte MDl limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
Ammonia-N 0.0300 0.100 mg/kg 20 75-125 90-110 20
NH3·N
Page 1 of!
Analytical Method Information Printed: 08/03/20161210 pm
SUlfide, SM 4500-52 D-O, Solid (P5EP) in Solid (5M 4500-52 D-oo)
Preservation: ZnOAc, Cool <GoC
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 20z Amount Required: 100 9 Hold TIme: 7 days
Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike------Blank Spike I LCS--
Analyle MDL Limit %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
Sulfide 0.0750 0.500 mg/kg 20 75-125 9{)-1l0 20
Page 1 of 1
Analytical Method Information
Organic carbon, Total, Plumb In Solid (Plumb 1981, Combustion IR)
Preservation: Cool <6°C
Container: Glass WM, Gear, 4 OZ Amount Required: 100 9
Printed: 08/03/201612:10 pm
Hold Time: 14 days
Reporting
Limit
SUlTogate Duplicate ----Matrix Splke------Blank Spike I LCS--
Analyte MDL %Rec RPD %Rec RPD %Rec RPD
Total Organic carbon 0.0200 % 20 75-125 90-110 20
Solids, Total, Dried at 103 -105 "C, Solid In Solid (SM 2540 G-97)
Preservation: COOl <6"C
Container: Glass WM, Clear, 4 OZ Amount Required: 100 9 Hold Time: 28 days
Reporting Surrogate Duplicate ----Matrix Spike------Blank Spike I LC5--
Analyte MDL Limit 'VaRec RPD %Rec RPD 'VaRec RPD
Total Solids 0.04000 % 20
Page 1 of!
General Chemistry Analysis
Report and Summary QC Forms
ARI Job ID: BCWl
BCWi;00203
SAMPLE RES1Jl.TS-CONVENTIONALS
BCWl-Lloyd & Asaociat •• , Inc.
ANALYTlCALA
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATI!D
Matrix: Sediment
Oata Release Authorized, vJ
Reported: 07/}8/16
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Event: 2016-:. BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
CHent 10: 07042016BARB&S-C
ARI 10: 16-10088 BCIIlA
Analyte Date IWthod Unite Sample
Hexavalen~ Chromiur.. 07/12116 SW7196A mg/kg 0.493 < 0.493 U
071216*1
",otal 301 ids 07/11/16 SM2540G Percent 0.01 80.75
07D8I6n
Presen'ed Total Solids 07/06/16 SM2540G Percent 0.01 74.44
Q706I6iil
Total Volatile Soli.ds 07/11/:6 SM2540G Percent 0.01 1.12
G71116#1
N-Ammonia C7/07/16 3M4500NH3H mg-N/kg 0.99 19.6
~707:6L
S\llfide 07/07/16 SM4500-S2D mg/kg 1. 28 1. 80
070716n
Total Organic Carbon 07114/16 Pl\llnb,1981 Percent 0.020 0.182
071416H
RL Ar.alytical reporting limit
U Undetected at reported detection limit
Hexavalent Chrome prepared using Method 3060.
Ammonia determi~ed on 2N ReI ex:=acts.
Soil Sample Report-SCln
ecwi·0i2l204
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Au~~orized:
Reported: 07/18/16
Analyte
MS/MSO RIISULTS-CONVENTIONALS
BCKl-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
Date Unit.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Event: 2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
SUlple Spike
Spika
Added Raoovery
ARI 10: BCWlA Client ID: 07042016BAR81B-C
Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 mg/kg < 0.493 9.36 24.4 38.4%
Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 mg/kg < 0.493 682 710 96.1%
N-Amrnonia 07/0N16 mg-N/kg 19.6 138 123 96.1%
Sulfide 07/07/16 mg/kg 1. 80 211 233 89.8%
Soil MS/MSD Report-BeW1
~!atrix: Sediment
REPLlCAXB RBSULTS-CONVENTIOMALS
BCNl-Lloyd Ii Associatea, Inc.
ANALYnCALIA
RE80URCESW
INCORPORATED
Data Release Authorized: vJ
Reported: 07/18/16
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Event: 2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Analyte Date Units Sample RPD/RSD
AIlI m: BCWlA Client m: 07042016!!ARBEE-C
Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 mg/kg < 0.493 < 0.486 NA
Total Solids 07/11/16 Percent eO.75 79.96 1.0%
Preserved Total Solids 07/06/16 Percent 74.44 74. 53 0.1%
Total Volatile Solids 07/11116 Percent 1.12 1.12 O.O~
N-Ammonia 07/07/16 ,,",g-NI kg 19.6 20.1 3.6%
18~7
Sulfide 07/07/16 mg/kg 1.80 1. 52 16.9%
Soi: Rep:icate Report-BeWl
LAB CONTROL RESOL'rS-coMVENTIONALS
BCWl-Lloyd , As8oci.tea, Inc.
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Authorized: vJ
Reported: 07/18/16
Analyta/Method QC ID
SJlf~de ?REP
SM450C-s2D
Total Organic Carbon ICVL
P::':ur.b,l981
Data
07/07/16
07/14/16
Project:
Event:
Date Sampled:
Da te Rece:' vea:
Unit. LeS
mg/kg 9.07
Percent 0.0%
Soil Lab Conteol Report-8CWl
BARBEr;
20:6-:
NA
NA
Spike
Adde<!
8.76
0.100
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES.
INCOf\PORATm
DRE.DGING
BARBEE
Racovery
103.5%
96.0%
Matrix; Sediment
MB'l'HOD BIJ\NK RESULTS-CONVEN'l'IONllLS
BCNl-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
BARBEE
Data Release Authorbed: ()
Reported: 07/18/16
Project:
Event:
Date Sampled:
2016-1
NA
Date Received: NA
Analyte DaU Unit. Blanlt
Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16 mg/kg < 0.395 (]
Total Solids 07/11/16 PercenT.: < 0.01 (J
Preserved Total Solids 07/06/16 Percent < 0.01 (J
Total Volatile Solids 07/11/16 Percent < 0.01 U
"-ArrL.".onia 07/07/16 mg-N/kg < 0.40 U
Sulfide 07/07/16 mg/kg < 0.05 U
Total Orgar.ic Carbon 07/14/16 Percent < 0.020 (J
Soil Method Blank Report-BC.n
ANALYnCALta
RI!SOURCES •
INCORPOAATliD
JREJGING
BAR3EE
QC ID
PREP
ICB
ICB
rCB
PRE?
PREP
Ica
STANDARD REFERENCE RESULTS-CONVENTIONALS
BCWl-Lloyd & Associatas, Inc.
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Authorized: J
Reported: 07/18/16
Analyta/SRK 10 Data
Soluble Hexavalent Chromium 07/12/16
Insoluble Hexavalent Chromiu07/l2/16
ERA ~300614
N-Ammonia
ERA #360114
Total Organic Carbon
NIST 1941B
07/07/16
07/14/16
Project:
Event:
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Units SRK
mg/kg 20.6
mg/kg 705
mg-N/kg 98.4
Percent 3.02
Soi: Standard Reference Report-BCW1
BARBEE
2016-1
NA
NA
True
Value
19.8
701
100
2.99
ANALYTICAL_
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATl:D
DREDGING
BARBEE
Recov.,,:y
104.0%
100.6%
98.4%
101. 0%
i':;'I~~W:i : 00209
Total Solids
ARl Job ID: BCWI
-I. I "ial S"ii,b
8Cwi:00228
Extractio~s Total So~ids-extts
Data By: Yen Luu
Created: 71 5/16
Oven IJ: ______________ _
Sampies I:--J: Date: ______ _
San-,pl es Ou:: Date : ______ _
.'1RI I D
CLIENT IO
Tare Wt Wet Wt
(g) (g;
---. ---------
1. BCWIA 1.12
16-10088
07042016BARBEE-C
12.48
Work1ist: 6075
Analyst: YL
Comments:
P.alnnce 1D: _____________ _
Time: _______ Ternp: ___ Analyst: ___ _
Tirne: _____ Ternp: ____ __ Analyst:
Dry Wt
(g)
10.17
% TS Dent
79.7 Yes
5g 109 12.59
6.27 12.55 15.68
Worklist iD: 6075 Page: 1
Extrac:~c~s Total Sclids-extts Worklist: 6075
Data By: Yen Luu A~alyst: YL
Created: 7( 5(16 Comments:
Oven =D:_--,r¢~r:.=.~,----_ ""I.}.. I'll 3alance I:;: (1) 7 2. 71, (J if L
Sar:tples In: Date:~Lrlme:~ Temp:~ Analyst: Jjcz
Samples Out: Date:r/> 7/@I6Tlme:¢C/\ Temp:.1..P£_ Analyst: ~1
ARI ID
CLIEN~ ID
'':''are Wt Wet Wt Dry Wt
(g) (g) (g) ~ IS Dent 5g 109
-.---~~~~~--~~~~~-
1. BCI;IA
1.6-10088
07Q42016BARBEE-C
Worklist ID: 6075 Page: 1
12.5g
..
•
Solids Data Entry Report
Date: 07/12/16
Checked by: ~ Date! ~/I:Jj Jh.
Data Analyst: AR
Solids Determination performed on 07/11/16 by AR
JOB SAMPLE CLIENTID TAREWEIGHT SAMPDISH DRYWEIGHT SOLIDS
BCW1 A 07042016BARBEE-C 1. 002 10.504 8.655 80.54
Ri":wi . ~~.23i
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Total Solids Bench Sheet
Laboratory Section ----'~..:::<.t."",."'kL-__ _
Oven Identlfication:_·_..I.O~f ____ _ Balance ID: 6!!11?, z.. }6.,
Samples In Oven: Date: :J r II I ,(,
Removed from Oven: Date: +/IZ""
ARI Tare
Sample 10 Weight (g)
&£.,..,. A [.0()'-1
.
Y,c..Li/1 A L"V2..
I>OPI A {." D \
.'
.,
/
/
/
,/ V
/
/
/
/.
/ " .. ~ttI.\b
Time:
Time:
Tare +
Sample
Wet (gl
lo,BIt
10.5'0"
111. 00 (;
)001 Temp: IQ<;°c.
Temp: I"Zt.
Tare + Date & Time Sample Last Weight Dry (Ill
(f)~ I~~ 71tl)b. 4)"'0 .
It6 sS' 'Jlll}I' 01)0
to. 00,3 'tIll/I' 08'<J
/
/
/'
V
/
./
/'
/'
/'
/'
.
Analyst:
Analyst:
Final
Weighting
:>12 hrst
Y -
V
Y
/
V
• 1) Place a check mark In thiS column If samples have dned > 12 but < 24 hours. When samples have been at 104 C < 12
hours, constant weight must be verified as described in SOP 1oo23S. Use a 2"' bench sheet for add~ional weightings.
5050F
67J..1t.1-II/,\110 ~. H't
Page 07114 Revision 003
11/20109
\
I ·;1
I
<l
~
1
I
!
.~
~
I ,
I
I ,
I
I
I
J
.,
I
Total Solids
Sample Percent Solids Target 1 Target 2 Target 5 Target 10
16GOO26-11 80.58 1.24 2.48 6,21 12.41
16GOO26-14 86.64 1.15 2.31 5.77 11.54
16G0026-15 89.07 1,12 2,25 5.61 11.23
16G0027-0l 95.17 1.05 2.10 5.25 10.51
16GOO27-03 92.68 1.08 2,16 5.39 10.79
I
!
!
Pagel
Bi~:W i : 06:233
\C'C' atlaclH:d \Llppll"llll'lllal data p<lckagl' I'llI' ,-\1l1illlOll\
Metals Analysis
Report and Summary QC Fonns
ARI Job ID: BCW]
BCwi.00i78
Cover Paqe
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DA~A PACKAGE
CLIENT: Lloyd • Associates,
PROcECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SOG: BCWl
CLIENT ID
07042016&ARBEE-C
O?042016BARBEE-CD
01042016BARBEE-CS
PBS
LesS
LCSS
ARI ID
BCHIA
BCNIADOP
BCOll\SPK
BClflMBl
BCW!MBlSPK
BCiJl1 REFl
ARI LIMS ID
16-10068
16-10088
16-100aa
16-100aa
16-100aa
16-1008S
Were rep interelernent corrections applied ?
Were Iep background corrections applied ?
If yes -were raw data generated before
application of background corrections 7
Comments: ------. _ .. _---
ANALYTICAL tiilIt.
RESOURCES '8'
INCORPORATED
Yes/No
Ye./:cJo
Yes/No
YES
YES
NO
THIS DATA P~GE HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND AUTHORIZED .'OR RELEASE BY:
Signature :!)e~"",-,,"d4-'.V.fv.C=-----
Oat e : _.. 11-'~::.l1',-,7'--ilI0,--__
Name: Eric Larson
Title: Inorganics Director
-_ ...••.......•.. _--.... _---------
COYER PAGE
INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHZZT
TOTAL METALS
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample ID: BCW1A
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Authorized:f\, \
Reported: 08/08/16 ~
Percent Total Solids: 80.5%
Prep Prep Analysis
Math Date Method
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
CLP 07/11/16 7471A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
Analyaia
Data
07/26/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/19/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
U-Analyte undetected at given DL
J-Analyte detected between D1 and LOQ
DL-Method Detection Limit
Results reported below the LOQ are foc
been evaluated by either an analyst oc
ANALYTICAL .a
RESOURCes.
INCORPORATED
Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C
SAMPLE
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
CAS Numb .. r Analyt .. DL LOQ mg/kgQ
7440-38-2 Arsenio 0.03 0.2 2.1
7440-43-9 Cadmiwa 0.008 0.115 O.OBI J
7440-47-3 Chroaium 0.08 0.6 22.1
7440-50-8 Copper 0.043 0.6 13.9
7439-92-1 Lead 0.009 0.1 4.0
7439-97-6 Mercury 0.0015 0.03 0.03 U
7440-02-0 Nick .. l 0.019 0.6 28.2
7782-49-2 S .. l .... iwa 0.037 0.577 0.577 J
7440-22-4 Silver 0.004 0.231 0.023 J
7440-66-6 Zinc 0.33 5 48
statistical purposes only and have not
data reviewer.
FORM-I
lNO~ICS ANALYSIS OATA SHEET
TOTJIL METALS
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample 10: BCWlA
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Authorized:,~ ~
Reported: 08/08/16 v~
ANALYllCAL _
RESOURCI!8 •
INCORPORATED
Sample 10: 07042016BARBEZ-C
MATRIX SPIKE
QC Report No: BCW1-L1oyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 01/C5/16
MATRIX SPIKE QUALITY CONTROL RlCPOR'l'
Analysis Spike
Analyt .. Method Sample Spik .. Added
Arsenic 6020A 2.1 31.2 28.8
Cadmium 6020n 0.1 U 29.3 28.8
C~romiu.m 6020A 22.1 54.3 28 .8
Copper 6020A 13.9 44 .0 28.8
Lead 6020A 4.0 37.2 26.8
Merc.lry HilA 0.03 0 0.34 0.283
~iickel 6020A 28.2 57.3 28.8
Selenit:m 602Dn 0.6 83.9 92.2
Silver 602DA D.2 U 26.8 28.8
Zinc 602DA 48 141 92.2
Reported in mg/kg-dry
N-Contro1 Limit Not Met
H-% Recovery ~ot Applicable, Sample Concentration :00 High
NA-Not Applicable, Analyte Not Spiked
Percent Recovery Limits! 15-125%
Ji'ORM-V
%
Recovery
101%
102%
112%
105%
115%
120.
lon
90.3~
93.1%
101%
BCwi . VrLnii!,i
INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SIIEET
TOTAL METALS
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample ID: BCW1A
LIMS 10: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Authorized:~'
Reported: 08/08/16 v\-J
ANALYTICAL tar.
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
Sample ID: 07042016BARBE!-C
DUPLICATE
QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BlIRBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
MATRIX DUPLICATE QUALITY CONTROL RBPORT
Analysis
Analyte Method Sample
Arsenic 6020A 2.1
Cadmium 6020A 0.1 U
Chromium 6020A 22.1
Copper 6020A 13.9
Lead 6020A 4.0
Mercury 7471A 0.03 U
Nickel 6020A 28.2
selenium 6020A 0.6
Silver 6020A 0.2 U
Zinc 6020A 48
Reported in mg/kg-dry
'-Control Limit Not Met
L-RPD Invalid, Limit = Detection Limit
Duplicate RPD
2.1 0.0%
0.1 U 0.0%
24.1 8.7%
14.3 2.8%
4.6 14.0%
0.03 U 0.0%
27.7 1. 8 %
0.6 U 0.0%
0.2 0 0.0%
47 2.1%
FORM-VI
Control
Limit
+1-20%
+1-0.1
+1-20%
+1-20%
+1-20%
+1-0.03
+1-20%
+1-0.6
+1-0.2
+1-20%
L
L
L
L
BCWi 00i&:2
INORGANICS ANlLYSIS DAT-k SHEET
TOTAL _TALS
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sar.',p1e 1D: BCNllCS
LIMS ID: 16-100B8
Matr.!.x; Sediment
Data Release Authorized: f".. \
Reported: 06/08/16 ~
Sample ID: tAB CONTROL
ANALYnCALa
RESOURCms.
INCORPORATED
QC Report No: BeN1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: NA
Date Received: NA
BI.ANlt SPllIE QUALl:TY CONTROL lUill'ORT
Analysi. Spike Spike ,
Analyte Method FOl,llld Addad boovary -_. __ ....
Arsenic 6020A 25.4 25.0 102~
cadmium 602DA 25.3 25.0 le1%
Chromium 6020A 25.5 25.0 102%
Copper 602DA 27 .0 25.0 108%
Lead 60l0A 27.4 25.0 110%
Mercury 7471A 0.56 0.50 112%
Nickel 6020A 25.1 25,0 100%
Selenium 602DA 76.0 80.0 95.0%
0311 vel." 6020A 24.6 25.0 98.4%
Zinc 602QA 79 60 98.8%
Reported in mglk:g-dry
N-Control 1 mit not met
NA-Not App1 cable, A:1a':'yte Not Spiked
CO;'ltro1 Lim ts: 80-120%
FORM-VII
Q
INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
TOTALHBTALS
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample ID: BCW1MB
LIMS IJ: 16-10088
~1a::!'ix: Sedime:1t \)
Data Release AJthor~zed:
Reported: 08/08/16
Percent Total Solids: NA
Prep Prep lonaly" is
*th Date _od ---_ ..
3050B 07/12116 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/:6 6020A
3050B 07/12/:6 6020A
3050B 07/12116 6020A
CLP 07/11/16 7471A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
3050B 07/12/16 6020A
Analy81"
Data
07/26/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/19/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
07/25/16
U-Analyte cmdetected at given OL
J-Analyte detected between DL and 10Q
DL-Met~od Detection ~imit
Resu:ts reported oelO\; the LOQ are for
been evaluated by either an analyst or
Sample ID: MPlTHOD IILANK
ANALYnCALIA.
RESOURCES.
INCORPOAAT1!D
QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBE~ DREDGING
2016-1 BARB~E
Date Sampled: NA
Date Received: NA
CAS Number Anal ytIt DL LOg "'9/kqQ
7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.03 0.2 0.2 u
7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.007 0.1 0.1 U
7440-47-3 Chromium 0.07 0.5 O~5 U
7440-50-8 Copper 0.037 0.5 0.5 U
7439-92-1 Lead 0.008 0.1 0.1 U
7439-97-6 Mercury 0.0013 0.02 0.02 U
7440-02-0 Nicke2. O. 017 0.5 0.5 U
7782-49-2 Selenium 0.C32 0.5 0.5 U
7440-22-4 Silver 0.003 0.200 0.010 J
74<10-66-6 Zinc 0.29 LOa 0.74 J
statistical purposes only and jave not
data reviewer.
rom-I
INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SBIET
'rOTALMETALS
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample 10: BCW1SRM
L1MS. ID: 1E~10088 !ti
t-!atrlx; Sedl.ment :
Data Release Authorized:
Reported: 07/27/16
Analysis
Analyte Method
Arsenic 20e.8
Cadmium 200.8
Chromium 20C.B
Copper 200.8
Lead 200.8
Mercury "l471A
Nickel 200.8
Selenium 200.8
Silver 200.8
Zinc 200.8
ANALYnCALA
RESOURCES '" INCORPORATED
Sample ID: S'l'D RJ:FERENCE
ERA DOB8540
QC Report No: BCWl-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
?roject: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Cate sampled: NA
Date Received: NA
Analysis Certif:i.ed Advisory
Data ll9/kg-dry Value Ranga
07/26116 120 114 89.7-139
07/25/16 92.4 93.2 77.2-109
07/25/16 96.4 lC9 86.9-131
07/25/16 125 122 99.1-144
07/25/16 107 l02 82.9-120
07/20116 10.9 9.2 6.6-11.9
07/25/16 83.2 79. "I 66.1-93.4
07/25/16 185 186 14 5-227
07/25/16 40.5 41.8 31.5-52.1
07125/16 260 230 190-270
FORM-VII
IJj
n
:[
I~'
lSi
lSI
I'"
IXI
ITi
Calibration Verification
Cr.TF.NT: [,loyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG: BCiil
ANALYTZ li:L M RUN rCVTV ICV %R CCVTV CCV1 foR
Cadmium CD PHS Ms072511 50.0 48.75 91.~ 50.0 52.05104.1
Chromium CR PMS Ms072511 ,0.0 51.34 102.1 50.0 50.72101.'
copper cu PMS MS072511 50.0 50.88 101.8 50.0 49.57 9!!Ll
Lead PB PMS MS072511 50.0 50.52 101.0 50.0 50.11100.2
Mercury "G eVA HG011902 8.0 8.51 106.4. 4.0 4.11104.3
Nickel NI PHS MS072511 ,0.0 51.05 102.1 50.0 47.99 96.0
selenium SE PMS MS072511 BO.O 75.53 94. " 50.0 50.38100.8
Silver AG PMS MSO?2511 50.0 47.91 is.8 50.0 48. B6 91.1
7. inc: ZN PMS MSD72511 50.0 48.£2 97.2 50.0 SO.B4101.7
Control Limits: Mercury 80-120; Other Metals 90-110
FORM II (1)
ANAL YTICAL(ft
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
UNITS:ug/L
CCV2 'R CCV3 foR CCV4 'R CCV5 foR
50.91101.8 52.91105.8 50.74101.5
48.33 96. i 47.17 94.3 48.54 97.1
47,18 94.4 50.55101.1 49.76 9090,5
50.61101.2 50.38100.8 50.91101.8
4.14103.5 ".24106.0 4.2010.5.0 4.46 111.5
47.83 95."7 50.34100.7 48.21 96.'
50.79101.6 52.29104.15 52.6010S.2
46.42 92.8 46.58 93.2 47.77 95.5
51,06102.1 53.49107.0 Sl.SQ 103.2
III rl r: ....
lSi
IS:
1-"
IX!
-.j
Calibration Verification
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG: BCWl
ANALYTI! II:L M RUN
Arsenic
Mercury
.AS PHS MS072691
8G eVA HGQ120Cl
I=
50.0
8.0
ICV "'R
48.35 PIS."
8.63 10'7.9
CCVTV
50.0
4.0
CCYl 'R
51.40102 .•
4.2210!.!i
Cent rof"Li"iid ts: Mercury 60-120; Other Metals 90-110
rollM U (1)
CCV2 'IIR
50.80101.6
4.2510'.3
cCV3 'R
~O.29 100.6
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
UNITS:ug/L
CCV4 'R CCV5 'IIR
CRDL Standard
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
~ROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
BOG: BCWI
ANALY'lE EL M RUN CRA/I TV CR-l 'R CR-2 'R CR-3 'R CR-G 'R
Cadmium CD PHS MS072511 0.1 0.12 120.0
Chromium CR PMS MS072511 0.5 0.57 11'.0
copper CU PHS MSO'12511 0.5 0.50 100.0
Lead PB PMS MS072511 0.1 0.11 110.0
M-ercury HG cv~ HG071902 0.1 0.05 50.0
Nickel Nl PM5: MS072511 0.5 0.51 102.0
Selenium SE PHS HS()72511 0.5 0.-4.6 92.0
Silver AG PMS MS072511 0.2 0.20 10(LO
Zinc ZN PHS MS072511 4.0 4.25 106,)
Control Limits! no control limits have been established by the EPA at this time.
FORM II (2)
CR-5
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
UNITS:ug/L
'R CR-6 %R
CRDL Standard
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
BOG: BCWl
J\NALYTIil ZL M RUN CRAil TV
J\rsenic
Mercury
AS PHS MS072681
HG eVA HG072001
0.2
0.1
CR-~ "'R
0.18 90.0
0.12 120.0
CR-2 'R CR-3 "'R CR-4 "'R
Control Li~its: no control limits have been established by the EPA at this time.
FORM II (2)
CR-5
ANALYTICAL ~
Rl!IOURCEI...,
INCORPORATED
UNITS:ug!L
'R CR-6 'fiR
III
rI
[:
I~'
(SI
!lil t··
W
til
Ca1ibration B1anks
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
800: BeWl
ANALYTE EL MEft RUN CIlDL
Cadmium CD PMS MS01251t 5.0
Chromium CR PMS MS072511 10.0
Copper cu PMS M5072511 25.0
Lead P. PMS MSC72511 3.0
Mercury AG CVA HG071902 0.2
Micke t 1fT PKS MS072511 4.0.C
Selenium SE PMS MS0725:11 5. (]
Silver AG PMS MS072~11 10.C
Zinc ZN PMS M9[]72511 20.0
--_ ... __ ...
IDL ICB C
0.1 0.1 U
O.~ 0,5 U
0.5 0,5 V
0.1 0.1 u
0.1 0.1 u
0.5 0.5 u
0.5 0.5 u
0.2 0,2 u
'.0 '.0 U
ANAlYTICAl.
RESOURCES
INCORPORATED
UNITS:llg!L
CCBl C CO2 C CCB3 C CCB4 C CCBS C
0.1 " 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U
O.S 0 O.S V O.S 0 0,5 U
O.S u O.~ u 0.5 u 0.5 u
0,1 u 0.1 U n.l U G. 1 U
0.1 U 0,1 U 0.1 " 0.1 U 0.1 B
a.5 u 0.5 U 0,5 u 0,5 u
0.5 U 0.6 B 0,5 u 0.5 u
0.2 u 0.2 U 0.2 u 0,2 U
'.0 U '.0 U 4,0 U 4.0 u
FORM III
Ca1ibration B1anks
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SOG: BCWI
ANALYTE EL METH RUN
A.rsenic
Mercury
AS PHS MS072681
KG eVA RG072001
CRDL
10.0
0.:;':
IDL
0.2
0.1
lOB C
C.2 U
C.l U
COBI C
0.:2 tJ
0.1 U
FORM III
CCB2 C
0,2 U
0,1 U
COB3 C CCB4 C
0.2 U
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES ...,
INCORPORATED
UNITS:ug/L
CCB5 C
0'
C"!
t.
I .... •
jSi
IS:
I'"
11'
1\'
ICP Interference
Check Sample
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG: BCWl
AIIloLY'rlI lCB TV ICSAB "1!Y
Antimony
lu:,senic 20
Cadmil.lJ[l 20
Chromium 20
copper 20
Lead
Manganese 20
Molybdenum <00 <00
Nickel 20
Selenium
Silver 20
Zinc 20
%CSAl
0.1
D .•
0.0
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.8
426.1
0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.6
:ICSA.Bl \II. ICIIA2
-0.1
19.6 518.0
19.4 517.0
19.7 ga.s
19.5 97.S
0.1
18.6 Sli3.0
4.22.410S.6
19.9 99.S
-0.1
18.9 94.S
18.S 94.0
FORM :IV
IC8AD2 'R
ANAlYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
ICS SOURCE: I.V.
RUNID: MS072511
INSTRUMENT 10: NEXION 300D
UNITS: ug/L
IC,"", ICSAB3 ....
!lI n t:
~~
(51
fSl
r>'
;ll
!:tJ
XCP Interference
Check Sample
CLIENT: T~ loyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG: SCWl
~ ..... lea rrv ",,, .... 'l'V
Arsenic 20
Cadmium 20
Chro:rtium 20
co~pt!r 2C
M&ngan"~. 20
Mol ybde:num .00 .CC
Nickel 20
seleniuro.
Sil'Vf'!I~ 20
Zinc 20
Ie""," tCU1l1 U IC8A2
0.0 19.5 9'.5
C.O 19,4 e1.Q
C.7 20 . .a 102.Q
c., 20.3.101.5
D.a 20.6103.0
397.7 407.4101.9
0.2 2C.41.02.0
0.1 C .1
0.1 20\1.4122.0
0.6 20.0100.0
FORM rv
ICSM2 .Il
ANALYTICAL,.
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
ICS SOURCE: I.V.
RUNID: MS072681
INSTRUMENT ID: NEXION 350D
UNITS: ug/L
ICIIA3 rCSU3 t.
lDLs and lCP ANAL YTlCAL ~
RESOURCES
Linear Ranges INCORPORATED
CLIENT: Lloyd ~ Associates r
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
StlC: BCWl UNITS: ug/L
QrA
AIIlUoHII m. IS'l!l IIIS'DtUHKll" 1aUloD'lB IIN:Z-CLl' IlL IlL Ie. LInAR JCP IJt
I"') QlOUIID ClIDL 1>11.9 lWI<aI Cuq/L) I>II.'1B
Arsenic AS PIIS NEXION 3500 MS 0.00 10 0.2 4/l/2012
Cadmium CD PMS f'lexION 3000 MS 0.00 5 o .J 4/1/2012
Chromium CR PHS N'EXION 3000 MS 0.00 10 0.5 4/1/201,
Copper eu PHS HiXION 300D MS 0.00 25 0.5 4/1/2012
Lead PB PMS NEXION 3000 MS 0.00 3 0,:' 4/112012
Mercury HG eVA CETAC MERCURY 253 _ 7C 0.2 0.1 4/1/2012
Nickel NI PMS NEX1QN lOGo MS 0.00 '0 0.5 4/1/2012
Selenium SE PHS N;S;XION ]eOD MS Q,DC 5 0.5 41]/2012
Silver AG PMS NEXIOH leOD MS 0.00 10 0.2 4!l/2012
Zinc Z" PHS NEXION 3000 Ms 0.00 20 •. 0 411/2012
l!'OBM X/XII
Preparation Log
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
BOG: BCWl
CLUlI'l 10 AlII 11>
0'}042016i!A1\BiJ-C BCW1A
01C42C16BARBEE-CD BCWIAOUF
Q1C4,C16BARBEE-CS 8cwlASPP:;
PBS BcwUtal
Less BCWIHBlSPI<
Less BCWlf,.EFl
1.016
LC7)
).017
1.000
l.oao
1.003
FORM XlIX
ANALYTICALt.a
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
ANALYSIS METHOD: PMS
ARI PREP CODE: SWN
PREPDA1E: 7/12/2016
ncITIlIL P ....... 1/QLmm
YQl. .... IIoLI (mol
0,0 50,0
0,0 50,0
0,0 50.0
0,0 50.0
0,0 50,0
0,0 ;0,0
BCwi 0;;'i35
Preparation Log'
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG: BCW1
= ... m IIIU ID
01C420168ARBEE-C BCWIA
a -I 0'; 2 0 HiBARBEiI-C:O BcwlA:-UP
C1042016BARBEE-CS .BCW1ASPK
PBS aCltlMBl
LCSW BCwlMB1SPL<:
LCSW-CVA BcwlREfl
IG\SS Ig)
0.215
0.214
C.219
0.200
~.200
0.204
ANAL YTlCAL t&
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
ANALYSIS METHOD, CVA
ARI PREP CODE: SMM
PREPDATE: 7/11/2016
tJI%'flllL ruw. VOLUIIB
VOLll!GI h,L) IIIL)
C.O 50.0
C.O 50.0
C.O 50.0
0.0 50.0
0.0 ,0.0
0.0 50.0
------.......... _------
FORM XIII
aCWi·00i96
III
t":1 .....
<,.
1-1-
51
lSi
I":'
11; ,
'~I
Analysis Run Log
Cl.IENT: Lloyd & Associate.,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGI NG
8DG: BCWl
CUD'r It> J\IU m
CRr MCRl
ICSA ICSAI
ICS1l.8 ICSAsr
ZZZlZZ LR200
ZZZZZZ LR30C
zzzzzz Bl
ZZZZZZ 82
CCv Mccv2
cee COB2
zzzzzZ BDM3MBt
PBS BcwlMBl
07042016BARSEE-CD flCWlAOVP
D7042016BARBEE-C BCWIR
07042016BARflEE-CS BCWIASPK
ZZZZZZ 2ZZZZZ
1,CSS ElCW1MBlSPK
Less EcwlREFl
ZZZZZZ BDM3B
ZZZ;ZZZ BDM3MS1SPK
ccv MCCV3
ceB CCB3
C7042016B~RSEE-CD BcwIADm'
C7042C16BARBEE-C BCWIA
D:IL. 'l'DIIi:
., "' .... ~ '" A .....
1.00 14000
1.0014050
1.00 1410C
Lao 14110
LaO 14220
1. 00 14300
1. 00 14370
LD01443C
1. 00 H51C
1. 0014560
20.00 1501C
20.001SClSG
20.0015100
20.0015150
20.0015200
20.00 15260
20.00 15320
1.00 15390
1.00 15450
1.0015510
1. 00 IS59t
]00. 00 16C4C
100. 00 16C9C
INSTRUMENT 10: NEXION 300D MS
RUNID: MS072511 METHOD: PMS
ANALYTICAL ~
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
START DATE: 7/25/2016
END DATE: 7/25/2016
w~n~B~_~~oo~~nKK~*~M~~ftqngnnuvn
·x
X
x
X
x
x
Xi
;1 x
x
x
IX
'x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
J __ .l_ J
FORM x:rv
X
x
X
XI
x
Xi
~I
• y • x
x
x
I:
I
x
x
xi
x
x
x
x
x;
I
X X
x x
X X
X X:
x x
x x
x x
X X
x x
x x
XIX x x
x x
-'
XIX
x x'
XIX
x x
I x:x
xix
XIX x x
I:I~
.1 :
I I I
X X
:X X'
x x
x x
X X
x x
x x
x x
X X
X X
I x x
x x
x x
x x
:.< X~
i)( xl
x:x
xix
I~<I
x .
x:
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
!X
I-x
x
X
X
X
Xi
x'
X
x
X
x
.x
Ix
I
I
! x :
. x'
X
Ix
x'
x'
x
x
x
x .-x
x
x
I x
x
x
x
x
jx
x
x
x
... 1.. .. _.: .... L
'Ji t~1
:t: "",
iSl
lSI
fJ·
III N. I~~
Anal.ysis Run Log
CLIENT: Lloyd Ii Associ.ates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SOO: BCWl
CLIDrl' 1"D AM III
C1042D16BARBEE-CS Bcwl~SPK
ZZZZZZ ZZZZ2Z
Less BCWIREFl
zzzzzz BOH.)ADUP
zZ2ZZZ BDMJA
ZZZZZZ BOM3ASPK
ZZZZZA BDSSA
Z.ZZZZZ BDS5MBSPK
CCV HCCV4
CCB cce-4
INSTRUMENT 10: ~EXION 3000 MS
RUNID: MS0725ll METHOD: PMS
ANALYTICAL ..a
RESOURCES ""
INCORPORATED
START DATE: 7/25/2C16
END DATE: 7/25/2016
DIL. Ina: UM~U.Du~ro~a~n~K~*~_~nn_"n~nuvg
ICC.OO 16130
lce.oo 161BC
lCO. 00 16240
1.00 16320
1.00 16370
].0016410
1.0016490
1. OC 16550 l'
1. 00 11010
i.OO 110BO
I
~
x
I
i
x x
x x
FORM XIV
I
, I '
I i I I I xl
:
i
x
1
x x xi xl
x :x x ! x : i x -
01
("I
t::
I'"'c
lSi
lSI
1-"
W
W
Analysis Run Log
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG: BClil
CLIIDI'r m lilt. :m
sO so
51 51
52 52
83 83
5. 54
55 S5
ZZZZZZ RINSE
rcv toIleV
reB ICB
ccv MCCVl
CCB CCBl
CRr MeRr
ICSA leSAI
ICSAB ICSABI
zzzzzz LR200
zzzzzz LR300
zzzzzz B1
ZZZZZZ B2
ccv MCCV2
CCB CCB2
PBS BeWINSl
07042016BARBEE-CD BCWIADUP
07042016BJ!,RBEE-C BCWIA
07042016BARBEE-CS BCWIASPK
ZZZZZZ zzzzzz
LCSS BCWIMB1SPK
LCSS BCWIREi'l
Z22ZZZ BDW7A
ZZZZZZ BDW8A
zzzzzz BDT9c
CCV MCcv3
Cf:B eCBJ
__ c
en. 'rna
Loa 14000
1. DO 14040
1.00 14080
1.00 14130
1. Do 14180
1. 00 14240
1.00 14310
1.0014370
1.00 14410
LOa 14460
1.00 14510
LOO 14550
L 00 14590
1. 00 15040
1.DOISOac
1.00 1512C
1.00 15190
1.00 15260
1.00 15330
1.00 15410
20.0015460
20. 00 15500
20.00 15540
20. aD 15590
20.0016030
20.0016080
20.00 16130
5.0016200
1.0016270
1C .0016320
1.00 16380
1.0016450
INSTRUMENT ID:
RONID: MS072681
NEXIDN 350D MS
METHOD: PMS
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
START DATE: 7/26/2016
END DATE: 7/26/2016
U~~~BMDa~~~ronGK~_~_~nng~~nnuv~
x I I
I
X ,
X
X'
X ,
,
i
I
, ,
I
,
x , , I I
X ! !
I x I,
X
, ,
X , X , ,
X ! ! i
I
: I
I
, , ,
X I I
i
X !
I I x
I
I
, ,
:x !
X ,
, •
!
X ,
X i ,
i
I
I I !
X
I J , ,
x ~
FORM XIV
I
,
I
i
I
OJ
CI
:E:
I~
~
lSI
1\1
lSI
lSI
Analysis Run Log
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
BOO: BCWl
CL~Dft m
so
SC.1
sO.5
51
82
.5
510
lCV
Ice
cev
CCB
CRA
ZZZZZZ
ZZ7ZZZ
zzzzz:z
2:ZZZZ2
2:ZZ2ZZ
ZZZZZZ
zZzzzz
zzzzz:z
zzzzzz
cev
eeB
zzzzzz
PBW
LCSW
LCSW-CVA
07042016BARBEE-C
07042QlijBARBE£-CD
07Q42016RAkBEE-CS
ecv
eCB
zzzzzz
ZZ2ZZZ
eev
AIU III
so
SO.1
SO.S
51
52
55
SlC
"leV
rCB
ACcvl
CCSI
eRA
BCTIMBI
BCTiMB1SPK
Berle
BCT1CDDP
eCTICSPK
BCZ4MBl
BCZ4MSlSPK
BC?4B
8cz4BDU~
ACCVZ
CCB2
BCZ4aSPl(
ACW1H81
BCMIMBlSPK
BCW1 R!:P'l
BOHA
BCliU\DUP
BCWIASI?K
ACcv3
CCB3
BOC7MBl
BCC7MBl
ACCV4
DIL. 't'DIa
Lao 13160
1.0013173
1.0013191
1.00 13205
1. 00 13223
'1.00 13240
1.00 13254
1.00 13274
1.00 13291
1.00 13305
1.0013323
1.0013341
1.00 13354
1.0013372
1. DC 13385
1.00:3403
1.0013421
1.00 13434
1. 00 13452
l.oe 13470
1.00 134134
1.00 13502
1.0013520
] .00 13533
1.00 13551
Loa 13564
].0013592
1.0014020
1.00 14034
]. 00 14052
1.00 1-4065
1. 00 14083
1. 00 14140
1.0014195
1.0014265
INSTRUMENT 10: CETAC MERCURY
RUNID: HG071902 METHOD: eVA
ANAL YTtCAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
START DATE: 7/19/2016
END DATE: 7/19/2016
U~~UBD_~~OO~Wft~~~*~Mmwab~pnnUVD
x
x
X
X
,x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I:
: x
IX
I ,
I I
x
x
x
x
x : I i I j i
..L:x!vl 1 1 1 ' "1 1 WilL ulUllJ
Analysis Run Log
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
SOO: BCW1
CLr::IlfT m AIU m
CCB CCB4
ZZtZZZ BCZ48
22ZZZZ BCZ4BOUP
ZZZZZZ 8CZ4BSPR
LCSW-CVA BCWlREFl
CCV ACCv5
CCB cess
--
DI:L. !rna:
1.00 14.283
1.0014301
1.001.4314
:.. DO 14332
10,DO 14345
1.0014363
1.00 14381
INSTRUMENT ID: CETAC MERCURY
RUNID: HG071902 METHOD: CVA
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
START DATE: 7/19/2016
END DATE: 7/19/2016
UM~MBMu~~~~OOnG~~_~_nn~_npHnuv_
,
!
x
I I I \
I ,
! I I :J I
i
! i _11 , I i -I
FORM XIV
III
C:
:E
I-h
lSI
lSI
!\I
IS!
1-\1 ",
Analysis Run Log
CLIENT: Lloyd & Associates,
PROJECT: BARBEE DREDGING
BDG: BCWI
CLIDI1' ID ARJ: tD
so sO
SO.l 50.1
SO.5 SO.5
S1 51
92 52
55 95
SIO 510
leV AICV
IeB ICB
eev ACCV1
ceB CCB1
eRA eRA
LCSW-CVA BCi'ilREFl
ZZZZZZ BOC7MBl
ZZZZZZ BDC7MB1SPK
ZZ2ZZZ BDC7A
ZZZZZZ BDC7ADOP
cev ACCV2
eeB CCB2
OIt.. 'l'n.
1. 00 11070
1. 00 11084
1.0011101
1.0011115
1.0011133
1, 0011151
1. 0011164
1.00 11191
1.0011204
1.00 11222
1.00 11240
1.00 11254
10.0011271
1.00 11285
1. 00 11303
1. 00 11320
1. 00 11334
1. 00 11352
1. 00 11370
INSTRUMENT IO: CETAC MERCURY
RUNIO: HG072001 METHOD: CVA
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
START DATE: 7/20/2016
END DATE: 7/20/2016
U~~MBDDa~~QWHmK~_~_nnnH~pn=UVD
! I
x
I I I
I I
X
j X
I x
I
x
X ,
I
X I
I ,
, , x "
I ,x ! i X ,
i X
I
X
I
, X I
I
, 1
U J
,
I
,
I
, , ,
I I
X
I i
X I~
FOBM xrv
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Supplemental Parameter: Antimony
14 November 2016
Michael Lloyd
I ,loyd & Associates
38210 SE 92nd Street
Snoqualmie. WA 98065
RE: Barbee Dredging
Please find enclosed sample reccipt documentation and analytical results t()r samples from the project referenced
above.
Sample analyses were performed according to ARl's Quality Assurance Plan and any provided project specitic
Quality Assurance Plan, Each analytical section of this report has been approved and reviewed by an analytical
peer. the appropriate I,aboratory Supervisor or qualitled substitute. and a technical rc\'iewer.
Should you have any questions or problems. please feel free to contact us at your convenience,
Associated Work Order(s}
16)0436
Associated SDG lD(s)
N/A
I certify that this data package is in compliance \\,ith the terms and conditions orthe contract. both technically
and for completeness, for other than the conditions dctailed in the enclose Narrative. ARI. an accredited
laboratory. certifies that the report results for which ARI is accredited meets all the reqirements of the
accrediting body. A list ofcertitied analyses. accreditations. and expiration dates is included in this report.
Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or
his/her designee. as veri tied by the following signature.
Analytical Resources. Inc. I II<' "-'_1111/\ I!I rim I'I:pUri apI'/]' I(J III,' ,Iamrl!'.\" a!lal)":::,," 1!1 accorda!lC'<' ,nIh Ih<'
dWIII 0/ t'II,I,ud)"d""IIIII.'11I till' rmalrl/cal "-'rorl !III/,ll hI.' "-Trvdm.""d ill III
cIII'I'I."n
Cheronne Oreiro, Project Manager
Page 1 of 378
(~rt# 100001>
PJLA Testing
,"'~credllatlon Ii 66169
e Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Analytical Report
Lloyd & Associates
38210 SI: 92nd Street
Snoqualmie WA, 98065
Sample receipt
Project· Barbee Dredglllg
ProJcct Number' 2016-1 Harbee
Projcct Manager' :Vllchacl !.loyd
Case Narrative
Reported:
14-'\10\'-201613:53
One sediment sample was removed from frozen archive on October 24,2016 and logged under ARI workorder 16J0423. For
details regarding sample receipt, please refer to the Cooler Receipt Fonm.
Antimony. EPA Method SW6020A
The sample and associated laboratory QC were digested and analyzed within the recommended holding times.
The method blank was clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. ERA D088-540
was analyzed as a reference material.
The matrix spike percent recovery of 07042016BARBEE-C fell outside the control limits low for sample
07042016BARBEE-C. A post digestion spike was analyzed and the recovery was within control limits . All relevant data have
been flagged with a -.-qualifier. No further corrective action was taken.
The duplicate RPD was within control limits.
2,4·Dimethylphenol • EPA Method SW8270D-SIM
The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the recommended holding times.
Initial calibrations and initial calibration verifications were within method requirements.
The internal standard area of Perylene-d12 fell outside the control limits low for BEK0139-BLK1 All other internal standard
areas were within limits. No corrective action was taken.
The surrogate percent recovery of p-Terphenyl-d14 was outside the control limits high for BEK0139-BLK1. All other percent
recoveries were within control limits. No corrective action was taken.
2,4-Dimethylphenol was present in BEK0139-BLK1 at a level that was greater than the reporting limit. The associated
sample result was undetected for this compound. No corrective action was taken
The LCS percent recovery was within control limits. CRM 143-50G was analyzed as a reference materiaL
The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within limits.
Page 2 of 378
" J!l m
w
8,
~
CD
0
(~
:[
~
IS
lSI
lSI
lSI
til
Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request
ARIAsslgnedNumI>or: ~C.:W \ Turn·~;;':;;:":Pb Page: , of .' Analytical Resources, Incorporated a Analytical Chern is" and Consultant,
" 4611 South 1341h Place, Suite 100 ARt Cienl Company: Phone: t:LT!.t/-!zcrt, I ~esent? _,*-5 Tukwila, WA 98168 Lt..<>y DoLL! ~ ~rr' ~:':10t1 'IzS -t8.5-t~ 206·695·6200 206·695·6201 Ifax)
Cli·M;:'~ .. _~ Ll..~!::> No. or t C<ICIIor ).& www.arilabs.com Coole",: Tompo:
Client~9ClName: D;?, Analysis Req_ted NotesICommants
~ D"'~ GrDGr-t'VC::r ~~ l ~~ I~~ i ~ C~ent~ k-J ~Q~ Si)"::; B. . I. ..I. {LcM ~~ ~I.\j ~it ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Sample ID Date lime Matrix No. Conlllnen. ~~ ~ VI ~~ ~
670jl-Zdt. 1+-0 ~ ~ 7/1}'1 1360 s.e-!':>, /3 2-/ I :z... 2-/ z.. 2-
~bt'; CommentslSpecial Instructions "'''''~Dt. _ ... , ~ . isIled by'.
tCJmp05/~ op (SIgn.t:: -,? ~ , ......... ,---=-=-----1_'
Prinltcl NaITMt'. C,./
PrinIodN_. ~ ler i2 <;._/:..--. ~------Prlr'llaclHame:
R.MIC .Ll. t..LoLl> t:-... SJ:'P--f.l Se0~ L;/F;::: I """'P'''''' NL'L ""'-",
"""-" -----
t.EfJ:>-3. °f.lS/zo/(~ CJC/z.; ;·7'~·11o{:> OaIe&Tme: o.te & Tlrrw'
0')7...7
igned8g1
Sample RetenUon PoUcy: All samples submined to ARI will be aps.'Il'Opriately discarded no sooner than 90 days after receipt or 60 days after submission of hardcopy dala. whichever is longer, unless a/terna1e
retention schedules have been established by worK~order or contract.
A Analytical Reso""es, Incorporated
~ Analytical Chemists and Consult.nts Cooler Receipt Form
ARI Client I \ cyJ... ~ bOC,;.~5
COCNo(s): @ Project Name.,·_ -..w~c..:::":::'::::"'"":::;~'t:~1------
Assigned ARI Job No: ~ t \,oJ ~ TraCking NO: ______________ -"~
Prallmlnary Examination Phase:
Were intad. properly signed and dated custody seaJs attached to the outside of to cooler?
Were custody papers included with the coole!? ................................. "., •....
Were custody pap."proper!y filled out~nk. signed. etc.) .........•...•............................ ~
Temperature of Coolerls) iC) (recommended 2.0-8.0·C '.rchemistry) '5~-8
YES
~
§
NO
NO
T1m.: ____ _
If ceoler tempelllture 10 out 0' co~li.nce fill out Ionn 00070F -Tem-p G-Un-I-OII: D-co-5' L'7\;;
Cooler Accepted by: ___ ""L.>...;..-(t--________ Da'te: / -c;--Ilo Trm8 0'1 L /
Complete custody rom.. and attIIch .11 ohlpp/nl/ documents
Log-I n Phase:
Was a temperature blank Indudad in the cooler? ...... , ..•.. , ..... _,,, ..... _ ...... _ ..... YES
What kind of packing matl.Vial was used? ... Bubble Wrap ~ Gel Packs Baggles Foam Block Paper other. ____ _
....•...•....... _ .•...•.. ~................~.~ NA ~ Was sufficient Ice used (If """roprlalo)? .
Were all botUe!5 sealed In individual pfastic bags? •.•. " ... " ............................................... ..
Old all bottles Irrtve in good condition (unbroken}? ................................................................ .
Were aa bottle labeisoomp1et. ,lid legible? .........•.. _ ..........•...•.... ~ .. ~.~ .. ~ ............. ~~ ...... ~ ........... .
Old the number of containEN'S listed on COC malch with the number of containers recetved? ............... .
Old all bottle tabels and tag. agree with e""tody pope,,? ........... . .............. ~ ......•.....................
Were all boWes used correct for the requesfed anBIY$es? ' .............. ".,." ...... ,,, ................... __ ..... , .. .
Do sny of the analyses (bottles) require preservation? (attach pre&eMltion IIheet. excluding VOCS} ...
Were aU VOC viillsfree cfair bubbles? ........ " ........... " .. "" ................... ..
Was sufficient amount or sample sent In each bottle? ............... , ............. .
Date voe Trip Blank was made atARI. .. , ......................... , ...... " ..
~
~.
~
dIP
m:>
®
YES
YES
@
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Was Sample Spflt by ARI : Qj);> YES DalalTl-n.·. ____ _ Cqulpment _____ _ Splttby: __ _
YIJA, 7 I / q : '-I :J.-Samples Logged by: ___ ...;~:::.y::.... _____ ,Dat.: __ ./..--~5,,--.:...I.!"c-_Tim.: _____ l'--_
.... Noflfy Project Manager of dl.crspancles OT concerns ...
Sample ID on Bottle Sample tD on cae SamJ)fe ID on Bottle Sam Ie 10 on cae
AddWona' Notes. DIscrepancieS', & Resolutions:
I
I I B~
Sm;IIAir_
•
'I
0016F
312110
-....... • • •
Page 4 of 378
Date:
J3e;;;bubblea'
~-4mm
• ••• •
LAAGEAi_ Small-7 "sm" « 1 mm)
~4mltl Ptllbubbles ~ "pb" (1 t\ll< 4 mm) • • • Lar:e~ 1oI1g" (4 to< 6 mm)
.. -.---.. _-Headspact -+ "bs" (;lo 6 mm )
Cooler Receipt Form
-~.-. ~ .
Revision 014
• Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Lloyd & Associates
38210 SE 92nd Street
Snoqualmie. WA 9X065
Sample JD
07042016BARB[[;·C
Page 5 of 378
Project: Barbee Dredging
Project Number: 2016-1 Barbee
Project Manager: Michael Lloyd
ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
laboratory JD '\-'Iatrix
16J0436·01 Solid
Reported:
11114/201613:53
Date Sampled Date Received
07/04116 I J 00 07/0511609'27
I"'I!!!!tJ.. Analytical ~_ Resource5, U Incorporated
Internal Chain of Custody
Client
Project:
Number:
Lloyd & Associates
Rarbee Dredging
2016-1 Barbee
16J0436-01 (07042016BARBff-C) Sampled 071041201613:00
Current Status Out
I6J0436-01 A [Glass WAf, Clear. 160=]
Sample Receiving 101261201616:28 by JEM
Metals
16JOo/36-01 B [Glass WAf, Clear. 160=]
Sample Receiving
Extractions
Page 6 of 378
101311201607:27 by AR
101311201609:17 by AR
101311201609: 17 by AR
111071201609:36 by AR
111071201614:13 by AR
111101201608:32 by AR
111101201609:28 by AR
101261201616:28 by JEM
111031201615:29 by YQL
11/041201616:19byYQI.
Received:
Receivt:d 8):
Temp (OC):
05-Jul-201609:27
Justin Meyer
0,00
Location In
lIa::ard lnfo:Chromium-52 /24. 94543mgi kgj: Chromium-53 {2.J.07033mg"xg]
'''SIARP'' 10126/201616:28 by JEM
Metals Prep Lab
R02D-13
R02D-13
Metals Prep Lab
R02 D-13
Metals Prep Lab
R02D-13
10131/201609: 17 by AR
111071201609:36 by AR
10131/201609:17 by AR
111071201614:13 by AR
111101201608:32 by AR
111101201609:28 by AR
by
Ha=ard "lfo.Chromlum-52 [N 9o/5-13mg'kgj. Chromium-53 [U07033mg.kg}
***START***
Organic E,tractions
F-05 07
10/26/201616:28 by JEM
11103/201616:14 by YQL
by
~. Analytical !!I. Resources,
Incorporated
Definition
QUALIFIERS AND NOTES
Qualifier
lJ This analyte is not detected above the applicable reporting or detection IliniL.
Estimated concentration value detected below the reponing limit
D The reported value IS from a dilution
B This analyte wa<; detected in the method blank
Flagged value IS not within established control limits
DET Analyle DF:TECTED
l\[) Analyle l\OT DETECTED at or above the reportmg limit
l\R Not Reported
dry Sample results reponed on a dry weight baSIS
RPD Relati\'c Percent Difference
Page 7 of 378
~ Anatytica.1 ~,. Resources,
""" I ncor-porated
Form I
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 07042016RARREF.-C
EPA6020A
Tota! Metals
I.aooratory: Analvtical Resources, Inc. Project: Barbee Dredging
Client: Lloyd & Associates
Matrix: Soil
Sampled: 07/0411613:00
Solids (wt%): 78.74
Laboratory ID: 16J0436-0 I RE2
Prepared: 11/1011608:36
Preparation: SWN EPA 3050R
Batch: BEK0278 Sequence: SEKO 159 Calibration: ZK00042
Concentration Dilution
CAS:-'O. Analyte (mg/kg dry) Factor .\\DL
7440-36-0 Antimony-121 0.25 I 0.02
Page 8 of 378
SDG: 16J0436
File ID: XDT m2161110-077
Analyzed: 11/1011616:31
Initial/Final: 1.031 g i 50 mL
Instrument: ICPMS2
MRL Q
0.25 U
• Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
PREPARATION BATCH SUMMARY
EPA6020A
Laboratol)': Analvtical Resources Inc. SDG:
Client: Lloyd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging
Batch: BEK0278 Batch Matrix: Preparation: SWN EPA 30;01l
SAMPLE NAME LAB SAMPLE ID LAB riLE ID DATE PREPARED OBSERVATIONS
0704201611ARBEE-C 16J0436-01RE2 XDT m2161110-077 IIIIOI160S:36 Need MS/Oup + PS + SRM
(EOOI354)
Blank BEK027S-BLK I XDT m2161110-075 1111011608:36
LCS BEK0278-BSI XDT m2161110-0S0 1111011608:36
070420 I 6BARllEE-C BEK0278-DUPI XDT m2161110-076 11I101160S:36
07042016BARBEE-C llEK027S-MS I XDT ~m2161110-078 11110/1608:36
Reference BEK0278-SRMI XDT~m216111O-081 111101160S:36
Page 9 of 378
I'll;;;;;.. Analytical ~_ Resources,
~ IncoP"pOl"ated
Batch: BEK0278
Matrix: Solid
s cqucncc: SEKOl59
CAS NO. Analyte
7440-36-0 Antimony-121
7440-36-0 Antimony-I 23
Page 10 of 378
Form I
METHOD BLANK DATA SHEET
EPA6020A
Total MdaJs
Laboratory ID: BEK0278-BLKI
Prepl:lralion: SWN EPA 30S0n
Calibration' ZK00042
Concentration Dilution
(mglkg wet) Factor
ND 20
0.02 20
.\I\)L
0.02
0.02
Blank
Prepared: 1111 0/1608:36
Analyzed: 11/1011616:21
Instrument' ICPMS2
MRL Q
0.20 U
0.20 J
~ •• Analytical Resources,
Incorporated
Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc.
Client: Llovd & Associates
Matrix: Solid
!latch: BEK0278
Preparation: SWN EPA 305013
Source Sample Name: 07042016RARBEE-C
CONTROL
ANALYTE U"IIT
Antimony-121
* Values outside ofQC limits
DUPLICATES
EPA6020A
lotal Metals
SDG:
Project:
Laboratory 10:
Lab Source I D:
Initial/Final:
% Solids:
SA"IPLE
16J0436
Barbee Dredging
BEK0278-DUPI
16J0436-01RE2
1.029 g / 50 mL
78.74
DllPUCATE
CO'CENTRATIO:"t; C CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg dry) (rug/kg dry)
ND 1I ND
07042016RARREE-C
C RPD Q
%
1I
L Analyte concentratIOn is <=5 times the reponing limit and the replicate control limit defaults to Dup ,--, +/-RL instead of20% RPD
Page 11 of 378
~.e Analytical Resources,
Incorporated
INSTRUMENT BLANKS
EPA 6020A
Laboratory; Analytical Resources. Inc_
Client: L10vd & Associates
Instrument ID: ICPMS2
SUG: 16J0436
Project: Barbee Dredging
Calibration: ZK00042
S equencc: SEKOl59 Date Analyzed-11/1 O/]6 10-21 .
Lab Sample 10 Analyte Found MOL MRL Units
SEKOI59·IBLI Antimony-121 0.0560 O.oJ8 0.200 ugiL
Antimony-I 23 0.0540 0.1)28 0.200 ugiL
SEKOI59·ICBl AntimonY-121 0.0120 0.018 0.200 ugiL
Antimony-I 23 0.0130 0.Q28 0.200 ugll.
SEKOI59-CCBI Antimony-121 0.0670 0.018 0.200 ugiL
Antimol1y-123 0.0670 11.028 0.200 ugiL
SEKOI59·1BL2 Antimony-I 2 I 0.215 O.oJ8 0.200 ugll.
Antimony-I 23 0.223 0.028 0.200 ugiL
SEKO I 59·1AL3 Antimony-I 2 I 0.0700 0.018 0.200 ugiL
AntimonY-123 0.0670 0.028 0.200 ugiL
SEKOI59·CCB2 Antimony -121 0.0820 O.oJ8 0.200 ugiL
AntimonY-I23 0.0830 0.G28 0.2110 ugiL
SEK0159·CC1l3 AntimonY-121 0.0620 0.018 0.200 ugiL
Antimony-I 23 0.0600 0.028 0.200 ugiL
SEK0159·CCIl4 Antimony-121 0.0590 0.018 0.200 ugiL
Antimony-123 0.0560 0.028 0.200 ugiL
SEK0159-CCB5 Antimony-12l 0.0620 0.018 0.200 ugll.
Antimony-I 23 0.0610 0.028 0.200 ugiL
SEK0159·CCB6 AntimonY-12l 0.0610 (1.018 0.200 ugiL
Antimony-123 0.0650 0.028 0.200 ugll.
SEK0159·C:CB7 Antimony-121 0.0600 0.018 O.lOO ugiL
Antimony-123 0.0590 O.oz8 0.200 ugiL
SEKO 159-CCB8 Antimony-121 0.0550 0.018 0.200 ugll.
Antimony-123 0.0540 O.02S 0.200 ugiL
SEKO 159·CCB9 Antimony-121 0.0600 (l.(ll 8 0.200 ugiL
Antimony-123 0.0610 0.Q28 0.200 ltgiL
Page 12 of 378
C
9 Analytical Resources, Incorporated
, Analytical Chemists and Consultants
l.aboratory: Anal):'tical Resources, Inc.
Client: Llovd & Associates
Matrix: Solid
Batch: BEK0278
Preparation: S\vN EPA 3050B
Initial/Final' I ./50 mL
COMPOUND
Antimony-I2l
Antimony-123
* Values outsIde ofQC limIts
Page 13 of 378
LCS / LCS DUPLICATE RECOVERY
EPA6020A
Total Metals
SDG: 16J0436
Project Barbee Dredging
Analyzed.: 11/10/1616:47
Laboratory ID: BEK0278-BS I
Sequence Name: LCS
SPIKE LCS
ADDED CONCENI RATION
(mglkg wet) (mg/kg wet)
25.0 26.2
25.0 26.3
LCS QC
% I.IMITS
REC.# REt:.
105 80 -120
105 80 -120
LaboralOf), :
Client:
Matrix:
Batch:
Preparation:
Initial/Final:
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
MS / MS DUPLICATE RECOVERY
EPA6020A
Total \!Ietals
Anal):,tical Resources. Inc. SDG:
Llovd & Associates Project:
Solid Analyzed:
BEK027X Laboratory I D:
S\\iN EPA 3050fl Sequence Name::
1.028 g I 50 mL Source Sample:
SPIKE SAMPLE
16)0436
Rarbee Dredging
11110116 16:36
BEK0278-MS I
Matrix Sl2ike
07042016BARBEE-C
MS
ADDED CONCENTRATION CON CENTRA liON
COMPOUND (mg/kg dry) (mglkg dry) (mglkg dry)
Antimony-I 21 30.9 ND 5.14
* Values outsIde of QC limIts
Page 14 of 378
07042016BARBEE-C
MS QC
% LIMITS
REC. # REC.
16.6 • 75 -125
I'II;;a,. Analytical ~_ Resources,
~ Incorporated POST DIGEST SPIKE SAMPLE RECOVERY
EPA6020A
(,aboratory: Analvtical Resources Inc. SD(;: 16.10436
Client: Llo 1'd & Associates Project: Barbee Dredging
Matrix: Solid I.abnratory [0: llEK0278-PS 1
Batch: IlEK0278 Lab Source!D: 16.10436-0 I RE2
Preparation: svm EPA 3050Il Initial/Final: 0.125 g ! 6 mL
S ce Sample Name' . our 07042016BARBEE C -% Sord-· 7874 " , ,.
Control Spike Sample Sample
Limit Result(SSR) Result (SR)
Analyte %R (uglL) (ug/L)
Antimony-I 2 I 80 -120 493 Nfl
,.. Values outsldc ofQC hmlts
Page 15 of 378
07042016BARBEE-C
Spike
Addcd (SA) %R
(ug/LI
500.00 98.5
I'IIa.. AnaJ)'tkal
~,. Resources,
" Incorporated STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL RECOVERY
EPA6020A
Laboratory: Analytical Resources, Inc. soc: 16J0436
Client: I.lovd & Associates
Matrix: Solid
Batch: IlI'K0278
Preparation: SWN EPA 3050B
St d dID EOOl354 an ar : o ... cscnp IOn: M I I I S·I e a 5 n 01
TRIIE
ANALYTE (rug/kg weI)
Antimony-l2I 107.00
* Values outside ofQC limits
Page 16 of 378
Project: Barbee Dredging
Laboratory ID: BEK0278-SRM I
Initial/Final: 1.003 g / 50 mL
Analyzed: 1111012016 16:52
F. • .xplres: 09/30/2018
SRM
FOL'NO %
(rug/kg "") KIT.
5.19 4.85
QC
LIMITS
REC.
0-208.4
., Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Laboratory;
Client:
Calibration:
Calibration Date:
Compound
Antimony~[21
Antimony-123
Analytical Resources. Inc.
Lloyd & Associates
7K00042
11110/2016 9:46
Level 01
RF
0 0
0 0
Page 17 of 378
U 2
02
INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA
EPA6020A
SDG: 16J0436
Project: Barbee Dredging
Instrument: ICPMS2
Leve[02 Level OJ I ,eve( 04 Level 05 Level 06
RF RF RF RF RF
13570 10 13280.8 20 13188.05 50 12474.5 100 [2286.61
10690 10 10264 6 20 9918.3 50 9552.12 100 9323.97
• Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Laboratory:
Client:
Calibration:
Calibration Date:
COMPOlIND
Antimony-121
Antimony-123
Analytical Resources. Inc.
Lloyd & Associates
ZK00042
11/10/2016 9:46
Page 18 of 378
INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA
EPA6020A
SDG: 16J0436
Project: Barbee Dredging
Instrument ICPMS2
\fean RF RFRSD Linear COD Quad COD COD Limit Q
10799.99 49.2 0.9998 0.998
8291.498 49.3 0.9997 0.998
Semivolatile Analysis
Report and Summary QC Forms
ARI Job ID: BCWI
See illlilched SlippiclllClilai Data
BCWi;000Gi
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ANALVTICAL I&.
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
PSOOA Semivolatiles by SW82700 GC/MS
Extraction Method: SW3546
Sample 10: 07042016BARBEE-C
SJlMPLE
Page 1 of 2
Lab Sample 10: BCW}A
LIMS 10: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Data Release Authorized: \i 'j
Reported: 11 / 0 1 II 6
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Date Extracted: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 20:06
Instrument/Analyst: NTIO/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sample Amount: 10.38 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Volume: 1.0 mL
Dilution E'actor: 1.00
Percent Moisture: 20,3%
CAS Number Analyte LOQ Result
108-95-2 Phenol 19 < 19 U
106-46-7 l,4-Dichlorobenzene 9.6 < 9.6 U
100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 19 < 19 U
95-50-1 l,2-Dichlorobenzene 9.6 < 9.6 U
95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 9.6 < 9.6 U
106-44-5 4-Methy1pheno1 19 < 19 U
105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 48 < 48 U See ~llpplC'1l1Clltal
65-85-0 Benzoic Acid 190 < 190 U
120-82-1 l,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9.6 < 9.6 U
91-20-3 Naphthalene 19 < 19 u
87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadlene 9.6 < 9.6 U
91-576 2-Methylnaphthalene 19 < 19 U
131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 9.6 < 9.6 U
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 19 < 19 u
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 19 8.7 J
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 19 < 19 u
84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 19 < 19 U
86-73-7 Fluorene 19 8.7 J
86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 9.6 < 9.6 U
118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 9.6 < 9.6 U
87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 96 < 96 u
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 19 40
86-74-8 Carbazole 19 < 19 U
120-12-7 Anthracene 19 9.6 J
84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalata 19 8.7 J
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 19 88
129-00-0 Pyrene 19 66
85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 9.6 < 9.6 U
56-55-3 Benzo (a) anthracane 19 27
117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtha~ate 48 50 Q
218-01-9 Chrysene 19 30
117-84-0 Di-n-Octyl phthalate 19 < 19 U
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 19 24
193-39-5 Indeno(l, 2, 3-cd)pyrene 19 19
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 < 19 U
191-24-2 Benzo(9,h,i)perylane 19 19
90-12-0 I-Methylnaphthalene 19 < 19 U
FORM I
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSOOA Semivolatiles by SW82700 GC/MS
Extraction Method: SW3546
page 2 of 2
Lab Sample 1D: BCWIA
LIMS TD: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 20:06
CAS Number Analyte
ANALYTICAL ta
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
Sample 10: 07042016BARBEE-C
SAMPLE
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
ProjeCL: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
LOQ Result
TOTBFA Total Benzofluoranthenes 38 55
d5-Nitrobenzene
d14-p-Terphenyl
d5-Phenol
2, 4, 6-Tribromophenol
Reported in pg/kg (ppb)
Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery
97.2%
132%
74.1%
136%
FORM I
2-Fluorobiphenyl
d4-1.2-Dichlorobenzene
2-F!uorophenol
d4-2-Chlorophenol
105%
76.8%
67.9%
71. 7%
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ANALYTICAL 1&
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS
Extraction Method: 8W3546
Sample ID: CRM143-050 070716
STANDARD REFERENCE
Page 1 of 2
Lab Sample ID: SRM-070716
LIMS 10: 16-10088
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Authorized: \'\.
Reported: 11/01/16 1
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: NA
Date Received: NA
Date Extracled: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 19:30
Instrument/Analyst: NTIO/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sample Amount: 2.00 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Volume: 1.0 mL
Dilution Factor: 1.00
Percent Moisture: 0.0%
CAS Number Analyte LOQ Rasu~t
108-95-2 Phenol 100 6,700 B
106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzane 100 5,200
100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 100 < 100 u
95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 100 5,700
95-18-7 2-Methylphenol 100 < 100 u
106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 100 9,600
105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 500 8,000
65-85-0 Benzoic Acid 1,000 < 1,000 U
120-82-1 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene 10C < 100 U
91-20-3 Naphthalene 100 5,200
87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 100 < 100 U
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalane 100 7,100
131-11-3 Dimethy1phthalate 100 8,300
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 100 5,200
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 100 7,400
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 100 < 100 U
84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 100 11,000
86-73-7 Fluorene 100 7,800
86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 100 3,300
118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 100 6,100
87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 500 < 500 U
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 100 3,600
86-74-8 Carbazole 100 180
120-12-7 Anthracene 100 4,800
84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 100 9,800
206-44-0 I"luoranthene 100 4,600
129-00-0 Pyrene 100 6,000
85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 100 5,300
56-55-3 Benzo (a) anthracene 100 7,800
117-81-7 b1s(2-Ethylhexyl)phtha1ate 250 9,900 Q
218-01-9 Chrysene 100 1,100
117-84-0 Di-n-Octyl phthalate 100 < 100 U
50-32-8 Benzo (a) pyrene 100 680
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 100 2,200
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h) anthracene 100 3,500
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)pery1ene 100 2,800
90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 100 < 100 U
FORM I
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS
Extraction Method: SW3546
Page 2: of 2
Lab Sample 10: S~~-070716
LlMS ID, 16-10088
Matrlx: SedIment
Date Analyzed, 07/13/16 19,30
CAS Number Analyte
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
Sample ID: CRM143-0S0 070716
STANDARD REFERENCE
QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Result
TOTBFA Total Benzofluoranthenes 200 8,600
dS-Nitrobenzene
d14-p-Terpheny1
d5-Phenol
2.4.6-Tribromophenol
Reported In ~g/kg Ippbl
Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery
104%
109%
88.5%
120%
FORM I
2-Fluorobiphenyl
d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Fluorophenol
d4-2-Chlorophenol
110%
86.2%
73.3%
77.3%
. I I ••
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8210D GC/MS
Fage 1 of 1
ANlU-YTICIU-a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
Sample ID: 01042016BARBEE-C
MS/MSD
Lab Sample 10: BCWIA
LIMS ID: 1610088
Matrix: Sedilnenl
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Data Release Authorized: "1.
Reported: 11/01116
Date Extracted MS/MSD: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed MS: 07/13/16 20:42
MSD: 07/13/16 21:18
Instrument/Analyst MS: NTIO/YZ
MSD: NTlO/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Analyte Sample
-------_. ------
Phenol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzy 1 Alcohol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-0imethylphenol
Benzoic ?cid
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dlmethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
~ibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Carbazole
Anthracene
Vi-n-Butylphthalate
Fluorant.hene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo (a) anthracene
bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Benzo (a) pyrene
Indeno(l, 2, 3-cd)pyrene
~ibenz{a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
I-Methylnaphthalene
Total Benzofluoranthenes
Reporced ~n ~g/kg (ppb)
< 19 U
< 9.6 U
< 19 U
< 9,6 U
< 9,6 U
< 19 U
< 48 U
< 190 U
" 9.6 U
" 19 U
< 9.6 U
" 19 I)
" 9,6 U
" 19 U
8.7 J
< 19 U
< 19 U
8.7 J
" 9.6 U
" 9.6 U
< 96 U
40
< 19 U
9.6 J
8.7 J
88
66
< 9.6 U
27
50 Q
30
" 19 U
24
19
< 19 U
19
" 19 U
55
MS
313 B
299
30'
314
318
313
1310
2000
346
368
438
352
430
393
453
419
487
412
338
410
1230
413
399
383
453
573
553
580
438
439Q
429
389
430
402
399
409
311
744
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/0~/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Sample Amount MS: 10.40 g-dry-wt
MSD: 10.38 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Volume MS: 1.0 mL
MSD: 1.0 mL
Dilution Factor MS: 1.00
MSD: 1.00
Percent Moisture: 20.3 %
Spike MS Spike MSD
Added-MS Recovery MSO Added-MSD ReCovery RPD
481
481
481
481
481
481
1440
2640
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
1440
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
481
962
65. 1 %
62.2%
63.2%
65,3%
66. "
65.1-%
~l.O%
75.8%
71 • 9-%
76.5-%
91.1-%
73.2%
89.4%
81.7%
92.4%
87.1%
101%
83.8%
70. J%
85.2%
85.4%
77.5'\
83.0%
77.6%
92.4%
101%
tOU-
121%
85.4%
80.9%
83.0%
80.9%
84.4%
79.6%
83.0%
81.1%
64.7%
71,6%
313 B
306
335
346
365
355
1330
1930
369
368
432
353
451
426
457
442
512
431
366
406
1330
421
435
403
465
5"':]
557
571
418
478 Q
425
395
461
484
477
487
329
886
482
482
482
482
482
482
1450
2650
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
1450
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
963
64.9%
63.5%
69.5%
n.8%
75,7%
73.7%
91.7%
72.8%
76.6%
76.3%
89,6%
73.2%
93.6%
88.4%
93.0%
91. 7%
106%
87.6%
75.9%
84.2%
91.7%
79.0%
90.2'
S1. 6.
94.7%
100%
102%
118%
81. 1 %
88.8%
82.0%
82.0%
90.7%
96.5%
99.0%
97.1%
68.3\
86.3%
0.0%
2.3%
9 _ 7%
9.7%
13.8%
12.6%-
1. 5%
3 _ 6%
6.4%
0.0%
1. 4%
0.3%
4.8%
8.1%
0.9%
5.3%
~. 0%
4.5%
8.0%
l. 0%
7.8%
1. 9%
8.6%
5.H
2.6%
0.5%
0.7%
1. 6%
4.7%
8.5%
0.9%
1.5%
7,0%
18.5110
17.8%
17.4%
5.6%
II, H
RPD calculated ~sing sample concentrations per SW846.
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ANALYTICAL &
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8210D GC/MS
Extraction Method: SW3546
Sample ID: 01042016BARBEE-C
MATRIX SPIKE
Page 1 0 f 2
Lab Sample 10: BCW1A
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Matrlx: Sediment
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Data Release AULhorized: ~j.
Reported: 11/01/16 ',\
Project: BARB~E DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 0-7/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Oate Extracted: 07/07/16 Sample Amount: 10.40 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Volume: 1.0 mL
Dilution f'actor: 1.00
Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 20:42
Instrument/Analyst! NTIO/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3%
CAS Number Anslyte LOQ Result
108-95-2 Phenol 19
106-46-7 1,4-0ichlorobenzene 19
100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 19
95-50-1 l,2-Dichlorobenzene 19
95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 19
106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 19
105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 96
65-85-0 Benzoic Acid 190
120-82-1 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene 19
91-20-3 Naphthalene 19
87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 19
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 19
131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 19
208-96-8 Acenaphthyler.e 19
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 19
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 19
84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 19
86-73-7 Fluorene 19
86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamlne 19
118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 19
87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 96
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 19
86-74-8 Carbazole 19
120-12-7 Anthracene 19
84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 19
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 19
129-00-0 Pyrene 19
85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 19
56-55-3 Benzo(a)clnthracene 19
117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 48
218-01-9 Chrysene 19
117-84-0 Di-n-Octyl phthalate 19
50-32-8 Benzo{a)pyrene 19
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19
90-12-0 I-Methylnaphthalene 19
FORM I
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS
Extraction Method: SW3546
Page 2 of 2
Lab Sample IO: BCWIA
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 20:42
CAS Number Analyte
ANALYTICAL IliiiilI
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C
MATRIX SPIKE
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & ASSOclates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
LOQ Result
TOTBfA Total Benzofluoranthenes 38
d5-Nitr-obenzene
d14-p-Terphenyl
dS-Phenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Reported in pg/kg (ppb)
Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery
102%
137%
78.8%
122%
FORM I
2-flucrobiphenyl
d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Fluorophenol
d4-2-Chlorophenol
102%
77.4%
64.8%
73.1%
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ANALYTICAL ,a
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS
Extraction Method: 5W3546
Sample ID, 07042016BARBEE-C
MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE
Page 1 of 2
Lab Sample ID: BCWIA
LIMS 10, 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, II1C.
Data Release Authorized: (\
Reported, 11/01/16
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04116
Date Received: 07/05/16
Date Extracted: 07/07/16
Oate Analyzed: 07/13/16 21,18
Instrument/Analyst: NTIOIYZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sample Amount: 10.38 g-dry-wt
final Extract Volume: 1.0 mL
Dilulion Factor: 1. 00
CAS Number
108-95-2
106-46-7
]00-51-6
95-50-]
95-48-7
106-44-5
105-67-9
65-85-0
120-82-1
91-20-3
87-68-3
91-57-6
131-11-3
208-96-8
83-32-9
132-64-9
84-66-2
86-73-7
86 30-6
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
86-74-8
120-12-7
84-74-2
206-44 0
129-00-0
85-68-7
56-55-3
117-81-7
218-01-9
117-84-0
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
90-12-0
Percent Moisture: 20.3%
Analyte
Phenol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylpherlol
Benzuic Acid
l,2,4-Trichlo~obenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthala~e
Fluorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Carbazole
Anthracene
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a) anthracene
bis{2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzfa,hlanthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
I-Methylnaphthalene
FORM I
LOQ
19
19
19
19
19
19
96
190
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
96
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
48
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Result
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS
Extraction Method: SW3546
Page 2 of 2
Lab Sample ID: BCWIA
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Date Analyzed: 07/13/1621:18
CAS Number Analyte
ANALYTICAL _
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C
MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, r!le.
Projec~: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
LOQ Result
TOTBFA Total Benzofluoranthenes 38
dS-Nitrobenzene
dI4-p-Terphenyl
dS-Phenol
2, 4, 6-Tribromophenol
Reported in ~g/kg (ppb)
Semivolatile Surroqate Recovery
112%
131%
84.3%
129%
FORM I
2-Fluorob~phenyl
d4-1,2--Dichlorobenzene
2-Fluorophenol
d4-2-Chlorophenol
103%
81. 2%
73.9%
78.1%
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS
Page 1 0 f 2
Lab Sample 10: LCS-070716
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Authorized: r~:-..
Reported: 11/01(16 -
Date Extracted: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 18:17
Instrument/Analyst: NTIO/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Analyte
Phenol
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl .~lcohol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2 1 4-Dimethylphenol
Be:lzoic Acid
l,2,4-Tcichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalale
F'luorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Hexachlorobenzene
PenLachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Carbazole
Anthracene
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butytbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
b1s(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-Octyl phthalate
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Sample ID: LCS-070716
LAB CONTROL
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES"'"
INCORPORATED
QC Report No: BCWl-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Sample Amount.: 10.00 g
~lnal Extract Volume: 1.0 mL
Dilution Factor: 1. 00
Percent Moisture: NA
Lab
Control
Spike
Added Recovery
------~
499 B
419
499
434
412
372
1320
2250
415
417
510
438
SBB
494
534
535
651
528
397
432
1150
480
443
461
577
509
488
517
500
532 Q
482
490
561
609
FORM III
500
500
500
500
500
500
1500
2750
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
99.8%
83.8%
99.8%
86.8%
82.4%
74.4%
88.0%
81.8%
83.0%
83.4%
102%
87.6%
118%
98.8%
107%
Ion
130%
106%
79.4%
86.4%
76.7%
96.0%
88.6%
92.2%
115%
102%
97.6%
103%
100%
IOGt
96.4%
98.0%
lIn
122%
,1,.1 ,
1.'
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS Sample ID: LCS-070716
LAB CONTROL Page 2 of 2
Lab Sample 10: ~CS-070116
LIMS ID: 16 10088
Matrix: Sediment
Date Analyzed: 07/13/16 18:17
Analyte
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
8enzo(g,h,i)perylelle
I-Methylnaphthalene
Total Benzofluoranthenes
Reported in pg/kg (ppbl
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd ~ Associates! Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Lab Spike
Control Added
568 500
564 500
408 500
1350 1000
Semivo~ati1e Surrogate aecovery
dS-Nitrobenzene
2-Fluorobiphenyl
d14-p-Terphenyl
d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene
dS-Phenol
2 -" Fl uorophenol
2, 4, 6-Tribromopher.ol
d4-2-Chlorophenol
FORM III
128%
118%
123%
96.6%
104%
90.3%
141%
95.9%
Recovery
-----
114%
113%
81.6%
135%
I': "
4B BLANK NO.
SEMIVOLATtLE METHOD BLANK SUMMI\RY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARt Job No: BCW1
Lab File ID: 16071805
Instrument ID: NT10
Matrix: SOLID
BCW1MBS1
Client: LLYOYD
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Date Extracted: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/18/16
Time Analyzed: 1459
THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS and MSD:
page 1 of 1
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
CLIENT
SAMPLE NO.
================
BCWlLCSS1
CRMl43-0S0
07042016BARBEE-C
07042016BARBEE-
07042016BARBEE-
-----
LAB
SAMPLE ID
============
BCW1LCSS1
BCW1SRM1
BCWLA
BCWlAMS
BCWlAMSD
------
LAB DATE
FILE ID ANALYZED
============ --------------------
16071309 07/13/16
16071311 07/13/16
16071312 07/13/16
16071313 07/13/16
16071314 07/13/16
FORM IV SV
ORGANICS ANAL~SIS DATA SHEET
ANALYTICAL tA
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
PSDDA Semivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS
Extraction Method: SW3546
Sample 10: MB-070716
METHOD BLANK
Page 1 0 f 2
Lab Sample 10: MB-070716
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Matrix! Sediment
QC Reporl No; BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Data Release Authorized:'\
Reported: 11 /01 /16
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: NA
Date Received: NA
Date Extracted: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/18/16 14:59
Instrument/Analyst: NTIO/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sample Amount: 10.00 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Volume: 1.0 mL
Dilution Factor: 1.00
Percent Moisture: NA
CAS Number Analyte LOQ Result
108-95-2 Phenol 20 8.2 J
106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenze~e 20 < 20 U
100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 20 < 20 U
95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 20 < 20 U
95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 20 < 20 U
106-44-0 4-Methy!phenol 20 < 20 U
105-67-9 2,4-0imethylphenol 100 < 100 U
65-85-0 Benzoic Acid 200 < 200 U
120-82-1 1,2/1~Trichlorobenzene 20 < 20 U
91-20-3 Naphthalene 20 < 20 U
87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 20 < 20 U
91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 20 < 20 U
131-11-3 Dirnethylphtha!ate 20 < 20 u
208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 20 < 20 U
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 20 < 20 U
132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 20 < 20 U
84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 20 < 20 U
86-"13-7 Fluorene 20 < 20 U
86-30-6 N-Nitrosodipheny!amine 20 < 20 U
118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 20 < 20 U
87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 100 < 100 U
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 20 < 20 U
86~74-8 Carbazole 20 < 20 U
120-12-7 Anthracene 20 < 20 U
84-74-2 Di-n-Butylphthalate 20 < 20 U
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 20 < 20 U
129-00-0 Pyrene 20 < 20 U
85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalale 20 < 20 U
56-55-3 Benzo{a)anthracene 20 < 20 U
117-81-7 bisI2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 50 < 50 U
218-01-9 Chrysene 20 < 20 U
117-84-0 Di-n-Octyl phthalate 20 < 20 U
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 20 < 20 U
193-39-5 Indeno{l,2,3 cd)pyrene 20 < 20 U
53-70-3 Dibenz{a,h)anL}lracene 20 < 20 U
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 20 < 20 U
90-12-0 I-Methylnaphthalene 20 < 20 U
FORM I
"I
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Semi volatiles by SW82700 GC/MS
Extraotion Method: SW3546
Page 2 of 2
Sample IO: MB-0707l6
Mll:THOO BLANK
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
Lab Sample ID: MB 070716
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
QC Report No: 8CWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Dace Analyzed: 07/18/16 14:59
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
CAS Nwnber Analyte LOQ Result
TOTBFA Total Bcnzofluoranthenes 40
dS-Nitrobenzene
d11-p-Terphenyl
d5-Phenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Reported in ~g/kg (ppb)
Semivolat~le Surrogate Recovery
J07% Q
116%
84.8%
120%
FORM I
2-Fluorobiphenyl
d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Fluorophenol
d4-2-Chlorophenol
< '10 U
103%
86.2%
78.4%
78.7%
5B
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK
DECAFLUOROTRIPHENYLPHOSPHINE (DFI'PP)
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
Inst:rument ID: NTI0
DFI'PP Injection Date: 04/21/16
m/e ION ABUNDANCE CRITERIA
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
DFTPP Injection Time: 1336
% RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
-----===================================================== =-===-===========
51 10.0 -80.0% of mass 198 32.7
68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0.0 ( 0.0)1
69 Mass 69 relative abundance 43.7
70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0.3 ( 0.8}1
127 10.0 -80.0% of mass 198 43.5
197 Less than 2.0% of mass 198 0.0
198 Base Peak, 100% relative abundance 100.0
199 5.0 to 9.0% of mass 198 7.1
275 10.0 -60.0% of mass 198 28.5
365 Greater than 1. 0% of mass 198 3.84
441 0.0 -24.0% of mass 442 11.1 ( 15.1}2
442 50.0 -200.0% of mass 198 74.0
443 15.0 -24.0% of mass 442 14.8 ( 20.1}2
, I-Value 1S % mass 69
, 2-Value 1S % mass 442
THIS CHECK APPLIES TO THE FOLIDWING SAMPLES, MS, MSD, BLANKS, AND STANDARDS:
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
page 1 of 1
CLIENT
SAMPLE NO.
================
LAB
SAMPLE ID
============
SED0054-CAL5
SED0054-CAL7
SED0054-CAL1
SEDOO54-CAL3
SED0054-CAL6
SED0054-CAL4
SED0054-CAL2
LAB DATE TIME
FILE ID ANALYZED ANALYZED
============ =====~==== ==========
16042102 04/21/16 1351
16042103 04/21/16 1429
16042104 04/21/16 1506
16042105 04/21/16 1543
16042106 04/21/16 1621
16042108 04/21/16 1735
16042110 04/21/16 1850
FORM V SV
58
SEMIVOIATlLE ORGANIC INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK
DECAFLUOROTRIPHENYLPHOSPHINE (DFl'PP)
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
Instnunent ID: NTI0
DFTPP Injection Date: 07/13/16
m/e ION ABUNDANCE CRITERIA
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
project: BARBEE DREDGING
DFTPP Injection Time: 1650
"'.REIATIVE
ABUNDANCE
-----===============================~=======:============= ==============
51 10.0 -80.0% of mass 198 39.6
68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0.2 ( 0.5)1
69 Mass 69 relative abundance 45.2
70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0.4 ( 0.9)1
127 10.0 -80.0% of mass 198 43.4
197 Less than 2.0% of mass 198 0.0
198 Base Peak, 100% relative abundance 100.0
199 5.0 to 9.0% of mass 198 6.7
275 10.0 -60.0% of mass 198 29.7
365 Greater than 1.0% of mass 198 5.69
441 0.0 -24.0% of mass 442 12.4 ( 15.7)2
442 50.0 -200.0\ of mass 198 78.9
443 15.0 -24.0% of mass 442 15.0 ( 19.0)2
I-Value 1S % mass 69 2-Value 1S % mass 442
THIS CHECK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS, MSD, BLANKS, AND STANDARDS:
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
page 1 of 1
CLIENT
SAMPLE NO.
================
BCWILCSSI
CRM143-050
07042016BARBEE-C
07042016BARBEE-
07042016BARBEE-
LAB
SAMPLE ID
============
CC0713
BCWILCSSI
BCWISRMI
BCWlA
BCWlAMS
BCWlAMSD
LAB DATE TIME
FILE ID ANALYZED ANALYZED
============ ========== ==========
16071307 07/13/16 1705
16071309 07/13/16 1817
16071311 07/13/16 1930
16071312 07/13/16 2006
16071313 07/13/16 2042
16071314 07/13/16 2118
FORM V $V
5B
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC lliSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE CHECK
DECAFLUOROI'RIPHENYLPHOSPHINE (DF'l'PP)
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Instrument ID: NTI0 Project: BARBEE DREDGlliG
DFTPP Injection Date: 07/18/16 DFTPP Injection Time: 1256
'" RELATIVE
m/e ION ABUNDANCE CRITERIA ABUNDANCE
===== ===================================================== ----------------------------
51 10.0 -80.0% of mass 198 46.3
68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0.8 ( 1.6) 1
69 Mass 69 relative abundance 53.4
70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0.3 ( 0.6)1
127 10.0 -80.0% of mass 198 46.8
197 Less than 2.0% of mass 198 0.4
198 Base Peak, 100% relative aEundance 100.0
199 5.0 to 9.0% of mass 198 7.5
275 10.0 -60.0% of mass 198 27.5
365 Greater than 1.0% of mass 198 5.65
441 0.0 -24.0% of mass 442 11. 7 ( 16.2)2
442 50.0 -200.0% of mass 198 72.6
443 15.0 -24.0% of mass 442 13.7 ( 18.9}2
, I-Value 1S % mass 69 2-Value 1S % mass 442
THIS CHECK APPLIES TO THE FOlJ.OWlliG SAMPLES, MS, MSD, BLANKS, AND STANDARDS:
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
page 1 of 1
CLIENT
SAMPLE NO.
================
BCWIMBSI
LAB
SAMPLE ID
------------------------
CC0718
BCWlMBS1
LAB DATE TIME
FILE ID ANALYZED ANALYZED
============ ========== ====;;=====
16071802 07/18/16 1311
16071805 07/18/16 1459
FORM V SV
6B
SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BCWI
Instrument ID: NT10
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Calibration Date: 04/21/16
I LAB FILE IV: RRFO.2:16042104 RRFO.5:16042110 RRF1 :16042105
I RRF2.5:16042108 RRFS :16042102 RRF10 :16042106
I RRF20 :16042103
l----------------------~I~R~RF~'I~R=R~F~'I~R=R=F-,I-=RR=F~'I~R=R=F~-'I ~R=R~F-,I-=RR=F~'I--~~-I~%=R~sD=
I COMPOUND 0.2 I 0.5 I 1 I 2.5 I 5 I 10 I 20 I RRF I/R'2 I
1::::::::==::================ ======1======1:=====1==:===1======1======1======1======1:====1
I Phenol 1.7131 1.4841 1.5021 1.5741 1.56~1 1.5781 1.4581 1.5541 5.51
18is(2-Chloroethyl)ether ____ 1.2991 1.3181 1.13BI 1.1111 1.10BI 1.1061 1.0441 1.160 9.01
12-Chlorophenol 1.3531 1.3711 1.24BI 1.2211 1.2721 1.2381 1.2011 1.272 5.11
1~,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.8061 1.5041 1.5291 1.5081 1.4331 1.5031 1.3681 1.522 9.01
11,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.6511 1.5111 1.4371 1.4651 1.4471 1.5171 1.3391 1.481 6.41
!1,2-Vichlorobenzene 1.4001 1.5001 1.3441 1.4141 1.3911 1.4111 1.2881 1.392 4.71
iBenzy1 alcohol 0.7031 0.8381 0.7301 0.7551 0.7521 0.7891 0.7421 0.758 5.81
12,2'-oxybis{1-Chloropropane) 0.6961 0.5021 0.4001 0.4861 0.4601 0.4311 0.4161 0.484 0.9991
12-Methy1pheno1 1.2091 1.0491 0.9951 1.0231 1,066 1.1011 1.0091 1.064 6.91
I Hexachloroethane 0.8541 0.8151 0.6491 0.7111 0.644 0.6961 0.6411 0.716 12.11
IN-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine __ 1.0871 1.1191 0.8811 0.9621 0.960 0.9801 0.9031 0.984 9.01
14-Methy1phenol 1.3481 1.2321 1.1101 1,0861 1.126 1.1081 1.044: 1.150 9,0
I Nitrobenzene 0.4901 0.4901 0.477 0.4621 0.455 0.4671 0.448 0.470 3.5
Irsophorone 0.7611 0.7861 0.728 0.7651 0.742 0.764 0.767 0.759 2.4
12-Nitrophenol 0.2181 0.2121 0.198 0.2231 0.224 0.219 0.226 0.217 4.4
12,4-Dimethylphenol I 0.4621 0.4741 0,458 0,4891 0.466 0.459 0.436 C,463 3.5
IBis (2-Chloroethoxy)methane __ 1 0.4061 0.3951 0.388 0.359 0.370 0.370 0.365 C.379 4.6
IZ,4-Dichlorophenol I 0.3251 0.3291 0.329 0.343 0.344 0.342 0.340 0.3361 2.4
1",2,4-Trich"orobenzene I 0.4681 0.4671 0.416 0.410 0.389 0.402 0.382 0.4191 8.4
I Naphthalene I 1.0621 0.9351 0.943 0.948 0.959 0.950 0.963 0.9661 4.5
IBenzoic acid I I 0.159 0.264 0.285 0.320 0,327 0.324 0,28010.999
14-Ch1oroaniline I 0,3991 0,395 0.376 0.396 0.398 0.418 0.426 0.4011 4.1
I Hexachlorobutadiene I 0.4061 0.277 0.332 0.326 0.312 0.319 0.294 0.3241 12.7
14-Ch1oro-3-methylpheno1 ____ 1 0.3611 0.358 0.347 0.382 0.4001 0.410 0.418 0.3821 7.3
12-Methylnaphthalene I 0.7831 0.784 0,734 0,745 0.7551 0.767 0.786 0.765 2.7
I Hexachlorocyclopentadiene_1 I 0.505 0.504 0.520 0.5501 0.576 0.571 0.538 6.0
12,4,G-Trichlorophenol I 0.3391 0.358 0.414 0.426 0.4381 0.456 0.4581 0.413 11.4
12,4,5-Trichlorophenol I 0.3961 0.415 0.418 0.450 0.4591 0.480 0.478 0.442 7.5
12-Chloronaphthalene I 1.1791 1.050 1.049 1.094 1.0731 1.098 1.104 1.092 4.11
12-Nitroaniline I 0.3941 0,356 0.361 0.383 0.3841 0.3981 0.391 0.381 4.31
I Acenaphthylene I 1.7721 1.522 1.579 1.564 1.4911 1.5161 1.518 1.566 6.11
I Dimethylphthalate I 1.5221 1.265 1.412 1.362 1.3061 1.3261 1.263 1.351 6.81
12,6-Vinitrotoluene I 0.2951 0.285 0.304 0.315 0.3081 0.3121 0.310 0.304 3.51
I Acenaphthene I 1.1271 0.888 1.011 0.9961 0.9771 1.0151 1.022 1.005 7.01
13-Nitroaniline I I 0.295 0.267 0.2631 0.2351 0.2691 0.268 0.266 7.21
12,4-Dinitrophenol I I 0.090 0,134 0.192\ 0.2121 0.2341 0.248 0,185 0.9991
1 Dibenzofuran I 1.6031 1.5271 1.535 1.5221 1.5381 1.6031 1.559 1.555 2.21
I I I I I I I __ I
<-Outside QC limits; %RSD <20% or RA2 ~ 0.990
page 1 of 3
FORM VI SV-1
6B
SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BCW1
Instrument ID: NT10
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Calibration Date: 04/21/16
I LAB FILE 10, RRFO.2016042104 RRFO.5016042110 RRF1 016042105
I RRF2.5·16042108 RRF5 ·16042102 RRF10 ·16042106
I RRF20 .16042103
I -----------------------O=RR~F~'I-RR--F--~I-RR~F-,I~RR~F~~R~R~F--~I ~R~R~F~I--RR~F--,-----~I%~R-so=-
I COMPOUND I 0.2 I 0.5 I 1 I 2.5 5 I 10 I 20 RRF I/R-2
1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 ••••• 01 •••••••••••• 1 ••••• = .==···1······1······ 00.0.01 0 •0 ••
14-Nitrophenol I I 0.305 0.2821 0.355 0.3411 0.3621 0.342 0.3311 9.4
12,4-Dinitrotoluene I 0.3821 0.402 0.4011 0.412 0.4191 0.4431 0.432 0.4131 5.0
I Fluorene I 1.3901 1.203 1.2361 1.269 1.2281 1.2841 1.260 1.2671 4.8
14-Chlorophenyl-phenylether __ 1 0.8B1 0.B09 0.7771 0.759 0.7381 0.7561 0.743 0.7BOI 6.4
I Diethylphthalate I 1.547 1.387 1.3001 1.368 1.3301 1.3221 1.286 1.3631 6.5
14-Nitroaniline I 0.244 0.318 0.3341 0.231 0.2701 0.2871 0.281 0.2811 13.2
14,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol __ 1 0.102 0.111 0.1391 0.149 0.1601 0.1701 0.171 0.1431 19.1
IN-Nitrosodiphenyla~ine (1) __ 1 0.638 0.526 0.5011 0.485 0.4821 0.4691 0.448 0.5071 12.4
14-Bromopheny>phenylether_1 0.2BO 0.252 0.2531 0.251 0.2571 0.2591 0.267 0.2601 4.0
IH9xachlorobenzene I 0.295 0.251 0.2541 0.262 0.2471 0.253: 0.250 0.2591 6.5
I Pentachlorophenol I 0.132 0.1701 0.170 O.lBBI 0.186j 0.188 0.1721 12.4
I Phenanthrene I 1.029 0.965 0.8961 0.9321 0.9191 0.9421 0.978 0.9521 4.6
I Anthracene I 1.102 0.944 0.9561 0.9691 0.9941 1. 040 I 1. 042 1. 0071 5.71
I Carbazole I 0.932 0.882 0.8501 0.B091 0.6311 0.7191 0.705 0.7901 13.7
I Di-n-butylphthalate I 1. 236 1. 026 1.1551 1.135 I 1. 2351 1. 30~ I 1. 352 1. 2061 9.1
I Fluoranthene I 1.042 1.055 1.1181 1.0851 1.1231 1.1961 1.2141 1.1191 5.9
Ipyrene I 1.227 1.150 1.1221 1.1511 1.1551 1.2251 1.2591 1.1841 4.4
I Butylbenzylphthalate I 0.481 0.429 0.4991 0.4941 0.4951 0.5031 0.4791 0.4831 5.3
I Benzo (a) anthracene I 1.252 1.214 1.1881 1.2051 1.1741 1.2201 1.2041 1.2081 2.1
13,3'-Dichlorobenzidine I 0.460 0.466 0.4931 0.437 0.3181 0.3391 0.3901 0.4151 16.2
IChrysene I 1.090 0.9721 0.9911 0.990 0.9841 1.0181 1.0141 1.0081 3.9
Ibis (2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate __ 1 0.518 0.432 0.4961 0.506 0.4921 0.512 0.4581 0.4881 6.4
I Di-n-octylphthalate i 1.067 0.984 0.9351 0.976 0.9311 0.943 0.9171 0.9651 5.3
I Bcnzo (b) fl uoranthene I 1. 054 1. 136 1.160 I 1. 150 1. 2021 1. 155 1.178 I 1.1481 4.0
IBenzo(k)fluoranthene 1.2781 1.149 1.2331 1.258 1.2651 1.235 1.1311 1.2211 4.8
I Benzo (a) pyrene 1.1401 0.994 1.0651 1.074 1.1451 1.088 1.0661 1.0821 4.7
IIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.3301 1.256 1.3381 1.317 1.3621 1.32: 1.2441 1.3101 3.3
I~ibenzola,h)anthracene 1.0351 0.962 1.0581 1.085 1.0601 1.012 0.9611 1.0251 4.8
IBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.2011 1.041 1.1011 1.081 1.1621 1.093 1.0551 1.1051 5.2
IN-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.8421 0.685 0.6711 0.664 0.6701 0.692 0.6641 0.6981 9.2
I Aniline 1.7011 1.492 1.5531 1.544 1.5451 1.606 1.4921 1.5621 4.71
I Benzidine 0.5901 0.517 0.5391 0.443 0.2471 0.32B 0.3461 0.43010.9921
I Retene 0.5311 0.497 0.4871 0.503 0.5091 0.532 0.5051 0.5091 3.31
I perylene 1. 0871 1. 019 1. 0151 1. 046 1. 0431 1. 0821 1. 0451 1. 0481 2.61
1 Pyridine 1.4601 1.170 1.1501 1.092 1.1691 1.1871 1.1311 1.1941 10.21
11-T:lethylnaphthalene __ .. _ 0.7741 0.759 0.7681 0.7951 0.7811 0.8301 0.8451 0.7931 4.11
IAzobenzene (1 ,2-DP-Hydrazine I 1.394~ 1.374 1.3621 1.4131 1.2961 1.3091 1.2651 1.3451 4.11
I I I I I I I I I_I
(1) Cannot be seperated from Diphenylamine
<-Outside QC limits: \RSD <20% or R~2 > 0.990
page 2 of 3
FORM VI SV-2
6B
SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BCW1
Instrument ID: NT10
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Calibration Date: 04/21/16
I LAB FILE ID, RRFO.2=16042104 RRFO.5=16042110 RRF1 =16042105
I RRF2.5=16042108 RRF5 =16042102 RRFI0 =16042106
I RRF20 =16042103
I -----------------------~R=RF~'I~R~R~F~'I~R=R=F-,I~RR=F~'I~RR~F~'I ~R=R=F-,I-R=R~F~'I--~~-I~%=R~sD=-1
I COMPOUND I 0.2 I 0.5 I 1 I 2.5 I 5 I 10 20 I RRF I/R"2 I
1============"""--===-=======1======1======1======1======1======1====== ======1======1"====1
12,3,4,6-TetrachloroPhenol_1 0.4111 0.3691 0.3561 0.4151 0.4101 0.426 0.4301 0.4021 7.11
ITotal l!enzofluo::anthenes ___ 1 1.1091 1.1091 1.1561 1.1591 1.1781 1.136 1.1001 1.1351 2.61
1============================1======1======1======1======1======1====== ======1======1=====1
12-Fluorophenol I 1.3301 1.1021 1.0821 1.0781 1.1581 1.166 1.0891 1.1441 7.91
Ip~enol-05 I 1.4361 1.3471 1.3301 1.391[ 1.4351 1.500 1.4761 1.4161 4.51
12 Chlorophenol-04 1 1.5051 1.298 1.2761 1.2031 1.2331 1.250 1.1831 1.2781 8.41
11,2-Dichlorobenzene-04 I 1.0671 0.803 0.9101 0.9101 0.8701 0.900 0.8641 0.9031 9.01
I Nitrobenzene-d5 0.5271 0.461 0.4301 0.4701 0.4661 0.472 0.4621 0.4701 6.11
12-Fluorobiphenyl 1.3841 1.339 1.3371 1.312 1.2871 1.325 1.2971 1.3261 2.41
12,4,6-Tribromophenol 0.1481 0.141 0.2211 0.202 0.2171 0.235 0.2361 0.2001 19.81
I Terphenyl-014 0.8321 0.819 0.8641 0.841 0.8401 0.850 0.8001 0.8351 2.51
1 ____ -I I I I I 1 __ 1
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I_I
I I I I I 1 __ 1
I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I_I
I I 1 __ 1 I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I 1 __ 1 i I I I
I I I I I 1==1
I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I 1 __ .1 ___ 1 I_I
I I I I I I 1 __ 1
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
I I I I I I I_I
<-Outside QC limits: %RSD <20% or R~2 > 0.990
page 3 of 3
FORM VI SV-3
sew i • Viir.iZf?8
7B
SEMlVOLATlLE 8270-D OJNTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BCW1
Instrument 10: NTI0
Init. calib. Date: 04/21/16
OJMPOUND
===~:==========~============
Phenol
Bis(2-CfiloroethyI)ether
2-Chlorophenol
l,3-Dichlorobenzene
l,4-Dichlorobenzene
l,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
2,2 '-oxybis (l-Chloropropane)
2-Methylphenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-propyla~ne
4-Methylphenol --
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethy1phenoI
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
2,4-Dichlorophenol --
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Benzoic acid
4 -Chloroanillne
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Ch1oro-3-methylphenoI
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexach1orocyclopentad~ene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol -
2,4,5-Trichloropheno1
2-Chloronaphthalene
2 -Ni troaniline
Acenaphthylene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Acenaphthene
3-Nitroaniline
2,4-DinitrophenoI
Dibenzofuran
<-Exceeds QC l~m~t of 20% D
* RF less than minimum RF
page 1 of 3
caJ..All\t
or ARF
======
1.554
1.160
1.272
1.522
1.481
1.392
0.758
5.000
1.064
0.716
0.984
1.150
0.470
0.759
0.217
0.463
0.379
0.336
0.419
0.966
20.00
0.401
0.324
0.382
0.765
0.538
0.413
0.442
1.092
0.381
1.566
1.351
0.304
1.005
0.266
20.00
1.555
client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREDGING
Cant. Calib. Date: 07/13/16
Cant. Calib. Time: 1705
CC Arnt MIN CURVE %D or
or RF RRF TYPE Drift
====== ----------=====
1.732 0.800 AVRG 11.4
1. 029 0.700 AVRfJ -11.3
1.260 0.800 AVRG -0.9
1.468 0.010 AVRG -3.5
1.480 0.010 AVRG -0.1
1.388 0.010 AVRG -0.3
0.791 0.010 AVRG 4.4
5.417 0.010 20RDR 8.3
1.127 0.700 AVRG 5.9
0.847 0.300 AVRG 18.3
1.148 0.500 AVRG 16.7
1.134 0.600 AVRG -1.4
0.581 0.200 AVRG 23.6
0.857 0.400 AVRG 12.9
0.213 0.100 AVRG -1.8
0.466 0.200 AVRG 0.6
0.390 0.300 AVRfJ 2.9
0.360 0.200 AVRG 7.1
0.433 0.010 AVRG 3.3
0.975 0.700 AVRG 0.9
16.62 0.010 20RDR -16.9
0.420 0.010 AVRG 4.7
0.395 0.010 AVRG 21. 9 <-
0.447 0.200 AVRG 17.0
0.815 0.400 AVRG 6.5
0.582 0.050 AVRG 8.2
0.460 0.200 AVRG 11.4
0.493 0.200 AVRfJ 11.5
1.165 0.800 AVRG 6.7
0.523 0.010 AVRG 37.3 <-
1.486 0.900 AVRG -5.1
1.421 0.010 AVRfJ 5.2
0.304 0.200 AVRG 0.0
1.033 0.900 AVRG 2.8
0.260 0.010 AVRG -2.2
13 .54 0.010 20RDR -32.3 <-
1.644 0.800 AVRG 5.7
FORM VII SV-1
7C
SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BCW1
Instrument ID: NT10
Init. Calib. Date: 04/21/16
ca.lAAlt
COMPOUND or ARF
----------================== ==::0===
4-Nitrophenol 0.331
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.413
Fluorene 1.267
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether __ 0.780
Diethylphthalate 1.363
4-Nitroaniline 0.281
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 0.143
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine(l)-=: 0.507
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether_ 0.260
Hexachlorobenzene 0.259
Pentachlorophenol 0.172
Phenanthrene 0.952
Anthracene 1.007
Carbazole 0.790
Oi-n-butylphthalate 1.206
Fluoranthene 1.119
Pyrene 1.184
Butylbenzylphthalate 0.483
Benzo(a) anthracene 1.208
3,3'-Dichlorobenzid~ne 0.415
Chrysene 1.008
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.488
Di-n-octylphthalate --0.965
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.148
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.221
Benzo(a)pyrene 1. 082
Indeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.310
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene 1.025
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.105
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.698
Aniline 1.562
Benzidine 10.00
Retene 0.509
Perylene 1.048
Pyridine 1.194
l-methylnaphthalene 0.793
( 1) Cannot be se rated from D~ hen pa p y
<-Exceeds QC limit of 20% D * RF less than minimum RF
page 2 of 3
Client: LlDYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Cont. Calib. Date: 07/13/16
Cont. calib. Time: 1705
CC Amt MIN
or RF RRF
:;==== =====
0.500 0.010
0.462 0.200
1.249 0.900
0.793 0.400
1.582 0.010
0.254 0.010
0.156 0.010
0.456 0.010
0.282 0.100
0.239 0.100
0.152 0.050
0.940 0.700
0.980 0.700
0.717 0.010
1.400 0.010
1.201 0.600
1.236 0.600
0.529 0.010
1.254 0.800
0.394 0.010
1. 000 0.700
0.613 0.010
0.906 0.010
1. 284 0.700
1.237 0.700
1.175 0.700
1.428 0.500
1.011 0.400
1.129 0.500
0.690 0.010
1. 624 0.010
4.570 0.010
0.002 0.010
1.078 0.010
1.192 0.010
0.876 0.010
am=e
CURVE
TYPE
-----
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
20RDR
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
AVRG
%D or
Drift -=--= 51. 0
11.9
-1.4
1.7
16.1
-9.6
9.1
-10.0
8.5
-7.7
-11.6
-1.3
-2.7
-9.2
16.1
7.3
4.4
9.5
3.8
-5.1
-0.8
25.6
-6.1
11.8
1.3
8.6
9.0
-1.4
2.2
-1.1
4.0
-54.3
-99.6
2.9
-0.2
10.S
<-
<-
FORM VII SV-2
7C
SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BCW1
Instrument ID: NT10
Init. calib. Date: 04/21/16
COMPOUND
============================
Azobenzene (1,2-DP-Hydrazine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol_
Total Benzofluoranthenes
============================
2-Fluorophenol
Phenol-d5
2-Chlorophenol-d4
1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Terphenyl-d14
,
<-Exceeds QC l~m~t of 20% D
* RF less than minimum RF
page 3 of 3
Ca.l.Al11t
or ARF
======
1.345
0.402
1.135
------------
1.144
1.416
1.278
0.903
0.470
1. 326
0.200
0.835
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREDGING
Cont. Calib. Date: 07/13/16
Cont. Calib. Time: 1705
CC Arnt MIN CURVE %D or
or RF RRF TYPE Drift
====== ----------====::;;;
1.833 0.010 AVRG 36.3 <-
0.411 0.010 AVRG 2.2
1.183 0.010 AVRG 4.2
==::==== :;;;==== -----==:;;==
1.091 0.010 AVRG -4.6
1.397 0.010 AVRG -1.3
1.187 0.010 AVRG -7.1
0.877 0.010 AVRG -2.9
0.544 0.010 AVRG 15.7
1.326 0.010 AVRG 0.0
0.218 0.010 AVRG 9.0
0.831 0.010 AVRG -0.5
FORM VII SV-3
7B
SEMIVOLATlLE 8270-D CONTINUING Cl\LIBRATION CHECK
Lab Name: ANALYTICI\L RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BC'W1
Instrument ID: NTI0
mit. calib. Date: 04/21/16
COMPOUND
============================
Phenol
Bis (2-Chloroethyll ether
2-Chloropheno1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane)
2-Methylphenol
Hexachloroethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylam~ne
4-Methylphenol -
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylph€riOl
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
2.4-Dichlorophenol -
1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Benzoic acid
4-Chloroanihne
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocyelopentad~ene
2,4.6-Trichlorophenol -
2,4,S-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthylene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Acenaphthene
3-Nitroaniline
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
. <-Exceeds QC hm~t of 20% D
• RF less than minimum RF
page 1 of 3
calAmt
or ARF
======
1.554
1.160
1.272
1.522
1.481
1.392
0.758
5.000
1.064
0.716
0.984
1.150
0.470
0.759
0.217
0.463
0.379
0.336
0.419
0.966
20.00
0.401
0.324
0.382
0.765
0.538
0.413
0.442
1. 092
0.381
1. 566
1.351
0.304
1.005
0.266
20.00
1.555
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj eet: BARBEE DREDGING
Cont. calib. Date: 07/18/16
Cont. calib. Time: 1311
CC Amt MIN CURVE
or RF RRF TYPE
=====; ----------
1.772 0.800 AVRG
1.036 0.700 AVRG
1.261 0.800 AVRG
1.486 0.010 AVRG
1.461 0.010 AVRG
1.390 0.010 AVRG
0.845 0.010 AVRG
4.891 0.010 20RDR
1.121 0.700 AVRG
0.948 0.300 AVRG
1.131 0.500 AVRG
1.092 0.600 AVRG
0.619 0.200 AVRG
0.892 0.400 AVRG
0.224 0.100 AVRG
0.476 0.200 AVRG
0.364 0.300 AVRG
0.377 0.200 AVRG
0.426 0.010 AVRG
0.938 0.700 AVRG
18.98 0.010 20RDR
0.413 0.010 AVRG
0.391 0.010 AVRG
0.461 0.200 AVRG
0.772 0.400 AVRG
0.590 0.050 AVRG
0.480 0.200 AVRG
0.480 0.200 AVRG
1.171 0.800 AVRG
0.566 0.010 AVRG
1.539 0.900 AVRG
1.469 0.010 AVRG
0.328 0.200 AVRG
1.015 0.900 AVRG
0.235 0.010 AVRG
21.99 0.010 20RDR
1.715 0.800 AVRG
%D or
Drift
=====
14.0
-10.7
-0.9
-2.4
-1.4
-0.1
11.5
-2.2
5.4
32.4
14.9
-5.0
31. 7
17.5
3.2
2.8
-4.0
12.2
1.7
-2.9
-5.1
3.0
20.7
20.7
0.9
9.7
16.2
8.6
7.2
48.6
-1. 7
8.7
7.9
1.0
-1l. 6
10.0
10.3
<-
<-
<-
<-
<-
FORM VII SV-l
oCwi·00V1A v..
7C
SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BCW1
client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Instrument ID: NT10
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
C~nt. Calib. Date: 07/18/16
mit. Calib. Date; 04/21/16 Cont. Calib. Time; 1311
CalAmt CC Arnt
COMPOUND or ARF or RF
============================ ====~~ ======
4-Nitrophenol 0.331 0.527
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.413 0.461
Fluorene 1.267 1.257
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether 0.780 0.811
Diethylphthalate --1.363 1.613
4-Nitroaniline 0.281 0.252
4,6-Dinitro-2-methYlphenol __ 0.143 0.178
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine{l)_ 0.507 0.461
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 0.260 0.281
Hexachlorabenzene 0.259 0.277
Pentachlorophenol 0.172 0.156
Phenanthrene 0.952 0.991
Anthracene 1.007 1.014
Carbazole 0.790 0.604
Di-n-butylphthalate 1. 206 1.464
Fluoranthene 1.119 1.196
Pyrene 1.184 1.242
Butylbenzylphthalate 0.483 0.534
Benzo{a) anthracene 1.208 1.201
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0.415 0.266
Chrysene 1. 008 0.979
bis{2-EthylfieXYl)phthalate 0.488 0.662
Di-n-octylphthalate --0.965 0.908
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.148 1.441
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.221 1.249
Benzo (a) pyrene 1.082 1.155
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.310 1.394
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 1.025 1.061
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.105 1.161
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.698 0.657
Aniline 1.562 1.631
Benzidine 10.00 4.094
Retene 0.509 0.002
Perylene 1.048 1. 057
Pyridine 1.194 1.165
I-methylnaphthalene 0.793 0.838
. (1) Cannot be separated from D~phenylam~ne
<-Exceeds QC limit of 20% D
* RF less than mininrum RF
page 2 of 3
FORM VII SV-2
MIN CURVE %"D or
RRF TYPE Drift
===== ----------
0.010 AVRG 59.2
0.200 AVRG 11.6
0.900 AVRG -0.8
0.400 AVRG 4.0
0.010 AVRG 18.3
0.010 AVRG -10.3
0.010 AVRG 24.5
0.010 AVRG -9.1
0.100 AVRG 8.1
0.100 AVRG 6.9
0.050 AVRG -9.3
0.700 AVRG 4.1
0.700 AVRG 0.7
0.010 AVRG -23.5
0.010 AVRG 21.4
0.600 AVRG 6.9
0.600 AVRG 4.9
0.010 AVRG 10.6
0.800 AVRG -0.6
0.010 AVRG -35.9
0.700 AVRG -2.9
0.010 AVRG 35.6
0.010 AVRG -5.9
0.700 AVRG 25.5
0.700 AVRG 2.3
0.700 AVRG 6.7
0.500 AVRG 6.4
0.400 AVRG 3.5
0.500 AVRG 5.1
0.010 AVRG -5.9
0.010 AVRG 4.4
0.010 20RDR -59.1
0.010 AVRG -99.6
0.010 AVRG 0.8
0.010 AVRG -2.4
0.010 AVRG 5.7
<-
<-
<-
<-
<-
<-
<-
<-
<-
7C
SEMIVOLATILE 8270-D CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BCWI
Instrument ID: NTIO
Init. calib. Date: 04/21/16
COMPOUND
============================
Azobenzene (1,2-DP-Hydrazine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Total Benzofluoranthenes -
============================
2-Fluorophenol
Phenol-dS
2-Chlorophenol-d4
1,2-Dichlorobenzene d4
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Terphenyl-d14
-< Exceeds QC l~m~t of 20% D
* RF less than minimum RF
page 3 of 3
Cal.Amt
or ARF
=;;;--==
1.345
0.402
1.135
======
1.144
1.416
1.278
0.903
0.470
1.326
0.200
0.835
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREOOING
Cont. Calib. Date: 07/18/16
Cont. calib. Time: 1311
CC Amt MIN CURVE I'I>D or
or RF RRF TYPE Drift
====== --------------------
1. 957 0.010 AVRG 45.5 <-
0.429 0.010 AVRG 6.7
1.262 0.010 AVRG 11.2
====== ---------------
1.122 0.010 AVRG -1. 9
1.380 0.010 AVRG -2.5
1.159 0.010 AVRG -9.3
0.876 0.010 AVRG -3.0
0.604 0.010 AVRG 28.5 <-
1.343 0.010 AVRG 1.3
0.228 0.010 AVRG 14.0
0.798 0.010 AVRG -4.4
FORM VII SV-3
dew i • 00ia8"~
8B
SEMIVOIATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
ARI Job No: BCW1
leal Midpoint ID: 16042102
Instrument ID: NTI0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
==========--
lCAL MIDPT
UPPER LIMIT
LOWER LIMIT
============
CCAL
UPPER LIMIT
LOWER LIMIT
BCWILCSSI
CRM143-050
07042016BARB
07042016BARB
07042016BARB
IS1(DCB)
AREA #
:;;;;;=;::=======
45223
90446
22612
==========
51556
32645
36213
44217
42768
40714
RT #
=======
8.96
;:::=====
7.55
8.05
7.05
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
lSI ~ 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4
IS2 ~ Naphthalene-d8
IS3 ~ Acenaphthene-dl0
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
leal Date: 04/21/16
Cant. cal Date: 07/13/16
IS2~NPT)
AREA # RT #
IS3 i?OO'J
AREA #
========== =====;;;;;:= -=--======
154192 11.45 109962
308384 219924
77096 54981
==;:;======= ======= ==========
182401 9.97 135628
10.47
9.47
116160 9.97 74868
134127 9.97 80700
146457 9.97 90614
136095 9.97 88264
136433 9.97 87447
RT #
--------------
15.07
=======
13 .52
14 .02
13.02
13.52
13.52
13.51
13.52
13.52
AREA UPPER LIMIT ~ +100% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
AREA LOWER LIMIT ~ -50% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
RT UPPER LIMIT ~ + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cant. cal
RT LOWER LIMIT ~ -0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. cal
* Values outside of QC limits.
page 1 of 3 FORM VIII SV-l
8B
SEMIVOLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Ical Date: 04/21/16
ARI Job No: BCWI
Ical Midpoint ID: 16042102
Instrument ID: NTI0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
IS4~PHN)
AREA #
:::::::::;:::::========= ===-------lCAL MIDPT 206264
UPPER LIMIT 412528
LOWER LIMIT 103132
=======:;;;;=-------======
CCAL 264545
UPPER LIMIT
LOWER LIMIT
BCWILCSSI 171639
CRM143-050 162101
07042016BARB 198311
07042016BARB 183579
07042016BARB 185483
1S4 ~ Phenanthrene-dlO
IS5 ~ Chrysene-d12
1S6 ~ Perylene-d12
RT #
--------------
18.12
=======
16.51
17.01
16.01
16.50
16.50
16.50
16.50
16.51
Cont. Cal Date: 07/13/16
IS5~~Y)
AREA # RT #
IS6~PRY)
AREA # RT #
----------====::;:== ========== ------------------------
236540 23.23 248744 25.88
473080 497488
118270 124372
========== -----------------======= -----------------
307106 21. 73 265133 24.07
22.23 24.57
21.23 23.57
197835 21. 72 149475 24.06
195161 21. 73 164773 24.06
182347 21. 72 167221 24.06
166381 21. 72 192206 24.06
173440 21. 73 169750 24.06
AREA UPPER LIMIT ~ +100% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint
AREA LOWER LIMIT ~ -50% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint
RT UPPER LIMIT ~ + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal
RT LOWER LIMIT --0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal
* Values outside of QC limits.
page 2 of 3 FORM VIII SV-2
8B
SEMIVOLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
ARI Job No: BCW1 Project: BARBEE DREIX;ING
leal Date: 04/21/16
Cant. cal Date: 07/13/16
leal Midpoint ID: 16042102
Instrument ID: NT10
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
IS7
AREA # RT # AREA # RT # AREA # RT #
:;:=========== ====:::;;===== ======= ========== ======= ========== =======
lCAL MIDPT 324358 24.31
UPPER LIMIT 648716
LOWER LIMIT 162179
============= ========== -------==--====== ===----------------------------
CCAL 389498 22.99
UPPER LIMIT 23.49
LOWER LIMIT 22.49
BCW1LCSS1 273668 22.99
CRM143-050 284224 22.99
07042016BARB 254558 22.99
07042016BARB 256459 22.99
07042016BARB 249539 22.99
IS7 -Di-n-octylphthalate-d4
AREA UPPER LIMIT -+100% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
AREA LOWER LIMIT --50% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cant. Cal
RT LOWER LIMIT = -0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cant. cal
* Values outside of QC limits.
page 3 of 3 FORM VIII SV-3
i"i.CW J. . 0l2iGB:::;,
8B
SEMIVOLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
ARI Job No; BCWI
leal Midpoint ID: 16042102
Instrument ID: NTI0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
====~-------lCAL MIDPT
UPPER LIMIT
LOWER LIMIT
============
CCAL
UPPER LIMIT
LOWER LIMIT
BCWIMBSI
ISISDCB)
AREA #
=== ... ==;;;;===
45223
90446
22612
==========
53382
34576
RT #
=======
8.96
=======
7.28
7.78
6.78
7.29
lSI ~ 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4
IS2 ~ Naphthalene-d8
IS3 ~ Aeenaphthene-dl0
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
leal Date: 04/21/16
Cont. cal Date: 07/18/16
IS2\NPT)
#
IS3 SANT}
AREA # RT AREA #
----------======= ========== ----------
154192 11.45 109962
308384 219924
77096 54981
========== ===:;;:=== ==========
185221 9.69 135482
10.19
9.19
126761 9.68 77145
RT #
=======
15.07
=======
13.22
13.72
12.72
13.21
AREA UPPER LIMIT
AREA LOWER LIMIT
RT UPPER LIMIT ~
RT LOWER LIMIT ~
+100% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
= -50% of internal standard area from Ical midpoint
+ 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal
-0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. cal
• Values outside of QC limits.
page 1 of 3 FORM VIII SV-l
8B
SEMIVOLATlLE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
ARI Job No: BCWI
leal Midpoint ID: 16042102
Instrument ID: NTI0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
IS4 ~PHN)
AREA #
============ ==========
lCAL MIDPT 206264
UPPER LIMIT 412528
LOWER LIMIT 103132
============ :;:;;;==;-----
CCAL 260819
UPPER LIMIT
LOWER LIMIT
BCWIMBS1 169232
184 = Phenanthrene-dl0
IS5 = Chrysene-dl2
IS6 = Perylene-dl2
RT #
=======
18.12
---====
16.18
16.68
15.68
16.18
project: BARBEE DREDGING
leal Date: 04/21/16
Cont. Cal Date: 07/18/16
IS5~CRY)
AREA # RT #
IS6~PRY)
AREA #
======:::=== ======= ==========
236540 23.23 248744
473080 497488
118270 124372
========== ======= ====~=====
309206 21.42 253454
21.92
20.92
187479 21.40 170284
RT #
=======
25.88
=======
23.75
24.25
23.25
23.73
AREA UPPER LIMIT = +100% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
AREA LOWER LIMIT = -50% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. cal
RT LOWER LIMIT = -0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. cal
* Values outside of QC limits.
page 2 of 3 FORM VIII SV-2
8B
SEMIVOLATILE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No: BOIL
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
leal Date: 04/21/16 leal Midpoint ID: 16042102
Instrument !D: NT10 Cant. cal Date: 07/18/16
IS7
AREA # RT # AREA # RT # AREA # RT #
~~~~~~~~==== ========== ======= ~========= ======= ========== ~======
lCAL MIDPT
UPPER LIMIT
LOWER LIMIT
324358 24.31
648716
162179
=========~== ========== ======= ==--------======= =====-----=======
CCAL
UPPER LIMIT
LOWER LIMIT
378634 22.72
23.22
22.22
01 BCW1MBSl 247316 22.70
02 __________ 1 ____ -----___ 1 _____ ----
03 _________ 1 ___ -----____ 1 _____ ----
04 ____________________ 1 ______ _
OS ______________________ 1 ________ _
06 _____ 1 _______ 1 ____ ---1-------
07 ______ 1 _____ ---1 _____ ----1--------
08 ______ 1 ________ 1 _____ ----1--------
09 ______ 1 ________ 1 _____ 1 ____ 1 _____ ---
10 _____ 1 ____ ---_____ 1 ____ 1 _____ ----
11 _____ 1 ____ 1 ___ 1 ____ 1 ________ ---
12 ______ 1 _____ 1 ___ 1 _____ 1 ___________ _
13
14
15 ______ 1 _____ 1 ___ 1 _________ 1 _____ ---
16 _____ 1 ____ 1 ___ 1 _______ 1 ____ ---
17 ______ 1 _____ 1 ___ -----____ 1 _______ _
18 ______ 1 _____ 1 ___ -----____ 1 _____ ---
19 _____ 1 ____ 1 ___ -----____ 1 _____ ----
20 ______ , _____ , ____________ , _______ _
IS7 = Di-n-oetylphthalate-d4
AREA UPPER LIMIT = +100% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
AREA LOWER LIMIT = -50% of internal standard area from leal midpoint
RT UPPER LIMIT = + 0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. cal
RT LOWER LIMIT = -0.50 minutes of internal standard RT from Cont. Cal
• Values outside of QC limits.
page 3 of 3 FORM VIII SV-3
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
14 November 2016
Michael Lloyd
I.loyd & Associates
38210 SE 92nd Street
Snoqualmie. WA 98065
RE: Barbee Dredging
Please find enclosed sample receipt documentation and analytical results tor samples from the project referenced
above.
Sample analyses were perf(mned according to ARI's Quality Assurance Plan and any provided project specific
Quality Assurance Plan. Each analytical section ofthis report has been approved and reviev,:ed by an analytical
peer. the appropriate I.aboratol)' Supervisor or qualitied substitute. and a technical reviewer.
Should you ha\'c any questions or problems. please feel free to contact us at your convenience.
Associated Work Order(s)
16)0436
Associated SOU J[)(s)
NiA
I certify that this data package is in compliance \",'ith the terms and conditions ofthe contract, both technically
and for completeness. for other than the conditions detailed in the enclose Narrative. ARt an accredited
laboratory. certities that the report results for vV'hich ARI is accredited meets all the reqirements of the
accrediting body. A list of certified analyses, accreditations. and expiration dates is included in this report.
Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or
hislher designee. as verified by the follow'ing signature.
Analytical Resources. Inc.
(
Ihl' 1l'.I'lII/I' m 1111.1' r<'[mrl app~r II! Ihl' IUll/ptl'_1 allal.l':cd 111 an'urdmKI' "'!Iii IIie
chulII 0/ (,!1.'I()(~\·dl!qtrnclII. /JIll (}lIall'{j("u/ reporl 11111'1 he repmd/I(','d 1!1!11
/!II/II\'/\
Cheronne Oreiro. f'roject Manager
Page 1 of 378
Cerl~ 10001)6
PJLA Testing
,A,ccred,la\,on '" 66169
• Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Analytical Report
Lloyd & Associates
38210 SF 92nd Street
Snoqualmie WA, 9R065
Sample receipt
Project Barbee Dredging
Pro.lectNumber 2016-1 Barbee
Proiect \1anager Michael Lloyd
Case Narrative
Reported:
14-]\;0,,-201613S,
One sediment sample was removed from frozen archive on October 24,2016 and logged under ARI workorder 16J0423. For
details regarding sample receipt, please refer to the Cooler Receipt Form.
Antimony -EPA Method SW6020A
The sample and associated laboratory QC were digested and analyzed within the recommended holding times.
The method blank was clean at the reporting limits. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. ERA 0088-540
was analyzed as a reference material.
The matrix spike percent recovery of 07042016BARBEE-C fell outside the control limits low for sample
07042016BARBEE-C. A post digestion spike was analyzed and the recovery was within control limits . All relevant data have
been flagged with a "*" qualifier. No further corrective action was taken.
The duplicate RPD was within control limits.
2_4.Dimethylphenol • EPA Method SW82Z0P§IM
The sample and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within the recommended holding times.
Initial calibrations and initial calibration verifications were within method requirements.
The internal standard area of Perylene-d12 fell outside the control limits low for BEK0139-BLK1. All other internal standard
areas were within limits. No corrective action was taken.
The surrogate percent recovery of p-Terphenyl-d14 was outside the control limits high for BEK0139-BLK1. All other percent
recoveries were within control limits. No corrective action was taken.
2,4-Dimethylphenol was present in BEK0139-BLK1 at a level that was greater than the reporting limit The associated
sample result was undetected for this compound. No corrective action was taken.
The LCS percent recovery was within control limits. CRM 143-50G was analyzed as a reference material.
The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within limits.
Page 2 of 378
Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request
AAI Assigned Number: 'Y>e.-W \ Tum-around Requested: Page, , 01 Analytical Resources, Incorporilted
• Analytical Chemists and Consultant
" w
'" ro
'" S.
~
'"
S"~A.I b " "''''-
"RI Cient Company: Phone: ¢.. ~f8. ' ~
Li.-t>';'C>.L Ll .-, .rllI-jC;:!> ~NC! 25-'5-( I~ 7i ¥/ Ztrt I ~esent? ,*-5
CI'8A1;;tacr: No-of t Cooler ),t ". iJ .ll '" '-LLC¥!> CooIets: T_:
Cli.nr.:t';:~ 12K1?~b-.L.Id... &-
Analysis R
1~ ~ ~~ I~t CI;ent-'2"~!£, I ~O~ ~e.. ... /."'./'" . LL~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ Sample ID Date TIme Matrix ""eo. ....... ~t-~ \')
() '7Oil-2dt. fbJ ~n,",. 7/"11 /3 6 C; s"r->. Is :2-/ J Z-;z.
, IIShed bJ. ComrnentsfSpeciaJ Instructions :.'1t ~~zk~ {. -'" ~~ _.7. ~ ,_. ---e~05/~ of=' Prj. L/ Prir'CedN.8I'fI1!J:
• 4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98168
206-695-6200 206-695-6201 (fax)
www.arilabs.com
NotesIComments
i ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
/ 2-2-
............ '
(SigflalJrel I --Prtnted Narne;
I 0;
t
:[
I'"
S~7:>-lJ 5~0~ R. M ... LC" 1Il. .. , Ll C>I'b Prl .... N~, ~ lc.-i2 <-~"'-.'-'I t--. J
L;..~~ 1"-" AtL1:. """""" . I"""""'" _____
~E?J;r3. D;rD~Cw... CJC/ z. ; rD.' .. 7,C;'1 ~ Dal&' Time: DaM&TirnI!I:
O"/l.)
-------IS
lSI Um!Is 01 LIsbIIt/y: ARI wI/J perform .11 requested services in accordance wtIh appropriate methodology IoIlowing ARt Standard OpenJbng PfOC6Iiu£es and the ARI 0ua6/y Assurance Program. This program ~I meets standards tor Ihs industry. The tolaJ liability of ARI. its officBrs, agents, smpIoyoos, or successors, srisirtg out of Of in connection with the requested services, shaIJ not exceed Ih8 invoiced amount for
~j said services. The acceptance by the client of a praposa/fer services by ARI release ARI from any IlabiUty in excess thereof, not withstanding any provision to the contraty in any contract, purchase order or CD~
tLi signed agreement between ARI and fb9 CJisnt.
Simple Retention Policy: All samples submitted to ARI will be atJI)ropriately cflscarded no sooner than 90 days after fecl!!ipt or SO days after submission of hardcopy data, whichever is longer, unless alternate
retention schedules have been established by work~Drder or contract.
!
Form I
.. Analytical Resources, Incorporated
, Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Laboratory: Anal~ltical Resources, Inc.
Client: Llo:Y'd & Associates
Matrix: Soil
Sampled: 0710411613:00
Solids:
Ratch: BEK0139
Instrument: NT10
CAS NO. COMPOUND
105-67-9 2A-Dimethylphenol
SliRROGATES
2-Fluorophenol
p-Terphenyl-d14
Page 142 of 378
ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA 8270D-SIM
8270D Sa1 Dual Scan
I,aboratory I D: 16J0436-01
Prepared: 11/04/1612:15
Preparation: EPA 3546 {Microwave)
Sequence: SEK0126
Column: 7B-5MSi
DILUTION CONe (ug.'kg wet)
1 191
ADDED (ug/kg wet) CONe (UIl''\.;!! wet)
573 83 118
382.56 390
11704211168A RBE E-C
SDG: 16J0436
Project; Barbee Dredging
File 10: N1016110907.D
Analyzed: 1110911614:51
InitiaVFinal: 13.07 gil mL
Calibration: ZHOO023
Q DL RL
U 78 19.1
%REC QC LIMITS Q
55.4 27 -120
102 37 -120
I"II!!iJJ.. Anal)'tkal ~,. RMourcl!5,
~ Incorporated
l.aooratory: Analylicai Resources. Inc.
Client: Llo):·J & Associates
Matrix: Solid
Sampled: NIA
Solids:
Batch: IlEKOl39
Instrument: NTiO
CAS NO. COMPOUND
105-67-9 2.4-Dimethylphenol
SURROGATES
2-Fluorophenol
p-Terphenyl-d 14
Page 150 of 378
Form I
METHOD BLANK DATA SHEET
EPA 8270D-SIM
Laooratory I D: BEKOI39-IlLKI
Prepared: 1110411612:15
Preparation: EPA 3546 {Micrmvuve}
Sequence: SEK0126
Column: ZB-SMSi
IJILUTION CONe. (uglkg wet)
I 29.5
ADDED (ugAg wet) CONC (lig/k~ wet)
750.00 390
5UO.00 775
Blank
SOu: 16J0436
Project: Barbee Dredging
File 1D: N1016110903.D
Analyzed: 11109116 12:27
Initial/Final: 10 gil mL
Calibration: ZHOO023
Q DL RL
10.2 25.0
%REC QC LIMITS Q
52.0 27 -120
155 37 -120 •
., Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Laboratory: Analytical Rcsourcc:i, Inc.
Client: Lloyd & Associates
Matrix: Solid
Ratch: IlEKOl39
Preparation: EPA 3546lMicrowave}
Initial/Final' 10./ I mL
COMPOUND
2A-Dimethylphenol
'" Values outside ofQC il1TI1ts
Page 173 of 378
LCS I LCS DUPLICATE RECOVERY
EPA 8270D-SIM
SDG: 16J0436
Project: Barbee Dredging
Analyzed: 11/09/1613:03
Laboratory 10: BEKOI39-BS I
Sequence Name: LCS
SPIKE LCS
ADDED CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg wet) (ug/kg wet)
1500 786
LCS QC
% LIMITS
REC # REC'.
52.4 10 -120
Laboratory:
Client:
Matrix:
Batch:
Preparation:
Initial/Final:
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
MS / MS DUPLICATE RECOVERY
EPA 8270D-SIM
Analxtical Resources Inc. SDG:
L10vd & Associ(ltes Project:
Solid Analyzed:
BEKOl39 Laboratory 10:
EPA 3546 (Microw~lVel Sequence Name::
13.05 g II mL Source Sample:
SPIKE SAMPLE
16J0436
Barbee Drt!ugin8
11109/1615:27
BEKO 139-MS I
Matrix SQike
07042016BARBEE-C
MS
ADDED CONCENIRAI"lON CONCENTRAIION
COMPOUND lug/kg dry) luglkg dry) lug/kg dry)
2,4-Dimeth) Iphenol 1430 ND 1040
* Values outside at ()C bnuts
Page 198 of 378
070420168AR8EE-C
MS QC
% LIMITS
REC. # RFC.
73.3 10 -120
Analytical Resources. Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
MS I MS DUPLICATE RECOVERY
EPA 8270D-SIM
Laboratol)' : Analvtical Resources Inc. SDG:
Client: Lloyd & Associates Project:
Matrix: Solid Analyzed:
Batch: BEKOl39 Laboratory 10:
Preparation: EPA 3546 (Microwave) Sequence Name::
Initial/Final: 13.04 gil mL Source Sample:
SPIKE MSD MSD
ADDED CONCENTRATION %
COMPOUND (uglkg dry) (uglkg dry) REC. #
2.4-Dimethylphenol 1430 1020 71. 7
* Values outside ot QC IUTIlts
Page 199 of 378
07042016BARBEE-C
16J0436
Barbee Dredging
1110911616:03
BEKO 139-MSD I
Matrix S[!ike Dun
07042016BARBEE-C
QC LIMITS
~/O
RI'l) # RPD REC.
2.13 30 10 -120
~ Ana~tic~ ~,. Resource!,
~ Incorporated STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL RECOVERY
EPA 8270D-SIM
Laboratory: Analvtical Resources Inc.
Client: Lloyd & Associates
Matrix: Solid
Batch: BEKOl39
Preparation: EPA 3546 <Microwave}
Standard 10' C002847 D 'fon' CRM 143 50(' escnp I -,
TR(:E
ANALYTE (ug/kg wet)
2.4-Dimethylphenol 5172.4
* Values outsIde at Q( limIts
Page 228 of 378
SDG: 16J0436
Project: Barbee Dredging
Laboratory 10: AEK0I.19-SRMI
Initial/Final: 2.03 gil mL
Analyzed: 1110912016 14:15
E ' xplres: 12rll2017 0
SRM
FOlIND %
(ug/kg wet) REC.
5630 1119
QC
LIMITS
REC.
57 -144
Pesticide Analysis
Report and Summary QC Forms
ARI Job ID: BeWl
7. P~ .... ticidl: .\Ilal;.:-..i...,
BCWi;00i09
ANALYTICAL 1& RESOURCES~
INCORPORATED ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Pest.c.des/PCB by GC/ECD
Extraction Method: SW3546
Sample ID: 07042016BAR8EE-C
SlIMPLE
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample ID: BCW1A
LIMS 10: 16-10088
Matrix; Sediment
Data Release Authorized:\))
Reported: :1/08/16 .
Oate Extracted: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/14/16 19:03
Instrwnent/Analysc: ECD6/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sulfur Cleanup: Yes
Florisil Cleanup: No
Acid Cleanup: No
CAS Number Analyte
QC Report No: BOll-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Projecl: BARBEE DRgDGI~G
2016-1 5MBEL
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/]6
Sample Amounl: 12.8 g-dry-w(
F'inal E.xtract Volume: 2.5 mL
DiluLioTi ~actor: 1.00
Silica Gel: Yes
Percerlt Moisture: 20.3~
RL Result
--------,-,---,.,._---" ._--
:>19-85-7 beta-BHC 0.49 < 0.49 U
76-44-8 Heptachlor 0.49 < 0.49 U
309-00-2 Aldrin 0.49 < 0.49 U
60-57-1 Dieldrin 0.98 < 0.98 U
72-55-9 4,4'-00£ 0.98 < 0.98 U
72-54 -8 4,4 1 -DDD 0.98 < 0.98 U
50-29-3 4,4 1 -DOT 0.98 < 0.98 U
53494-70-5 Endrin Ketone 0.98 < 0.98 U
5103-74-2 trans-Chlordane # 0.49 < 0.49 U
5103-71-9 cis-Chlordane $ 0.49 < 0.49 U
789-02-6 2,4'-DDT 0.98 < 0.98 U
3424-82-6 2,4'-008 0.98 < 0.98 U
'·3-19-0 2,4'-ODO 0.98 < 0.98 U
,7304-13-8 Q>;Y Chlordane 0.98 < 0.98 U
0103-73-1 cis-Nonachlor 0.98 < 0.98 U
39765-80-5 trans -Nortachlor 0.98 < 0.98 U
Reported in ~g/kg (ppb)
Pest/PCB Surrogate Recovery
Decachlorob>phenyl 78.5%
Tetrachlorometaxylene 89.2%
P This analyte (CAS registry No. 5103-74-2) is named trans-Chlordane in
EPA Method 8081B(feb 2007). It has also been named beta-Chlordane.
$ This analyte (CAS registry No. 5103-1}-9) is named cis-Chlordane 1n
EPA Method 8081B(feb 2007). It has alse been named alpha-Chlordane.
FORM I
f'~ , >c}' .'/ •... ; 110 .AU"L~C.",.,
Sample 10: SRM SRM 1944
ANALYTICAl.. t&
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD
Extraction Method, SW3546 STANDARD REFERENCE
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample ID: SRM SRM 1944
LIMS 10: 16-10088
MatrIx: Sediment
Data Release Author i zed: ,{to f
Reported: 11/08116
Date ~xtracted: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/,4/l6 18:45
Instrument/Analyst: £CD6/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sulfur Cleanup: Yes
Florisil Cleanup: No
Acid Cleanup: No
CAS Number
319-85-7
76-44-8
309-00-2
60-57-1
72-55-9
72-54-8
50-29-3
53494-70-5
5103-74-2
5103-71-9
789-02-6
3424-82-6
53-19-0
27304-13-8
5103-73-1
39765-80-5
Analyte
beta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Dieldrin
4,4 '-DOE
4,4'-00D
4,4'-DDT
Endrin Ketone
trans-Chlordane
cis-Chlordane
2.4'-001'
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-000
oxy Chlordane
cis-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor
QC Repo:rt No: BCWI-I..loyd & ASSOclates. In:::.
ProJect: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled, NA
Date Received~ NA
Sample Amount: 2.50 g-dry-wt
rlna~ Extract Vclume: 2.5 mL
Dilution f'actor: : .00
Silica Gel: Yes
Percent Moisture: 1.3%
RL Result
350 < 350 Y
2.5 6.5
2.5 < 2.5 U
16 < 16 Y
130 < 130 'i
5.0 68
5.0 150
100 < 100 Y
2.5 41 p
2.5 26 p
5.0 < 5.0 U
18 < 18 Y
76 < 76 Y
5.0 68 P
5.0 < 5.0 J
5.0 160
Reported in ~g/kg (ppb)
Pest/PCB Surrogate Recovery
Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorometaxylene
FORM I
NR
104%
(DCBP)
(TCMXi
sweoal PESTICIDE SOIL/SEDIMENT SURROGA~E RECOVERY SUMMARY
ANALYTICAL!&.
RESOURCES.
INCOfIPORATED
Q(; ~epcrt ~o:
Prcjec::
3CWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
BARB~E DRLDGING
2016-: [;ARBEE
Client ID
MB-P07l6
LCS-Ci7(l71E
SRM SRM 1944
07042016BARBEE-C
07042016BARBEE-C HS
07042016BARBEE-C MSD
Decadtlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloroffietaxylene
DCBP
110%
79.5%
NR
78.5~
lOa;'
110*
TCHX ~~ OU~
73.W' 0
47.2% 0
104< 0
89.2'1 0
82.0, 0
76.0% 0
QC LIMI~S
:3C-160i
;3C-lOOi
Prep ~1e:hod; 5W3546
Log Nu;nber Ra:1ge: 16-lCOB8 Co 16-10088
FORM-II swe081
Page 1 fer Be{\'2.
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSODA Pest~c~des/PCB by Ge/seo
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample ID: BCWlA
LIMS 10: 16-10088
Mar..rix: Sediment
Data Release Author i zed; (\ \
Reported: 11 /08/16 "1-/
Date Extracted MS/MSO: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed MS: 07/14/16 19:22
MSO: 07/14/16 19:40
Instrument/Analyst MS: ECD6/YZ
MSD: ECD6/ yz
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sulfur Cleanup: YeS
Florisil Cleanup: No
Acid Cleanup: No
Ana~yt.Q
----
beta-SHe
Heptachlor
l\ldrin
DieldLin
4, 4: '~ODE
4,4'-DOO
4.4 '-DOT
Endrin Ketone
trans-Chlordane
cis-Chlordane
Reported in ~g/kg (ppb)
Sample
< 0.489
< 0.489
< 0.489
< 0.918
< 0.918
< 0.978
< 0 .978
< 0 .978
< 0 .469
< 0 .489
MS
2.72
2.78
2.45
4.70
5.21
6.90
5.67
5.61
2.11
2.57
ANALYTICAL ...
RESOURCES \i!IJI'
INCORPORATED
Sample IO: 01042016BARBEE-C
MS/MSD
QC Report Mo: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Sample Amount MS: 12.8 g-dry-wt
MSD: 12.8 q-dry-wt
Pinal Extract Volume MS: 2.5 mL
MSD: 2.5 mL
Dilution Factor MS: 1. 00
MSD: 1. 00
Silica. Gel: Yes
Percent Moisture: 20.3%
Spike MS SpikE! MSD
Added-MS Recovery MSO Addad~MSD ReCOVGry !<PD
3.90 69.7% 3.60 P 3.91 92. ~% 27.8%
p 3.90 71. 3% 2.62 p 3.91 67.0% 5.9\
3.90 62.8% 2.55 3.91 65.2% 4.0't
7.80 60.3\ 4.89 7.82 62.5% 4.0%
P 7.80 66.8% 4.79 7.82 61.3% 8.4%
p 7.80 88.5% 6.85 P 7.82 87.6% 0.7%
7.80 72.7\ 6.69 p 7.82 85.5% 16.5%
7.80 72.7% 5.99 7.82 76.6% 5.5\
P 3.90 69.5% 2.51 3.91 6'1,2% 7 . 7.
3.90 65.9% 2.22 3.91 56.8% 14.6%
RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846.
FORM III
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES \gI
INCORPORATED ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD
Extraction Method: SW3546
Sample 10, 07042016BARBEE-C
MATRIX SPIKE
Page 1 0 f 1
Lab Sample 10: BCWIA
LIMS 10, 16-10088
~atrix: sediment
Data Helease Authoril.ed:~j
Reported, 11/08/16
Date ~xtracted: 01/01/16
Date Analyzed; 07/14/[6 19:22
Instrument/Analys-:..: ECD6/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sulfur Cleanup: Yes
Florisil Cleanup: Ne>
Acid Cleanup: No
CAS Number
319-85-7
76-44-8
309-00-2
60·57-1
72-55-9
72-54 -8
50-29-3
53494-70-5
5103-74-2
5103-71-9
-189-02-6
3424-82-6
53-19-0
27304-13-8
5103-7 3-1
39765-80-5
Analyte
beLa-8He
Heptachlor
Aldrir.
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
4 J ql-DDD
4,4'-OOT
Endrin Ketone
trans-Chlordane
cis-Chlordane
2,4'-DDT
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-ODD
oxy Chlordane
cis-Nonachior
trans-Nonachlor
QC RepoL-t No: SeWl -Lloyd &-Associates, lnc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BAR9EE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 0"7/05/16
Sample Am-:)unt: 12.8 g-dry-wt
}'inal E~tract Volume: 2.5 mt
Oi lutlon Fa:::tor: 1.00
Sllica Gel: Yes
Percent Moisture: 20.3%
RL
0.49
0,49
0,49
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.49
0.49
0.98
0.98
0.98
C . 98
0.98
0.98
Result
< 0.98 U
< 0.98 U
< 0.98 U
< 0.98 U
< 0.98 U
< 0.98 U
Reported in pg/kg (ppb)
Pest/PCB Surrogate Recovery
Dccachloroblpherlyl
Tetrachlorometaxylene
FORM I
100%
82.0%
ANALYTICAL 1&
RESOURCES 'U'
INCORPORATED ORGANICS ANALYSIS OA~A SHEET
PSODA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD
Extraction M@thod: SW3546
Sample IO: 07042016BARBEE-C
MA~IX SpIKE OUP
Page 1 of 1
l.b Sample 10: BCWIA
LIMS ZO: 16-10088
~:~: i ~~ l!:~!m~~~hor 1 zed t\
Reporled: 11/08 /! 6
Dale Extracted: 07/07/16
D.ce Analyzed: 07/14/16 19:40
Instrument/Analyst: 8CD6/YZ
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sulfur Cleanup: Yes
florisil Cleanup: No
~c1d Cleanup: No
CAS Number
3i9-85-1
7/;-44-8
309·00-2
60-57-]
72-55-9
72-54-8
50-29-3
53494-70-5
5103-14-2
5103-71-9
789 02 6
3424-82··6
53-19-0
27304-13-8
5103-73·1
39765-80-5
AnaJ.yte
beta-SHe
Heptachlor
Aldrll'l.
Dieldrin
4/~'-ODE
4, 4 •. 000
4,4'-OOT
Endrin Ketone
ttans-Chlordane
cis-Chlordane
2,4 I -DDT
2,4'-ODE
2/4'-00D
oxy Chlordane
cis·-Nonachlor
l.!"ans-Nonachlor
QC Report No: ECWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Jate Received: 07/05/16
Sample Amount: 12.8 g-dry-wt
Final E:xtract Volume: 2.5 rnL
Dilution Fa~tQr: 1.00
Silica Gel: Yes
Percent Moisture: 20.3%
RL
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.49
0.49
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
<
<
<
<
<
<
Result
0.98 u
0.98 u
0.98 u
0.98 U
0.98 u
0.98 U
Reported 1n ~g/kg (ppbl
Pest/PCB Surrogate Recovery
Decachlorobiphonyl
Tetrachlorometaxylene
FORM I
110.
76.0%
,
"I ' ,I, c\u,
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA Pesticides/PCB by GC/ECD
Psge 1 of 1
Lab Sample 10: LCS ·070116
LIMS I:J: 16-100B8
Matrix: Sediment {.
Data Release Authorized:~ .
Reported: !l/OBfl6 '
Date Extrac~cd: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/,4/16 17:50
Instrument../Analyst: ECD6/'{Z
GPC Cleanup: Yes
Sulfur Cleanup: Yes
rlor~sil Cleanup: No
ACld Cleanup: No
Analyt"
betCl-BHe
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Dieldrin
4,4'-DD.o
4,4'-00D
4,4'-DDT
Endrin Ketone
trans-Chlordane
cis-Chlordane
Sample ID: LCS-010116
LAB CONTROL
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associate.5, Inc.
?roject: BARBEE uREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Dale Received: 07/05/16
Sample Amount: 1 ~ . 5 g -dry -wt.
Final Extroct Volume: 2.5 mL
Dilution factor: 1,00
Silica Gel: Yes
Percent Moisture: NA
Lab Spike
Control Added Recovery
---_.
2.30 4,00 57.5\
2,04 4.00 51. 0\
1.96 4,00 49.0\
4,B2 8,00 60.2%
4.66 8,00 5B.2%
7,16 p 8.00 91.0%
7.3B 8,00 92.2%
6.5B B,OO 82.2%
2.28 4.00 57.0%
2.U 4,00 53.5\
Pest/PCB Surrogate Recove~y
Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorometaxylene
79.5%
47,2%
Repo=ted in ~g/kg (ppbl
FORM III
FORM 4 BLANK NO.
PESTICIDE METHOD BLANK SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BOIl
Lab Sample ID: BCW1MBSI
Date Extracted: 07/07/16
Date Analyzed: 07/14/16
Time Analyzed: 1731
BCW1MBSI
Client: LLYOYD
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab File ID: 16071414
Matrix: SOLID
Instrument ID: ECD6
GC columns: STX-CLP1/STX-CLP2
THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS and MSD:
CLIENT
SAMPLE NO.
LAB DATE
. S1\MPLE ID ANALYZED
;========= ______ ;;;;;;0:,.;;:;::;::::::========== m ___ ====;;:=
01 BCW1LCSS1
02 SRM 1944
03 07042016BARBEE-C
04 07042016BARBEE-MS
05 07042016BARBEE-MSD
• BCW1LCSS1
iBCW1SRMl
BOllA
BCWlAMS
BCWlAMSD
ALL RUNS ARE DUAL COLUMN
page 1 of 1
FORM IV PCB
07/14/16
07/14/16
07/14/16
07/14/16
07/14/16
Dew ~ • 100 i i -j
ORGANICS ANALYSIS OATA SHEET
PSDOA Pesticides/~CB by GC/ECD
Extract~on Method: SW3546
Page 1 a E 1
Sample IO: MB-070716
METHOD BLANK
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES""
INCORPORATED
Lab Sample 10, MB-070716
L1MS 10, 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
QC R@port No: BCWl-Lloyd. & AssoC.lates, Inc,
ProJect: BARBSE DREDGING
Data Release Authorized: V
Repo<ted, 11/08/16
Date Extr~cted: 07/07/16
~.te Analyzed, 07/14/16 17,31
Instrument/Analyst: EC06/YZ
GPC CI@anup: Yes
Sulfur Cleanup: Yes
Florisil Clean~p: No
ACld Cleanup: No
CAS Number
319-85-7
76-44-8
309-00-2
60-57-1
72-55-9
72-54-8
50-29-3
53494-70-5
5103-74-2
5103-71-9
789-02-6
3424-82-6
53-19-0
27304-13-8
5103-73-1
39765-·80-5
Analyte
beta-BHe
Heptachlor
AIdr in
Dieldrin
4,4'-008
4.,4'-DOD
1,4'-001
Endrin Ketone
trans-Chlordane
cis-Chlordane
2,4'-00T
2,4'-00E
2,4'-000
oxy Chlordane
cis-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor
2016-1 BIIRBEE
Date Sampled: NA
Oa~@ Received; NA
sample Amount: 12.5 g-dry-wt
tinal Extract Volume: 2.5 mL
Oill.ltion fa~:tor: 1.00
Silica Gel: Yes
Percent r'1oisture: NA
RL Result
--------
0.50 < 0.50 u
0.50 < 0.50 U
0.50 < 0.50 u
1.0 < 1.0 U
1.0 < \.0 U
1.0 < 1.0 U
1.0 < 1.0 U
1.0 < 1.0 U
0.50 < 0.50 U
0.50 < 0.50 U
1.0 < 1.0 U
1.0 < \.0 U
1.0 < 1.0 U
1.0 < 1.0 U
1.0 < 1.0 U
1.0 < 1.0 U
Reported in ~g/kg Ippb)
Pest/PCB Surrogate Recovery
Oecachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloro~etaxylene
FORM I
110%
73.8\
OJ
1I.irJ. v
6D
9091 INITIAL CALIBRATION RETENTION TIMES
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
l\RI Job No.: BCWl
GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (tmI)
calibration Date: 06/16/16
Client: LWYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DRErX::ING
Instrument ID: ECD6
RT OF STANDARDS I MEAN I RT WINDOW
I COMPOUND ILVL 1 jLVL 2 ILVL 3 ILVL 4 ILVL 5 ILVL 6 ILVL 7 I RT I FROM I TO
1·· .. ·····=-=:~·-;;;===;;;_:;;;:;I:;;;:;III:r;r ... _ ... jlll::====l:;;: .... "":a:'II::;:::I""'====:I======i=:;;;====1 ==-====1::::;;;:;;;::;;;;;::;::1 ======1 =====!::
I alpha-BHC ______ I 4.36i 4.36 4.361 4.361 4.36 4.361 4.361 4.361 4.311 4.41
I beta-SHC I 4.741 4.74 4.741 4.741 4.74 4.741 4.741 4.741 4.691 4.79
I delta-BHC I 4.921 4.92 4.931 4.931 4.93 i 4.921 4.921 4.92 4.871 4.97
I gamma-BHC (Lindane)_1 4.661 4.66 4.661 4.661 4.661 4.661 4.661 4.66 4.61i 4.71
I Heptachlor I 5.151 5.15 5.151 5.15! 5.151 5.151 5.151 5.15 5.101 5.20
I Aldrin I 5.471 5.47 5.471 5.47 5.471 5.471 5.471 5.47 5.421 5.52
!
Heptachlor epoxide bl 6.151 6.14 6.141 6.141 6.151 6.141 6.141 6.14 6.101 6.20
Endosulfan I 6.581 6.58 6.581 6.581 6.591 6.581 6.581 6.58 6.531 6.63
I Dieldrin I 6.841 6.84 6.841 6.841 6.851 6.841 6.841 6.84 6.791 6.89
I 4,4'-DOE I 6.511 6.51 6.511 6.511 6.511 6.511 6.501 6.51 6.461 6.56
I Endrin I 7.101 7.09 7.091 7.091 7.101 7.091 7.101 7.09 7.051 7.15
1 Endcsulfan II I 7.331 7.33 7.33 7.331 7.331 7.331 7.331 7.33 7.281 7.38
I 4,4'-ODO I 7.151 7.15 7.151 7.151 7.151 7.151 7.151 7.15 7.101 7.20
I Endosulfan sulfate_I 8.191 8.19 8.191 8.191 8.201 8.191 8.191 8.19 8.141 8.24
I 4,4'-DDT I 7.451 7.45 7.451 7.451 7.451 7.441 7.451 7.451 7.401 7.50
I Methoxychlor I 7.93 ? 93 7.931 7.931 7.931 7.931 7.931 7.931 7.981 7.99
I Endrin ketone I 8.471 8.47 8.471 9.471 9 .471 8.471 8.471 8.471 9.421 8.52
I Endrin aldehyde _____ 1 7.761 7.76 7.761 7.761 7.701 7.761 7.761 7.761 7.711 7.81
I trans-Chlordane _____ 1 6.291 6.29 6.281 6.281 6.291 6.28! 6.281 6.291 6.231 6.33
I ciS-Chlordane 1 6.431 6.431 6.431 6.431 6.431 6.43 6.431 6.431 6.391 6.48
I Hexachlorobutadiene_1 2.341 2.341 2.341 2.341 2.341 2.341 2.341 2.341 2.291 2.39
I Hexachlorobenzene ___ 1 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.201 4.151 4.25
I::~:::=:::===========I======I======I=====:I=:::==I======1======1==-===1======1======1==:===
I Tet~ach1oro-m-xylenel 3.951 3.951 3.851 3.851 3.851 3.841 3.951 3.851 3.801 3.90
1 Decachlorobiphenyl __ 1 9.381 9.391 9.381 9.381 9.391 9.381 9.381 9.381 9.331 9.43
I. I I I I 1 .. __ 1 1 1 __
FORM VI PEST-1
BGWi·00ii"'i
6D
8081 INITIAL CALIBRATION RETENTION TIMES
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Jab No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (rnm)
calibration Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD6
I RT OF STANDARDS 1 NEAN I RT WINDOW
:~-:~~~~-~~----==-=I:~=~=I:~=:=I:~===I:~=!=I;~=~=I;~=:=1:~=~=I==~~==I.~~~~=i==:~==
I alpha-BHC ICI 4.881 4.881 4.aa! 4.881 4.881 4.881 4.881 4.881 4.831 4.93
I beta-BHC Ie] 5.361 5.361 5.36; 5.361 5.361 5.36 5.36 5.361 5.311 5.n
I delta-BHC IC] 5.711 5.711 5.n! 5.711 5.711 5.71 5.71 5.71 5.661 5.76
I gamma-BHC (Lindane) 5.271 5.281 5.271 5.2sl 5.2sl 5.27 5.28 5.28! 5.231 5.33
I Heptachlor Ie] 5.801 5.801 5.801 5.801 5.801 5.90 5.80 S.80! 5.751 5.85
I Aldrin IC) , 6.201 6.201 6.201 6.201 6.201 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.151 6.25
I Heptachlor epoxide bl 6.861 6.861 6.861 6.861 6.861 6.96 6.86 6.86' 6.811 6.91
1 Endosulfan I le] __ 1 7.301 7.301 7.301 7.30: 7.301 7.30 7.30 7.30, 7.251 7.35
I Dieldrin Ie] I 7.591 7.591 7.591 7.591 7.601 7.59 7.59 7.591 7.541 7.64
I 4,4'-DDE [C] I 7.381 7.381 7.381 7.381 7.381 7.38 7.38 7.381 7.331 7.43
I Endrin Ie] I 7.921 7.921 7.921 7.921 7,921 7.92 7.92 7.921 7.871 7.97
I EndosuHan II Ie} _I 8.131 8.131 8.131 8.131 9.131 8.13 8.13 8.131 8.08 I 8.18
I 4,4'-ODD [C] I 7.991 7.991 7.991 7.991 7.991 7.99 7.99 7.991 7.931 8.03
I Endosulfan sulfate [I 8.731 8.n: 8.731 8.731 8.73! 8.73 B.73 8.731 8.691 8.78
I 4,4'-00T (C] I 8.301 8.30; 8.301 8.301 8.31, 8.30 B.30 8.301 8.251 8.35
I Methoxychlor (CJ __ I 8.951 8.95 8.951 8.951 8.95j 8.95 B.95 8.951 8.901 9.00
I Endrin ketone lel_1 9.251 9.251 9.251 9.261 9.261 9.251 9.25 9.251 9.201 9.30
I Endrin aldehyde IC] I 8.461 8.461 8.461 8.461 8.461 8.461 8.461 8.461 8.41 8.51
I trans-Chlordane lel=1 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.071 7.001 7.10
I cis-Chlordane IC1_1 7.231 7.231 7.231 7.231 7.231 7.22! 7.231 7.231 7.171 7.27
I Hexachlorob~tadiene I 2.521 2.521 2.521 2.521 2.521 2.521 2.521 2.521 2.471 2.57
I Hexachlorobenzene (Ci 4.731 4.731 4.731 •. 731 4.741 4.731 4.741 4.731 4.691 •. 79
1~;:~;;~~i~;;:;:;;i;~:I-;=~;=I==:~;:I===~;=I~==~;=I===~;=I===~;=I===~;=I===~;=I=-:~~;I===~;;
I Decachlorobiphenyl (I 10.471 10.471 10.481 10.481 10.481 10.471 10.481 10.481 10.431 10.53
I 1_ .. _1 I I I I I I 1 __
FORM VI PEST-l
BCwi . iZl0:i?:0
6E
8081 PESTICIDE INITIAL CALIBRATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Colurrm: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (rrun)
Calibration Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREIXiING
Instrument ID: ECD6
1 CALIERATION FAC"l'ORS 1 R'2
1 COMPOUND 1 LVL 1 1 LVL 2 1 LVL 3 1 LVL 4 1 LVL 5 1 LVL 6 1 LVL 7 1 MEAN 1 \RSD
1=====================1=========1=·---------"======1======---1-========1========= =======--1--=======1=""=
lalpha-EHC I 1.0B961 1.1748 1.32221 1.329BI 1.40041 1.6639 1.B7421 1.40781 19.5
lbeta-EHC I 0.43461 0.4747 0.55561 0.51951 0.50121 0.5604 0.60751 0.52191 11.1
Idelta-EHC I 1.18391 1.1380 1.29721 1.27941 1.35541 1.6402 :.83991 1.39041 18.4
Igamma-EHc (Lindanel_1 1.11641 1.1255 1.30B31 1.29091 1.34211 1.5743 :.75041 1.35831 17.0
I Heptachlor 1.25861 1.2510 1.46621 1.39651 1.40361 1.6102 1.72321 1.44421 12.0
II>.1drin 1.14601 1.1460 1.49941 1.28971 1.29751 1.5224 1.6354 1.36221 14.1
I Heptachlor epoxide b_1 0.86131 0.8621 1. 05661 1. 00121 1. 08151 1.1752 1. 2694 1. 04391 14.5
IEndosulfan I I 1.13401 1.1959 1.43701 1.34441 1.36181 1.4787 1.5525 1.35781 11.1
IDieldrin I 1.3997 1.2979 1.39441 1.39461 1.37311 1.5473 1.5765 1.42621 7.0
14,4'-DDE 1 0.8832 1.0149 1.13061 1.06351 1.04181 1.1559 1.2527 1.07751 10.9
I Endrin I 1.0027 1.0201 1.16751 1.1:861 1.19331 1.2182 1.2812 1.14311 9.0
IEndosulfan II I 1.1670 1.0983 1.13971 1.04161 1.04351 1.1474 1.2010 1.11981 5.5
14,4'-000 I 0.7275 0.7794 0.8907 0.83591 0.92501 0.9559 1.0274 0.8774111.9
IEndosulfan sulfate_I 0.8629 0.91671 1.2654 1.02691 1.10001 1.0859 1.1285 1.05521 12.8
14,4'-DDT I 1.0509 0.87501 0.9037 c.88081 0.95981 1.0324 1.1297 0.97601 10.0
I Methoxychlor I 0.4587 0.45681 0.6947 0.52711 0.48631 0.4709 0.4957 0.51141 16.5
IEndrin ketone I 1.0B48 1.00361 1.2206 1.14101 1.21871 1.2092 1.2775 1.16501 B.1
IEndrin aldehyde ___ 1 0.7632 0.B0751 0.8437 0.75751 0.79911 0.8288 0.9CB9 0.81551 6.4
Itrans-Chlordane ___ 1 1.1334 1.13711 1.4600 1.35691 1.45641 1.4549 1.5732 1.36741 12.5
leis-Chlordane I 1.4511 1.3B071 1.4484 1.29351 1.28701 1.3798 1.4B43 1.38921 5.6
I Hexachlorobutadiene_1 1. 5110 1. 56711 1. 7682 1. 73671 1. 72541 1. 9413 2.06431 1. 75911 11. 0
I Hexachlorobenzene __ 1 1.5381 1.53891 1.6951 1.57961 1.52631 1.7170 1.82511 1.63141 7.1
1=====================1=·===···· -========1======·--------===1=========1=========1=====--"=1========·1----==
1 Tetrachloro·m-xylene_1 0.4889 0.48761 0.5365 0.48521 0.47541 0.50411 0.54491 0.50),1 5.4
Inecachlorobiphenyl_1 0.9671 0.94161 1.0161 0.97701 0.97681 1.01351 1.06921 0.9945' 4.2
1------------------------------------------------------------
FORM VI PEST-2
E!'~W i 00 i;;' i
6E
B081 PESTICIDE INITIAL CALIBRATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (rom)
calibration Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREOOING
Instrument ID: ECD6
CALIBRATION FACTORS
COMPOUND LVI. 1 I LVI. 2 L'~ 3 j LVI. 4 j LVI. 5 j LVI. 6 j LVC 7
I "-2
MEAN j \RSD
lalpha-BHC [Cl I 2.0242j 1.84491 1.93111 1.85161 1.89491 1.9185j 2.0558j 1. 931€j ~.2
lbeta-SHC [Cl. j 0.6501j 0.62481 0.70811 0.66401 0.68471 0.6985j 0.7021j 0.61601 •. 6
Idelta-SHC [Cl j 1.5069j 1.49851 1.53511 1.44661 1.43101 1.44711 1.45791 1.47471 2.6
19a1Dllla-SHC (Linda..,.) [j 1.59761 1.5363j 1.70461 1.67791 1. 7131 j 1.75761 1.7548j 1.P74j 4.9
IHeptachlQr [Cl I 1.5297j 1.68431 :.7630; 1.6066j 1.6onl 1.60331 1.55441 1.62031 4.9
IAldrin tel I 1.5718j 1.46641 1.5657j •. 4689' 1.41141 1.48121 1.44841 1.49621 3.'
jHeptachlQT ep=ide b I 1.3178j 1.28621 1.3540j 1.2'73i 1.24001 1.22161 1.14161 1.26721 5.'
jEndosulfan I (Cl __ 1 1.1410j 1.1621j 1.2479j 1.1895j 1.14831 1.14811 1.07421 1.15891 4.5
jDieldrin [Cl j 1.21891 1.2040j 1.29711 1.2219j 1.15211 1.11941 1.02931 1.17841 7.4
14,4'-DDE [Cl I 1.13831 1.13761 1.24571 1.1936j 1.15251 1.17121 1.17371 1_17321 3.2
j Endrin [C) j 1. 9846j 1. B6841 1. 99521 1.84041 1. 8620 j 1. 1184! 1. 5870 1 1. 83661 7.9
IEndoBulfan II (C' __ j 2.0039j 1.83081 1.9313j 1.8200j 1.1919j 1.6764j 1.57621 1.80HI 8.0
14,4'-llDD [Cl 1 1.82451 1.64651 1.77631 1.65341 1.7119j 1.6629j 1.61201 1.69821 4.5
IEndosulfan ""lfate [Ci 1.6667j 1.60471 1.71821 1.50841 1.58731 :'.53311 1.46341 1.5945j 5.2
14,4'-DDT [el I 1.5573! 1.50111 1.65131 1.56761 1.56921 1.E64i 1.60711 1.58231 3.0
IMethoxychlor (Cl __ 1 0.66721 0.65201 0.67331 0.59491 0.56231 0.53311 0.52811 0.60161 10.4
I Endrin k~con. [Cl __ 1 1.H771 1.35481 1.44111 1.30171 1.17201 1.27511 1.2S0Sj 1.3190j 7.5
IEndrin aldehyde [Cl_1 1.52571 1.44621 1.S21S! 1.40471 1.39001 1.3293j 1.2796j 1.41471 6.6
Itrans-ChlQrdane [Cl_1 1.33211 1.33801 1.52651 1.3B83 I 1.34051 1.35081 1.31901 1.37071 5.3
leie-Chlordane [Cl __ 1 1.18301 1.17741 1.25601 1.19901 1.17261 1.20721 1.17611 1.19591 2.5
IHe"",hlorobutadiene [I 1.13421 1.15311 1.2013j 1.1064j 0.9384j 1.05691 1.04051 1.09011 8.0
IHexachlcrcl>enzene [Ci 1 1.97661 1.96731 2.18:3l 2.1010j 2.12'6: 2.08541 2.12891 2.0803j 3.8
\=====~=_=~_.2._~=~=::I=:==a====I===~=~~=~I==~ __ :=== =====~ ___ I=~=====:=:m:=:===_=I====== __ ~I~=~~====~I~ ___ m.
jTetrachloro-m-"Ylene I 1.0348j 0.96301 0.99041 0.9130j 0.8953) 0.85641 0.8284j 0.9259j 8.0
IDecachlorobipher.yl [el 1.20471 1.14451 1.20441 L1006j 1.09491 1.09001 1.09701 1. 1331 j 4.6
FORM VI PEST-2
8Gwi"00i22
6D
8081 INITIAL CALIBRATION RETENTION TIMES
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (mm)
Calibration Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD6
I RT OF STANDARDS MEAN I RT WINDOW
I COMPOUND ILVL 1 ILVL 2 ILVL 3 ILVL 4 ILVL 5 ILVL 6 ILVL 7 RT I FROM 1 TO
1=====================1======1======1======1======1======1======1====== ======1======1======
1 0xych1ordane I 6.031 6.03: 6.031 6.031 6.031 6.031 6.03 6.031 5.981 6.08
12,4·DDE I 6.121 6.12 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.12 6.121 6.071 6.17
I trans-Nonach1or __ 1 6.411 6.411 6.41! 6.411 6.411 6.411 6.41 6.411 6.361 6.46
12,4.DDD I 6.701 6.70! 6.701 6.701 6.701 6.701 6.70 6.701 6.651 6.75
12,4-DDT I 6.971 6.971 6.97! 6.971 6.971 6.97! 6.97 6.97! 6.92! 7.02
! cis-Nonach1or 1 7.13! 7.131 7.13! 7.131 7.131 7.13! 7.13 7.13! 7. 08! 7.18
! Mirex 1 8.10! 8.101 8.10! 8.10! 8.101 8.10! 8.10 8.10! 8.051 8.1S
I=====================I======I======I======I======!======1======1====== ======1======1======
~trachloro-m-xylenel 3.851 3.851 3.85! 3.851 3.8sl 3.841 3.85 3.8S! 3.801 3.90
1 Decach1orobiphe ny1_1 9.381 9.381 9.38! 9.381 9.391 9.381 9.38 9.381 9.331 9.43
I ! 1 I ! ! I 1 1 1 __
FORM VI PEST-1
6D
8081 INITIAL CALIBRATION RETENTION TIMES
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCWl
GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (Inn)
calibration Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
In.strurnent ID: ECD6
I RT OF STANDl\RDS I MEAN I RT WINDOW
1==:~~-===.-=.===i~~=:=I~~=:=I~~=~= ~~=!=I~~::=I~~=:= :~=:=I==~:==I=~~~~=I==:~== I Oxychlordane (el __ 1 6.7sl 6.7sl 6.75 6.751 6.751 6.75 6.751 6.751 6.701 6.80
I 2,4-DDE (el I 7.051 7.0sl 7.05 7.051 7.051 7.05 7.051 7.051 7.001 7.10
I trans-Nonachlor [el_1 1.161 1.161 7.16 7.161 7.161 7.16 7.16! 7.161 7.111 7.21
I 2,4-DDD [Cl I 7.601 7.601 7.60 1.601 7.601 7.60 7.60! 7.601 7.551 7.65
I 2,4 -DDT (el I 7.92 i 7.921 7.92 7.921 7.921 7.92 7.92! 7.921 7.871 7.97
I cis-Nonachlor [CI_I 7.98: 7.981 7.98 7.981 7.981 7.98 7.98! 7.981 7.93 8.03
I Mirex [el I 9.231 9.231 9.23 9.231 9.231 9.23 9.231 9.231 9.181 9.28
I=;:~;:~~~~;~:::;;~:~:I==:~;:I==:~;:I==:~;= ··=~;:I==:~;:I===~~= ··=~~:I==:~~:I==:~~;I·=:~;;
I Decachlorobiphenyl [I 10.471 10.471 10.48 10.481 10.481 10.47 10.48110.481 10.431 10.53
I I I I I I. i 1 __
FORM VI PllST-l
6E
8081 PESTICIDE INITIAL CALIBRATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (rom)
Calibration Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD6
CALIBRATION FACTORS I I R-2
I COMPOUND I LVL 1 I LVL 2 I LVL 3 I LVL 4 I LVL 5 I LVL 6 I LVL 7 I MEAN I \RSD
1============= ______ ==1=====_==_1_========1=========1=====----1========-1-========1=========1-----====1=----=
]Oxych1ordane [CI __ I 1.19101 1.18621 1.22161 1.16001 1.14751 1.07771 1.03071 1.14501 5.9
12,4-DDE [el i 0.83191 0.82251 0.84061 0.78471 0.77211 0.73221 0.66701 0.77871 8.0
Itrans-Nonach1or [el_1 2.19341 2.14541 2.20091 2.02081 2.05921 1.91921 1.91821 2.06531 5.8
12.4-DDD [el I 1.22401 1.25201 1.29241 1.16051 1.20301 1.10091 1.01971 1.17B91 7.9
12,4-DDT [el I 1.36601 1.37741 1.40421 1.29501 1.3346] 1.22301 1.16611 1.30951 6.7
Icis-Nonach1or [el __ 1 2.49451 2.47451 2.54681 2.34411 2.40941 2.22811 2.29001 2.39821 4.8
IMirex [el I 1.14771 1.08601 1.0723] 0.93871 0.94431 0.88481 0.B6421 0.99111 11.1
1=====-==----=========1=========1===·_··_·1=======-·1-========1=========1---·=====1·=·_·-===1=========1==·_·=
ITetrachloro-m-xylono I 1.03481 0.96301 0.99041 0.91301 0.89531 0.85641 0.82841 0.92591 8.0
IDecachlorobiphenyl [el 1.2047] 1.14451 1.20441 1.10061 1.09491 1.09001 1.09701 1.13371 4.6
1---------------------------------------------------------------------
FORM VJ P8ST-2
6E
8081 PESTICIDE INITIAL CALIBRATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (mm)
Calibration Date: 06/16/16
Client: LWYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD6
I CALIBRATION FAcroRS I R'2
I COMPOUND I LVL 1 I LVL 2 I LVL 3 I LVL 4 LVL 5 I LVL 6 LVL 7 I MEAN I lRSD
1"-,-",,·,==========1=========1=========1===-,,,-=1-==.===== ====-•... 1-======== =========1========·1·-====
IOxychlordane I 0.89731 0.93701 0.94271 0.8675 0.94131 0.9047 0.95401 0.92061 3.4
12,4-DDE I 0.37741 0.42711 0.49941 0.5029 0.59451 0.5601 0.60331 0.50921 16.6
Itrans-Nonachlor ___ 1 1.31121 1.33551 1.35561 1.2424 1.36731 1.3274 1.39641 1.33371 3.7
12,4-DDD I 0.48361 0.63031 0.60081 0.5344 0.59391 0.5872 0.61561 0.57801 8.9
12,4-DDT I 0.65211 0.68931 0.71711 0.6849 0.78761 0.7661 0.80401 0.72871 7.9
IciB-NOnaChlor I 1.26081 1.29241 1.41631 1.3188 1.48441 1.4585 1.53381 1.39501 "l.5
I Mirex I 0.75201 0.71291 0.76691 0.7237 0.75811 0.7139 0.73121 0.73701 3.0
1=====================1=========1=========1==-"====1========= ·",-----1========= =========1========-1======
I Tetrachloro-m-xylene_1
InecachlQrQbiphenyl_1
0.48891 0.48761 0.53651 0.4852 0.47541 0.5041 0.54491 0.50321
0.96711 0.94161 1.01611 0.9770 0.97681 1.0135 1.06921 0.99451
5.4
4.2
1_---------------------------------
FORM VI PEST-2
aCWi"00i.2b
7E
8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCWl
GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (mm)
Init. calib. Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab Ccal ID: INDAE Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,1445
PEST MIX RT WINJ)()W CALC NOM
CCMPOUND RT FReN TO AMOUNT AMOUNT
(ng) (ng)
=========================== ===:;:c:: ====~= ===---;::==:::::;:::~::::!= ====:;;:===
alpha-BHC 4.36 4.31 4.41 19.9 20.0
beta-BHC 4.74 4.69 4.79 18.9 20.0
delta-BHC 4.93 4.87 4.97 18.4 20.0
garrma-BHC (Liridarie) 4.66 4.61 4.71 19.8 20.0
H~achlor 5.15 5.10 5.20 19.4 20.0
AI in 5.47 5.42 5.52 19.1 20.0
Heptachlor epoxide b 6.14 6.10 6.20 23.4 20.0
Endosulfan I 6.58 6.53 6.63 19.3 20.0
Dieldrin 6.85 6.79 6.89 38.4 40.0
4,4'-DDE 6.51 6.46 6.56 37.8 40.0
Endrin 7.10 7.05 7.15 37.8 40.0
Endosulfan II 7.33' 7.28 7.38 40.6 40.0
4,4'-DDD 7.15· 7.10 7.20 42.S 40.0
Endosulfan sulfate 8.19 8.14 8.24 40.4 40.0
4,4'-DDT 7.45 7.40 7.50 43.5 40.0
Methoxychlor 7.93 7.88' 7.98 190.4 200.0
Endrin ketone 8.47 8.42 8.52 42.0 40.0
Endrin aldehyde 7.76 7.71 7.81 44.5 40.0
trans-Chlordane 6.28 6.23 6.33 18.9 20.0
cis-Chlordane 6.43 6.38 6.48 17.7 20.0
Hexachlorabutaa~ene 2.34 2.29 2.39 20.7 20.0
Hexachlorobenzene 4.20 4.15 4.25 18.0 20.0
Tetrachloro-m-xylene 3.85 3.80 3.90 40.2 40.0
Decachlorobiphenyl 9.38 9.33 9.43 38.7 40.0
FORM VII PEST -2
%D
-----
-0.3
-5.4
-7.8
-1.1
-3.0
-4.3
16.8
-3.2
-4.0
-5.5
-5.5
1.5
6.2
1.0
8.9
-4.8
S.O
11.3
-5.4
-11.5
3.7
,-10.2
; 0.6
-3.3
7E
8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Jab No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (mm)
Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab Ccal ID: INDAE Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,1445
PEST MIX RT WINDOW CALC NOM
COMPOUND RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMJUNT
(ug/L) (ug/L)
=========================== ====== ====== ======:; =====;;;;== ========
alpha-BHC [Cl 4.88 4.83 4.93 20.3 20.0
beta-BHe [el 5.36 5.31 5.41 20.4 20.0
de 1 ta-BHe [Cl 5.71 5.66 5.76 22.4 20.0
ganrna-BHe {Lfudarie} tel 5.28 5.23 5.33 21.2 20.0
Heptachlor [el -5.80 5.75 5.85 21. 0 20.0
Aldrin [el 6.20 6.15 6.25 20.4 20.0
Heptachlor epoxide b tcl 6.86 6.81 6.91 20.1 20.0
Endosulfan I [Cl -7.30 7.25 7.35 20.4 20.0
Dieldrin [Cl 7.59 7.54 7.64 39.7 40.0
4,4'-DDE [Cl 7.38 7.33 7.43 39.9 40.0
Endrin [Cl 7.92 7.87 7.97 35.8 40.0
Endosulfan II tcl 8.l3 8.08 8.18 37.9 40.0
4,4'-DDD [Cl 7.99 7.93 8.03 38.6 40.0
Endosulfan sulfate tcl 8.73 8.68 8.78 38.2 40.0
4,4'-DDT [Cl --8.31 8.25 8.35 41.2 40.0
Methoxychlor [C) 8.95 8.90 9.00 178.6 200.0
Endrin ketone [Cl 9.26 9.20 9.30 38.2 40.0
Endrin aldehyde [el 8.46 8.41 8.51 38.0 40.0
trans-Chlordane [Cl 7.07 7.00 7.10 19.4 20.0
cis-Chlordane [Cl 7.23 7.17 7.27 20.4 20.0
Hexachlorobutadiene ICl 2.52 2.47 2.57 24.8 20.0
Hexachlorabenzene [cl -4.74 4.69 4.79 20.5 20.0
Tetrachloro-m-xylene tel 4.24 4.19 4.29 40.3 40.0
Decachlorobiphenyl [Cl -10.48 10.43 10.53 38.1 40.0 --
FORM VII PEST-2
%D
=====
1.7
1.8
11.8
5.8
4.8
1.9
0.5
1.8
-0.8
-0.2
-10.4
-5.3
-3.6
-4.4
3.0
-10.7
-4.4
-5.0
-3.0
1.B
23.9
2.3
0.9
-4.8
BCWi;~iOi2B
<-
7E
8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (llIIl)
Init. Calib. Date; 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab Ccal 10: WND Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,1503
PEST MIX RT WINDOW
I
CALC NOO
c:cMPOUND RT FR<»'l
I
TO AMOUNT AMOUNT
(ng) (ng)
==========---~--~~====~==== ======= ======: ======, =;:;;;=--_ . ., ===::::;;:;;:;;;;;=-
Oxychlordane 6.03 5.98: 6.08· 45.0 40.0
2,4-DDE 6.12 6.07 6.17 45.8 40.0
trans-Nonachlor 6.41 6.36 6.46 39.5 40.0
2,4-DDD 6.70 6.65 6.75 38.7 40.0
2,4-DDT 6.97 6.92 7.02 41.8 40.0
cis-NonaChlor 7.13 7.08 7.18 41.1 40.0
Mirex 8.10 8.05 8.15 45.5 40.0
Tetrachloro-m-xylene 3.85 3.80 3.90 42.1 40.0
Decachlorobiphenyl 9.38 9.33 9.43 43.1 40.0
,
:
FORM VII PEST-2
tD
-----
12.4
14.5
-1.1
-3.3
4.4
2.91 13.7,
5.2
7.7
,
DCwi:00i:29
7E
8091 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFI~TION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Colurrm: STX-CLP2 rD: 0.53 (lIIll)
mit. Calib. Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab ecal rD: WND Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,1503
PEST MIX
.
RT WINOOW I CALC NOM
<XlMPOUND RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT
(ug/L) (ug/L)
~~~~~~~~====~=--•• ========= ====== ====== ====== ======== ========
oxychlordane IC] 6.75 6.70 6.80 40.8 40.0
2,4-DDE IC] 7.05 7.00 7.10 38.5 40.0
trans-Nonach1or [cl 7.16i 7.11 7.21 43.3 40.0
2,4-DDD Ie] 7.60 7.55 7.65 39.2 40.0
2,4-DDT Ie] 7.92 7.87 7.97 37.9 40.0
cis-Nonachlor [cl 7.98 7.93 8.03 37.7 I 40.0
Mirex [e] 9.23 9.18. 9.28 36.2 40.0
Tetrachloro-m-xylene [C] 4.24 4.19i 4.29 42.4 40.0
Decachlorobiphenyl Ie] -10.48 10.43! 10.53. 4l.8 40.0 --
I
!
I
FORM VII PEST-2
! %D ,
=====
2.0
-3.7
8.2
-2.0
-5.2
-5.9
-9.5
5.9
4.4
BCWi·"'~i30
7E
8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCWl
GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (mm)
lnit. Calib. Date: 06/16/16
Client: LlilYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab Ccal ID: INDAE Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,2017
PEST MIX RT WINIXlW CALC NOM
COMPOUND RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT
(ngJ (ng)
=~====~-=============~===== ====== ====== =..:--== ======== ========
alpha-BHC 4.36 4.31 4.41 20.2 20.0
beta-BHC 4.74 4.69 4.79 18.7 20.0
delta-BHC 4.93 4.87 4.97 18.9 20.0
gamma-BHC (Lmaane) 4.66 4.61 4.71 19.9 20.0
Heptachlor 5.15 5.10 5.20 19.1 20.0
Aldrin 5.47 5.42 5.52 19.1 20.0
Heptachlor epo~de b 6.14 6.10 6.20 22.5 20.0
Endosulfan I 6.58 6.53 6.63 19.1 20.0
Dieldrin 6.84 6.79 6.89 37.4 40.0
4,4'-DDE 6.51 6.46 6.56 38.5 40.0
Endrin 7.09 7.05 7.15 44.1 40.0
Endosulfan II 7.33 7.28 7.38 43.4 40.0
4,4'-DDD 7.15 7.10 7.20 46.5 40.0
Endosulfan sulfate 8.19 B .14 8.24 41.4 40.0
4,4'-DDT 7.45 7.40 7.50 45.3 40.0
Methoxychlor 7.93 7.88 7.98 207.7 200.0
Endrin ketone 8.47 8.42 8.52: 43.5 40.0
Endrin aldehyde 7.76 7.71 7.81 48.0 40.0
trans-Chlordane 6.28 6.23 6.33 18.8 20.0
cis-Chlordane 6.43 6.38 6.48 17.3 20.0
Hexachlorobutadiene 2.34 2.29 2.39 20.0 20.0
Hexachlorobenzene 4.20 4.15 4.25 18.7 20.0
Tetrachloro-m-xylene 3.85 3.80 3.90 40.2 40.0
Decachlorobiphenyl 9.38 9.33 9.43 40.3 40.0
FORM VII PEST-2
%D
,=====
0.9
-6.4
-5.6
-0.3
-4.5
-4.6
12.6
-4.6
-6.5
-3.8
10.2
8.6
16.2
3.4
13.2
3.8
8.7
20.0
-5.9
-13.2
-0.2
-6.3
0.5
0.8
7E
8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.; BCWl
GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (mm)
Init. calib. Date: 06/16/16
Client, LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
PrO] ect: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab Ccal ID: INDAE Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,2017
PEST MIX
CCMPOUND
=========~=================
·~~l
======1
alpha-BHC [C]______ 4.88:
beta-BHC IC] 5.36!
delta-BHC reI 5.71!
gaI1llla-BHC (Li!idarie) tcl 5.28 :
Heptachlor IC) 5.80 :
Aldrin IC] 6.20:
Heptachlor epoxide b tel 6.86'
Endosulfan I IC] 7.30'
Dieldrin Ie] 7.59 "
4,4'-DDE IC] 7.38
Endrin [e] 7.92
Endosulfan II tCI 8.13.
4,4'-DOO Ie] 7.99
Endosulfan SUlfate tel 8.73
4,4'-DDT re] 8.31
Methoxychlor tel 8.95
Endrin ketone [C) 9.26
Endrin aldehyde [e] 8.46
trans-Chlordane [e] 7.07
cis-Chlordane [e] 7.23
Hexachlorobutadiene [e] 2.52
Hexachlorobenzene Ie] 4.74
Tetrachloro-m-xylene tcl 4.24
Decachlorobiphenyl [C]--= 10.48
RT WINDOW
FROM TO
====== ;;:;==:==
4.83 4.93
5.31 5.41
5.66 5.76
5.23 5.33
5.75 5.85
6.15 6.25
6.81 6.91
7.25 7.35
7.54 7.64
7.33 7.43.
1.87 1.97"
8.08 8.18
7.93 8.03
8.68 8.78
8.25 8.35
8.90 9.00
9.20 9.30
8.41 8.51
7.00 7.10
7.17 7.27
2.47 2.57
4.69 4.79
4.19 4.29
10.43 10.53
FORM VII PEST-2
CALC .I)lUM
AMOUNT AMOUNT
(ug/L) (ug/LJ
;:;:;;==::::::=== ::=::::::::::::=.=
20.1 20.0
20.5 20.0
22.3 20.0
20.8 20.0
20.4 20.0
19.8 20.0
19.8 20.0
19.2 20.0
40.4 40.0
38.1 40.0
36.8 40.0
36.6 40.0
38.5 40.0
36.6 40.0
41.0 40.0
194.0 200.0
38.4 40.0
37.4 40.0
18.5 20.0
19.4 20.0
24.3 20.0
20.5 20.0
40.2 40.0
39.3 40.0
%D
-----
0.3
2.4
11.7
4.1
2.2
-0.8
-1.2
-4.0
1.0
-4.7
-8.0
-8.5
-3.8
-8.6
2.6
-3.0
-4.0
-6.5
-7.6
-2.9
21.7
2.7
0.6
-1.8
EtCwi-00i8;;
7E
8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCWl
GC Column: STX-CLP1 ID: 0.53 (nun)
Init. calib. Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLDYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab Ccal ID: WND Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,2036
PEST MIX RT WINDOW .. ~ NOM
COMPOUND RT FROM 'TO AM:)tJNT
(ng) (ng)
=========================== ====== ;;;0;;;;;;_==;:; ====== ======-== ========
Oxychlordane 6.03 5.98 6.08 47.4 40.0
2,4-DDE 6.12 6.07 6.17 50.3 40.0
trans-Nonachlor 6.41 6.36 6.46 43.2 40.0
2,4-DDD 6.70 6.65 6.75 42.2 40.0
2,4-DDT 6.97 6.92 7.02 42.9 40.0
cis-NonaChlor 7.13 7.08 7.18 43.7 40.0
Mirex 8.10 8.05 8.15 44.6 40.0
Tetrachloro-m-xylene 3.85 3.80 3.90 41.9 40.0
Decachlordbiphenyl 9.38 9.33 9.43 44.5 40.0
FORM VII PEST-2
%D
!:'!;:===
18.6
25.8 <-
8.0
5.4
7.1
9.3
11.5
4.8
11.2
I
7E
8081 PESTICIDE CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLP2 ID: 0.53 (mm)
Init. Calib. Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab ecal ID: WND Date/Time Analyzed: 07/14/16,2036
PEST MIX RT WINDOW i CALC NOM
C<MPOUND RT FROM TO AMOUNT AMJUNT
(ug/L) (ug/L)
=========================== =====; ====== ====== ======== ========
Oxychlordane [e] 6.75 6.70 6.80 41.8 40.0
2,4-DDE [C] 7.05 7.00 7.10 38.7 40.0
trans-Nonachlor tCl 7.17 7.11 7.21 47.5 40.0
2,4-DDD [el 7.60' 7.55 7.65 43.3 40.0
2,4-DDT [el 7.92 7.87 7.97 42.3 40.0
cis-Nonachlor tel I 7.99 7.93 8.03 40.9 40.0 I
Mirex [CI 9.23' 9.18 9.28 43.7 40.0
Tetrachloro-m-xylene lCJ 4.24 4.19 4.29 43.1 40.0
Decachlorobiphenyl [CI -10.48 10.43 10.53 42.2 40.0 --
i
FORM VII PEST-2
%D
-----
4.6
-3.3
18.7
8.2
5.9
2.1
I 9.1
7.9
5.5
BCWi -0eli:::;4
FORM 8
PESTICIDE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: STX-CLF1 ID: 0.53 (!lUll)
Init. calib. Date: 06/16/16
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD6
THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MIXTURES, BLANKS,
SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS IS GIVEN BELOW:
lSI 1
I I AREA I RT 1
IS2
AREA
I
RT 1
1·············1··=··=·=·1····==·1········· =······1
1 lCAL M1DPr I 761555 1 3.166 1 796988 9.538 1
1 UPPER LIMIT I 1523110 I 3.2l6 1 1593976 9.588 !
1 LOWER LIMIT I 380778 I 3.ll6 I 398494 9.488 I
I I I I
CLIENT LAB DATE I I lSI I I 1S2 I
SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID I ANALYZED I TIME AREA I RT 1 AREA RT I
============ ============1========== :===== =========1=======1======'== =='===·1
01 SEF0086-CAL51 06/16/16 1350 761555 I 3.166 I 796988 9.538 I
02 SEF0086-CALll 06/16/16 1408 759671 I 3.166 I 828954 9.537 1
03 SEF0086-CAL21 06/16/16 1427 780608 1 3.165 855696 9.536 1
04 SEF0086-CAL31 06/16/16 1445 710803 I 3.165 771527 9.537 I
05 SEF0086-CAL41 06/16/16 1503 766550 1 3.165 839326 9.536 I
06 SEF0086-CAL61 06/16/16 1522 727564 I 3.165 827959 9.535 I
07 SEF0086-CAL71 06/16/16 1540 698374 1 3.165 789217 9.536 1
08 SEF0086-CALDI 06/16/16 1636 735679 1 3.165 804226 9.536 1
09 SEF0086-CAL91 06/16/16 1654 771540 I 3.165 839759 9.536 1
10 SEF0086-CALAI 06/16/16 1713 763928 I 3.166 824563 9.536 I
11 SEF0086-CALB 06/16/16 1731 709601 I 3.166 767921 9.536 I
12 SEF0086-CALC 06/16/16 1750 752220 I 3.165 843579 9.536 I
131 SEF0086-CALE 06/16/16 1808 737398 3.165 841828 9.536 I
141 SEF0086-CALF 06/16/16 1827 695619 3.165 799915 9.536 I
151 DS 07/14/16 1426 704501 3.165 729698 9.535 I
161 INDAE 07/14/16 1445 820213 3.166 852013 9.536 I
171 WND 07/14/16 1503 828379 3.166 875264 9.535 I
18 I BCW1MB51 BCWIMBSI 07/14/16 1731 840813 3.165 567647 9.535 I
19 I BCWILC5S1 I BCWILC5S1 07/14/16 1750 953472 3.165 701483 9.536 I
20lsRM 1944 I BCW1SRMI 07/14/16 1845 1063184 3.165 1266421 9.548 I
2110 7 042016BARBIBCW1A 07/14/16 1903 830886 3.165 547399 9.536 I
22 I 07042016BARBI BCW1AM5 07/14/16 1922 988590 3.164 763125 9.536
23 I 07042016BARBI BCW1AMSD 07/14/16 1940 986588 3.164 742262 9.536
241 IDS 07/l4/16 1959 I 785457 3.166 614052 9.535
25 1 IINDAE 07/14/16 2017 894405 3.166 801873 9.536
261 IWND 07/14/16 2036 887129 3.166 869883 9.536
I I
lSI ~ I-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene
152 Hexabromobiphenyl
RT Window = RT +/-.05 min
* Indicates value outside QC Limits
FORM 8
PESTICIDE INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES
ARI Job No.: BCWl
GC Column: STX-CLP2 In: O.53(mn)
lnit. Calib. Date: 06/16/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Inst:rument ID: ECD6
THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MIXTURES, BLANKS,
SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS IS GIVEN BELOW,
I lSI I 182
I I AREA IRT I AREA IRT I
1~~~~mm~===~~=I=~~==~==ml===;;=;I~==~=~~==I==~~===1
I ICAL MIDPT I 4027682 I 3.378 i 2017878 111.068 I
I UPPER LIMIT 8055364 I 3.428 I 4035756 11 1 .118 I
I LOWER LIMIT 2013841! 3.328 I 1008939 111.018 I
I • I I I --:CL=IE=NT=--;----:LAB-:=--'I-DATIl I I lSI I I 152 I I
SAMPLE NO. I SAMPLE 10 I ANALYZED I TIME! AREA I RT I AREA I RT I
==~==~==;==~I====··====·=I=··===-·==I·=====l··===·=~-I;======I==··====~I=-=-··=I
01 ISEF0086-CAL51 06/16/16 I 1350 I 4027682 i 3.378 I 2017878 111.068 I
02 I SEF0086-CAll I 06/16/16 I 1408 I 3927001 I 3.376 I 2050423 111.067 I
03 ISEF0086-CAL21 06/16/16 I 1427 I 3922635 I 3.376 I 2088638 111.067 I
04 I SEF0086 -CAL31 06/16/16 I 1445 I 3582932 I 3.376 I 1905178 Ill. 067 I
05 I SEF0086·CAL41 06/16/16 I 1503 I 3748752 I 3.376 I 2038084 Ill. 067 I
06 I SEF0086·CAL6 I 06/16/16 I 1522 I 3613506 I 3.376 I 1934215 111.066 I
07 ISEF0096-CAL71 06/16/16 I 1540 I 3504452 I 3.376 I 1854901 111.067 I
09 I SEF0086-CALD I 06/16/16 I 1636 I 3662441 I 3.376 i 1959615 111.068 I
09 ISEF0086-CAL91 06/16/16 I 1654 I 3757859 I 3.376 I 2026651 111.068 I
10 ISEF0086-CALA' 06/16/16 I 1713 . 3732554 I 3.376 I 2009709 111.068 I
11 ISEF0096-CALB: 06/16/16 I 1731 3499699 I 3.376 I 1863699 111.067 I
12 ISEF0096-CALCI 06/16/16 I 1750 3708831 3.376 I 2046819 111.068 I
13 ISEF0086-CALEI 06/16/16 I 1808 3651377 3.376 I 2025867 111.066 I
14 ISEF0086-CALFI 06/16/16 I 1827 3494322 3.376 I 1972734 11.067 I
15 IDS I 07/14/16 I 1426 3423313 3.377 I 1787565 11.068 I
161 IINDIIE I 07/14/16 I 1445 3679419 3.377 I 1961200 11.069 I
17 IWND i 07/14/16 I 1503 3676854 3.378 I 1991329 11.069 I
IS I BCW1MBSl I BCWIMBS1 I 07/14/16 I 1731 3331287 3.377 I 1147419 11.068 I
19 I BCW1LCSSl IBCWILCSSI I 07/14/16 I 1750 4002848 3.377 I 1484994 11.069 I
20lsRM 1944 I BCW1SRM1 I 07/14/16 I 1945 2981651 3.377 I 1237770 11.073 I
211 07042016BARB I BCWIA I 07/14/16 I 1903 2775162 3.376 I 1237100 11.069 I
22 I 07042016BARBIBCWlAMS I 07/14/16 '1922 3233909 3.376 I 1300149 11.069 I
23 I 07042016BARBI BCWIAMSD I 07/14/16 1940 3265955 3.376 I 1405587 11.069 I
241 IDS I 07/14/16 1959 2707630 3.377 I 1288148 11.068 I
251 IrNDlIE I 07(14/16 2017 3837606 3.378 I 1906160 11.068 I
261 IWND I 07/14/16 2036 3917749 3.377 I 1876320 11.069 I
I 1_ I : 1_ .... _1
lSI ~ l'Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene
1S2 = Hexabromobiphenyl
RT Window ~ RT +/ .. 05 min
* Indicates value outside QC Limits
PCB Analysis
Report and Summary QC Fonns
ARI Job ID: BCWl
BCWi:00137
AHALYnCALA
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD
Extraction Method: SW3546
Sample ID: 070420l6BARBEE-C
SAMPLE
?agp. 1 of 1
Lab Sample ID: BCWIA
LIMS 10: 16-1(081)
Matrix: Sedirr:€:i\t
Data Re:ease Authcr:"zec: ~
Raportad: 07/19/:6
Cate Extr"cted: 07/13/16
Date Analyzed: 01/15/16 20:52
Ir:st !"ument I A..."1a lyst: ECD7 / JGR
G?C Clea:lup: No
Sulfur Cleanup: Yes
Acid. Cleanup: Yes
Florisll Cleanup: No
CAS Number
12674-:1-2
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
; 1096-82-5
111Q4-28-2
11141-16-5
Analyt ..
Aroc;'or 1016
Aroc':'or 1242
A!:ocior 1248
Aloclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor L?32
QC Report Nc: 2Cril-Lloyd ~ Associates, Inc.
P~ojec:t: EARBLE C;,LDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Sample !'Jnount: 12.8 g-rlry-wt
Final Extract Volume: 2.50 !':".:.....
Dilution Factoc: 1.00
S2-1~ca Ge:: Yes
Perce::-t:: Mo~st :.ire: 2;].3%
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
Result
< 3.9 U
< 3.9 f)
< 3.9 U
< 3.9 U
< 3.9 C
< 3.9 "
< 3.9 :.;
Reportee in :.>qlkg ippb)
PCB Surrogate Recovery
Oecachlorobipher.yl
Tetrachlcrometaxyl en8
FORM I
89.8%
84.2~
Sample ID: SRM PSR
ANALYTlCAL_
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD
Extraction Mo>thod: SW3546 STANDARD REFERENCE
Paqe I of 1
Lab Sample IJ: SRX PSR
LIMS :D: 16-18088
~1dtri.x: Sedirnen:.:.
Data Release A~thorized:~
Reported: 07/19/16
DBtH Extracted: 07/13/16
Date Analyzed: 07/15/16 20:29
IEscru:neEt/Analyst: ECD7/,)GR
G?C Cleanup: No
Su:~ur Clea~~?: Yes
A;:;.id Clear:"J.p: Yes
Floris!: C:ea~up: No
CAS Nl.UIber Analyte
12674-11-2 Arcclor lClE
53469-21-9 Aroclor 1242
12£72-29-6 A_roc lor 124B
110S7-6~-1 Aroc.lor 1254
11096-82-5 Aroolar 1260
11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221
lLL-16-5 Arccior ]232
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Assoc;'aces, ene.
Project: BARBEE :JREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Da::e Sampled: N;:'.
Date ~eceived: NA
Sal~.?l e Arr:ou;;.l:! S. 06 g-dry~wt
Fir..a.l Ex<:=aC't v(")lIJrr:.e; 2.50 mL
Dilution Fac~or: 1.00
Si~ica Gel: Yes
Percer.t YJois"c;ure; 't
LOll Result
9.9 < 9.9 U
9.9 < 9.9 U
25 < 25 Y
9.9 100
9.9 1.10
9.9 < 9.9 U
9.9 ( S.9 U
Reported in ~g/kg (ppbl
PCB Surrogate Recov .. ry
---.. ~ .... --
Decac~lc robiF::tenyl
Terrachlorcmetaxylene
II'ORH I
84.C%
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
SW8082/PCB SOIL/SOLID/SEDIMENT SURROGATE RECOVERY SUMMARY
Matrix: Sediment
Client ID
MB-071316
LCS-071316
SRM PSR
07042016BARBEE-C
Q70420168ARBEE-C MS
07042016BARB~~-C MSD
Page 1 for BeWl
:-.1.:.crOh'ave
QC Report No:
Project:
DCBP DCBP
BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
TCMX TCMX
, REC LCL-UCL , REC LCL-UCL TOT OUT
72.2% 40-126 68.0% 44-120 0
87.2% 40-126 86.2% 44-120 0
84.0% 40-126 75.0% 44-120 0
89.8% 40-126 8~.2% 44-120 0
81.5% 40-126 77.0% 44-120 0
85.0% 40-126 77.8% 44 -12 0 0
IMARS) Control Limits P:BSMM
Prep Method: SW3546
Log Number Range: 16-10088 to l6-10088
FORM-II SWS082
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample 10: BC~lA
LIM3 10: 16-1C088
Ylatrix: Sediment
Data Release Auttorized:~
Reported: 07/19/16
Date Extracted MS/MSO: 07/13/16
Date Analyzed MS: 07/15/16 21:14
MSO: 07/15/16 21: 37
Instrument/Analyst MS: ECD7/JGR
MSO: EC07/JGR
GPC Cl eanup: No
Sulfur Clea~up: Yes
Acid Cleanup: Yes
Florisil Cleanup: No
Analyte
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1260
Sample
< 3.9 11
< 3.9 U
Results reported in ug/Kg :ppbl
HS
79.3
83.8
ANALYTICAL ..
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C
MS/MSD
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: 3ARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBE.E
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Oate Received: 07/05/16
Sample Amount MS: 12.8 g-dry-wt
MSD: 12.8 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Vo:ume MS: 2.5 rnL
MSD: 2.5 rnL
Dilution factor MS: 1. 00
MSD: 1. 00
Silica Gel: Yes
Percent Moisture: 20.3%
Spike HS Spike HSD
Addad-HS Recovery HSD Addad-HSD Recovery
98.6 80.4% 83.8 98. J 84.91
98.6 85.0> 88.6 98.7 89.8%
RI'D
5.5%
5.6%
RPO calculated using sa~ple concentrations per SW846.
FORM III
BCwi 00i4i
ANALYTICAL _
RESOU1'ICES.
INCORPORATED ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA PCB by GC/ECIJ
Extraction Method: SW3546
Page 1 of 1
Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C
MATRIX SPIKE
:,ab Sample E), BOllA
I,IMS !D: ~6-1C088
~atrix~ Sedirr.eFl"':. 1"\..._ ....
Data He:'eas€ ;'~1Jthcr':'zeri: "\f\cJ
H.€'port~,j: 0) /19/16
Cate Ex~racted: 07/13/16
Da:e Analyzed: 07/15/16 21:14
Instrument/Analyst: ECD7/JGR
GPC Cleanup: No
Sulfur Cleanllp: Yes
Acid Cleanup: Yes
Flor:..sil CleaT!.!lp: No
CAS NUJDber Analyta
:2674-L-2 ArccloT le:E
53469-21-9 F.rcclor 12~2
:2672-29-6 Ar81clcr 1248
:1097-69-1 J\roc!cr 1254
11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260
11104-28-7 Aroc]or 1221
11141-16-5 ArQclcr 1232
QC Report No: BCW1-Lloyd & A$so~iate5, Inc.
FrGject: Bl\REEE DREDGING
:016-1 BARBSE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Sa~,p;'e AmOJJ1t: 12.8 q-d:ry-wt
Final E,xtract Vol;.Jme: 2.50 :nl
Cilutio::1 Fd~tor: : .CO
Silica Gel: Yes
Peycen:. Moisture: 20.3f,
LOQ R .. sult
3.9
3.9 < 3.9 U
3.9 < 3.9 U
3.9 < 3.9 U
3.9
3.9 < 3.9 tJ
3.9 < ),9
Reported ir. :J.g/kg (ppb)
PCB Surrogate Racov .. ry
Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrac~lororoetaxylene
FORM r
81.5'!
77.0%
ANALYTICAL 1&
RESOURCES'
INCORPORAT1!:D ORGANICS ~YSIS OATA SHEET
PSODA Pee by Ge/ECD
Extraction Method: SW3546
Sample 10: 07042016BARBEE-C
MATRIX SPIKE DUP
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample IJ: BCWIA
LIMS ID: l6-10088
Matrix: Sediroerl!
'x ?ep8rt No: BCWI-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Data Release AuthoriZCd:~
Reported: ~7/19!16
P::Tject: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 Bh..'<.BEE
Jale Sd~p:ed: 07/04/l~
Date Received: 07/05/:6
Date ~xtracted: 07/13/16
Dace Analyzed: 0') /15/16 21: 37
Instru!nent/Ana:yst: ECD7/JGR
GPC Clean'Jp: No
Saonple A/:",Ol.n:: 12.8 g-ciry-wt
.E"~nal Extract V(; 1 t:.P.'.e: 2.50 ml
Dilution Factcr: 1.00
Silica Gel: Yes
3u~fur Clear.up: ~es
Ac:'d Cleanup: Yes Percent Moisture: 20.3~
Florisii Cleanup: No
Analyte
,--------------
12674-11-2
53469-21-9
l?672-29-6
11097-69-1
110%-82-5
11104-28-2
11lL<6-S
Aroclor 10:6
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
ArocIor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Arcclar 122]
Arcclcr 1232
S:eported in ;.l~ ./~.~ (ppb)
PCB Surrogate Recovery
Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrach':"oIome t:axy ler.e
FORM I
LOQ
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
85.0%
77.8~
Result
" 3.9
" 3.9
< 3.9
< 3.9
< 3.9
v
v
U
fJ
tJ
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD
Page 1 ot 1
Lah Saffi~:e Ie: LCS-C7].316
L:MS D: 16-10080
~a.-::iy.: Sed':m€;:lnl "'1\. ~
Da-:a Release Authorized: \,~~
Reported: 07/19/16
Date Extracted: 01/13/16
Oa=e Analyzed: 01/15/16 19:44
Instrument/Analyst: ECD"l!JGR
GPC C1 ea~,up: No
Sulfur C1 ""nup: Yes
Acid Cleanup: Yes
Flcrisil Clea~~p: Nc
Analyte
A~oc-lor -.i. J 16
I\rccio::c :26Q
Sample ID: LCS-071316
LAB CONTROL
QC Report No: BC~il-L1cyd & I\ssoccates,
Projecc: BA.~BEE DRE~GING
20c6-1 BAR;JEE
Date Sa~p1ed: ~A
Date Recei.ved: t;A
sa~ple Amount: 12." g-dry-wt
Final Extract Vol-urne: 2.50 mL
Cilution factor: 1.QO
Silica Gel: Yes
Percent MQisture: NA
Lab Spike
Control Add$d
91. 7 ' o· .:. '.'-
B9.1 : Jl
PCB Surroqata Raoovery
RecClvary
S18 • 8;1,
83.2<
Decachlo=ob~pheny: a7.2~
86.21> TetrachloYometaxylene
Results reported l~ fJg/kg (!)pb!
FORM III
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORA11!D
4 BIANK NO.
pCB METHOD BIANK SUMMARY
BCWlMBS1
Lab Name: 1\NALYTlCAL RESOURCES INC Client: LLYOYD
ARI Job No.: BCW1
Lab Sample ID: BCW1MBS1
Date Extracted: 07/13/16
Date Analyzed: 07/15/16
Time Analyzed: 1922
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Lab File ID: 16071517
Matrix: SOLID
Instrument ID: ECD7
GC Columns: ZB5/ZB35
THIS METHOD BIANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS and MSD:
CLIENT I LAB
SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID
=====================1==========
01 BCWlLCSS1 iBCW1LCSS1
02 NOT REQUESTED I BCW1SRM1
03 07042016BARBEE-C iBCWlA
04 07042016BARBEE-MS I BCWlAMS
05 07042016BARBEE-MSD I BCWlAMSD
ALL RUNS ARE DUAL COLUMN
page 1 of 1
IlA.TE
1\NALYZED
==;;;:;;::;======
07/15/16
07/15/16
07/15/16
07/15/16
07/15/16
FORM IV PCB
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PSDDA PCB by GC/ECD
Extraction Method; SW3546
?age ~ of 1
Sample ID: M8-071316
METHOD BLANK
ANALYTICAL ..
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
~db Sample :D, MB-87l316
:C:MS W; 16-10088
["latrix: Sediment
QC Report No: BC~"l-Ll~yd &: Associates, Tn;::,:.
DOlt;'} Re":"'ease Ai.lthorized;~
Reported: J7/19/!6
Dale Extracted: 87/131l6
Date Ana':yzed~ 07/15/16 19:22
Instrl.l.mer,"':/Ar.alys":! ~CC7/C'SR
GPC Cleanup: No
Sulfur Cleanup: Yes
Acid Cleanup: Yes
Florisil Cleanup; No
CAS Number
12674-11-2
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
: 1097-69-1
11096-82-5
11104-28-2
1:141-16-5
Analyte
.P-.roclor 1016
Aroclor 1242
i'.roc1or 1248
Aroclor 1254
Arodor 1260
Aroc1or 1221
Aroclor 1232
Project: 3ARSEE C?LDGING
28:6-: BARB,E
Date Sampled; NA
Date R~cB~ved: NA
Sample .Z\mCUI'.t: 12.5 g
Final Ex':.ract Volume: 2.50 !i't::'"
Dilu,ior. Factor: 1.00
Sillca Gel, Yes
PeTCe:!i7. ["loisturc: NA
LOQ Result
4. J < 4.0
4.0 < 4.0
4.0 < 4.0
4.0 < 4.G
4.0 < 4.0
4.0 < 4.0
4.0 < LO
Reported in )1g/kg (ppo)
PCB Surrogate Recovery
Decach~or0tipr.e~y~
l'e,:, rachl orometdxy~€r.e
FORM I
72 .2%
63.0.
U
U
U
U
0
TJ c.
6F
8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF AROCLOR 1016/1260
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: ZBS
calibration Date: 07/01/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOC
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD7
1--------------·-------------------------------------------------------.---------------------1
:Areeler-IOI6 1 LVLl 1 LVL2 I LVL3 I LVL4 LVL5 I LVL6 I MEAN I \RSD I
; Peak RT WIN: .02 I 0.05 1 0.1 I .25 I 0.5 I 1.0 I I R'2 I
1---' ----------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------1
I 1 5.70-5.901 0.0114 I 0.0104 I 0.0102 I 0.0096 I 0.0092 I 0.0090 I 0.0100 I 9.1 I
I 2 1.70-•• 901 0.0147 ! 0.0141 I 0.0138 I 0.0129 I 0.0122 I 0.0117 I 0.0132 I 8.6 I
I 3 7.11-7.311 0.0451 I 0.0423 I 0.0419 I 0.0405 1 0.0398 1 0.0400 1 0.0416 1 4.8 I
1 • 7.61-7.all 0.0082 1 0.0077 I 0.0078 1 0.0073 I 0.0069 I 0.0066 1 0.007. 1 8.1 I
1---------------------------------"----------------------------------------------------------1
AROCLOR AVERAGE \RSD = 7.6
1--------------------------------------------------------------------.-----------------------1
IMoeler-1260 1 LVLl 1 LVL2 1 LVL3 1 LVL4 , LVLs 1 LVL6 1 MEAN 1 tRSD
1 Peak RT WIN 1 .02 1 0.05 1 0.1 I .25 I 0.5 1 1.0 I 1 R'2 i
1---------------------------·---·_---------------·-------------------_·------·_----·-·-1
I 1 10.64-10.841 0.0297 ,0.02'S 0.0216 0.0207 0.0195 0.0199 0.0226 17.1
I 211.34-11.541 0.0726 1 0.Oa52 0.0'40 0.0740 0.0640 0.0688 0.0714 11.2
, 311.74-11.941 0.0334 I 0.0320 0.0322 0.0331 0.0323 0.0343 0.0329 2.7
I • 11.93-12.131 0.0232 0.0222 0.0224 0.0230 0.0225 0.0239 0.0229 2.7
I 512.60-12.801 0.0231 0.0302 I 0.0235 10.0271 10.0238 1 0.0253 1 0.0255 I 10.7 I
1-------------------------------------------------------._---------------------------.-------!
AROCLOR AVERAGe 'RSD:o:: 8.9
FORM VI PCB - 1
i'"","J~:W i -0i:i1 i 47
6F
8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF AROCLOR 1016/1260
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job NO.: BCW1
GC Column: ZB35
Calibration Date: 07/01/16
Client: LLOYD & ASSOC
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: BCD?
1----------.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-I
I ArOOlOr-IOl. I LVLl I LVL2 I LVLl I LVL4 I LVLS I LVLG I M~ I tRSD I
IPeak RT WIN I .02 I O.os I 0.1 I .25 I O.S I 1.0 I I R-2 1
1---------------------.---------------------------------------------------------------------1
1 1 6.09-6.291 0.0209 1 0.0198 1 0.0190 1 0_0178 I 0.0168 1 0.0160 I 0.0184 1 10.1 1
I 2 6.80-7_001 0_0547 1 0.049' I 0.0479 1 0.0437 I 0.0413 I 0_0390 I 0.0460 1 12.6 1
I 3 7.44-7.641 0.1074 1 0.1002 1 0.0992 I 0.0945 I 0.0918 I 0.Oae3 I 0.0969 1 7.0 I
I .. 7.84-8.041 0.0266 1 0_0246 i 0.0252 I 0.0240 I 0.023' I 0.0228 I 0.0244 I 5_5 I
1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
AAOCLOR AVI!RA(!E \RSD: 8.8
1-------------------------------------------------------------------·---·------------------1
IAroolor-12GO I LVL1 I LVL2 I LVLl I LVIA LVLs I LVLG I MBAN I USD I
IPeak RT WIN I .02 I 0.05 I 0.1 I .2S I 0.5 I 1.0 I I R'2 I
I· -----------------.-.------------------------------------------------.
I 1 10.95-1L151 0.0613 0.0538 I 0.0520 0.04'7 1 O.O'~ I 0.0455 I 0.0514 11.2
I 2 1'.4'-"_6'1 0.0677 I 0.0606 I 0_0591 I 0.0570 1 0.0540 1 0.0512 I 0.0586 9.1
I 311.68-11.881 0.1363 I 0_1247 I 0.1242 I 0.1217 I 0,1164 I 0.1152 I 0.1211 1 6.2
I 4 12.21-12.411 0.0515 I 0.0401 I 0.0396 I 0.0509 I 0,0355 I 0.Ol50 I 0.0421 I 17 •• I
I .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
AROCLOIR AVERAGE lRSD • 11. 0
FORM VI Pf.1!-1
BCW:i 00i48
6G
8082 INITIAL CALIBRATIctI OF SINGLE POINT PCBs
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
Client: LIDYD & ASSOC
Project: BI\RBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD7 GC Column: ZBS
Calibration Date: 07/02/16
Aroclor-1221
Peak RT
1 3.884
2 5.691
3 5.799
RT WIN
3.78-3.98
5.59-5.79
5.70-5.90
Aroclor-1232
Peak RT
1 3.883
2 7.207
3 7.469
4 8.193
RT WIN
3.78-3.98
7.11-7.31
7.37-7.57
8.09-8.29
Aroclor-1242
Peak RT
1
2
3
4
6.798
7.208
7.357
8.194
RT WIN
6.70-6.90
7.11-7.31
7.26-7.46
8.09-8.29
Aroclor-1248
Peak RT
1 7.204
2 7.714
3 8.193
4 8.864
RT WIN
7.10-7.30
7.61-7.81
8.09-8.29
8.76-8.96
FORM VI PCB-2A
Cal
Factor
0.00311
0.00495
0.01454
Cal
Factor
0.00190
0.01764
0.00661
0.00836
Cal
Factor
0.01119
0.03319
0.01529
0.01560
cal
Factor
0.01833
0.00960
0.02000
0.02352
page 1 of 2
6G
8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF SINGLE POINT pCBs
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC Client: LIJJYD & ASSOC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: ZB5
Calibration Date: 07/02/16
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD7
Aroclor-1254
Peak RT
1 9.325
2 9.463
3 9.816
4 10.129
5 10.510
RT WIN
9.23-9.43
9.36-9.56
9.72-9.92
10.03-10.23
10.41-10.61
Aroclor-1262
Peak RT RT WIN
1 11.061 10.96-11.16
2 11.842 11.74-11.94
3 12.031 11.93-12.13
4 12.703 12.60-12.80
Aroclor-1268
Peak RT RT WIN
1 11.958 11.86-12.06
2 12.029 11.93-12.13
3 12.419 12.32-12.52
4 13.212 13.11-13.31
FORM VI PCB-2B
cal
Factor
0.01860
0.03603
0.03491
0.01380
0.03891
Cal
Factor
0.02503
0.02465
0.03810
0.03506
Cal
Factor
0.08891
0.11215
0.09810
0.41477
page 2 of 2
6G
8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF SINGLE POINT PCBs
Lab Name: JlNALYTICAL RESOURCES INC Client: LlDYD & ASSOC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Col UII1l1 : ZB35
Calibration Date: 07/02/16
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrwnent ID: BCD7
Aroc1or-1221
Peak RT
1 5.815
2 6.186
3 6.910
RT WIN
5.71-5.91
6.09-6.29
6.81-7.01
Aroclor-1232
Peak RT
1 6.900
2 7.538
3 8.466
4 8.999
RT WIN
6.80-7.00
7.44-7.64
8.37-8.57
8.90-9.10
Aroclor-1242
Peak RT
1 6.185
2 7.539
3 8.466
4 8.999
RT WIN
6.09-6.29
7.44-7.64
8.37-8.57
8.90-9.10
Aroclor-1248
Peak RT
1
2
3
4
6.898
7.534
9.000
9.357
RT WIN
6.80-7.00
7.43-7.63
8.90-9.10
9.26-9.46
FORM VI PCB-2A
Cal
Factor
0.01361
0.02477
0.00848
Cal
Factor
0.02144
0.04168
0.01804
0.01547
Cal
Factor
0.01566
0.07587
0.02645
0.02442
Cal
Factor
0.01572
0.04385
0.04013
0.05148
page 1 of 2
6G
8082 INITIAL CALIBRATION OF SINGLE POINT PCBs
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
Client: LLOYD & ASSOC
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD7 GC Column: ZB35
calibration Date: 07/02/16
Aroclor-1254
Peak RT
1 9.777
2 9.929
3 10.173
4 10.397
5 10.957
RT WIN
9.68-9.99
9.83-10.03
10.07-10.27
10.30-10.50
10.96-11.06
Aroclor-1262
Peak RT RT WIN
1 11.052 10.95-11.15
2 11.781 11.68-11.88
3 12.376 12.29-12.48
4 13.116 13.02-13.22
Aroclor-1268
Peak RT RT WIN
1 12.311 12.21-12.41
2 12.378 12.28-12.48
3 12.782 12.68-12.88
4 13.609 13.51-13.71
FORM VI PCB-2B
Cal
Factor
0.03464
0.08726
0.08884
0.04128
0.06691
Cal
Factor
0.06772
0.13225
0.08728
0.04800
Cal
Factor
0.14689
0.13239
0.11330
0.33157
page 2 of 2
Elt~wi ; 00i52
7F
PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Colunm: ZB5
Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16
Lab Standard ID: AR1254ICV1
CXX<IPOUND/PEAK NO. RT
=========================== ======
Aroclor-1254-1 9.33
Aroclor-1254-2 9.46
Aroclor-1254-3 9.82
Aroclor-1254-4 10.13
Aroclor-1254-5 10.51
Client: LlJJYD & ASSOC
RT
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Intrument: ECD7
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :1706
WINDOW CALC NCM
FROM TO AM::>UNT AMOUNT
(ng) (ng)
%D
====== ====== ======== ======== -----
9.23 9.43 254.8 250.0 1.9
9.36 9.56 276.6 250.0 10.6
9.72 9.92 294.6 250.0 17.8
10.03 10.23 302.4 250.0 21.0
10.41 10.61 274.2 250.0 9.7
AROCLOR AVG: 280.5 CAL %D ~ 12.2
FORM VII PCB
7F
PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: ZB35
Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16
Lab Standard 10: AR1254ICV1
COMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT
==================-=====~== ------------
Aroclor-1254 [2C] -1 9.78
Aroclor-1254 [2C] -2 9.93
Aroclor-1254 [2C] -3 10.17
Aroclor-1254 [2C] -4 10.39
Aroclor-1254 [2C] -5 10.96
Client; LLOYD & ASSQC
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Intrument: ECD7
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed : 1706
RT WINDOW CALC Na'I
F'RCM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT 'liD
(ng) (ng)
------=~==== ::::::::::===== ======== -----------
9.68 9.88 198.1 250.0 -20.8
9.83 10.03 251.9 250.0 0.7
10.07 10.27 249.9 250.0 -0.0
10.30 10.50 225.4 250.0 -9.B
10.86 11.06 258.1 250.0 3.2
AROCLOR AVG: 236.7 CAL 'liD = -5.3
FORM VII PCB
7F
PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCFS INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
ac Column: ZB5
lnit. Calib. Date: 07/01/16
Lab Standard ID: AR1660ICV2
COMPOUND/PEAK NO.
======-==~:";==============
Aroclor-1016-1
Aroc1or-1016-2
Aroc1or-l016-3
Aroclor-l016-4
Lab Standard ID: AR1660ICV2
ClJMPOUND/PEAK NO.
=~=::============:=========
Aroclor-1260-1
Aroclor-126 0-2
Aroclor-1260-3
Aroclor-126 0-4
Aroclor-1260-5
RT
------------
5.80
6.80
7.21
7.71
RT
======
10.74
11.44
11.84
12.03
12.70
Client: LLOYD & ASSOC
Proj e<::t: BARBEE DREDGING
Intnunent: BCD7
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :1729
RT WINDOW CALC NCX>'!
FRCM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT
(ng) (ng)
II!D
====== =,.==== --------======== ===== --------
5.70 5.90 257.0 250.0 2.8
6.70 6.90 260.2 250.0 4.1
7.11 7.31 255.7 250.0 2.3
7.61 7.81 259.3 250.0 3.7
AROCLOR AVG: 258.0 CAL II!D = 3.2
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :1729
RT WINOOW CALC NCM
FROM TO AI'KlUNT AMOUNT II!D
(ng) (ng)
====== ====== ===~==== ======== =====
10.64 10.84 288.7 250.0 15.5
11.34 11.54 273.5 250.0 9.4
11.74 11.94 284.8 250.0 13.9
11.93 12.13 295.0 250.0 18.0
12.60 12.80 271.2 250.0 8.5
-
AROCLOR AVG: 282.6 CAL %D = 13.1
FORM VII PCB
8Cwi·00iS5
7F
PCB OILIBRATION VERIFICATION StMolARY
Lab Narne: JlNALYTIOIL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCWI
GC Coll.lllUl: ZB35
Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16
Lab Standard ID: AR1660ICV2
o:MPOUND/PEAK NO. RT
===========~s ___ ~:===== __ == ======
Aroclor-1016 [2C]-1 6.18
Aroclor-1016 [2C] -2 6.90
Aroclor-1016 [2C) -3 7.54
Aroclor-1016 [2C] -4 7.94
Lab Standard ID: ARl650ICV2
<n!POUND/PFAK NO. RT
=========================== ==;;;;;;;;;;;.;
Aroclor-1260 [2C] -1 11.05
Aroclor-1260 [2C] -2 11.51
Aroclor-1260 [2C] -3 11. 78
Aroclor-1250 [2C] -4 12.31
Client: LLOYD & ASSOC
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Intrument: ECD7
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :1729
RT WINDOW CALC NOM
FRaoJ TO AM)UNT AMOUNT %D
(ng) (ng)
=;;;;==;;;:;;;: ==_l1li== --------::::;;::::;:====== ===::::::::: --------
6.08 6.28 247.7 250.0 -0.9
6.80 7.00 246.1 250.0 -1.6
7.44 7.64 246.7 250.0 -l.3
7.83 8.03 246.3 250.0 -1.5
AROCLOR AVG: 246.7 CAL %D = -1.3
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed : 1729
RT WINDOW CALC NOM
FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT %D
(ng) (ng)
;;;;;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; :;:::==::::;;;;::::: ======== ======== -----
10.95 11.15 200.5 250.0 -19.8
11.41 11.61 211.3 250.0 -15.5
11.68 11.88 173 .2 250.0 -30.7
12.21 12.41 190.8 250.0 -23.7
AROCLOR AVG: 193.9 CAL %D = -22.4
FORM VII PCB
<-
7F
PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: ZB5
Ioit. calib. Date: 07/01/16
Lab Standard ID: AR1248CCV1
C'CXIIPOUND/PEAK NO. RT
=========================== ======
Aroclor-1248-1 7.21
Aroclor-1248-2 7.71
Aroclor-1248-3 8.19
Aroclor-1248-4 8.86
RT
Client: LLOYD & ASSOC
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Intrument: ECD7
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :2307
WINDOW CALC NCI'l
FROM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT
(og) (og)
%D
------====::;;:;:: ======== ======== -----------
7.11 7.31 280.5 250.0 12.2
7.61 7.81 281.5 250.0 12.6
8.09 8.29 283.1 250.0 13 .2
8.76 8.96 284.2 250.0 13.7
AROCLOR AVG: 282.3 CAL %D = 12.9
FORM VII PCB
7F
PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCI'll
GC column: ZB35
Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16
Lab Standard ID: AR1248CCV1
CCMPOOND/PEI'J( NO.
===========================
Aroclor-1248 [2C]-1
Aroclor-1248 [2C]-2
Aroclor-1248 [2C] -3
Aroclor-1248 [2C] -4
RT
======
6.90
7.53
9.00
9.36
Client: LLOYD & ASSOC
Proj ect: BARBEE DREDGING
Intrument: Ern7
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :2307
RT WINDOW CALC NOM
FROM TO AKXlNT AMOUNT \D
(ngJ (ngJ
;:::===== ====;;;;;a:o: ======== ======== ::===
6.80 7.00 267.6 250.0 7.0
7.43 7.63 255.6 250.0 2.2
8.90 9.10 189.4 250.0 -24.2
9.26 9.46 255.5 250.0 2.2
AROCLOR AVG: 242.0 CAL \D ~ -3.2
FORM VII PCB
7F
PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: ZB5
Init. calib. Date: 07/01/16
Lab Standard ID: AR1660CCV2
C'CMPOUND/PEAK NO. RT
~~~~~~===================== =;====
Aroclor-1016-1 5.80
Aroclor-1016-2 6.80
Aroclor-1016-3 7.21
Aroclor-1016-4 7.71
Lab Standard ID: ARl660CCV2
ca-'lPOUND/PEAK NO. RT
=========================== =====::=:
Arcclor-1260-1 10.74
Aroclor-1260-2 11.44
Aroclor-1260-3 11.84
Aroclor-1260-4 12.03
Aroclor-1260-5 12.70
Client: LLOYD & ASSOC
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Intrument: ECD7
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :2330
RT WINOOW CALC NOM
FRCM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT
(ng) (ng)
--------
\D
====== ====== ======== -------------
5.70 5.90 306.4 250.0 22.6
6.70 6.90 305.6 250.0 22.2
7.11 7.31 273.3 250.0 9.3
7.61 7.81 314.4 250.0 25.7
AROCLOR AVG: 299.9 CAL \D = 20.0
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :2330
RT WINIXlW CALC NCM
FRCM TO AMOUNT AMOUNT \D
(ng) (ng)
------------======== ======== -----------------
10.64 10.84 290.6 250.0 16.2
11.34 11.54 273.1 250.0 9.2
11.74 11.94 286.5 250.0 14.6
11.93 12.13 295.7 250.0 18.3
12.60 12.80 270.9 250.0 8.4
AROCLORAVG: 283.4 CAL \D = 13.4
FORM VII PCB
<-
7F
PCB CALIBRATION VERIFICATION SUf+1ARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: ZB35
Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16
Lab Standard ID: AR1660CCV2
COMPOUND/PEAK NO.
~~--====~======~==-========
Aroclor-1016 [2C] -1
Aroclor-1016 [2Cj-2
Aroclor-1016 [2Cj-3
Aroclor-1016 [2C] -4
Lab Standard ID: AR1660CCV2
COMPOUND/PEAK NO.
========;======~~=~~~======
Aroclor-1260 [2Cl-1
Aroclor-1260 [2Cl-2
Aroclor-1260 [2Cj-3
Aroclor-1260 [2Cj -4
RT
;;;:;;;:=;;;:;;;:=
6.18
6.90
7.54
7.93
RT
------------
11.05
11.51
11.78
12.31
Client: LlDYD & JlSSOC
RT
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Intrument: ECD7
Date Analyzed :07/15/16
Time Analyzed :2330
CALC Na4
FRaIl TO .!\MOUNT AMOUNT
(119) (ng)
%D
====== ====21:2 -_ •••• == ======== -----
6.08 6.28 249.6 250.0 -0.2
6.80 7.00 246.0 250.0 -1. 6
7.44 7.64 246.6 250.0 -1.3
7.83 8.03 246.6 250.0 -1.4
AROCLOR AVG: 247.2 CAL %D = -1.1
Date Analyzed : 07/15/16
Time Analyzed :2330
RT WINDCm CALC Na4
FRaIl TO .AMOONT AI'DUNT \D
(ng) (ng)
====== ====== --------======== -------------
10.95 11.15 201.5 250.0 -19.4
11.41 11.61 212.4 250.0 -15.0
11.68 11.88 174.6 250.0 -30.2
12.21 12.41 190.8 250.0 -23.7
AROCLOR AVG: 194.8 CAL %D = -22.1
FORM VII PCB
<-
5Cwi·00i&0
FORM B
PCB INTERNAL STANDARD AREA AND RT Sm.'MARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCW1
GC Column: ZBS ID: 0.S3(mm)
Init. Calib. Date: 07/01/16
Client: LlDYD & ASSOC
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Instrument ID: ECD7
THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MIXTURES, BLANKS,
SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS IS GIVEN BELCH:
I lSI IS2
I I AREA I RT I AREA I RT I
I=~=====~~:~:~I··=··=·~=I=~-====!====;=;;;I=--=---I
I rCAL MIDPT I 133188761 2.439 I 17748878113.984 I
I UPPER LIMIT I 2663 7 7521 2.539 I 35497756114.084 I
I LOWER LIMIT I 66594381 2.339 I 8874439113.884 I
-=-=c=----,---,-,,-----,--I I I I I I
CLIENT LAB DATE I I lSI I I rS2 I I
I SAMPLE NO. I SAMPLE ID I ANALYZED I TIM1l I AREA I RT I AREA I RT I
1===:========I==~===.=S=3=1==========!====== ========-I=:==:aml=:_--==== ===~===I
01 zzzzz Izzzzz I 07/01/16 I 1959 13145774 I 2.439 117638599 13.984 1
02 I 0.25PPMAR166 I 07/01/16 I 2021 13318876 I 2.439 117748878 13.984
03 !0.02PPMAR1661 07/01/16 I 2044 13260186 I 2.439 117850628 13.983 I
04 I O. 05PPMARl66 I 07/01/16 I 2107 13375853 I 2.439 118100122 13.984
05 11PPMAR1660 I 07/01/16 I 2129 13130293 i 2.438 117439255 13.984
06 10.lPPMAR16601 07/01/16 I 2152 13578889 I 2.439 118509789 13.984
07 10.5PPMAR16601 07/01/16 I 2214 13627383 I 2.439 118493537 13.983
OS IARIZ42 07/01/16 I 2237 13606936 I 2.438 118045407 13.984
09 IAR1248 07/01/16 I 2259 13580797 I 2.439 118S17791 13.983
10, i AR1254 07/01/16 I 2322 133331?2 I 2.438 118168791 13.983
111 IAR2162 07/01/16 I 2344 13137772 i 2.439 117949482 13.983
121 IAR3268 07/02/16 I 0007 13069683 I 2.439 17921406 13.983
13 I ZZZZZ IzzzzZ 07/02/16 I 0029 13076402 I 2.438 118010822 13.984
14 I zzzzz IZZZZZ 07/02/16 I 0052 13122311 1 2.438 118007648 13.983
151zzzzz Izzzzz 07/02/16 I 0114 13176996 1 2.439 118066379 13.983
16 I ZZZZZ IZZZZZ 07/02/16 I 0137 13223315 I 2.436 118305672 13.983
17 ZZZZZ Izzzzz 07/02/16 I 0159 13187813 2.438 118176633 113.984
181zzzzz IZZZZZ 07/02/16 0222 13162462 2.438 118106438 113.982
191 10.lPPM DDT 07/02/16 0245 13845926 2.437 I
201 IAR1254ICV1 07/15/16 1706 12318632 2.442 16153642 13.983
211 IAR1660ICV2 07/15/16 1729 12280285 2.440 116165538 13.984
22 I BCW1MBSI I BCW1MBS1 07/15/16 1922 14231591 2.441 118925913 13.983
23 I BCW1LCSSI I BCW1LCSS1 07/15/16 1944 13081705 2.442 118149286 13.983
241zzzzz IZZZZZ 07/15/16 2007 13891625 2.441 119443793 13.983
2slNOT REQUESTEIBCWlSRMl 07/15/16 2029 13643241 2.441 113947116 13.983
26 I 07042016BARBIBCWlA 07/15/16 2052 13193862 2.442 113962778 13.983
27 I 07042016BARB I BCWIAMS 07/15/16 2114 114118382 2.441 114902683 13.983
28 I 07042016BARB I BCW1AMSD 07/15/16 2137 114194326 2.442 115082664 13.984
291 IAR1248CCV1 07/15/16 2307 112826013 2.441 116594495 13.983
301 IAR1660CCV2 07/15/16 2330 112506335 2.440 116045202 13.983 I I I 1 _____ _
IS1 • 1-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene
IS2 = Hexabromobiphenyl
RT Window = RT +/-0.1 min
* Indicates value outside OC Limits
page 1 of 1 FORM VIII PCB
FORM 8
PCB INTERNAL STANDARD ARFA AND RT SUMMARY
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
ARI Job No.: BCWl
GC Column: ZB35 ID: 0.53 (am)
Init. calib. Date: 07/01/16
client: LLOYD & ASSOC
project: BARBEE DREJ:JGING
InstI1lIl\ent ID: BCD7
THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MIXTURES, BLANKS,
SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS IS GIVEN BELOW:
IS1 I IS2
I I AREA I RT I AREA I RT 1
Is==····~·=:~:l::=-·-_c=I=======I~========I=======1
I lCAL MIDPT 118430989 I 3.007 122328101 114.919 I
I UPPER LIMIT 136861978 I 3.107 144656202 115.019 I
I LOWER LIMIT I 9215495 I 2.907 111164051 114.819 I
_===------;-_-,-----_----,---_1 I I I I
CLIENT LAB DATE I lSI I IS2 I I
I SAMPLE NO. I SAMPLE ID . ANALYZED I TIME I AREA I RT I AREA I RT I
!==:~==:==.=.l==========~=I~=====-===I======I====~==~~1_~===_=I=;=======I==ft===~1
01izzzzz :zzzzz 07/01/16 I 1959 118176338 I 3.007 122141587 114.919 I
02! ,0.25PPMAR166! 07/01/16 I 2021 118430989 I 3.007 122328101 14.919 I
031 10.02PPMAR166i 07/01/16 I 2044 118262773 I 3.007 122247489 14.919 I
041 !0.05PPMAR166i 07/01/16 I 2107 118392705 I 3.007 122846162 14.919 I
051 i 1PPMAR1660 1 07/01/16 I 2129 118070099 I 3.005 j22581345 14.918 I
061 1 O. 1PPMAR1660 I 07/01/16 I 2152 18845677 1 3.006 123397239 14.919 I
071 10.5PPMAR1660: 07/01/16 1 2214 118749063 I 3.007 j23667483 14.91S I
081 IAR1242' 07/01/16 I 2237 118662128 3.005 123393575 14.919 /
091 !AR1248 07/01/16 1 2259 118629302 1 3.006 123835583 1~.919 I
10 ,AR1254 07/01/16 I 2322 118257998 I 3.005 123441866 14.919 I
Iii jAR2162 07/01/16 I 2344 /17915869 / 3.006 /23283790 14.918 I
121 IAR3268 07/02/16 I 0007 117862966 I 3.006 1232S2463 14.918 /
131ZZZZZ Izzzzz 07/02/16 I 0029 118047425 1 3.005 123759164 14.918 1
141zzzzz izzzzz 07/02/16 I 0052 118087767 I 3.005 ,24011430 14.918 1
15jZZZZZ jZZZZZ 07/02/16 0114 118200014 I 3.007 j24197736 114.918 1
161zzzzz Izzzzz 07/02/16 0137 118344250 I 3.004 24797525 114.918 I
17 I zzzzz Izzzzz 07/02/16 0159 118096324 I 3.005 24816665 114.918 I
Islzzzzz Izzzzz 07/02/16 0222 118147878 ' 3.006 24884300 114.918 I
191 10.IPPM DDT 07/02/16 0245 118930080 3.005
201 IAR1254ICV1 07/15/16 1706 116777766 3.008 24093165 114.916 /
211 IAR1660ICV2 07/15/16 1729 116797286 3.006 24169197 /14.916 i
22 I BCW1MBSI I BCWIMBS1 07/15/16 1922 119624843 3.007 27209277 114.917 I
23 I BCW1LCSS1 I BCWILCSSI 07/15/16 1944 118362636 3.008 26484068 /14.916 /
241zzzzz IzzZZZ 07/15/16 2007 119509412 3.007 28326611 114.916 I
2sINOT REQUESTEIBCWlSRMl 07/1S/16 2029 118911551 3.007 25067783 114.915 I
26 I 07042016BARBIBCWLA 07/15/16 2052 118300291 3.008 23957317 114.916 I
27107042016BARBIBCW1AHS 07/15/16 2114 119211853 3.007 25209032 114.917 I
2S!07042016BARB!BCW1AMSD 07/15/16 2137 119467533 3.007 25459684 114.917 I
29: 'AR124BCCV1 07/15/16 2307 117356029 3.007 24776847 114.916 I
3D} :AR1660CCV2 07/15/16 2330 117085859 3.006 24352055 114.916 I
___ --1 I I
IS1 ~ 1-Bromo-2-Nitrobenzene
IS2 ~ Hexabromobiphenyl
RT Window = RT +/-0.1 min
• Indicates value outside QC Limits
page 1 of 1 FORM VIII PCB
Dioxin Analysis
Report and Summary QC Fonns
ARI Job ID: BCWl
BCW i ; 001089
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample 10: BCWIA
L:MS Ii): 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Data Release Authorized:~
Reported: 08/10/16
Date Extracted: 07/21/16
Date Analyzed: 07/28/16 00:59
Instrument/Analyst: ASl/PK
Acia Cleanup: Yes
Silica-Carbon Cleanup: No
ANALYTICAL ,.
RESOURCES"
INCORPORAn:D
Sample ID: 07042016BAR8EE-C
QC Report No: BCW::"-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2C16-1 BARBEE
Date Sa"p1ed: 07/04116
Date Received: 07/0S/16
Sample !\.'lount: 10.3 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Vol~me: 20 uL
Extract Split: 1.00
Silica-Florisil Clean~p: Yes
Dilution Factor: 1.00
Analy"C€ Ion Ratio Ra;:io Limits EDL RJ. Result
2,3,!,8-TCDF
2,3,7,8-TCOO
L2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2, 3, 7 ,8, 9-HxCDF
1,2, 3, 4,7, 8 -HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8 t 9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,I,B-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCJF
OCJD
Homologue Group
-----
Total TCDF
Total TCDO
Total PeCD?
Total PeCDD
Total HxCD~
Total HxCDD
Total "pCD,
Total HpCDO
EDL
0.64
0.21
2.68
1.92
1.14
1. 91
1. 01
0.91
1. 75
1. 58
1. 18
1. 02
1. 04
0.81
0.89
0.65-0.89
0.65-0.89
1.32-1.78
1.32-1.78
1. 32-1. 78
1.05-1.43
1. 05-1. 43
1.05-1.43
1.05-1.43
1.05-1.43
1. 05-1. 43
1.05-1.43
C.88-1.20
0.88-1.20
0.88-,.20
0.76-1.n
0.76-1.02
RL
0.970
0.970
1. 94
0.970
1. 94
1. 94
1. 94
1. 94
0.970
:1.970
:1.970
0.J563 0.970 <
0.970
0.970
0.970
0.970
O.97J
0.970
0.970
0.970
0.970
0.101 0.970 <
2.42
1. 94
9.70
Result
0.911 EMPC
1. 52 EMPC
1. 4 3 EMPC
1. 06 EI1PC
3.15 EMPC
5.46 EMPC
4.34
21.2
Total 2,3,7,8-TCO~ Equivalence (WH0200S, NO-O, Including EMPC): 0.64
0.077 6
0.145
0.C737
0.0563
0.18<
0.114
0.111
0.136
0.130
0.242
0.532
0.464
1. 59
0.101
9.93
2.62
62.9
Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalence (WH02005, ~D~1/2 EDL, Including EMPC): 0.65
Reported i~ pg/g
BJEMP2
JEMPC
8JEMPC
U
BJEI1PC
BJ
BJEI1PC
.JEMPC
BJEMPC
BJEMPC
BJEMPC
BJ
U
B
B
ORGANICS ANALYSlS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 16138
~'age 1 u= 1
L~b Sacp:e :C: 3CW:A
Llr--1S 1::): 16-10068
Hatrix: St=!..-J:ment.
Ca:::a Release Aathori!Cd;~
Re9~~ted: CS/:Di16
Date Extracted: 07/21/16
Date Analyzed: 07/28116 00:59
:!:nslrlJrr.ent/.n..nalyst: ASI/PK
.n.na) yte
13C-2 /3,7,8-T::DF
13C-2~3/7,8~TCDC
13C-l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
13C-2, 3,4,7,8-PeC~?
13C-l,2,3,7,8-PeCJD
l3C-l,2,3,Q7 1 ,3-HxCDF
-:'3C-l,2, 3 /6,7/ 3-HxCDf
~3C-2,3/4,6,7,8-Hx~DF
~3C-lr2,3/7/8,9-HxCDF
13C-lr2,3/~/7,8-HxCDD
13C-l,2,3,6,1,B-HxCDD
:J.C-l r 2/ 3, 4,6,7, B-HpSDF
:. 3C-l, 2, 3, ~ I 7 I 9, 9-H?COF
:3C-1/2,3/~/6,7,R-HpCJD
13(;-OC'J0
3 7 C14-L,3,7,8-TCDJ
Ion Rat~o
0.79
0.79
1.57
:.57
1.59
C.S1
C.S1
0.53
0.32
1. 28
1.26
0.45
0.45
1. 06
0.90
ANALYTlCAL a
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
Sample ID, 07042016BARBEE-C
QC Report No! BOon-Lloyd & Associates, Ir:c~
Project, BARBEE DREDG,~;3
2016-1 BARBEE
Date So1.mplcd~ 07/04./16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Sample AmOD.!lt: Ie. 3 g--::.iry-wt.
Final Ex":ract V:'!l,.;.:J.e; 20 L:..L
Ext:act Spl!t: 1.O~
Dilution Factor: 1.0~
Ha,::':c Limits -_._.-_ ..... _. __ .
0.65-0.89
0.65-0.89
:.32-:.78
1.32-1.78
1. 32-1. 78
S.43-0.S9
D.n-O.59
0.43-0.59
0.43-0.59
1.05-1.43
1.05-1.43
0.37-0.51
0.3"/-0.51
0.88-1.20
O.7E-l.C2
91.4
90.7
88.8
91.0
88.3
84.8
82.6
83.7
31. 3
87.8
83.0
74.8
68.9
81. 6
64.7
leo
L.Lmits
~4-169
25-164
24-185
21-178
25-181
26-152
26-123
28-136
L 9-14?
32-141
2B-13C
23-1~3
2(:<38
2 3-1 ~ C
17-157
35-19 7
ExceedanC0
Repcr~ed in Percer.t Reccve~y
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
?a.ge L 0: 1
Lab S~mpl,:;:. ID: 6CW1ACU?
LIMS 10: 16-10G88
Matrix: Sediment
Ddta ~elease .n..uthori zed:~
Reported: 08/10/16
Date Extracted: 07/21116
~.te A,alyzej: 0 7 /28/16 02:00
:::1stru:rren+.:/Ana"lys-::: AS1/?K
.l'u::ij C.-':'~2.:n .. p: Yes
S113ca-Carbon Clean~p: No
ANALYTICAL a
RESOUACES.
INCORPOflATI!D
Sample ID: 07042016BARBEE-C
DUPLICATE
QC Repo~t No: BOil-Lloyd & Associates, 'r:c.
Project: BARBEE DREDGLNG
2016-1 BARBEE
D"oe S.repled: a7!C4!l6
Date :\8ceived: Q7/05!l6
Sar..p:'e Arr,ou:-tt: :0.4 g-d:::::y-wt.
Fi:1al Ext~act Vo':'umB: 20 '.lL
Dil'.lti.or. f'act.o::-: 1.00
Silica-florisil Cleamlp: Yes
Anolyte :on Rdtio Ratio Limits EDL ~.::. Resul::
L,3.7,8-TCCF
2,3.7,8-TCOz)
l,2,3,1,8-PeCDF
2,3, 4, '}~ 8-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
!,2,3,4,7,8-HxCOF
1.2/3,6,-!,E-HxC~F
2,3 1 4,E,7,8-IIXCDF
1,2,3,f,8,9-ExCDF
:,2,3r4,:,8-HxC~)
:,2,3,6,7/B-~xC~D
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCGF
l,2,3,4,7,8 r 9-HpC8r
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hp::::D:::J
OeD!?
OCDO
Ho:r:.oloqu€ Grcl.p
To: a: ~CD,
To'!:a~ 'TDD
:o~.al P",CCF
T('::~al PeCCi)
To-:=al HxCD?
'r o"ta 2-HxC!)O
Total HpCJF
Tctal HpCDD
EDi.
~:. 63
:l .. : 6
1.98
1. 73
1. 32
1.47
1. 90
1. 03
l.H
1. 30
: .Ll
0.97
3.50
:.89
0.85
0.88
·:;.65-0.89
0.65-C.83
1.32-:.78
:.32-1.78
1.32-:.78
1. 05-:.43
1. 05-2. 43
,.05-] .43
1.05-1.43
1.05-1.43
1. 05-1. 43
1.05-1.43
0.88-1.20
C.BS-l.LO
8.88-1.20
:;.76-:.02
0.76-1.02
0.958
0.958
: . 92
0.958
1. 92
1.92
1.n
1. 92
---_ ...
0.958
0.958
0.958
0.958
0.958
8.958
0.958
O.95e
0.85.16 0.'158 <
0.958
(;.9::'8
0.958
O.9 1:;E.l
0.958
2.39
1-92
9.58
Resul t
0.581 EM?C
1. ::;3 EM?C
0.8"2 EN?C
O.6~1 EM?':
1.62 EY."Ji'
3.9:J EMPC
2.07 EMPC
12.6
Totdl 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD Equivalence (~HC2C05, ND=O, !~cluding EMPC): 0.48
0.0670
0.1.49
0.0556
0.03.:1 !:i
0.U6
:J. Q9Tl
C.078:,
0.0765
0.0536
0.130
J.2Sg
0.328
o .778
C. 04 79
5.57
1.28
36.4
To~al 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalence (WH02005, NO=:/2 EeL, :nc:uding EMPC): 0.48
3.JE'MPC
.:: I.YJ PC
B.JEI~PC
J
BJ
BJSf-1PC
8JE~IPC
JEMPC
U
EJEMPC
5J
Be
BJ
,JEf":?C
B
BJ
B
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample 10: BCWIAO[]P
LlMS 10: 16-10C88
Ma!r~x: Sedime~t
Data Release Au!.:r.orized:~
Reported: G8/10/16
Date Extracted: 07/21/16
0ate Ana;"yzed: 07/28/16 02:[:0
:::n.=tru.rr.ent./Ar:c.lys::: As:./?K
Acid Cle~n~p~ Yes
5':' L __ ca -Cc. recr. Clear"lJp; No
2,3, 7, 3-:CDF
2,3,?,S-i'CC'O
:,2,3,?,8-PeCDF'
2,:;',4,I,S-PeCDF
1, 2 I 3,7 I 8 -PeCDD
112,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,J,6,7,B-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1(2,3,7,B,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,I,B-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,B-HxCDD
1,2,J,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
~,2,3,4,6,7/8-EpCnC
OCDr
OCCD
<
<
ANALYTICAL IA
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
SamplQ 10: O?042016BARBEE-C
DUPLICATE
QC Report No: Bc~·n-Lloyd &. l\ssociatBs. Inc.
Frcject: BARBE~ DRE.C(;ING
2C"6-, BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07:041l6
Jate Rece~ved: 07/05/1€
Sample A!TIoL.:!.nt: 10.4 g-dry-wt
Fin.al Ext.ract Volu.me; 20 uL
ni l.ution Factor: 1,00
Silica-Florisil Cleanup: Yes
Sample Dupl icate RPG
...... _._---
0.0776 0.06'!0 l-i . 7
0.145 0.149 2. 7
0.0737 0.D556 28.0
0,0563 O.O3~5 0
0.182 0.1:36 L8.~
0.114 0.0977 ~5.~
[) . 11 ! O.07t1:) 34.3
O. ,.3 6 0.0785 53.6
D.::'3\} < O~~JEd6 Q
0.242 J.:30 60.2
a .. 532 C.289 59.2
8.464 8.328 34.3
1.59 C.778 68.6
O. :01 0.0479 0
9.93 '.57 56.3
2.62 l. 23 68.
62,9 36.4 53.4
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 16138
Page 1 of 1
Lab Sample ID: BCW1AuUP
LIMS :D: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment ~~ J
Data Release Authorized: "~~
Reported: 08/10/16
Date Extracted: 07121116
Date Analyzed: 07/28/16 02:00
Inst.:-ucr.entiAnalyst: AS1/PK
Analyte Ion Ratio
13C-2,3,7,8-TCOF
13C-2,3,7,8-1COD
13C-l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
13C-l,2,3,7,8-PeCCD
13C-l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
13C-l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
13C-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
13C-l,2,3,7,B,9-HxCuf
13C-l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
13C-l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
13C-1, 2, 3, 4, 6,7,8-HpCDF
13C-l,2,3,4,7 r 8,9-HpCDF
13C-l,2,3,1,6,7,B-HpCDD
13C-OCDO
37C14-2,3,7,8-TCOO
0.78
0.79
1. 61
1. 57
1. 57
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.52
1.27
1.25
0.46
0.45
1. 04
0.90
ANALYTICAL ta
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
Sample 10: 0704201GBARBEE-C
DUPLICATE
QC Report ~o: BCWl-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREOGI~G
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 07/04/16
Date Received: 07/05/16
Sample Amount: :"0.4
Final E:xtra::::t Volume: 20 uL
Dilution Factor: 1. 00
Ratio Lirr.i ts Resul t
0.65-0.89 94.5
0.65-0.89 93.2
1.32-1.78 100
1.32-1.78 102
1.32-1.78 102
0.43-0.59 87.7
0.43-0.59 83.8
0.43-0.59 88.5
0.43-0.59 8R.9
1.05-1.43 90.7
1.05-1.43 88.4
0.37-0.51 83.3
0.37-0.51 79.1
0.88-1.20 92.1
0.76-1. 02 79.1
102
g-dry-wt
Limits Exceedance
... --
24-169
25-164
24-185
21-178
25-181
26-152
26-123
28-136
29-147
32-141
28-130
28-143
26-138
23-140
17-157
35-197
Reported in ~ercent Recovery
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
D~ox~ns/Furans by EPA 1613B
Pdge ~ ot "
=-.at S6mrle 1J; SR~~-072116
::"I~S ~D: :6-lC088
Matrix: Sedi!l:.ent ~.
;:)ala Release Authorized: '\~
Reported: 08/10/16
Da:e Ex~=acted: 87/21/16
Cate Analyzed: 07/28/16 02:53
InstrllI:ler.tlAnoJyst: ASlIPK
Acid Cleanup: Yes
Silica-Carbon CleanJp: No
Sampla ID: SRM-072116
PSR
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
QC Report No: BOn-Lloyd & AS.'J.ociatcs, Ir:c.
Project: BARBEE DR2DGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Da.te Sampled: NA
Date Received: NJi
Sample Aroour:.t: 1Q.2 g-dry-wt
final Extract VoluIT.e: 20 l..:L
Dilution Factor: 1.00
Silica-Florisil Clean~p: Yes
Analyte Ion Ratio Ratio l:mi:::s EDL RL ?es'Jl t
2,3,7,8-TCDf
2,3,7,8-TCO:J
1, L, 3,7 18 -PeCDP
2,3,4,7,S-PeCC-f'
1,2,3,7,8-PeCC'D
l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDf'
l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDf"
2,3,4,6,7,B-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCD:
1,2,3,4,7,B-HxCDD
:,2,3,6,1,8-RxCD)
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCCJ
1,2,3,4,6 1 7,8-HpCDF
lr2,~,~,7,81~-HpCDF
l,2,3,4,6,7,9-HpCDD
0('0::;'
O'CDD
Horr.o::"og'Je G:.oup
':otal reDf
':otal reDD
Total PeCOr
Total ?eCDD
Total HxCDF
To==al HxCDD
To~al HpCDF
Total HpCDD
:;OL
C. 7 5
C.S?
1. 7B
1. 6C
1.41
1. 22
1. L, 0
1. 27
1. 7 5
1.27
1.23
1.28
1.87
C.89
1.02
0.88
Q.88
0.65-0.89 0.980
O.65-0.eg C.98'J
1.32-1.78 0.980
1.32-:.78 G.~80
1.32<.78 0.980
1. 05-:.43 0.980
l.C5-:.43 (1.980
:.05-:.43 0.380
".05-1. 43 0.980
::'.C5-1.4J 0.980
1.05-1.43 0.980
1. 05-1. 43 0.980
0.88-1.20 0.980
a. 88-:. 20 0.980
0.88-i.20 2.45
0.7 6-1.02 1.96
O.76-LC2 9.80
EL Result
0.980 16.6 ~MPC
0.980 7.89 EM PC
1.96 17.8 EM?C
0.980 8,71) EMP(':
1. 96 32.1 E~?C
1. 96 39.3
:.96 58.7 E:~PC
l.96 2~9
Total 2,3, '7, 8-TCDD Equ::..vale!'lce \~'<1:-J020GS~ ND"~"O, ::1c~t:.dir.g E~PCj: 5.63
0.904
1.12
l.L
0.790
1. 24
2.88
O. QY6
1.87
0.563
1. 79
4.12
2.51
18.3
1.4.7
98.5
53.1
783
Total 2,3, 7.S-TeO::; Equivalence (W::O?OQ:~, ND=~/2 ET~L, :::lc·udir.q E~~?C): 5.63
ReportEd ir~ pc/o
J
EMPC
J
B
JEMPC
B
EMPC
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Page 1 Cf 1
Lab Sdmple LJ; SRt~-072116
LIM;; I:): 16-:C088
~a::l"ix; Sedimerlt
Da:a Release Authorized:~
Re~crted: 08/10/16
Dci~e Ext<acted: 07/2,/16
;:)a:e A:ta:'yzed: 07/28/16 02:53
:nstrur.',ent:/Ar.alys,,:: AS:/?:\"
Ar.alyte
13C-2, 3,7 t 8-TCDF
:3C-2,3,:,8-TCDD
13C-l,2,3,"',B-PeCDF
13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
l3C-l,2,:,7,8-PeCDD
13C-l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
13C-~,2,3,6,7,a-ExCDF
13:-2,3,4,6,7r8-HxC~F
:3C-l,2,3,7,8,9-Hx.CDF
:3C-l,2,3r4,7,8-HxCD~
13C-1,2,3,6,7,S-HxCDD
l3C-l,2/J,~,6/7t8-HpC~F
i3C-l,2,3,4,7,8,~-HpCCr
l3C-l.2,3,4,o,7,8-HpCD)
13C-OC~D
37C14-2,3,7,8-TCOD
8.78
O.Be
1.58
L58
1. 56
0.53
0.52
0.53
0.53
1.28
1.26
C.45
O. -16
1. Ct.
C.9C
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES ....
INCORPORATED
Sample ID: SRM-072116
PSR
OC Report ~~o: 3CW::"-L ... oyd & Associ~',:e~, Inc.
ProjeC:: BAHBEE. JRE:>GING
2016-1 3AR3EE
Date Sampled: t~A
Date Heceived: NA
SaJTlple Amcunt; :0.2 q-dry-wt
Final Extract Volume: 20 uL
Dilution Factor: 1.00
Ra':.i:;) wimits Result Limits
0.65-0.89 9'\. 6 24-169
C!.63-0.89 '<4.1 25-164
1. 32-1. ,8 89.2 24-185
1.32-:.78 91. 5 2:-178
~.32-].78 92.8 25-181
O.4J-Q_S9 118 26-152
0.43-0.59 110 26-123
0.43-0.59 115 28-136
0.43-0.59 96.0 29-14 7
1.05-1.43 122 32-]41
1.05-1.43 112 28-130
0.31-0.51 94.5 28-10
C.37-C~51 93.8 26-138
~.B8-1.2Q 103 23-140
8.7£-1.02 73.9 17-157
105 35-: 97
Exceedan ce
Repor~ed in Percer:t Recovery
new i : ;;0,0096.
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
DioKins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Pa:J€ ~ of 1
La6 Sample IO; OPR-U72116
LIMS 1D: 16-10088
~a~rix: Sedime~t ~~ .
Data Release Auth8~ized: "~
Reported: 08/~G/16
Da::e Ex;:rc..cted~ 07/2l/16
Sate Ana~yzed: 07/27/16 17:43
I:lst:n:ment/Ar.alys::: ASl/?!<
Acid C~ea~up: Yes
Silica-Carbon Cleanup: No
Sample ID: OPR-072116
ANALYTICAL a
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
QC Report No: BCr,H-:Jlcyd & P.sso::::iates, I:-.:::: ..
?r8jeC:: BARB2:E JRE)GING
2016-1 BARBEE
Cat...:: Sa:nplcd.: NA
Date Received: NA
Sarnple Amount: 10.0 -;-dry-wt
Final Extract Volurr:c: 20 lJL
Dilution Factor: 1.00
Sllica-Flocisil Clea~up: Yes
IIr.alyte Ion Ratio Ratio Lim:'t:s RL Result
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2, 3. 7/8-T~:DD
1, 2, 3, I, B-PeCDF
L, 3,4, !,8-?eC:JP
1,2.3,"7, 8-?eCO~
1,2,3,4,7,B-HxCDF
lr2,3,6/7r8-Hx~Df
2,3,~,5r 7,8-~xC.D~
1,2,3,7, 8, 9-~xCL):~
1,2,3,4,7,8-ExCDD
l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
l,2,3,4,6,7,B-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,B,9-HpCDF
1,2,3, 4,~, -", B-EpCJC
OCJF
aeDD
Horr.o I oS ~e Gr01.:p
:'otal TCDF
7o:al TC:)[;
Total PeCDf
Tetal Pe:CDD
Tota 1 HxCDr
Tot"l HxCDO
Total HpCDF
Tota2. HpCDO
EDL
0.74
C.78
1.55
1. 52
1.58
1. 21
1. 22
1.21
1.22
1.24
1.26
1. 21
1. 03
1. 04
1. 08
0490
0.90
0.65-0.89
~.65-0.89
1. 32-~. 78
1. 32-~. 78
1.32-1.78
1.05-1.43
1. 05-1. 43
1.05-1.43
1.05-1.43
1.05-1.43
1.05-~.~3
1.05-:.43
0.88-:.20
0.82.-:.20
D.88-1.20
'0.76-1.02
0.76-1.02
RL
LOO
1.00
2.ClG
1. OC
2 . O:~
2.00
2.00
2.3C
Reported i~ pg/g
:. CC
:t.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. GO
1. GC
1. CC
1.80
:.00
: . 00
:.CO
1. 00
2.50
2.00
10.0
Result
22.7
22.9
2:. -:
111
43"7
347
222
129
EXPC
E~rrC
EMPC
EMPC
SMFC
EMFC
2 7
2 .0
07
03
Ie
os
18
08
09
lG
O~
22
15
06
18
2' .0
42
!:jew:l. 101009'(
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 16138
Page .~ of ~
Lab Sample I~: 02R-07211G
LI~S Ie: 16-:COB9
Y:atrix: Se-ji~er_t
:::::'ata. ~eleas€ A1.:th .... ")rized:~
Reported: 08/10/16
Date Extracted: 01/21/16
Date !kalyzed: 07/27/16 17: 43
Znstrument/Analyst: ASl/PK
Analyte Ion Ratio
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDf"
13C-2,3,J,8-TCOD
13C-l,2,3,7,8-PeCDf"
13C-2,J,4,1,8-PeCCF
IJC-l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
13C-l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCJF
13(;-l,2,3,6,7,.8-fy.C:JF
13C-2,3/4.E,7,8-HxCDF
~3C-l,2r 3,7,B,9-HxCCF
13C-l,2.3,Q, 7,8-HxCD~
:3C-l,2.3,6,7,S-Hx2DD
~3C-l,2,3",6,7,B-Hp(:JF
!3C-l,2,3,4,1,B,9-HpCDF
2.3C-1,2. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-HpCDD
:3C-OC:JC
31C~4-2/J,7,8-TCDD
0.79
0.30
1. 62
1. 58
1. S3
0.52
0.53
().~2
0.52
1. 27
1.26
O. 4,~
0.45
1. 06
0.90
ANALYTICAL IiiIIt.
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
Sampla ID: OPR-072116
QC Report No: BCWI-Llo:r'd it. Asscc.!.ates l I:"l2.
Project: BARBEE CgEc~ING
2016-1 BAR3EE
Date Sampled; ~A
Date Rece.~.veQ: NA
3a~ple AJ:'Ol'::l.t: 10. C g-dry-wt
l'ir.al Extract V·:)l'Jme: 2C U:.
D!l~tio~ ra~toI: l.DO
Rati8 :'ir..i t s Result :;:"'imits
~.65-:;.89 98.6 2q-169
C.65-0.89 93.2 25-164
1.32-1. ,a 99.1 24-·,8.5
1.32-1.-18 86.4 21-178
:.32-1. 78 87.0 25-181
0.43-0.59 81.8 26-152
0.43-0.59 81.3 26-123
0.43-0.59 82..8 28-136
D.43-0.59 86.4 29-::'47
1. 05-]. 43 86.6 32-14 :
1. 05-], 43 87.5 23<30
C.37-0.51 79.6 28<43
'J.37-0.S1 78.8 26-138
0.88-}.20 8e2 23-140
0.76-1.02 C:.9 ~I_-'~''7 -' ... -,'
104 35-:;'97
ExceedaIlce
Reported ir. Pe!:ce:s.: Recc~.Ierl:
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins!Furans by EPA 16138
Pa<]e 1 of 1
Lao Sample TO: CPR-07 L'11E
L:MS ID: 16-10088
Ma:.rix: Sediment r·c:.~ Release AULhor';'zed:~
Reported: 08/l0/16
Da~e Ex~ra=ted: 07/2l/16
~ate A~alyzej: J7/27/16 l7:43
Instr:.lmentlAn;:ll yst: AS l/PK
Analyte OPF
Sample ID' OPR-072116
ANALYTICAL -
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
QC Report No~ BC1'(_-Lloyd & Associates, :0<::.
Project: Rl1RBE:: DREJGING
20l€-1 BAR3EE
Date Sampled: ~A
Date Recel -..ted; ~~~z:..
Sample A~ount~ 10.0 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Volume; 20 uL
8iluticn Factor: 1.00
Spiked Re~overy Lim~ts ---_ .......... __ .. .._-_._--_._---
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3 1 7,8-TCDD
1. 2,3,7, 8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCGF
It 2, 3, 7. 8-PeCDD
1,2,3,.4,I,R-Hx:CDF
l,2,2,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,E,1,B-HxCDF
:,2f3,7,8,9-ExC~F
:,2,3.4,7,E-HxCDD
l,2,3,6,7,S-HxCDD
:,2,3,7,Sr9-HxCC~
: , 2, :3 r 4 I 6, 7 I 8 -HpC:Jr
1/~,3r4.7/E,9-KpCDF
1.2,3,4,6,7/8-HpCO~
OCDF
OCOD
2:.7
22.:1
107
103
110
108
110
108
-;.09
::'10
109
1~ 2
:15
:06
118
225
2.:j 2
2:].0
20.C
:OC
~OD
100
lao
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2CO
2CO
Reported ir, PJ/g
108
110
107
183
LJ
108
1'Q
108
109
110
109
122
115
106
La
1 ~2
~21
75-158
67-158
8C-134
68-160
70-142
72-134
84-13J
70-156
78-130
:0-164
'6-134
6q-J62
82-132
78-138
70-140
63-]70
78-144
AnI/yIIcaI Resourcel, Inco~
Analytital Chemists and Consultants
PREPARATION BATCH SUMMARY
EPA 1613B
Laboratory: Analytical Resources. Inc. SDG:
Client: Lloyd&AsSQcjlltes Project: Barbee Dre4gjng
Batch: 8£00106 Preparation: EPA 1613
SAMPLE NAME LAB SAMPLE ID lABFILEID DATE PREPARED
07()42016BARBEE-{; 16GOO74-0l 16072713 07121/1615:05
Blank BEGOI06.BlK1 160727()4 07/21/1615:05
lCS BEG0106·BS1 16072705 07121116 15:05
07()42016BARBEE-{; BEG0106-DUP1 16072714 0712111615:05
Reference BEGO106·SRM1 16072715 0712111615:05
OBSERVATIONS
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Fage 1 of 1
Lab Samp:e 10: MB-072116
LIMS 10: 16-10C88
~atrix: Sediment ~. _ J
Data Release Authorized:" \ '"'4\JV"
Repcrted: 08/1C/16
Date Extracted: 07/21116
Sample 10: MB-072116
ANALYTICAL ,.
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
QC Report No: BCW~-Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
P~ojec(: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: teA
Date Received: KA
Sample Arr,Qunt: 10,0
Final 2:xt!'act volutne: 20 "L
Dilution Factor: 1. 00
g-dry-wt
Date Analyzed: 0-1/2)/16 16:~0
Instrument/Analyst: ASI/PK
Acic Cleanup: Yes
Silica-Carbon Cleanup: No
Silica-Florisil Cleanup: Yes
Analyte
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3, -; I 8-PeCDD
~,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
l,2,3,6,l,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2. 3,'. 8. 9-HxCOF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCCO
l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpC9F
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCCF
OCDe
Hornclogue Group
_._----
Total T:::DF
Total TCDO
Total ?eCDF
':'otal PeCCD
Total HxCDF
Total HxCOO
Total HpCDF
Tctal HpCDC
Ion Ratio Ratio Limits
0.57 a.6S-0.R9
0,65-0.89
1. 34 1.32-1.78
1.32-1.78
1. 37 1.32-1.78
0.81 1.05-1.43
1. 20 1.05-1.43
1. 05-1. 43
0.79 1.05-1.43
1. 09 1.05-1.43
1. 27 1.05-1.43
1. 30 1.05-1.43
0.66 0.88-1.20
0.88-1.20
1. 03 0,88-1.20
1. 05 0.76-1.02
0.87 0.76-1.02
EDL RL
1. 00
1. 00
2.00
1. 00
2.00
2.00
2,00
2.00
EOL RL Result
.--~----
1. 00 :;.0540 JEMPC
C.0500 1. 00 < ~.0500 0
1. 00 0.0690 ,
v
0,0500 1. 00 < 0.0500 0
1. 00 0.132 J
1. 00 o,0360 JE[1PC
1. 00 0.0412 J
0.0420 1. 00 < 0.0420 0
1. 00 0,0520 JEMPC
1. 00 0.142 J
1. 00 0,230 J
1. 00 0.278 J
1. 00 0.0840 JEMPC
0.0580 1. 00 < 0.0580 U
2.50 4.62
2.00 0.206 JEMPC
10.0 31. 1
Result
0.0982 EMPC
C. 4 67 EMPC
0.0690
0.795 EMPC
O.13D EM PC
4.77 EMPC
0.0836 EMPC
14 .3
Total 2,3,I,8-'l'CDD Equivalence (WH02005, ND=O, Including EMPC): 0.27
Total 2,3,7,8-1CDD Equivalence (WE02005, ND=1/2 EDL, Including EMPC): 0.31
Reported in pg/g
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Paqe 1 of 1
~ab Sample 1D: ME-072116
:'=MS ID: 16-10088
Matrix: Sediment
Data ReLease Authorized:
Reported: 08/10/16
Date Extracted: 07/21/:6
Date Analyzed: 07/27/16 16:50
1nstrurr.ent/Analyst: AS1/PK
".n21yte
13C-2,3,7,B-TCDF
'.3C-2,3,7,8-TCDC
13C-l,2,3,7,8-reCDf
13C-2,3,4, 7,~-PeCDF
13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
13C-l,2,J,4,7,8-HxCDF
13C-:,2,3,6,7,B-HxCDF
13C-2,J,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
13C-l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
13C-l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDu
13C-l,2,3,6,7,8-ExCDJ
13C-I,2,3,4 J 6,7,8-HpCDF
:3C-1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9-HpCOF
13C-l,2,3,~/6,7,8-HpCDC
13C-OCOD
37C14-2,3,7,8-TCDD
Ion Ratio
0.78
0.80
1. 60
1. 57
1. 55
0.52
0.50
0.52
0.51
1. 27
1. 30
0.44
0.45
1. 04
0.92
ANALYTICAL .a
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
Sample 1D: MB-072116
QC Report No: BCWI-Lloyd & AssocidLes, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: NA
Date Received: NA
Sample Amount: 10.0 g-dry-wt
Final Extract Volume: 2C uL
Dilution Factor: 1.00
Ratlo Limits Resul t Limits
0.65-0.89 104 24-169
0.65-0.E9 99.2 25-164
1.32-1.78 99.2 24-185
1. 32-1. 78 92.0 21-178
1.32-".78 91. e 25-181
0.43-0.59 91.8 26-152
0.43-0.59 96.8 26-123
0.43-0.S9 91. 4 28-136
0.43-0.59 91.6 29-147
1. 05-1. 43 96.0 32-141
1.05-1.43 95.~ 28-130
0.37-0.51 87.0 28-143
0.37-0.51 86.7 26-138
0.88-1.20 94.8 23-140
0.76-1.02 77 .4 17-157
llO 35-197
Exceedance
Reported in Percent Recovery
• AnI/yIIcaI Rosouras. II1COI'pOlIIed
Analytiul Chemists and Consultants
INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA
EPA 16138
Laborawl)': Analytical Resources, (nc, SDG: 16QOO74/&10i
Client; Lloyd & Associates Projet.1; _Dredging
Calibration: ZEOOO16 lnstnunenr: AlITOSPECO)
Calibration Date: 05110/2016 15:20 Column (I): RTIC-Dioxia2
Level 01 Lo.elO2 u.e103 Lov.IM Lev.IOS Lovel%
Compound Rf Rf OF RF RF RF
2,3,1,8-TCDF .. , (1-8791)6' , Q,919521S I. o.9~4 ... O.9!i88917 '00 0.%49929
2,3,7,8·TCDD .. , J.1I~.317 , 1.100J76 10 U44028 " u~07 200 I. L591.JS
1,2..3,1,1-Pe:CDF 0.' O.948SlB4 2.5 0.9209936 10 O!J0:S60] 5 50 0.%331S2 lOll O,9S40803 1000 O.9S896i'5
l,1.4;7,8.PtCOF c., 090351401 2.S 0.9573719 10 O.9682m SO 0.9666401 200 0.9&42584 1000 0.9973965
1.2.3,1.8·~DD 0.5 0.9219166 " o..95'W21" 10 0.%28834 50 ],001105 20Il O.~93907 1000 1.018541
[,2,l.4,7 ,8·HltCDF 0., 1.111198 1.5 1.125003 10 I.IJSIW " J.l41J51 20Il 1.I!i2665 1000 1.14638
1,2,l,(5,7.8·HxroF 0.' 1.063648 ,., 1.""90'1 " 1.11119] " 1.110i29' 20Il LJ21D41 1000 1.116234
2,J,:4,6,7,g.HACDF 65 J.l.4 t11!i " 1.1l16S1 10 1.110012 ,. 1,1603(H 200 Ll84913 1000 1.212323
1,2.J.7,II.9-HxCDF ., 1.)24362 '" 1.074397 10 1.0113361 I ,. I0649!!!Jo 200 1.1190352 1000 1.1384iM
1,2..1,4,7.8-tu:CDO .5 1.042764 2.5 O.98100D 10 1.02.3544-50 L046JH 200 L0407R6 1000 1.052574
.,2.l.6, 7 .K·HJ:CD 0 0.' 0.9124052 2, O.97+41~ I' 0.%34003 :so ... ....., 200 O.981t'wn 1000 0.9757835
1,2.,},7.R.9-H"COO .. , 0."%18897 2.5 0,9.3219117 10 L.003559 SO LQ2"9$6 200 1.023361 1000 1.018307
l,2,3.4,fJ.7,S.HpCDF 0.' 1.2&1865 '" 1.2%787 10 1.273741 ,. U09499 200 U22647 lOOIl 1J47196
l),),4,l.R.9~H.pCDF 0.5 1.2'92J3 '5 1.281743 10 1.260~2 SO 1J27622 200 U90769 1000 J.]54(I06
1,2,),4.6.7,Il--HpCDO 0.' O.997WH 2,5 1,(mS04 I. tOll97 50 1.027178 "'" 1.0%087 lOOIl LQ~5
(){])f I 1.f)95/iiSI 5 1.l011285 20 1.lM~7 100 1.I~3316 .00 1.212513 2000 1.220252
OCDD I 1.036043 , J.S278(1/1i 20 l.00888 '00 U)2SOO1 .00 I.02H89 2000 1.023204
.3 7C14·2.J,1.8~TCDD 0,1 1.08:'1.129 0.5 0-96966"12 1 LOJ7!!Ol 10 I.O]Jl14 "" 1.080686-200 I. I 1}1229
5CWi 1l!0i03
Ana/ydcal RMources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consu ltants
INITIAL CALIBRATION DATA
Laboratory; Analytical Resources. Inc.
Client: Lloyd & Associates
Calibration: ZEOOO 16
Calilmlion Dale: 05/1012016 15:20
COMPOUND MnaRF
2,3,7,8· TCDF 0,9347915
2,3,7,8·TCDD 1.133965
1,2,3,7,8·PeCDF 0.9519161
2,3,4,7,S·PeCDF 0.9629117
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.9753974
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1.136547
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.098742
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.163504
1,2,3.7,8,9·HxCDF 1.100821
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1.031167
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.9714371
1,2,3,7,S,9-HxCDD 0.9950452
1,2,3,4,6,7,8·HpCOF 1.302789
1,2,3,4,7,S,9-HpCDF 1.317361
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.028016
OCOF 1.165807
OCOD 1.107021
37CI 4-2.3,7 ,S-TCDD 1.066558
EPA Hi13B
SOG:
Project;
Instrument
CohIDln (I):
RFRSD
3.6
2.2
3.5
3.4
3.6
1.2
2.3
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.3
3.8
2.4
3.7
2.0
4.6
IS.6
7.0
16GOO74/ BCWi
Barbee Dredging
AUTOSPECOI
RTX·Dio<in2
LiDearCOD Quad COD RSDLimit Q
Ana/vllcallIesources, Incorporated
Analytlcal Chemists and Con!tJltant5
Laboratory: Analytisa! RC§QYrcq. Inc.
Client: Lloyd & Associates
IOltrument ID:
Lab File lD:
S_e:
Lab S ampleJD:
COMPOUND
2,J,7,8-1COf
2 .. 3.7.8-1eoo
J 2.3 .7.8-PcCDF
2.l,4,7,B-PI!COF
J.2,3.7,8·PeCI)O
U.J,4,1,8-HxCOF
1.2,l,(>,1,8-HxWI'
2,],~,6,7, .. -HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9--HxCDF
1.2,3,4,1,a •. }h.CDD
1),.3,6,7,8-HlIICOD
1,2,J,1,8,9.HlICDD
12,l,4.6.7.8-HpCOF
1,l.J ,4, 1.B"~-1IpCDF
I)J,4,6,7,'·HpCDD
OCDF
OCDD
1 }C12.2J.7.S·TCDf
IJC12-2.,3.1,ft.-TCDO
IlC 12.1,2,J,7..8-J>ecDF
13C12~2.J.4,7.e-Pe.CDF
1 JC Il-l ,2,),7 ,1I-PeeOO
llCI2-1.2,J,4,7,8-HxCDF
1 Jell-I ,2,3 ,6.1,8-HxCDf
lK12-2J.4.6.7.8-HxCDF
lJC 12·1 ,2,) ,7,8,9·H:\CDF
IJeI2-1,2,J,4,7,8-H:\CDD
Be12-1 ,2,J.6.7,8-lbCOO
AUTOSPECOI
16022702
SEHOO33
SEHn03H~Vl
BCI2.1,2.,3.4,6,7,8-HpCDF
DCI2-11J.4.7.8.9-Hp('Df
LE 12-1,.2,],4,6,7 ,8-HpCDD
IlCI2-OCDD
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
•
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
INITIAL CALIBRATION CHECK
EPAI6J3B
SDG: ~/l'tf1)1
Project: 8aJbee Drrx1rine
C.libnUion: ZEOOO 16
Calibnltion 0,1<: 05/1911615:20
Injection Dzt.: 07127116
Injection Time: ill!1
C<JNC. (nglmL) RESPONSE FACTOR
8m ICV ICAl. ICV MIN
10.000 to.2 O.'H4?!)H O.9~.n»2
U1.000 IO~ I.lH9650 1.16OO3l0
"'.000 .... O.9~i9161 0.9508307
50.000 ~1.1 0·%Z'J1L7 O.9840UI
"'.000 51.3 1).~'jJ974 1.O1~.5900
50.000 ".l 1.136'470 1.0967200
.<woo 51.0 Ul987420 UZ'7100
"'.000 SO., J.1635040 J.l684420
50000 ,., J.1008l10 I.DlI94900
"'.000 49.) 1.0311670 IOI14l190
5<).000 Sl,O 0.9714371 0.:9906192
".000 52.8 o.99!i04~2 1.0144410
50.000 48.9 '-:lmmIl 1.21·U330
SO.OOO 49.6 UI71610 T .3064860
l<I.ooo 51.4 1.0280160 1.0558730
100.00 10' 1.1658070 1.2211820
loom 92.3 i.l07Ol10 1.021S05G
100.00 '09 U614190 L710b071
100.00 "" 0.9017411 O.9$174S4
100.00 115 1.2140970 U681~
100.00 '" I.2346UO }.4J2J254
100.00 11. 0.7557554 0.81419(10(1
100.00 .... l.31109190 l.lOl6&6tI
100.00 ... 1.5694530 JA7482Qo2
100.00 ".3 U453300 1.29528"73-
100.00 106 l.iI289j() J.24936JS
100.00 .... 1.055904D 1.0014194
100.00 96.9 1.1630360 1.1493160
loom 101 I.L781620 1.19116250
100.00 111 (U177992 0.97]1364
IOIHIQ '06 0.9091061 0.96793"
ZOO.OO 213 0.819575) O.91~5
% DIFF I DRIFT
ICV LIMIT
10 "
l.J 22
-OJ "
1.2 " ••• 12
-J.5 I.
2.1 " ••• 11
-1.0 I.
·13 22
1 .• n
••• 18
·2.2 I.
-0' 14
!.7 14
4,7 11
·71 11
·}().l " •
.. -
10.2 " ·21.5 24
-19.0 "
'1.) " -27.~ 24 •
·36.3 '0 •
·25,7 "
-1~..1 2.
·SJ. '5
44-,' 1"5
-15,1 21
11.9 "-10.0 "
22.0 51 :.:-
AnalyUcalltesourtU, Incorporall!d
Analytical Chemists and COl'uultarH.s
Laboratory:
Clien1:
Instrument ID:
Lob File ID:
Sequence:
L bS • amp. ID :
COMPOUND
l7Ct4-2.3, '/ ,S-TeDD
Analyti91 ResQurcys. Inc.
Lloyd &. Associates
AUTOSPECOI
160727Q2
SEHOO33
SEHOO33 ICV 1 .
TYPE
A
• Value:s outJidc ofQC limit!
INITIAL CALIBRATION CHECK
EPA 1613B
soo: 16GOfJ74!BrwJ.
Project: Barbee Dredging
Calibration: ZEOO016
Calibration Date: 05110/161S'20
Injection Date: 07127116
nJec Ion lme:
CONe. (.wmL) RESPONSE FACTOR
sm ICV ICAl ICY MIN
10.000 J u:t 1.066SS80 1.1700929
% DlFF 1 DRIFT
ICY LIMIT
'.?
Allllytkal IIesoUrceI. IIIaIrporatad
Analytical ChemisU and Consuhants
CONTINUING CALIBRATION CHECK
EPA 1613B
Labontory,
Client:
Instrument TO:
Anw.ytical ResOllfCcs. Inc,
Lloyd &; Alsociates
AUIOSPECOI
lab File ID:
Seq"""".,
Lab Sample !D'
COMl'OUliD
2.l.7,S-TCDF
2.3,7.8-'TCDO
1,2.,J,7,S-I'eCDF
2,3,4,1,S-PeCDF
L),3.7,~DO
I ,U,4, 7):i·H~CDF
1,2.3.607,S·HItCDF
2,3,4.6.?,.8-}b:CVF
1.2.l.7,8,9-HlLCDF
1.1.3.4.7.&-lhCOO
1,2,l.6,',8-tu.COO
1,J..,J,7,s..9-HII.CDD
1.2.3,4,.6,7,8-HpCOF
1,2,~,4,7,&,9-HpCOF
1.2,.),4,6,7,8-HpCDO
oeOF
OCOO
IlCI2·2:,J.7.8-TCOf
IJCI2-2.J.1,8.-TCDO
1:lC12·),2.l,1,S-PtCDF
13CI2-2:.3,4,7.8-PcCDF
llCf2.1.2.3,l,l-PGCOD
I lC12-1>2,3,4, 1,g...HxCOf
IlC[1.1.l,],6.7,8-HxcDf'
He L2-2,3,4,6,7 ,8-theOf'
IlCI2-J,2.1.7,8,9·H:tCOF
IlC (2-1.2.3,4,7 ,8·HlCDO
IlC12-I,l.,J,(i,7,g·HACDD
\6072712
SEIIOO33
SEHOOJ3-CCV1
IJCII-I,.2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1]C12.1.2.3.4,1,8,9-HpCDf
Be L 2·1 ,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HpCDD
13C12-OCDD
31C t 4-2,l,7,i-TCDD
• Vahle, (l8lJidc of QC hmitJ
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
SDG 16G!J(J74it'b.<1L
Project B..t= Dredl!in.
Calibration: ZEOOO16
Calibration Dale: 0511011615,2Q
Injection Dale: 07128116
lnjoction Time' !.l!!J!!!
CONC. (n&'mL) RESPONSE FACTOR
SID CCV ICAL CCV MIN
10.000 10.2 0_93419U O.9YM26I
[0.000 10.1 un96~O 1.1418930
~O.OOO 49.3 0.9.519161 O.9J9288"l
50.000 49.6 0.9629117 (1.9.'554112
SO,""" SI..5 (l.91S1974 I_OOS~l64)
jI).OOO "9.0 1,13650170 1.[1<494]0
"''''''' 49-.' Ims7~(1 I.omm
.'50.000 49.8 1.1635040 I 1.S89950
"',000 4lJ.7 1.l00Sl10 1.{\9.50.51O
56,000 ItO 1.,1t.7. 1-0509160
56.000 "',2 0_9714311 0.9751441
.50.000 ;4.4 O.'99:5Oo11-Z 1.l2l4910
.50.000 49.0 LlO27S~ 1.27.55430
:50.000 49.1 1.l111610 1.2"941440
,",000 50,0 1.0280160 1.0284480
100,00 77,7 1.16S&070 0.9051866
100.00 "'.6 J.]07ilWl L(H)3.0450
100:00 10) 1.56141"9(1 1.6166950
100.00 106 o.'ro774Bl 0:9-590&06
IOO.{I(I II) 1.27-40976 1.4H~2
100.00 l2< ),23462-60 l.5324182
100.00 123 0,1551554 0.93241«
100.00 8-9.4 l.J3i»J9G t.2340IH7
100,00 89,0 U61)4530 t.4Gn696
100.00 93.3 1.34~3)OO t.2~j8317
100.00 9J.1 1.1823950 Llfl16!K11
100.00 9().6 L055904(J 0.9567739
100.00 97,3 1.163036(1 1.1))9105
10000 89.4 1.] llBri2<l 1.(1.536963
100.00 1!J.3 (lJ!777992 0.13J0984
100.00 97.3 0_9091061 O.II.a44S11
>00.00 L?9 o.flJ951$3 0.1354312
10.000 10.8 1.0065580 U516408
% DlFF 1 DRIFT
CCV L1MlT
1.7 16
0,7 " ·1,) 18
.(),' "
3,1 "
• 1.9 I •
-l.1 "
.<).4 " .<).S 10
t9 22
0,' "
8,7 " ·2.1 10
·loS " O,IM "
-22.3 17 .... 21
),' ,.
5.1 II
1:;!.5 14
24, I 2J
l)" J8
-JO.6 2.
·]0.2 '" -6.1 21
-6.7 2.
_9,4 1$
,
-2.1 " -10.6 " -16.7 13
-2.7 "
-10';· Sl
8.0
LaboralOl)':
AnaIytIcaJ IWources, Inc..."."md
Analytical Chemlsu and Consultants
CONTINUING CALIDRATION CHECK
EPA 1613B
Analytical Rcsources. Inc. SOG:
Client: Lloyd & Associates Project
Calibration:
Barbee Dredging
Instrument 10:
Lab File 10:
Sequence:
labS IIII1p e 10
COMPOUND
2,3,7,S·TCDF
2,3,7,B-TCDD
1,2,3,7,S-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,],-4,7,fI·H;IlCDF
1,2,3,6,7.I-HltCDF
2.3,4,6,7,8-HltCDF
1,2,3,7,1.9-HltCDF
1,2,],04,7.I.H:tCDD
1,2,],6,7,II·HltCDD
1,2,3,7,I,9.lhCDD
1,2,3,4,6.1.8-HpCDf
1,2,3,04,7 ,8.~HpCDF
1,1"),4,6,7,I-HpCDD
OCD'
OCDD
I)C 12·2.3,7 ,1-TCDF
IJeI2-2..3.7.s-TCDO
IJeI2·1.2.3,7,R-PcCDF
IJCI2-2,1.4,7,8-PcCDF
I)CI2-J,2,3,1.8-PcCDD
13CL2·1.2,3A,7,8-HllCDF
13CI2-J,2,3,6,7,S-HltCDF
13C 12-2,3,4,6,7,S-HlI.CDF
I]C 12-1.2,],7 ,~,I)..HlI.Cm·
I3C 12-1.2.3.4.7 ,8-HxCDD
13CI2-J,2.,J,6,7,8-HxCDD
AUTOSPECOI
16072721
SEH0033
SEHOO31-CCV2
I]C 12-1 ,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8·HpCDF
13CI2.1.2.3.4,7,8,9-HpCDF
13C L2-1.2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDD
I3CI2-OCDD
]1C 14-2.].7,8-TCDD
.. Values outside ofQC lltluts
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
CONC. (nglmL)
STD CCV
10.000 ....
10.000 10.1
50.000 4~J
"'.000 50.2
"'.000 51,lS
"'.000 49.4
"'-000 50.5
"'.000 50.2
"'.000 49.3
j().OOO 50.8
".000 50.3
"'.000 53.6
"'.000 49.1
50.000 41.]
50.000 51.2
100.00 76.3
100.00 89.7
100.00 101
100.00 '01
100.00 106
100.00 107
100.00 "'
100.00 90.'
100.00 90.7
100.00 ".3
100.00 90.9
(00.00 92.2
100.00 98.1
100.00 ".0
100.00 82.4
100.00 95.0
200.00 ".
10-000 1(1.]
Calibration Dale:
Injection Date:
In' f To Jf:C Ion Ime:
ZEOOOl6
0511011615:20
~
l!l..I§:
RESPONSE FACTOR
ICAL CCV
0.9]479H 0.9]26116
1.1339650 1.141~J80
0.951916] O.~]8on86
O.962~1l? 0-.%71719
0.9753974 1.0065340
J.D6S470 J.12320IO
1.0917420 1.1102500
1.1635040 1.1682420
1.1008210 1.0856330
1.0311670 J.0476770
0.9714371 0.9779330
0.9950452 J.J0I4250
1.3027890 1.29]8560
1.317)610 1.2736150
I.02WI60 1.0522960
1.I6S8070 0.1889322
1.1070210 0.9'9333M
1.5674190 1,s86HOO
0.9077481 0.91339Q1
1.27409'}0-1.]41jl6916
12346260 1.3178385
0.7557554 0.1402107
1.3809190 1.2542185
1.56904530-1.4228430-
1.345]]00 1.2684458
1.1828950 1.0755138
lO.559040-0.97)76J9-
1.1630300 1.1404700
1.178}620 ('0]69-481
O.IJ177992 0.722954]
0.90~10ti1 0.8638119
0.sI9S7S] 0.7348495
1.(1665580 1.0-988141
MIN
% DIFF 1 DRIFT
CCV LIMIT
".2 "
0.7 22
-1.4 18
0.' 18
Jl 22
-12 '0
1.0 "
0.' " _1.4 10
I.. 11
0.7 22
7.1 18
".7 10
~].) 14
1.' 14
-23.7 37
·10.) 21
'.1 2.
0 .• " S .• 24
'.7 2l
11.2 "
-9.2 14
-9.3 JO
-5.7 27
-9.1 16
-7.8 " -1.9 15
-12.0 22
-17.6 2J
-S.O " -10.] "
'.0
III. 11'11 ,\Ilah ,i,
TPHD Analysis
Report and Summary QC Forms
ARt Job ID: BeWl
BCW1;00163
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
TOTAL DIESEL RANGE HYDROCARBONS
;;W'l'PHD by GC/FID
ANALYTICAL 1&
RESOURCES.
INCORPORATED
Q:: Repor:: ~~o: B::Wl-~loyd & AssDc.l.i':Ites r Inc.
E:xtraction Method: SW3546
Page 1 of I
FroJe~t: BARBEE DREJGING
2Cl6~1 Bl'.F.BEE
Matrix: Sedirn€r.t
Date Received: 0')/05/16
Dd:"'ii Release AUU1Q':iz.ed:~
Reported: 07/13116
ARI ID
~3-07:l:6
16-1CC88
BCWIA
16~l0088
Sample ID
Hethod Blank
BC ID:
Q7042016BARBEE-C
;.IC 10: ORO/RRO
Hcpor~ed ir. rr .. ;;J/kg (PP!'i:
Extraction Analysis
Date Date
07/11/16 071:1/16
nD4A
07/03i:6 C7/11/l6
rID4A
E2V-EL:ective Final Vo:'ume -t:J F..:='.
1JL-Oilutic:1 of extract prio::-tc analysis.
LOQ-Lim:t 0: Qt;.ar.titatior~
EFV
DL Range/Surrogate
........ --.
1. CO Diesel "a::1ge
1.8 Metor Oil Range
o-Terphenyl
1. 00 Dieael Range
1.0 Motor Oil Range
o-Terphenyl
LOQ
5.0
lC
6.3
12
Diese:!. .::ange q'.,l~r;titation on t~ctal peaks in the range trcm C12 :0 C24.
Motor 0=--1 ra:1ge guantitation on tctal peaks in ':he :;:-ar:ge frof"'. ::24 to (38.
:Ie ID: JRO/HRO indicates result.s of organics O! add':"tio:'Jal hyd=ocarbocs i;)
rar.ges are not idenlifiable.
FORM I
Result
----~
< 5.0 U
< 10 U
73.8%
8.3
39
a 3.2<
Matrix: Sediment
(OTER) o-Terphenyl
?age 1 [Qr BCWI
TPHD SURRQG1,.TE RECOVERY SUMMARY
ANALYTICAL 1&
RESOURCES.
I NCORPORAlB)
QC Report No:
Project:
BCWI-Lloyd & Associates l Inc.
BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Client ID OTER TOT OUT
071116MB 78.S% 0
071116LCS SC.S% 0
07042016BARBEE-C 83.2" 0
07042016BARBEE-C MS 91. 9\\ 0
07042016BARBEE-C MSD 83.1)% 0
LCS/Me LIMITS QC LIMITS
(50-150) (50-150)
Prep Method: SW3546
Log Number Range: 16-10088 to 16-10088
FORM-I I TPHD
BCWi 00163
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
NWTPHD by GC/FID
Page 1 of :
Lab Sar:-.ple .2:0: BCttr::'A
LIMS E); 16-10088
Matrix: Sed:"me:l: ~ .. _\
Oat.!! RF.::le9~:' ,~·j":~Ot·':zed: -\''\\'\''
Repartee: ~J!~3/.6
~ate Extracted MS/MSD: 07/11/16
DatE Ar.alyzed MS: 07/11116 14:33
MSD: 07/11/16 14:55
Instrumer,t/Analyst MS: FID4A/M:"
MSD: FID4A/ML
Ran9"
Dieee:" e.3
MS
ANALYTICAL _
RE8OURCES.
INCORPORATED
Sample 10: 07042016BARB&E-C
liS/MSD
OC Report No: BC'WI-Lloyd & Ass()ciates, Inc.
Project: BA~8EE DREDGiNG
20:6-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: 0"/C4116
Date Received: 07/C5/16
Sample A,iTtOt,:;.at MS: 7.99
MS): 8.01
Fina 1 Ext~act Volume MS: :.0
~SD: :.C
D:lutio::1 Factor MS: =-.CO
Y;SD: :.00
g-dry-w~
g-dry-wt
mL
roL
Percen: ~·;oist1..:re:: 20.3%
Spike HS Spike )ISO
Aclde<i-MS R&covery MSD Aclded-MSD Recovery RPD
79, H 156 187 79. Or. O.ot.
TPHD Surroqat. Recovery
MS liSD
o-Terphenyl 9L9~ 53.H.
~es~~t5 reported in mg/kg
RPD calculated using sample concentrations per St·184€.
FORM III
OR~ICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
NWTPHD by GC/FID
[-'if!" ~ of 1
Lab Sample ID: LCS-071116
LIMS ID: 16-10088
Mat::-i.x: Sediment.
Data Release Authorized:~
Reported: 07/13116
Date Extracted: 07/11/16
Da'.:.e A.:.'1.a'::'yzcd: 07/11/16 13:25
Instn1rtentlAnalyst: rJD4AIt-r:...
Range
:Jiesel
Sample In: LCS-071116
LAB CONTROL
... N ... LmcALa
RESOURCES.
I NCORPOAATED
QC Report No: BCWI-LloYd &-Asscciates, Inc.
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
2016-1 BARBEE
Date Sampled: NA
Date Received: NA
Sa~p~e ArrNu~t; ~a.o g-d=y-wt
Fi:1a: Extract Vo2.' ... Htle: 1. 0 mL
Jibtior. factor: 1. 00
Lab Spik ..
Control Added Recovery
llG 150 73.3%
TPHD Surrogate Recovery
o-Terphenyl 80.8%
Results reported in rug/kg
FORM III
ANALYTICAL _
RESOURCES'
INCORPORATED
TOTAL DIESEL RANGE HYDROCARBONS-EXTRACTION REPORT
ARI Job: BCWI
Matrix: Sediment Project: BARBEE DR;::::>GING
Date Received: 07105116 2016-1 BARBEE
Client Fir.al Prep
ARI ID Client ID Amt Vol Basis Date
16-100B8-071116MB1 Method Blank 10.0 9 1.00 rnL 07/11116
16-100B8-071116LCSl TdO Control 10.0 9 1.00 rnr. 07/11/16
16-10088-BCW1A 07042016BARBEE-C 7.98 9 e.OO rnL 0 07/08116
16-10088-BCWIAMS 07042016BARBEE-C 7.99 9 ~.OO roL 0 07/11/16
16-10088-BCWIAMSD 07042016BARBEE-C 3.01 9 ~.OO roL D 07/11/16
Basis: D=Dry Weight W=As Received BCi.j i . 00 i 621
4 BLANK NO.
TPH METHOD BLANK SUMMARY
Lab Name: ARI
SOO No.: BCWI
Date Extracted: 07/11/16
Date Analyzed 07/11/16
Time Analyzed 1303
BCWlMBSl
Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
Proj ect No.: BARBEE DREDGING
Matrix: SOLID
Instrument ID FID4A
THIS METIlOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS, and MSD:
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
CLIENT
SAMPLE NO.
============
BCWlLCSSl
07042016BARB
07042016BARB
07042016BARB
page 1 of 1
LAB I DATE
SAMPLE ID I ANALYZED
==============,==========
BCWILCSSI 07/11/16
BCWlA 07/11/16
BCWlAMS 07/11/16
BCWlAMSD 07/11/16
I
FORM IV TPH
&CWi 00i;::;9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6a
DIESEL INITIAL CALIBRATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
Instrument: FID4A. I
Calibration Date: 09-MAR-2016
I I I
Diesel RF1 I RF2 I RF3 RF4 I
Range 50 I 100 I 250 500 I
I I I
I I I
WA Diesel 215511 220011 21272 1' 209411
AK Diesel 26320 I 261131 25109 1 247211
Client: Lloyd & Associates
Proj ect: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG No.: BCW1
I I I
RF5 I RF6 I Ave RF I tRSD
1000 I 2500 I I
I I I
I I I
201681 185821 207531 5.9
240861 220 17 1 24728 1 6.4
I OR Diesel 264261 262301 252471 248661 242351 221421 248581 6.3
I Cal Diegel 262741 260581 250511 2464 7 1 240131 219461 246651
I C12-C22 209971 214091 206711 203431 195681 180671 201761
I I I I I I I I
I o-Terph 282891 285601 282441 286531 2 7692 1 257231 278601
I I I I I I I I
<-Indicates %RSD outside limits
Surrogate areas are not included in Diesel RF calculation.
Quant Ranges WA Diesel
AI< Diesel
OR Diesel
cal Diesel
C12-C22
C12-C24 (3.837-7.652)
C10-C25 (3.024-7.950)
C10-C28 (3.024-8.771)
C10-C24 (3.024-7.652)
C12-C22 (3.837-7.026)
Calibration Files Analysis Time
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
09-MAR-2016 17:54
09-MAR-2016 18:16
09-MAR-2016 18:38
09-MAR-2016 19:01
09-MAR-2016 19:22
09-MAR-2016 19:45
6.4
6.0
3.9
["''':wi : 00'1 ,In
6a
NW MCJTOR OIL RANGE INITIAL CALIBRATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
Instrument: FID4A. I
Calibration Date: lS-MAR-2016
1 1
Product RF1 1 RF2 1 RF3
Range 100 1 250 1 500
1 1
1 1
WA M.On 187141 164941 15831
C24-C38 1 1
1 1
CA M.Oil 148071 128271 12602
C23-C32 1 1
1 I
I
AS Bunk C 140051 13041 1 12964
C23-C32 1 1
1 1
Triac Surr 268601 245151 238721
1 1 1
<-Indicates %RSD outside limits
1
RF4 1
1000 1
1
1
166011
1
1
133201
1
1
126261
1
1
249431
1
Client: Lloyd & Associates
project: BARBEE DREDGING
SOO No.: BCW1
I 1 1
RF5 1 RF6 1 Ave RF 1 %RSD
2500 1 5000 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
161121 139691 1628 7 1 9.4
1 1 1
1 i 1
131421 111431 129 73 1 9.13
1 1 1
1 1 1
-----1 122121 129691 5.13
1 1 1
1 1 1
244 991 223201 245021 6.0
1 1 1
Surrogate areas are not included in Motor Oil RF calculation.
Calibration Files
fl
f2
f3
£4
£s
£6
Analysis Time
lS-MAR-2016 11:S4
lS-MAR-2016 12:17
15-MAR-2016 12:39
lS-MAR-2016 13:03
lS-MAR-2016 13:26
15-MAR-2016 13:48
HI~'·:W:t : 00 i "! i
7a
DIESEL CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
ICal Date: l5-MAR-2016
CCal Date: 11-JUL-2016
Analysis Time: 12:18
Instrument: FID4A.I
Diesel Range
WAOies(CI2-C24)
AKI02 (CI0-C25)
NASOies(CIO-C24)
Terphenyl
Creos (C12-C22)
Area*
4569613
5376702
5349357
1102036
4417414
Client: Lloyd & Assooiates
Projeot: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG No.: BCWI
Lab ID: DEISEL 11
Lab File Name: 16071104.0
CalcArnnt NomAmnt % 0
220.2 250 -11.9
217.4 250 -13.0
216.9 250 -13.2
39.6 45 -12.1
218.9 250 -12.4
* <-
Surrogate areas are subtracted from range areas
Indioates a %D outside QC limits
pI of 1 FORM VII-Diesel
7a
MOTOR OIL CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
ICal Date: 15-MAR-2016
CCal Date: 11-JUL-2016
Analysis Time: 12:41
Instrument: FID4A.I
M.oil Range
WAHoil (C24-C38)
AK103 (C25-C36)
OR MOIL(C28-C40)
CRUDE(Tol-C40)
n-Triacontane
Area*
7169501
6287019
5422715
8274744
975986
Client: Lloyd & Associates
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG No.: BCW1
Lab ID: MOIL U
Lab File Name: 16071105.0
CalcAmnt NOmAI'nnt % 0
440.2 500 -12.0
436.1 500 -12.8
718.0 500 43.6
1095.6 500 119.1
39.8 45 -11.5
* Surrogate areas are subtracted from range areas
<-Indicates a %0 outside QC limits
pI of 1 FORM VII-Diesel
BGWi Vi0i 7:~
7a
DIESEL CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
ICal Date: 15-MAR-2015
CCal Date: Il-JUL-2015
Analysis Time: 15:18
Instrument: FID4A.I
Diesel Range
WADies(C12-C24)
AKI02 (CI0-C25)
NASDies(CI0-C24)
Terphenyl
Creos (CI2-C22)
Area*
4860459
5688947
5649798
1137846
4680714
Client: Lloyd & Associates
project: BARBEE DREDGING
SDG No.: BCWI
Lab ID: DEISELH
Lab File Name: 16071112.D
CalcAmnt NomAmnt % D
234.2 250 -6.3
230.1 250 -8.0
229.1 250 -8.4
40.8 45 -9.2
232.0 250 -7.2
*
<-
Surrogate areas are subtracted from range areas
Indicates a %D outside QC limits
pI of 1 FORM VII-Diesel
7a
MOTOR OIL CONTINUING CALIBRATION VERIFICATION
Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
ICal Date: 15-HAR-2016
CCal Date: 11-JUL-2016
Analysis Time: 15:40
Instrument: FID4A.I
M.oil Range
WAMoil (C24-C38)
AKI03 (C25-C36)
OR MOIL(C28-C40)
Area*
7440557
6520486
5711927
Client: Lloyd "
Project: BARBEE
SDG No. : BCW1
Lab IO: MOIL#2
Lab File Name:
CalcAmnt NomAmnt
456.8 500
452.3 500
756.3 500
Associates
DREDGING
16071113.0
% D
-8.6
-9.5
51.3
CRUDE\Tol-C40) 8630087 1142.6 500 128.5
n-Tr1acontane 1015086 41.4 45
* Surrogate areas are subtracted from range areas
<-Indicates a %D outside QC limits
pI of 1 FORM VII-Diesel
-7.9
F\Cwi-0~irb
8
TPH ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE
Lab Name: ARI Client: LLOYD & ASSOCIATES
SDG No.: BCWI
Instrument ID: FID4A
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
GC Column: RTX-1
THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF BlANKS, SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS,
IS GIVEN BELOW:
SURROGATE RT FROM DAILY STANDARD
1'ERPH: 5.75 TRIAC; 9.09 I I
CLIENT IJ\B DATE TIME TERPH
SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID ANALYZED ANALYZED RT #
============ =============== ===:;;:;;:;::====::;; :;;;;;==--====;;;;: ========
01'
02
03.
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
RT
IB
BARBEE DREDG
BARBEE DREDG
BCWlMBSl
BCWlLCSSl
07042016BARB
07042016BARB
07042016BARB
BARBEE DREDG
BARBEE DREDG
RT
IB
DEISEL #1
MOIL #1
BCWIMBSI
BCWILCSSI
BCWlA
BCWUIMS
BCWUIMSD
DEISEL#2
MOIL#2
TERPH = o-terph
TRIAC = Triacon Surr
07/11/16 1133
07/11/16 1156
07/11/16 1218
07/11/16 1241
07/11/16 1303
07/11/16 1325
07/11/16 1411
07/11/16 1433
07/11/16 1455
07/11/16 1518
07/11/16 1540
QC LIMITS
(+/-0.05 MINUTES)
(+/-0.05 MINUTES)
* Values outside of QC limits.
page 1 of 1
FORM VIII TPH
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.74
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.74
TRIAC
RT #
=========
9.09
9.09
9.09
9.09
9.09
9.09
9.09
9.09
9.09
9.10
9.10
8
TPH ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE
Lab Name: ARI
SIG No.: Bewl
Instrument ID: FID4A
Client: Lloyd & Associates
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
GC Column: RTX-l
THE ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE OF BLANKS, SAMPLES, AND STANDARDS,
IS GIVEN BELOW:
SURROGATE RT FROM DAILY STANDARD I
TERPH: 5.92 IRIAC: 9.26
CLIENT LAB DATE TIME
SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE ID ANALYZED ANALYZED
I
TERPH
RT It
============ =============== ========== ====:===== =======;;:;
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SEC0025-IBLl
SEC0025-IBL2
SEC0025-CAL1
SEC0025-CAL2
SEC0025-CAL3
SEC0025-CAL4
SEC0025-CAL5
SEC0025-CAL6
SEC0025-SCV1
SEQ-IBL1
SEQ-IBL2
SEQ-CALl
SEQ-CAL2
SEQ-CAL3
SEQ-CAL4
SEQ-CAL5
SEQ-CAL6
SEQ-SCV1
SEQ-CAL7
SEQ-CAL8
SEQ-CAL9
SEQ-CAIA
SEQ-CALB
SEQ-CALC
TERPH = o-tezph
TRIAC = Triacon Surr
* Values outside of QC limits.
page 1 of 1
03/09/16 1710
03/09/16 1732
03/09/16 1754
03/09/16 1816
03/09/16 1838
03/09/16 1901
03/09/16 1922
03/09/16 1945
03/09/16 2006
03/15/16 1109
03/15/16 1130
03/15/16 1154
03/15/16 1217
03/15/16 1239
03/15/16 1303
03/15/16 1326
03/15/16 1348
03/15/16 1411
03/16/16 0342
03/16/16 0403
03/16/16 0424
03/16/16 0447
03/16/16 0508
03/16/16 0529
QC LIMITS
(+/-0.05 MINUTES)
(+/-0.05 MINUTES)
FORM VIII '!'PH
5.92
5.91
5.90
5.90
5.9l
5.92
5.94
5.97
5.91
5.91
5.91
5.90
5.90
5.92
5.91
5.88
5.90
5.91
5.87
5.93
5.93
5.92
5.92
5.92
TRIAC
RT It
=;;:;==;;;:;;;;;==
9.26
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.23
9.23
9.24
9.24
9.23
9.23
9.24
9.26
9.30
9.33*
9.24
9.22
9.23
9.24
9.25
9.25
9.31*
2u16"213 SCUllm:nl S:lll1plll1g Rl'~lIlts DM Ml '-I
Attachment D -Historical Sampling and Analysis
May Creek Delta Sediment Sampling (L&AI, 1999)
Sediment Sampling and Analysis Results (L&AI 2008)
201 (',-213 ScrJi]ll~'nl S<llllpllllg Rc:-;ulh DM\1II-1
May Creek Delta Sediment Sampling (1999)
Table 1
L&AI Bark Sampling Data -1999
Parameter (mg/Kg-dry) MC-1
WTPH (silica cleanup mg/Kg-dry)
Gasoline
Oiesel* -W*
Motor Oil*, Hydraulic Oil, +4*
or other petroleum product
Volatile Organics (Method 8240) I
Semivolatiles (EPA Method 8270, mg/Kg-dry)
4-Methylphenol NO
Naphthalene NO
2-Methylnaphthalene NO
Acenaphthylene NO
Acenaphthene NO
Fluorene NO
Phenanthrene NO
Anthracene NO
Fluoranthene NO
Pyrene NO
Benzo(a)anthracene** NO
Chrysene** NO
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene** NO
Benzo(a)pyrene** NO
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene** NO
Oibenz(a,h)anthracene** NO
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene NO
Oibenzofuran NO
bis(2-Ethylhexyl phthalate) NO
Other SVOC's NO
PCB's (as 1254, mg/Kg-dry)
RCRA Metals (Total, mg/Kg-dry)
Silver NO
Arsenic NO
Barium 48.7
Cadmium NO
Chromium 28.2
Mercury NO
Lead 9
Selenium NO
Total Solids (from % moisture) 89.8
FP = finished, milled product
ND = not detected at method detection limit
M = Poor spectral match
J = estimated quantity
Me = May Creek Delta sample
BA = Bark Area "An sample
Lloyd & AssoClates_ Inc
2tll h-213 Sedlillent Sampling Rl'~lIlts DM Mll-1
Sediment Sampling and Analysis Results (L&AI, 2008, next page)
Ll(l~d & i\s~ol'lates. 111('
rnlPT.# £. M Lloyd & Associates, Inc. !!?&"~W)'J! ~38!!!2!'!!IO'!!SE!!"92~nd~S~ ...... ~s"noq"u"'a1"ml"·e.'!!w"as'!"hi"ngt!"on""!!!98~06~5·4'!'!2'!"5.~88'!"8.~'Q()~5!'!'lv~lfJ!"'""~'@en" ... v'!!"Ioy .. d ... comlllllll----
January 31, 2008
TRANSMITTAL
Susan Powell
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
P.o. Box 3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
Reference: NWS-2007-1019-NO
Barbee Company Boathouse Area Dredging
Subject: Boathouse Area Sampling and Analysis
Dear Ms. Powell:
Enclosed are two copies of the Sampling and Analysis Report for Barbee Boathouse
Dredging Area. My apologies for the time it has taken to wrap this up. Between the
Christmas Holidays and a vacation to Hawaii, this has report has been on the back
burner. If possible, please forward a copy to David Kendall. I will also provide an
electronic copy to you and Dr. Kendall by email.
Thank you for your time and patience in consideration of the JARPA application. If
you have any questions, comments, or recommendations, please call.
Sincerely,
LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
R Michael Uoyd, ~ /
425-785-1357 (cell)
cc. R. Cugini (Barbee Company)
2008-50 Transmittal to USACE Barbee Sampling.doc
Sediment Sampling and Analysis
(JARPA Submittal Supplement)
Barbee Maintenance Dredging and Boathouse Renovation
Barbee Company, P.O. Box 359
Renton, Washington
2U()i'\-)() Barbee Sediment Sampling I~esulb_d()o:
Prepared by:
[.Ioyd & Associates. Inc.
38210 SE 92"d Street
Snoqualmie. \VA 98065
January 31, 2008
Page 1 0[20
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
Sediment Sampling Results Summary
Suitability of Dredged Material for Shallow Water Habitat Enhancement
2.0 Sediment Sampling
Sample Locations
Sample Collection
Composite Preparation
Equipment Decontamination
Chain-of Custody
Grain Size Distribution
Field Observations
3.0 Sediment/Rinsate Chemical Analyses
Sediment Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides and PCBs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Rinsate Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Scmivolatile Organic Compounds
4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary
Sediment Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Pestic ides and PCBs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Rinsate Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Sediment Sampling Considerations
2008-50 Harbee Sediment Sdmpllllg Resulb,Jm: Page 2 of20
Table of Contents (continued)
Contaminant Analysis
Figures aud Tables
Figure I-I: Site Photograph
Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations
rigure 2-2: Sediment core 071021 IBarbee/G-
Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution
Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations
Table 2-2: Grain Size Data
Table 3-1: Sediment I Conventional Parameters
Table 3-2: Sediment I Total Metals
Table 3-3: Sediment I Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 3-4: Sediment I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Table 3-5: Sediment I Pesticides and PCBs
Table 3-6: Sediment I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 3-7: Rinsate I Total Metals
Table 3-8: Rinsate I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Table 4-1: QA Summary I Conventional Parameters
Table 4-2: QA Summary I Total Metals
Table 4-3: QA Summary I Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 4-4: QA Summary I Semi volatile Organic Compounds
Table 4-5: QA Summary I Pesticides
Table 4-6: QA Summary I PCBs
Table 4-7: QA Summary I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Attachments
Attachment A -Sediment Sampling Logs
Attachment B -Laboratory Report Forms
2()()g-50 Rarlxc Scdllncnt Samplll1g RcsullS doc Page 3 of 20
1.0 Introduction
This report provides results of sediment sampling and chemical testing of sediments
in conjunction with proposed Barbee Maintenance Dredging and Boathouse
Renovation work. The purposes of this sampling and analysis program were (I) to
collect sufficient data of adequate quality for decision making purposes regarding the
level(s) of contamination that mayor may not be present within sediments of the
proposed boathouse dredge area; and (2) to assess the suitability of dredged materials
for habitat enhancement. The purpose for proposed dredging at the boathouse is to
maintain navigational access and continued recreational use of the boathouse.
The project summary. site history. potential site contaminants. and additional
information are provided in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (L&AI. 2007) previously
submitted to the USACE.
The project area is shown in Figure I-I below.
Figure 1-1: Site Photograph fl/1OlOgraph looking /0 (hi! .\'o,.,h. sh())l'in)!, (h(' hoothol{sl! and Ih(!
suu/hern peninsula ql land at fhl! .\lay Creek /)r:/la. lhi! fonner /Jarhee .\fill Facility
(ClIITt'nt/y oWl1ed hy ('onner /Jc\'e/opmenl) is il7 fhe distance. The proposed dredgl.! area
(approximale) is ollt/ined in while:'
Sediment Sampling Results Summary
Detected chemical contamination in the proposed boathouse area (OMMU-I) is
relatively limited. Testing results are below both fresh water sediment and marine
sediment screening levels for all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical
Data). Nevertheless. some motor oil and diesel range petroleum product was detected
in the composite sample at 95 mg/kg (dry basis). Benzene was not detected. These
2(j08-50 Barbee Sediment Sampling RCSldtS dol' Page 4 of20
results are consistent with historical sampling and analysis data, and are below
MTCA Method A criteria for unrestricted residential land usc.
Suitability of Dredged Material for Shallow Water Habitat Enhancement
The Barbee JARPA Submittal provided that sediments could potentially be used for
habitat enhancement along the rockery face immediately south of the dredge area, if
sediment characteristics were suitable and potential contaminant levels were
acceptable. Gradation results of sediment sampling (see Section 2.0) indicate that the
use of imported clean materials (such as spawning gravel) from an approved WSDOT
source would be more appropriate. Sediments to be dredged are typically fine to
medium sands and silt that would appear to be more appropriate for upland beneficial
uses. Therefore. dredged sediments will not be disposed or placed in open water
under the Dredge Material Management Program (DMMP).
20llS-S0 Harbee SedliTIent Smnpllllg Results doc Page 5 of 20
2.0 Sediment Sampling
Sediment sampling at the Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area was conducted on Sunday
October 21, 2007. As proposed. grab samples were collected. composited and
preserved for next day delivery to Analytical Resources. Inc. (Seattle. W A). This
section provides a summary of sediment sampling information. Sediment Sampling
Logs are provided in Attachment A.
Sample Stations
Differential GPS was utilized to locate sediment sample stations. Sampling occurred
close to proposed locations as moderated by observed lield and gusty weather
conditions. Proposed and actual sampling locations are summarized in Table 2-1
below. All data was collected using North America Datum (NAD83-Washington
North). Lake Elevation at the time of sampling was provided by the USACE at
Chittenden Locks. Lake elevation was 20.6 feet (MSL). approximately 1.2 reet below
the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL).
Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations (Proposed lind AClua/)
Proposed Stationing State Plane (ft) Profile
Station Location Easting Northing Elevation
BBSED·I \lear western edge of dredge area 1.301.490 195.425 EI = 14'
BBSED·2 At north/central edge of dredge area 1,301.550 195.435 to! -12'
BBSED·3 At south/eastern edge of dredge area 1.301.600 195.420 EL = 10'
BBSED·4 Mid-point in front of the boathouse 1.301.625 195.460 EL -10'
BBSED-5 Within the boathouse footprint 1.301.640 195.465 EL = 10'
Actual Stationing
BBSED-I Core location at western edge 1.301.486 195.411 EI-14'
BBSED-2 Core location at north/central edge 1.301.552 195,436 EI = 12'
IlBSED-3 Station moved to reach dredge profile 1.301.611 195.421 EL -10'
BBSED-4 Station moved to avoid steep slope 1.301.622 195.467 EL = 12'
IlIlSED-5 Within the Boathouse Footprint 1.301.640* 195.475* EL -10'
* Because there \\as no l)(iPS slgnalllNde the Boath()ll~l'. :,ampllllg station locallon l~ cstllnatcd
Sampling Equipment
Sediment sample collection was initially conducted from the walkway inside the
boathouse using several types or core samplers which included a gravity corer. spilt
l008-50 Barlxe Scdl1nent Sampllllg l{e~ulls.dllC Page 6 of 20
spoon, modified Shelby tube sampler, and a VanVeen sampler. Under the field
conditions observed, the modified Shelby sampler proved to be the most effective
coring device. The only modification to the sampler was to adapt extension rods and
convert it into a push or drive sampler. Sample recoveries were generally very good
(> 70%) as shown in Sediment Sampling Logs provided in Attachment A. The
gravity corer worked very well with good penetration, but small sticks and woody
debris, commonly encountered on the lakebed surface, tended to reduce the
effectiveness of this sampler. Sediment Sampling Stations are shown in Figure 2-1.
SCALE (tt)
,
>C,
Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations
Field Sampling Procedure
Except in the boathouse, where sampling occurred from the walkway, sampling
occurred from the side of a 21' sampling boat. The boat was anchored in position at
the sampling station and powered down. Depth to bottom was physically measured
with a weighted line. Depth sounding from the vessel's depth meter tended to be very
inaccurate because of intense growth of milfoil throughout the proposed dredge area.
The Shelby sampler was equipped with a push rod extension(s) to reach the bottom of
the proposed depth profile(s). The sampler was generally easily extracted and raised
out of the water. The sampler was placed in the bouom of the boat on clean visquine.
A light tap on the extension rod andlor sampler casing was all that was required to
release the sample. In practice, extreme care was necessary to avoid jostling or
banging the sampler during extraction. Sediments from below the proposed dredge
profile tended to be coarse sands that were difficult to sample without substantial loss.
Because of the difficulty or sampling coarse sands below the proposed dredge profile
in a representative manner, a "Z" was not collected.
2008-50 Garhee Sediment Sampling Results doc Page 7of20
Th e grav it y co rer wo rk ed very well in s ide thc boathouse. but s ma ll woody debri s in
th e d redge 70 ne te nd ed to dellect the sa mpler o r decrea se th e ene rgy of th e dro p. T he
She lb y sa mpl e r was mu e h more a mena bl e to rea ching desired dept hs from th e
samp lin g vesse l.
Once ex tra c ted /i·o m the sampler. the sa mple core lVas vis ua ll y in s pec ted and logge d.
Core co nte nt s fOI"l11 w ithin th e d redge profile werc transiCrred to sa mp le j ars a fi er
thorough mi x in g o f th e core co nt ents using a clean stainle ss steel s poo n. A p ic ture of
the core col le c ted li ·om in s ide th e boat ho use is s hown in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2: Sed im ent co re 07 10 2 1!l3arbee /G -5 collected at Sta ti o n RRSFD-5
Because o f the limit ed thickne ss of sed im e rll material to be dredged at 1113 51:::1)-4
(a pprox im a te ly r, .. ). a VanVeen samp ler was utilized at this sta ti on. The Va n Veen
sampler \\OrK ccJ c:\trcme ly \\e ll \\-here a co re was no t required to get g rea te r uepth. In
practic e th e ex te nsive accumulation o f woody debri s at thi s st ation severel) lim it ed
corin g cl'l iei ency. The VanVeen sampler is the sa mpler o f c hoice fo r confirmati o nal
sa mpling in th e ove r-d e pth profile.
Equipment Decontamination
Pri o r to sa mplin g. a ll samp ling equipment was dec ontam in ated by sc rubb in g wi th a
di lute so lution of A1conox. rin sed w ith tap wate r. a nd then I(l ll o\\ed by two rin ses 0 1·
distilled wate r. In th e li e ld. th e sam pl ers we re rin sed "ith lak e Ila ter and v is ual ly
inspected pri o r to movi ng to th e next sampling stat io n. At the co nclu sio n ofsa lllplin g
Pa ge 8 of 20
a decon rinse was collected. A solvent rinse was not utilized at any time. Analytical
testing results of the decontamination sample are presented in Section 3 -Chemical
and Physical Data. The rinsate/decon sample was identilied as 071021 IBarbee/R.
Composite Preparation
A composite sample was constructed from equal portions of the five (5) individual
grab samples. Grab samples were identilied as 071021/Barbee/G-I through (i-5. A
pre-cleaned stainless steel bowl and spoon was utilized to composite samples for
laboratory analyses. Portions were well mixed to a homogenous consistency. The
composite sample was identified as 071021 IBarbee/C.
Chain-of Custody
The laboratory provided chain of custody was utilized to record basic sample
information and requested analyses. All samples were labeled. bagged in Ziploc
bags. chilled with ice. and delivered to the laboratory the next day under chain of
custody. A copy of the Chain of Custody is provided in Attachment B.
Grain Size Distribution Logs I Field Observations
Sediment Sampling Logs of the 5 grab samples are provided in Attachment A. Page
6 of the series provides a more complete summary of sample location data presented
in Table 2-1 and includes conversion of state plane data into latitude and longitude.
In general. sediment sampling yielded better recoveries than anticipated because of
the cohesive nature of the sediment in the dredge profile. Below the dredge profile
we observed generally coarse sands which were poorly recovered. Grain Size Data
for sample 071021 IBarbee/C (composite sample) is provided in Table 2-2 and
graphically presented in Figure 2-3. These coarse sands within the proposed over-
depth appear to be relatively undisturbed by previous dredging in the area. Sediments
were odor free and no apparent sheen was observed in any grab sample although a
light stringy sheen was observed rising to the surface at Station BBSE[)-4 when the
VanVeen sampler was withdrawn from the sediment.
In general the upper few centimeters of each core was layered with leaf litter. twigs.
small sticks. milfoil roots and other vegetation. Milfoil distribution was extensive
and thick throughout the entire dredge area except within the boathouse footprint
where sunlight is extremely limited.
20118-50 Barbee Seuim.:-nt Sampling Result, do( Page 9 of20
Table 2-2 Grain Size
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: Grain Size by ASTM 0422
Mesh Inches Microns % Finer
0.0029 74 14.9
0.00588 149 30.6
0.00983 250 54.1
0.01655 420 80.1
0.03306 840 91.7
0.07875 2,000 96.5
0.5 4,750 99.2
#4 0.187 9,525 100
#10 0.375 12,700 100
#20 0.75 19.050 100
#40 1.0 25,400 100
#60 1.5 38,100 100
#100 2.0 50,800 100
#200 3.0 76,200 100
Composite is equal portions of grab samples G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 & G-5
Grain Size Distribution By ASTM 0422
#100 #20 #4
100 -~ 1
90
I ~I !
I
I i ...
, -
80
70
I
-
1\
-
1 I
I
I i
I
! I I . .-
I
-\ -
i
--\ I
--
I ! I
I ! -I I !
-
T --t ----
I
60 ~
~ u::
50 ~
~
~
40 Q.
30
20
10
0
100,000 10.000 1,000 100 10
Particle Diameter (microns)
Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution
20()8-50 Harhl'l' S~dim~nl Sampling Results doc Page 100[20
3.0 Sediment / Rinsate Chemical Analyses
All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources,
Inc .. Seattle, W A) on ice under Chain of Custody. The composite sample was
analyzed for both conventional parameters and the measurement of concentrations of
chemicals, which have been identified by DM:vJP as chemicals of concern (COCs).
EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide low level detection limits for
coes. Specialized analyses for Volatile Organic Compounds and Total Volatile
Solids were conducted on grab sample 071021 /Barbee/G-I. Rinsate analyses
included Total Metals and Semivolatile Organic Compounds.
As provided in the Sampling and Analysis Plan,1 the sediment samples (composite
and grab where required) were submitted for chemical analysis for the following
parameters:
• Conventional Parameters -EPA/PSEP Methods
• Volatile Organic Compounds -EPA 8260 GUMS
• Semi-Volatile Organics -EPA 82700 GUMS
• Total Metals -EPA 200.8; (Except as noted)
• Pesticides/PCBS -EPA 8081/8082 PSDDA GClECD
• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -NWTPH-D
Sample containers. preservation, holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were
acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and accepted
PSEP protocols. The rinsate sample (071021/Barbee/R) was analyzed for Semi-
Volati Ie Organics and Total Metals.
Sediment Analyses
Conventional Testing Results
Composite Sample 071021 /Barbec/C was analyzed for Total Solids, Preserved
Total Solids, N-Ammonia, Total Sulfides, and Total Organic Carbon. Total
Volatile Solids were analyzed on grab sample 971021/Barbee/G-1 from the
western edge of the proposed dredge area. These results are provided in
Table 3-1 at the end of this section. I.aboratory report forms for this data are
I Barbee Sediment S<'llTlplll1g and AnalySIS Plan (I.&AL 10()7)
2008-50 B<Jrbee SedllTlent Sampling Results doc Page II of 20
provided in Attachment B. Hexavalent Chromium was analyzed and reported
by ARI as a conventional parameter. These results will be discussed under the
Total Metals section.
There are no Marine or Fresh water screening levels for conventional
parameters. Ammonia levels were detected at 28 mg-N/Kg (dry basis). Total
Sulfide was reported at 126 mg/Kg (dry basis). and Total Organic carbon was
reported at approximately 2%.
Total Metals
Composite Sample 071021 /Barbee/C was analyzed for total metals. These
results are provided in Table 3-2. Laboratory report rorms are provided in
Attachment B. Hexavalent Chromium was undetected at 0.589 U (mg/Kg-
dry). Traces of Arsenic and Cadmium were detected along with Chromium.
Copper. Lead. Nickel. and Zinc. Antimony. Chromium (VI). Mercury.
Selenium, and Silver were not detected. All detected and undetected metal
concentrations were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh
Water.' Additionally, all detected and undetected reporting limits were less
than MTCA Method A -Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use o'
Volatile Organics
Grab Sample 071 021/Barbee/G-1 was analyzed for volatile organics by EPA
GCMS Method 8260. Results are provided in Table 3-3. Laboratory report
forms arc provided in Attachment B. As shown in Table 3-3, the only
detected volatile organic parameter was acetone at 17 ug/Kg-dry. Although
acetone is a common laboratory contaminant. it was not detected in the
method blank. Reporting limits for all detected and undetected volatile
organic compounds were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and
Fresh Water. Additionally. all detected and undetected volatile organic
compounds levels were less than MTCA Method A -Soil Cleanup Levels for
Unrestricted Land Usc.
Semivolatile Organics
Composite Sample 071021/Uarbee/C was analyzed for semivolatile organic
compounds by GCMS Method 82700. Results are provided in Table 3-4.
Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment B. Several semivolitile
organics were detected. including: PAHs and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
The total HPAH concentration was 275 ug/Kg-dry. Benzo[A]pyrene was not
detected. Detected and undetected parameters for all semivolatile organic
compounds were less than Screening Levels lor both Marine and Fresh Water.
Additionally, all detected and undetected levels were less than MTCA Method
A -Soil Cleanup Levels filf Unrestricted Land lJse.
-Sediment Quallt\' (iUldclmcs for Standard ('helmesls of("ol1L'ern ( Drat( Tahle 7-1) and from [)MMP U:,!,'r's Manual (curT!.'n1 edition)
, Development of Method A Cleanup Levels W.M' 17.1-340-720 (WS Dcpartmc11l of Feolng\', ::(10 I)
20()8-50 Barhee Sediment Sampling Results doc Page 110[20
Pesticides and PC Bs
Composite Sample 071021/Barbcc/C was analyzed for pesticides and PC Bs
by GC/ECD (Dual Column -Methods 8081 A and Method 8082. respectively).
Results are provided in Table 3-5, Laboratory report forms are providcd in
Attachment B. As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PCBs were detected.
All reporting limits for all semi-volatile organic compounds were less than
Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally. all detected
and undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A -Soil Cleanup Levels
for Unrestricted Land Use,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Composite Sample 071021/Barbee/C was analyzed jt)r petroleum
hydrocarbons by GC/FID (Method NWTPH-Dx), Results are provided in
Table 3-6, Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment B, Diesel
was detected at 15 mg/Kg-dry. and Motor Oil was detected at 95 mg/Kg-dry,
As noted in Sampling Logs, a light stringy oily substance was observed when
sampling at Station llIlSED-4. There were no visible indications of a
petroleum sheen in any grab sample or the composite. Benzene was not
detcctcd (scc Volatilc Organic Compounds. Table 3-3). All detected and
undetected results were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh
Water. Additionally, all detected and undetected levels were less than MTCA
Method A -Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use. Nevertheless. the
use of dredged sediments containing petroleum hydrocarbon residues (motor
oil and diesel) for shallow watcr enhancement is not recommended,
Rinsate/Decon Analyses
A rinsate/decon sample was collected as described in Section 2.0, The rinsate
sample was collected from sampling equipment at the conclusion of sampling,
Rinsate/decon results are provided in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 at the end of this
section, No metals were detected 111 the rinsate/decon sample
(071 02 I/llarbee/R), Several phthalates. (diethyl-. di-n-llutyl-. and
butylbenzyl-) were detected at low concentrations in the rinsate sample (see
Table 3-8. 071 021/Barbee/R), These same phthalates were not detected in the
composite sediment sample, The detected phthalates may arise from contact
with plastic materials (distilled water carboy. examination gloves. visquine.
etc) as a potential artifact of sampling and/or rinsate sample preparation.
20{)8-50 l3arbee Seuiment Sampling Rc~ults dlK Page 13 of20
Table 3-1: Sediment Results I Conventional Parameters
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte (see Sampling and Analysis Plan)
MTCA Screening Levels (2)
Conventional Parameters Units Result Q RL Method A") Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL 1)
Hexavalent Chromium mg/Kg-dry 0.589 U 0.589 19
Total Solids Percent 67.6 0.01
Preserved Total SOlids Percent 65.9 0.01
N-Ammonia mg-N/Kg 28 0.72
Sulfide mg/Kg-dry 126 15.4
Total Organic Carbon Percent 2.03 0.2
Sample: 071021/Barbee/G-1
Description: Grab Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte
Conventional Parameters
TOla I Sol ids
Total Volatile Solids
Units
Percent
Percent
Result Q
80.1
0.95
RL
0.01
0.01
MTCA Screening Levels (1)
Method A Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
Notes:
• Analytical Resources. Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are shown above.
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern -Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
Table 3-2: Sediment Results I Total Metals
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Methods: EPA 200.8 (Except as noted)
MTCA Screening Levels (2)
METALS mIl/KIl-d~ Q RL Method A(1) Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
Antimony 0.3 N 0.3 1501")
Arsenic 2.8 0.3 20 57
Cadmium 0.3 0.3 2 5.1
Chromium 21.1 0.7 2,000 260
Chromium+6 (SM3500Cr-D) 0.589 U 0.589 19
Copper 15.3 0.7 390
Lead 10 1 250 450
Mercury (EPA 7471A) 0.06 U 0.06 2 0.41
Nickel 24.7 0.7 140"')
Selenium 0.7 U 0.7 3(3)
Silver 0.03 U 0.3 6.1
Zinc 48 6 410
Notes:
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
11) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg
12) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern -Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
(3) Numerical value shown is for Bioaccumulation Trigger (BT) -DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
20
1.1
95
80
340
0.28
60
2.0
130
Table 3-3: Sediment Results I Volatile Organics Compounds
Sample: 071021/Barbee/G-1
Description: Grab Sample from Station BBSED-1
Analytical Method: EPA 8260 GC/MS Volatile Organics Analysis
MTCA Screening Levels 12)
VOLATILE ORGANICS ua /Ka-d '1 Q RL Method All) Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
Chloromethane 1.3 U 1.3
Bromomethane 1.3 U 1.3
Vinyl Chloride 1.3 U 1.3
Chloroethane 1.3 U 1.3
Methylene Chloride 2.7 U 0.7 20
Acetone 17 6.7
Carbon Disulfide 1.3 U 1.3
1,1-Dichloroethene 1.3 U 1.3
1 ,1-Dichloroethane 1.3 U 1.3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.3 U 1.3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.3 U 1.3
Cfhloroform 1.3 U 1.3
1,2-Dichloroethane 1.3 U 1.3
2-Butanone 6.7 U 6.7
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.3 U 1.3
Carbon Tetrachloride 1.3 U 1.3
Vinyl Acetate 6.7 U 6.7
Bromodichloromethane 1.3 U 1.3
1,2-Dichloropropane 1.3 U 1.3
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.3 U 1.3
Trichloroethene 1.3 U 1.3 160
Dibromochloromethane 1.3 U 1.3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.3 U 1.3
Benzene 1.3 U 1.3 30
2-Chloroethylvinylether 6.7 U 6.7
Bromoform 1.3 U 1.3
2-Methyl-2-pentanone 6.7 U 6.7
2-Hexanone 6.7 U 6.7
Tetrachloroethene 1.3 U 1.3 57
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 U 1.3
Toluene 1.3 U 1.3
Chlorobenzene 1.3 U 1.3
Ethylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3 6 10
Styrene 1.3 U 1.3
Trichlorofluoromethane 1.3 U 1.3
1,1,2-Trichloro-1.2.2-trifluoroethane 2.7 U 2.7
m,p-Xylene 1.3 U 1.3 40(3)
o-Xylene 1.3 U 1.3 40(3)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.3 U 1.3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.3 U 1.3
l,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.3 U 1.3
Acrolein 67 U 67
Methyl Iodide 1.3 U 1.3
Bromoethane 2.7 U 2.7
Acrylonitrile 6.7 U 6.7
1,1-Dichloropropene 1.3 U 1.3
Dibromomethane 1.3 U 1.3
Table 3-3: Sediment Results I Volatile Organics Compounds
Sample: 071021/Barbee/G-1
Description: Grab Sample from Station BBSED-1
Analytical Method: EPA 8260 GC/MS Volatile Organics Analysis
MTCA Screening Levels (2)
VOLATILE ORGANICS ua /K a-d !1 Q RL Method A(1) Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 U 1.3
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 6.7 U 6.7
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 2.7 U 2.7
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 6.7 U 6.7
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3
Hexachlorbutadiene 6.7 U 6.7
Ethylene Dibromide 1.3 U 1.3 5
Bromochloromethane 1.3 U 1.3
2,2-Dichloropropane 1.3 U 1.3
1,3-Dichloropropane 1.3 U 1.3
Isopropylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3
n-Propylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3
Bromobenzene 1.3 U 1.3
2-Chlorotoluene 1.3 U 1.3
4-Chlorotoluene 1.3 U 1.3
tert-Butylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3
sec-Butylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3
4-lsopropyltoluene 1.3 U 1.3
n-Butylbenzene 1.3 U 1.3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 6.7 U 6.7
Naphthalene 6.7 U 6.7
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 6.7 U 6.7
Notes:
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg)
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern -Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
(3) Screening Level shown is for Total Xylenes (0, m, p)
Table 3-4: Sediment Results I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-l
Analytical Method: EPA 82700 GC/MS Semivolatile Organics Analysis
MTCA Screening Levels(2)
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ull/KIl-d~ Q RL Method A(l) Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
PAHs
Total LPAH(5) 70 5,200 6,600
Naphthalene 20 U 20 5000(3) 2,100 500
Acenapthylene 20 U 20 560 470
Acenapthene 20 U 20 500 1,100
Fluorene 20 U 20 540 1,000
P hena nth rene 70 20 1,500 6,100
Anthracene 20 U 20 960 1,200
2-Methylnaphthalene 20 U 20 5000(3) 670 470
1-Methylnaphthalene 20 U 20 5000(3)
Total HPAH(6) 275 N/A 12,000 31,000
Fluoranthene 99 20 1,700 11,000
Pyrene 56 20 2,600 8,800
Benz( a)a nthracene 28 20 1,300 4,300
Chrysene 39 20 1,400 5,900
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 29 20 3,200 14 ) 600(4)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 24 20 3,20014 ) 60014)
Benzo(a)pyrene 20 U 20 10016 ) 1,600 3,300
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 20 U 20 600 4,100
Diben(a, h)anthracene 20 U 20 230 800
Benzo(g, h,i)perylene 20 U 20 670 4,000
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 20 U 20 170
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 20 U 20 110
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 20 U 20 35
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 20 U 20 31
Hexachlorobenzene 20 U 20 22
PHTHALATES
Dimethylphthalate 20 U 20 71 46
Diethylphthalate 20 U 20 200
Di-n-Butylphthalate 20 U 20 1,400
Butylbenzylphthalate 20 U 20 63 260
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 82 20 1,300 220
Di-n-Octylphthalate 20 U 20 6,200 26
PHENOLS
Phenol 20 U 20 420
2-Methylphenol 20 U 20 63
4-Methylphenol 20 U 20 670
2,4-Dimethylphenol 20 U 20 29
Pentachlorophenol 100 U 100 400
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTIBLES
Benzyl Alcohol 20 U 20 57
Benzoic Acid 200 U 200 650
Hexachloroethane 20 U 20 1,400
Hexachlorobutadiene 20 U 20 22(1)
Sample: 0710211BarbeeiC
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-l
Analytical Method: EPA 82700 GCIMS Semivolatile Organics Analysis
MTCA
Method A(l)
Screening Levels(2)
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ug/Kg-dry Q RL Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
Notes:
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Dibenzofuran
20
20
U
U
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
20
20
(1) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg)
28
540 400
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern -Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
(3) Total shown for Naphthalene, 1-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalene
(4) Totals shown is for both band k Benzofluoranthenes
(5) Does not include undetected parameters or 1-and 2-methylnaphthalene
(6) Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Indeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene,Benzo(b & k)fluoranthene
and Benzo(a)anthracene. Total does not include undetected parameters.
(7) Draft value is 11 ug/Kg in DMMO Table 7-1 (September 30, 2005)
(8) Method B -Soil Ingestion Pathway
Table 3·5: Sediment Results I Pesticides and PCBs
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-l
Analytical Method: GC/ECD • Pesticides IPCBs
MTCA Screening Levels")
PESTICIDES & PCBS u9/K9-d~ Q RL Method A(l) Manne (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.98 U 0.98 10
Heptachlor 0.98 U 0.98 1.5
Aldrin 0.98 U 0.98 9.5
Dieldrin 2.0 U 2.0 1.9
4,4'-DDE 2.0 U 2.0 16
4,4'-000 2.0 U 2.0 9
4,4'-DDT 2.0 U 2.0 3000 12
gamma Chlordane 0.98 U 0.98 2.8(3)
alpha Chlordane 2.0 U 2.0 2.8(3)
Total DDT(4)(5) 3.0 6.9(2')
Aroclor 1016 20 U 20.0
Aroclor 1242 20 U 20.0
Aroclor 1248 20 U 20.0
Aroclor 1254 20 U 20.0
Aroclor 1260 20 U 20.0
Aroclor 1221 20 U 20.0
Aroclor 1232 20 U 20.0
Total PCBs (5 ) 70 U 1000 130 60
Notes:
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern -Draft (Table 7-1) and from (2a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
(3) Screening Level for alpha and gamma Chlordane
(4) Includes DOE, DOD, DDT
(5) Includes undetected parameters at 50% of reporting Limit (RL)
Table 3-6: Sediment Results I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Sample: 071 021 IBarbee/C
Description:
Analytical Method:
Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
GC/FID -NWTPHD
NWTPHD
Diesel
Motor Oil
mg/Kg-dry Q
15
95
Benzene not detected (see Volatile Organics Resulls)
Notes:
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
RL
7.0
14
MTCA Screening Levels (2)
Method A(1 ) Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
2000
2000
(1) 2001 Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg
(2) Marine and Freshwaler Screening Levels from Sediment Qualily Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern -Draft (Table 7-1) and from (a) DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
Table 3-7: Rinsate I Total Metals
Sample:
Description:
Analytical Method:
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
071021/Barbee/R
Decon/Rinsate Sample
EPA 200.8 and 7471A (Mercury) Metals Analysis
ug/L Q RL
0.2 U 0.2
0.2 U 0.2
0.2 U 0.2
0.5 U 0.5
0.5 U 0.5
1 U 1
0.1 U 0.1
0.5 U 0.5
0.5 U 0.5
0.2 U 0.2
0.4 U 0.4
Table 3-8: Rinsate I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample: 071021/Barbee/R
Description: Decon/Rinsate Sample
Analytical Method: EPA 8270D GC/MS Semivolatile Organics Analysis
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ue /L Q RL
Phenol 1 U 1
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1
l,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1
Benzyl Alcohol 5 U 5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 U 1
2-Methylphenol 1 U 1
4-Methylphenol 1 U
Hexachloroethane 1 U 1
2,4-Dimethylphenol 1 U 1
Benzoic Acid 10 U 10
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1 U 1
Naphthalene 1 U
Hexachlorobutadiene 1 U
2-Methylnaphthalene 1 U 1
Dimethylphthalate 1 U 1
Acenapthylene 1 U 1
Acenapthene 1 U 1
Dibenzofuran 1 U 1
Diethylphthalate 1 1
Fluorene 1 U 1
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1 U 1
Hexachlorobenzene 1 U 1
Pentachlorophenol 5 U 5
Phenanthrene U 1
Anthracene 1 U 1
Di-n-Butylphthalate 3.9 1
Fluoranthene 1 U 1
Pyrene 1 U 1
Butylbenzylphthalate 4.1 4.1
Benz(a)anthracene 1 U 1
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1 U 1
Chrysene 1 U 1
Di-n-Octylphthalate 1 U 1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 U 1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 U 1
Benzo(a)pyrene 1 U 1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 U 1
Diben( a, h)anth racene 1 U 1
Benzo(g, h,i)perylene 1 U 1
4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary
All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources.
Inc .. Seattle. W A) on ice under Chain of Custody. As described in the previous
section. the composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters and the
measurement of concentrations of chemicals. which have been identified by DMMP
as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide
low level detection limits for coes. Specialized analyses for Volatile Organic
Compounds and Total Volatile Solids were conducted on grab sample
071021IBarbee/G-I.
Sample containers. preservation. holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were
acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and PSEP
protocols, The rinsate sample (071021/Barbee/R) was analyzed for Semi-Volatile
Organics and Metals.
Conventional Testing Resnlts
The QA review summary for Conventional Parameters is provide in Table 4-1
Precision data was acceptable with an RPO less than 20% for all parameters.
Matrix spike recovery data was acceptable for all parameters. and Standard
Reference recoveries were greater than 80%. All Method Blanks were at or
below reporting/detection limits. All conventional data reported in Table 3-1
(previous section is acceptable as reported by the laboratory without
additional qualification.
Total Metals
Composite Sample 071021/Barbee/C was analyzed for total metals. These
results are provided in Table 3-2. Hexavalent Chromium was also analyzed
and reported by ARI as a conventional parameter.
As summarized in Table 4-2. Precision data for metals (except Mercury and
Hexavalent Chromium) was marginal with RPDs greater than 20% for all
parameters yet within a Factor of 2. The highest value for each duplicate pair
is reported in Tahle 3-2. Although a source of error could not be determined.
the consistency of duplicate data suggests that a dilution error may have
occurred. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than zero for all parameters
200S-5rl Barbee Sedimel11 Samplmg Re~ulls,J()c Page 1401'20
and marginally low for several parameters as identified in Table 4-2.
l.aboratory Control Sample Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate data
were acceptable.
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met the Advisory Range
for all metals. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection
limits. All metals data presented in Table 3-2 are acceptable as reported by
the laboratory except as qualified. Antimony data was qualified as N (not
acceptable) because of poor matrix spike recovery.
Rinsate/decon metals testing results are provided in Tables 3-7 at the end of
this section. No metals were detected in the rinsate/decon sample
(071021IBarbee/R).
Volatile Organic Compounds
Grab Sample 071 021/l3arbee/G-I was analyzed for volatile organics by EPA
GCMS Method 8260. Results arc provided in Table 3-3.
As shown in Table 3-3: Volatile Organics. the only detected volatile organic
parameter was acetone at 17 ug/Kg-dry. acetone is a common laboratory
contaminant even though it was not detected in the method blank.
Table 4-3 provides a quality assurance review summary of volatile organic
data. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 35% lor all
parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was acceptable although matrix spike
recoveries were marginally low for several analytes in both the matrix spike
and matrix spike duplicate. as noted in Table 4-3. Surrogate recoveries were
acceptable for all parameters.
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable. and method blanks results
were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-3 is
deemed acceptable.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Composite Sample 071 021/Barbee/C was analyzed lor semivolatile organics
by EPA GCMS Method 8270D. Table 4-4 provides a quality assurance
summary of semivolatile organic data. Duplicate precision data was
acceptable with RPDs less than 35% for all parameters. Matrix spike
recovery data was greater than 50% except as noted in Table 4-4. All matrix
spike and matrix spike dupl icate recoveries wcre greater than zero for all
parameters.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria although
a number of surrogate recovers were less than the 50% warning limit.
2008-50 8arbee Seullnenl Sampling Results doc Page 15 of20
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance
criteria. Method blank results were at Or below reporting/detection limits. All
semivolatile organic data reported in Table 3-4 is deemed acceptable.
Pesticides and PCBs
Composite Sample 071021 /Barbee/C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs
by GC/ECD (Dual Column -Methods 8081 A and Method 8082, respectively).
As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PC Bs were detected at reporting
limits. All reporting limits llx all semi-volatile organic compounds were less
than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally, all
undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A -Soil Cleanup I.evels for
Unrestricted I.and Use.
Tables 4-5 and 4-6 provide a quality assurance summary of pesticide and
PCB data, respectively. Dupl icate precision data was acceptable with RPDs
less than 35% fllr all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than
50%. Spike recoveries were greater than zero lor all parameters.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all
surrogates.
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance
criteria. Method blanks results were at or below reporting/detection limits.
All data reported in Table 3-5 is deemed acceptable as reported by the
laboratory .
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Composite Sample 071021/Barbee/C was analyzed for petroleum
hydrocarbons by GClFID (Method NWTHH-D). Results are provided in
Table 3-6.
Table 4-7 provides a quality assurance summary of petroleum hydrocarbon
data. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 35% for all
parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50%. Spike
recoveries were greater than zero lor all parameters.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria I(lr all
surrogates Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory
acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection
limits. All data reported in Table 3-6 for pesticides and PCBs is acceptable as
reported.
200R-50 Harhe~ Sedlmenl Swnpling Rt.."sults doc Page 16 of20
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Sediment Sampling
Sampling work conducted at the Barbee Boathouse Area Dredging Project
was informative. Prior to sampling we had anticipated that medium to course
sandy materials would be encountered based on previous experience. Portions
of the proposed dredge area outside of the boathouse were most recently
dredged in 2002 during the last May Creek Delta Dredging. Sediments below
the proposed dredge profile (within the over-depth) were more typical of what
we anticipated. Infill material currently within the proposed dredge profile
tends to be finer sediment unsuitable for shallow water fish habitat
enhancement along the rockery to the immediate south. Therefore, all
dredged materials will be oft:loaded to land of or placed in open water under
the Dredge Material Management Program (DM MP).
Core sampling in sandy sediments is marginal at best. Nevertheless, we
arrived on site with a number of sampling devices. Because of the extensive
milfoil and lakebed accumulation of small woody debris (sticks. twigs.
leaves), the gravity corer did not prove to very effective. A modified Shelby
Tube that was hand driven proved to be very effective with the dredge profile
where infill materials tend to be fine sands with appreciable silt content. The
VanVeen sampler worked extremely well in limited usc at Sampling Station
BBSED-4. This sampler should be ideal for conformational sampling. if
required. after dredging.
As indicated in Section 2.0. over-depth sediments tend to be much coarser,
and core recoveries in the over-depth zone were very poor such that it was not
possible to get a representative sample of the over-depth. The over-depth
sediments (below the proposed dredge profile) more closely approximated the
kind of dredge material anticipated (based on prior experience) prior to
sampling.
Because dredging has largely been conducted at the former Barbee Millon
fairly regular 3-4 years cycles. we were surprised at how much milfoil was
encountered throughout the proposed dredge area. If this is typical of Lake
2008-50 Barbe<..' Sediment Sampl ing Results_doc Page 17 of20
Washington. then the problem is more extensive than previously considered
by our project team.
Chemical Contamination
Based on sediment results provided in Section 3.0 of this report. the Barbee
Boathouse Dredge Area is remarkably clean. All detected and undetected
results were less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
Additionally. all detected and undetected contaminant levels were less than
MTCA Method A -Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use.
Like most urban areas, low levels of PAH compounds, as well as, phthalate
esters, were encountered. No pesticides or PCBs were detected and
concentrations of detected metals were unremarkable. Petroicum hydrocarbon
residues (motor oil at 95 mg/Kg-dry, and diesel at 14 mg/Kg-dry) were
detected. The presence of motor oil was somewhat of a mystery because no
visible sheen was apparent in any grab sample or in the prepared composite
sample. Nevertheless. we did observe a stringy streak of oily material at
sampling station BBSED-4 ncar the boathouse. This material did not spread
into a sheen as might be anticipated. Base on our experience. the stringy
material appeared to be decomposed plant material. In any case. the
laboratory confinned the spectral match for motor oil in the composite
sample.
Because of the presence of detected motor oil in the composite sample, the use
of dredged sediments containing petroleum hydrocarbons (motor oil and
traces or diesel) for shallow water habitat enhancement should not be
encouraged.
Because detected contaminant levels for all measured chemicals or concern
were below screening criteria for marine and fresh water disposal or beneficial
uses, further biological testing is not recommended.
Recommendations for Confirmational / Future Sampling
As soon as an area is dredged in the future. conformational sampling (if
required) should be conducted with a VanVeen Sampler in the over-depth
profile with testing for petroleum hydrocarbon residues (diesel and motor oil).
Operationally this could be accomplished in conjunction with dredging. For
example when a reasonably defined area is dredged. such as the boathouse
footprint. a sample would be collected and analyzed on a rush basis for
NWTPH-Dx to determine whether additional dredging is necessary to remove
petroleum hydrocarbon impacted sediments. Observational data of any
potential sheen would supplement over-depth sampling and analysis data such
that the work can be completed in a timely manner. Based on sediment data
collected to date, there is no evidence that sampling and chemical analysis for
other potential contaminants of concern is necessary.
2008-50 Barbce Scdl1llcnl Sampling Rcsults doc Page 18 of20
Table 4-1: QA Summary I Conventional Parameters
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Varies by Analyte Analytical Method:
Quality Assurance Checks
Precision
071021/Barbee/C -Duplicate
Hexavalent Chromium
N-Ammonia
Sulfide
Total Solids
Preserved Total Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Volatile Solids
Matrix Spikes
071 021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike
Hexavalent Chromium
N-Ammonia
Sulfide
Total Organic Carbon
Laboratory Control Sample
Sulfide
Total Organic Carbon
Reference Materials
SRM
N-Ammonia (SPEX28-24AS)
Total Organic Crbon (NIST 8704)
Hexavalent Chrome (SRM)
Method Blanks
Notes:
Hexavalent Chromium
N-Ammonia
Sulfide
Total Solids
Preserved Total Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Volatile Solids
Meets Warning
Limits Criteria?
Actual RPD (%)
Not detected
5.4
16.3
0.9
1.7
12
7.9
Actual Recovery (%)
72.7
99.2
90.1
118.5
90.7
107.6
Recovery >80%
Yes
Yes
Yes
At or Below
Detection Limit
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Meets Action
CriterialOther?(1)
< 20% RPD?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recovery> zero?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Meets Advisory
Range?
Yes
Yes
Yes
(1) See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits (DMMP Users' Manual -Current Edition)
Table 4-2: QA Summary I Total Metals
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: EPA 200.8 and 7471A (Mercury) Metals Analysis
Quality Assurance Checks
Precision
071021/Barbee/C -Duplicate
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Matrix Spikes
071021/Barbee/C
Antimony
071021/Barbee/R
Lab Control Sample (LCS
Reference Materials
ERA 0044540
Selenium
Method Blank
No detected parameters in method blank at RL
Notes:
Meets Warning
Limits Criteria?
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
None
None
Meets Action
Criteria/Other?!')
< 20% RPD
Yes(l)
No
No
No
No
No
No
75-125%
Recovery?
Yes(3)
No
Yes
Yes
Meets Advisory
Range?
Yes(4)
No
(1) See Table 6-3 OMMP Warning and Action Limits (OMMP Users' Manual -Current Edition)
(2) As noted immediately below, Action Limits were not met for low level detections where small
differences create large RPO's. May also be a preparation and/or a dilution problem with either
the sample or duplicate. Highest values reported.
(3) Meets Recovery Criteria except for Antimony. Actual recovery at 6.7% on spike.
Control Limit Not Met for Antimony
Note case narrative regarding strong acid digestions for Antimony.
(4) Except as noted below for Selenium, which exceeded UCL (upper control limit for CRM)
Table 4-3: QA Summary I Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample: 071021/Barbee/G-1
Description: Grab Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: EPA 8260BGC/MS Volatile Organics Analysis
Quality Assurance Checks
Precision
Laboralory Control Spike/Spike Duplicate
071 021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate
Matrix Spikes
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike (MS)
2-Chloroethylvinylether
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
Naphthalene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD)
2-Chloroethylvinylether
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
Laboratory Control Spike (LCS-102707)
Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate(LCS) /
Reference Materials
Laboratory Control Spike/Spike Duplicate
Surrogate Recovery
071021/Baroee/C
Laboratory Control Spike (LCS-102707)
Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate (LCSD)
071021/Baroee/C -Matrix Spike (MS)
071021/Baroee/C -Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD)
Method Blank (102707)
Method Blank
No detected parameters in method blank at RL
Notes:
Meets Warning
Limits Criteria?
< 35% RPD
Yes
Yes
70 -150% Recovery
Yes(1)
41.9
56.6
57.9
52.2
Yes(1)
42.2
56.6
59.5
51.7
Yes
Yes
None
> 85 % Recovery?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(1) Warning Limit criteria met except as listed immediately below.
(2) EPAlCLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits
Meets Action
Criteria/Other?11)
< 50% COVor
Factor of 2
Yes
Yes
Recovery> zero?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
Meets Recovery
Limits?12)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 4-4: QA Summary I Semvolatile Organic Compounds
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: EPA 82670-0 GC/MS Semi-Volatile Organics Analysis
Quality Assurance Checks
Precision
Laboratory Control Spike/Spike Duplicate
Matrix Spikes
Laboratory Control Spike (LCS-11 026607
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 A-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Benzyl Alcohol
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate(LCS) I
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 A-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Acenapthene
Reference Materials
LCS-110207
SRM SO-1(3)
Surrogate Recovery
071021/Barbee/C
d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Fluorophenol
071021/Barbee/R (rinsate sample)
Laboratory Control Spike (LCS-110207)
d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Fluorophenol
2A,6 Tribromophenol
Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate (LCSD)
d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Fluorophenol
SO-1111207
d5-Nitrobenzene
d4-1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Meets Warning Limits
Criteria?
< 35% RPD
Yes
50 -150% Recovery
Yes(1 )
46.4%
45.8%
48.2%
46.6%
42.6%
48.6%
44.8%
46.6%
Yes (1 )
46.2%
47.4%
48.4%
48.6%
49.8%
44.8%
49.0%
49.8%
None
>50 % Minimum
Yesl1 )
49.2%
48.3%
Yes
Yes (1 )
43.2%
45.1%
49.3%
YeS(1)
44.0%
44.0%
Yes(1 )
47.6%
40.8%
Meets Action
Criteria/Other?(1)
< 50% COVor
Factor of 2
Yes
Recovery> zero?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
Meets Recovery
Limits?!2J
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
d5-Phenol
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6 Tribromophenol
d4-2-Chlorophenol
Method Blank (102067)
Method Blank-102607
No detected parameters in method blank at RL
Notes:
(1) Warning Limit criteria met except as listed immediately below
(2) EPAlCLP andlor Chemical Specific Recovery Limits
(3) Sequim Bay Reference Material (1998)
49.3%
45.3%
42.1%
49.1%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 4-5: QA Summary I Pesticides
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
GC/ECD -Pesticides (Method 8081A) Analytical Method:
Quality Assurance Checks
Precision
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS-MS/MSD)
Matrix Spikes
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike Duplicate
Reference Materials
LCS-111607
SRM SQ_l(3)
Surrogate Recovery
071021/Barbee/C
0710211Barbee/C -Matrix Spike
0710211BarbeelC -Matrix Spike Duplicate
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS-111607)
Standard Reference Material (SQ-l)
Method Blank (111607)
Method Blank
No detected parameters in method blank at RL
Notes:
(1) See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits
(2) EPAlCLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits
(3) Sequim Bay Reference Material (1998)
Meets Warning Limits
Criteria?
<35% RPD
Yes
50 -150% Recovery
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
> 60 % Recovery?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Meets Action
Criteria/Other?11)
< 50% COVor
Factor of 2
Yes
Recovery> zero?
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
Meets Recovery
Limits?(')
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 4·6: QA Summary I PCBs
Sample: 071 021/Ba rbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU·1
GC/ECD -PCBs Analytical Method:
Quality Assurance Checks
Precision
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate
Matrix Spikes
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate
Reference Materials
LCS-110307
SRM SO-l(')
Surrogate Recovery
071021/Barbee/C
071 021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike Duplicate
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS-11 0307)
Standard Reference Material (SO-l)
Method Blank (110307)
Method Blank
No detected parameters in method blank at RL
Notes:
Meets Warning Limit
Criteria?
< 35% RPD
Yes
50 -150% Recovery
Yes
None
Meets PSEP Control
> 60 % Recovery?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Meets Action
Criteria/Other?11)
< 50% COVor
Factor of 2
Yes
Recovery> zero?
Yes
None
Meets Recovery
Limits?12)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(1) See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits (DMMP Users' Manual -Current Edition)
(2) EPAlCLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits
(3) Sequim Bay Reference Material (1998)
Table 4-7: QA Summary I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Sample: 071021/Barbee/C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
GC/FID -NWTPHD Analytical Method:
Quality Assurance Checks
Precision
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate
Matrix Spikes
071 021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate
Surrogate Recovery
071021/Barbee/C
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike
071021/Barbee/C -Matrix Spike Duplicate
LC Spike/Spike Duplicate
Method Blank
Reference Materials
LC Spike/Spike Duplicate (LCS-1 02507)
Notes:
Meets Warning
Limits Criteria?
< 35% RPD
Yes
50 -150% Recovery
> 50 % Recovery?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
Meets Action
Criteria/Other?")
< 50% COVor
Factor of 2
Yes
Recovery> zero?
Yes
Meets Recovery
Limits?(2)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
(I) See Table 6-3 DMMP Warning and Action Limits (DMMP Users' Manual-Current Edition)
(2) EPA/CLP and/or Chemical Specific Recovery Limits
LAKE STUDY
LAKE HOUSES AT EAGLE COVE
SEDIMENT DEPOSITION MITIGATION
Prepared for
Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Prepared by
Meridian
December 23, 2016
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 4
2.0 Existing Conditions and Ecological Functions ...................................................................... 5
2.1 Description of the Study Area .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Critical Areas and Habitat ................................................................................................. 5
Lake Washington ..................................................................................................................... 5
May Creek ............................................................................................................................... 9
Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 12
Habi~t .................................................................................................................................. 12
Soils/Substrates .................................................................................................................... 12
Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 13
2.3 2016 Aquatic Habitat Survey .......................................................................................... 13
Survey Methods .................................................................................................................... 13
2016 SCUBA Survey Results .................................................................................................. 14
3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 19
3.1 Project Purpose .............................................................................................................. 19
3.2 Proposed Shoreline Modifications ................................................................................. 19
4.0 Analysis of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 20
5.0 Impact Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 21
5.1 Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 21
5.2 Large Woody Debris ....................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Overwater Cover ............................................................................................................ 22
5.4 Lighting ........................................................................................................................... 23
5.5 Water Quality (substrate disturbance and discharge of waste products) ..................... 23
6.0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 25
7.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 26
Tables
Table 1. Summary of observations recorded during the December 16, 2016 project area SCUBA
survey ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 2
c:\u sers\frys\AppData\Local\ T emp\2016 Lake StudY-l.docx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Figures
Figure 1. Project area map (Lloyd and Associates 2016) ............................................................... 6
Figure 2. Coho salmon juveniles observed during the 2007 SCUBA survey .................................. 8
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (1990) ...................................................... 11
Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (2016) ...................................................... 11
Figure 5. 2016 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations ............................................................ 14
Figure 6. Leaf litter substrate near the west end of Transect 1 .................................................. 16
Figure 7. Silt substrate with low densities of M. spicatum and P. crisp us along Transect 2 ....... 16
Figure 8. Dense stands of P. crisp us observed along Transect 3 ................................................. 17
Figure 9. Dense stands of M. spicatum observed along Transect 3 (note log boom at the
surface) ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 10. Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crispus, and E. canadensis at the mid-point of Transect 4 .
....................................................................................................................................................... W
Figure 11. Gravel and cobble substrate (fish rock) observed along Transect 7 .......................... 18
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx
Page 3
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
LAKE STUDY
LAKE HOUSES AT EAGLE COVE
SEDIMENT DEPOSITION MITIGATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This lake Study was prepared to obtain a 10-year permit from the City of Renton to allow
dredging of an expanded area of lake Washington located directly south the May Creek delta
(adjacent to the lake Houses at Eagle Cove) (Figure 1; Appendix A). Periodic maintenance
dredging is needed at this location to preserve navigational access to the docks and boathouse;
and to preserve access for swimming, canoeing, and other water sports. While maintenance
dredging to remove accumulated sediments has occurred within and near the May Creek delta
for over 50 years, the proposed project addressed in this study is focused on the expanded
zone shown in Appendix A', and could entail the removal of as much as 4,000 to 8,000 cubic
yards (CY) of sediment every 3 to 4 years, due to increasing volumes of sediment that are
delivered to the project area as a result of activities in the upper May Creek watershed.
In addition to expanding the dredging prism, the proposed project would involve seven
environmental protection and enhancement measures in the local area. These include the
following:
• Place 20 CY "fish rock'" along the rockery as well as several yards of fish rock
adjacent to the boat ramp on lot A;
• Replace a solid wood float with a grated float that maximizes light transmission;
• Replace three treated wood piles securing the old float with two lO-inch galvanized
pipe piles;
• Replace two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each), at the south end of the
project site with a single 12-inch galvanized pipe pile at each location;
• Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline
north of the dredging zone to protect near-shore habitat that may be used by
rearing Chinook salmon;
1 Currently federal permits are focused on the north end of the project site.
2 Spawning gravel sized substrate used to enhance nearshore aquatic habitat for salmonids.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\local\ Temp\2016 La ke Study-l.docx
Page 4
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
• Enhance the north end of the project boundary through the placement of large
woody debris (LWD) (approximately five to ten rootwads) to improve aquatic
habitat, help stabilize the shoreline, and facilitate sediment deposition to reduce the
need for future maintenance dredging; and
• Conduct dredging only during the NMFS approved July 16 -September 15 work
window.
In Renton, shoreline areas are governed by the Shoreline Master Program and regulated
specifically by RMC 4-3-090. Because Lake Washington is considered a critical area by the City
of Renton, Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-0S0-F-2(c) requires that a lake study be
conducted as part of any modification to a lake critical area. Specifically, the lake study must
demonstrate that the proposed modifications would result in no net loss, meaning the
applicant must demonstrate that the modifications, combined with any mitigation efforts,
would result in equivalent or better protection of shoreline functions. This lake study fulfills the
City's requirement.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The proposed project area includes five waterfront lots in the Eagle Cove area of Lake
Washington located immediately south of the May Creek Delta at 3905 -3909 Lake Washington
Boulevard, Renton, WA 98056, including the boat house parcel (Figure 1). Appendix A shows
the proposed expanded dredging zone.
In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during dredging, the study
area includes the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington within
approximately one half mile of the May Creek delta. It is anticipated that the one half mile
project area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in turbidity
during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in the delta.
2.2 CRITICAL AREAS AND HABITAT
Lake Washington
Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state of Washington with 80 miles of
shoreline, including about 30 miles along the shore of Mercer island. Lake Washington is a
Shoreline of Statewide Significance and is classified as a Type-S waterbody. Over 82 percent of
the Lake Washington shoreline is armored and is shaded by more than 2,700 piers and docks.
Regulated lake levels and extensive armoring have hampered sediment transport and sandy
beaches need to be augmented by periodic sediment supplies. Additional factors affecting the
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx
Page 5
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
habitat features in the Lake Washington basin include a lack of riparian vegetation due to
clearing and development; loss of channel and shoreline complexity including a lack of woody
debris and pools; the development of fish passage barriers with the construction of road
crossings, weirs, and dams; and degraded water and sediment quality caused by increases in
pollutants and high temperatures.
\.
BNSF Railroad
Scale (ftl
t I
I ,
Iii iii
o 500 1noo
OA~ USACE, SeaI:de Diana :~3)
AUlACENT PROPERTY CWNERS
0,) -, FOI"tt.t~""eHc:uces
~ ~ Mill Dewtocmerd
\j)~~;:e
LOCATION ADDRESS
)9«' LakeW~6I'I'd N
Rert:r VIg Co!.rIty WA ~5
~T~R!r'I~ NW322405
J.. 4Tho31'o4(l' Long 122W 11 W
PROPOSED ;'n'l1l'Ollmental Ennancemen1
WATERBODY· LW;I! Washlf'9lOn
NEIGHBOROOOO
Figure 1. Project area map (Lloyd and Associates 2016).
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Loca I, Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.doc)(
Page 6
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
The Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and
Sammamish, and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It
also includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain into
the system from the north. Historically, Lake Washington had a vegetated shoreline of
wetlands, trees, brush, and other mixed vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for
juvenile salmon ids and other aquatic species.
Habitat degradation started with heavy logging of old growth forest throughout much of the
watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle began diverting water out of the
upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910 through 1920, the natural
Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake Washington Ship Canal
and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake Washington to Lake
Union and then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake that was not
connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of the Lake
Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to 10 feet and
the loss of over 10 miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake
margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for
juvenile salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. During that same decade, the Cedar
River was redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington. In the
ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been the
expansion of urban and suburban development.
Despite the heavy alteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support numerous
salmonid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest salmonid populations, the
Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye, coho, steel head, rainbow
and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char (bull trout). Chinook salmon, steelhead trout,
and bull trout are currently listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA), and coho salmon are a Species of Concern under the ESA. Some of the small
independent Puget Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and cutthroat. Maps illustrating
known and presumed distributions for each of these species are available in Kerwin (2001).
Additionally, at least 40 non-native fish species (of which approximately 24 persist) have been
introduced into the Lake Washington basin, most notably small mouth and largemouth bass,
creating numerous trophic interactions with native species, including substantial predation on
native salmonids. Sockeye salmon in the lake system are believed to be primarily the
descendants of fry transplanted from Baker Lake in the 1930s. While many species have been
introduced, native species such as Cedar River pink and chum salmon have been extirpated.
Over the past 23 years3 numerous salmonid species have been documented at or near the
proposed project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye salmon, rainbow trout/steel head,
and cutthroat trout (Figure 4). No bull trout spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been
3 Lake surveys associated with permitting dredging and ather activities at the Barbee Mil site began in 1993.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 7
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 La ke Study-l.dacx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
observed in May Creek, and no distinct spawning populations are known to exist in Lake
Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse.
Non-salmonid species documented during surveys in the study area included largemouth and
small mouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, northern pikeminnow, three-spine
stickleback, prickly sculpin, dace, and shiner (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental
Inc. 2007; and Meridian Environmental Inc. 2012). These findings are consistent with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
database list for the project site, which includes all of the above salmonid species, as well as
bull trout.
Figure 2. Coho salmon juveniles observed during the 2007 SCUBA survey.
Adult Chinook typically migrate into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid-June, peaking
in late-August (Kerwin 2001). Spawning typically occurs from mid-September through
November. Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from approximately January through June. Most
juvenile Chinook move through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the entire
outmigration period is unknown (Kerwin 2001).
Adult coho begin entering Lake Washington in late-August and continue to enter the lake
through early December. Most coho spawning occurs in November and December (Kerwin
2001). Juvenile coho typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater. In Lake Washington, the
peak of the outmigration occurs in early May (Kerwin 2001).
Adult steelhead spawn from mid-December through early June in the Lake Washington basin.
Juveniles can spend several years in freshwater before migrating to saltwater. Therefore,
juvenile steelhead could be present in Lake Washington all year.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Loca 1\ Temp\2016 La ke Study-l.docx
Page 8
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Adult sockeye salmon enter Lake Washington from late May to late August, and arrival peaks in
early July (Hodgson and Quinn 2002). Adult sockeye hold in the lake below the thermocline all
summer (Newell and Quinn 2005) and spawn in September-January. Juvenile sockeye rear for
lor 2 years in the lake, although they are also found in the inlet and outlet streams of the lake.
Six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented in the project vicinity; elodea
(E/odea canadensis), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), white-stemmed pondweed
(Potamogeton pre/ongus), curly-leaf pondweed (P. crispus), American wild celery (Vallisneria
americana), and common water nymph (Najos guoda/upensis) (Harza 1993; Harza 2000;
Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001). Elodea is a native species found throughout
most of Lake Washington. Eurasian milfoil is a non-native species that first appeared in Lake
Washington in the mid-1970s. According to Kerwin (2001), Eurasian milfoil has colonized a
large percentage of the littoral zone and replaced much ofthe native aquatic vegetation
present in littoral areas of Lake Washington. Curly-leaf pondweed, American wild celery, and
common water nymph are also non-native to Lake Washington and are often found in ponds,
lakes and sluggish streams to depths of 12 feet.
In general, high densities of elodea, Eurasian milfoil, and curly-leaf pondweed have been
observed in the nearshore portion of the proposed project area (at depths less than 12 feet)
during the summer months (Harza 2000). The highest abundance is typically seen in depths of
6 to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the deeper water transects
(greater than 12 feet), the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is patchier and less abundant.
Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15 feet (Harza 1993 and 2000).
May Creek
The mouth of May Creek is located on Lake Washington approximately 2 miles north of the
Cedar River in Renton, Washington. The May Creek Basin drains an area approximately 14
square miles west of the Cascade Foothills between Issaquah Creek, Coal Creek, and the Cedar
River. The headwaters of the basin include Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and the East
Renton Plateau. The main stem of May Creek contains approximately 7 river-miles of habitat
and is fed by 13 primary tributaries.
Historically, the May Creek watershed was forested with predominantly coniferous stands.
Over recent decades, land uses in the western one-third of the basin have changed to intensive
residential development. The eastern two-thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural
residential, small farms, and some forested areas (King County 2001). Developed communities
in the watershed include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honey Creek, and Lake
Kathleen (Foster Wheeler 1998).
The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington State
Growth Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban-scale
development from encroaching on the headwaters of the basin. Land development in the
lower basin has substantially reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces, and filled
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 9
c:\u sers\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 Lake Study" 1.docx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
wetlands. Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage basin-wide is
approximately 7 percent. In addition, under current zoning, full build-out would result in
approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being covered in impervious surfaces (King
County 2001). This is significant, as basin-wide impervious surface areas of 10 percent or
greater have been found to have considerable impacts on the health of aquatic ecosystems
(May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991). Logging, coal mining, and agricultural
activities have resulted in channelized streams, floodplain encroachment, and eroding slopes in
the May Creek watershed.
The lower 4 miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the creek
experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of LWD (Foster
Wheeler 1998). The lack of LWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool
habitat. Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to forest removal, the
presence of rock quarries, and the expansion of road networks. Vegetation removal
throughout the basin has resulted in higher maximum flows and lower minimum flows. The
increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding and sediment
deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and flooding and
sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 2001). Analysis of past,
existing, and forecast storm runoff and flooding conditions of the May Creek Basin indicate that
flooding will probably continue to increase as the basin is developed. As a result, the May
Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) includes several restoration goals, one of which is to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin. However,
implementation of habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on funding
availability.
Historically, the Barbee Mill property (located adjacent to the May Creek delta) was highly
modified, with mill operations dominating the land use (Figure 3). Approximately 85 percent of
the site was covered by impervious surfaces in the form of pavement associated with mill
operations and approximately 15 structures used for mill offices, log handling, sawing, milling,
and storage of wood products. Over the past 15 years, and coinciding with the construction of
the Barbee Mill housing development, the Barbee Mill Company has substantially improved the
vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area from its confluence with Lake Washington to
Lake Washington Boulevard by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native
vegetation (Figure 4). In this area, the vegetated stream buffer ranges from approximately 5 to
over 100 feet in width. In addition, the Barbee Mill Company has placed clean fish rock over
2,100 square feet of the shoreline along the lake's rockery shoreline to the south of the
boathouse dock to enhance shallow water habitat for fish.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docl(
Page 10
Lak e St udy Lloyd and As so ciates, Inc.
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (1990).
Figure 4. Aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site (2016).
La ke Hou ses At Eagle Co ve Page 11
e :\Use rs\f ry s\AppData\Loca l\ T ernp\2016 la ke Study-l ,do(x
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
According to Foster Wheeler (1998), the lower reaches of May Creek experience the heaviest
use by fish. However, the primary limiting factor for Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is
available spawning area and incubation success. The primary limiting factor for coho,
steelhead, and cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and over-
wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Wetlands
According to King County's iMap database' there are no wetlands located within the immediate
vicinity of the proposed expanded dredging site. Nor do any other publicly available data
indicate the presence of aquatic areas aside from Lake Washington and May Creek.
Habitat
As discussed above, the littoral zone and shoreline of Lake Washington have been extenSively
modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake level; construction of piers, docks, and
bulkheads; removal of LWD; and the expansion of Eurasian milfoil and other non-native aquatic
macrophytes (Fresh and Lucchetti 2000). The previously hardstem bulrush-and willow-
dominated shoreline community has been replaced by developed and hardened shorelines with
landscaped yards. According to Toft (2001), an estimated 71 percent of the Lake Washington
shoreline is armored with riprap or bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers have
been built. This loss of natural shoreline has reduced the occurrence of complex shoreline
habitat features such as overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen
trees with branches and/or rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches, which has reduced
the availability of refuge habitat and forage for juvenile salmonids.
like most of the shoreline along Lake Washington, the shoreline in the proposed project area is
armored with riprap; however, emergent vegetation (50ft rush, grasses, sedges, etc.) grows at
depths less than 3 feet in areas to the north and east of the proposed dredge site. In 2007,
juvenile rainbow trout, coho salmon, and sticklebacks were observed using this emergent
vegetation as cover.
Soils/Substrates
Sediments in the proposed expanded dredge area (arising from May Creek depositional events)
tend to be fine to medium sands (SP -MP) grading to gravels in closer proximity to May Creek.
Sediments distal to May Creek trend to finer materials and silt. Within the May Creek delta,
larger cobbles and gravels are the dominant substrates. Riprap, cobble, sand and gravel
generally occur at depths less than 3 feet to the north and east of the proposed dredging zone.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the property (upslope of the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) contains Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Age) soil; however, this
area would not be disturbed by the project.
4 http://www . k i ngco u n tv .g ov I se rvi ces/gis/M aps/i ma p.a spx
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Loca 1\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.doc)(
Page 12
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Wildlife
In addition to the fish species described above, the WDFW PHS database lists three bald eagle
nests within 1 mile of the project site. All three nests are located to the west of the May Creek
delta on the southeastern tip of Mercer Island. It is reasonable to assume that bald eagles may
fly over the project site and that they may forage in the project area based on the presence of
documented nest sites and potential forage species, such as waterfowl, seagulls, and salmon,
which occur in and around May Creek and the southern portion of Lake Washington.
There is an existing osprey nest platform at the mouth of May Creek that has been occupied
during the breeding season (March through September) in the past, but no nest was seen on
the structure in December 2016. In addition to osprey, Meridian biologists have observed a
variety of ducks, Canada geese, and turtles during fish habitat and fish population surveys in the
project area.
2.3 2016 AQUATIC HABITAT SURVEY
On December 16, 2016, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed detailed SCUBA-
based aquatic habitat and fish presence surveys at the project site. Areas surveyed were (1)
within the proposed expanded dredging zone to the inner harbor line; and (2) along the eastern
and northern shoreline adjacent to the proposed dredging area; and (3) around the boat house.
The objective of these surveys was to:
• Document the existing aquatic habitat conditions during the winter of 2016;
• Determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and
• Describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the
survey.
An additional objective was to compare the results of 2016 surveys with the results of fish
habitat and fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in 1993, 2000,
2001,2007, and 2012).
Survey Methods
A Meridian fisheries biologist established seven underwater transects between the south end
of the May Creek delta and the existing dock and log boom located at the south end of the
proposed project area (Figure 5). Transects were designed to cover a large portion of the
proposed expanded dredge prism, ranged from 100 to 225 feet in length, and extended
approximately 500 feet into Lake Washington.
Similar to previous surveys, two fisheries biologists then used SCUBA equipment to swim each
of the seven transects approximately 2-3 feet above the surface of the lake bed. While
swimming each transect, divers recorded the water depth, dominant substrate, the species and
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Loca 1\ Temp\2016 lake Study-l.docx
Page 13
Lake St udy Ll oyd and Assoc iates, Inc.
size class of any fish encountered, aqu at ic macroph y t e composition and de nsity, and
underwa ter visibility. Aquatic macrophyte densities were visually esti m at ed and classif ied as
lo w (le ss than or equal to 10 stems p er squ are yar d), moderate (11 to 100 st em s per square
yard). or h igh (greater than 100 stems per squ are yard). In addition, d ivers recorded
und erwater vi d eo of representati ve habi tat con dition s a long each transect.
Figure 5. 2016 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations.
2016 SCUBA Survey Results
As di sc ussed in Section 2.2, num ero us sa lmonid and non -salmonid spec i es have been
docum en ted at or near th e propo se d project site, including coho, Chinook, and sockeye sa lmon ,
rainbow trout/steel head , cutthroat trout, largemou th a nd smallmouth bass, pumpkin seed
sunfi sh, ye ll ow perch , north ern pik eminnow, three -spin e st ickleb ack, pri ck ly sculpin, d ace, and
shiner (Harza 1993 ; Harz a 2000; Meridian Environmental Inc. 2007 ; an d Meridian
En viro nm ental Inc. 2012). All o f th ese species were observed using the proj ect site (primarily
alon g the margins of the lake ) during spring, summe r, an d fall surv eys. Th e 2016 survey
re presents the first ti m e that a wi nte r aquatic habit at survey was completed at the si t e.
No fi sh were observed in th e project area during the Decem be r 16, 2016 survey (Tab l e 1).
W h il e their absence from th e project ar ea was surpris in g, salmonids and other fish rear ing in
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 14
C :\use rs\frv s\App Da ta\local\ Te m p\20 16 lake St udy -l.docx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
freshwater have been found to shift to different habitats in the winter, and may have moved
into deeper water to overwinter.
Table 1. Summary of observations recorded during the December 16, 2016 project
area SCUBA survey.
Transect # General Aquatic Habitat Notes Fish Observations
1 Proceeded west from osprey nest pole heading offshore (Figure 5). 4-8' depth None
following the edge of sandy shelf on delta. Substrate was comprised of mostly
leaf litter with low to low densities of E. canadensis and M. spicatum (Figure
6).
2 Proceeded southeast from end of T1 to 20d log boom piling (Figure 5). 18' max None
depth approximately 14' average depth. Substrate was comprised of a mixture
of leaf litter and silt with low densities of M. spicatum and P. crisp us (Figure 7).
3 Proceeded north from eastern most log boom piling to point near osprey nest None
pole (Figure 5). 15' maximum depth with dense stands of P. crispus and M.
spicatum. Very tall patches -10' tall and only 2 to 3' feet below the surface
(Figures 8 and 9).
4 Proceeded south from the midpoint of log to the dock with the boat lift (Figure None
5). T max depth. Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crispus, and E. canadensis at
the mid-point of the transect (Figure 10).
5 Proceeded north from base of dock/boat lift to the end of the boathouse dock None
(Figure 5). 6' max depth. Large expanses of sand with low to moderate
densities of P. crispus, E. canadensis, and M. spicatum 1 live freshwater
mussel (Figure 11).
6 Proceeded from the end of transect 5 past the boat house to boat ramp None
(Figure 5). 5' max depth. Low densities of M. spicatum and E. canadensis.
7 Proceeded along shoreline from the boat ramp to the base of the dock at None
south end of proposed dredge prism (Figure 5). Substrate was comprised of
mostly gravel, cobble, and leaf litter. Depths average 2-3' and aquatic
vegetation was sparse. Abundant small freshwater mussels (Figure 12).
As in past SCUBA/snorkel surveys, the substrate in the proposed project area was observed to
be a mixture of silt and sand, riprap cobble, leaf litter, and fish rock patches. Riprap cobble,
sand, and gravel were the dominant substrates observed along transect 7 (Figure 5). The riprap
cobble and gravel was typically located within 6 feet of the shoreline to a depth of
approximately 3 feet. Sand was the dominant substrate along Transect 1 and silt and organic
debris (e.g., leaf material) were the dominant substrates along the remaining transects.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
c:\users\frys\AppData\Loca 1\ Temp\2016 La ke Study-l.docx
PagelS
Lake St udy Lloyd and Ass ociates , Inc.
Figure 6. Leaf litter substrate near the we s t end of Transect 1 .
Figure 7 . Silt substrate with low densities of M. spicatum and P. crispus along
Transect 2.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\U se rs\frys\AppOata\Loca i\Temp\2016 Lake Stud y-l .d oc x
Page 16
La ke St u dy Llo yd and A sso ciates, I nc.
Figure 8. Dense stands of P. crisp us observed along Transect 3.
Figure 9. Dense stands of M. spicatum observed along Transect 3 (note log boom at
the surface).
Lake Ho u ses At Eagle Cove
C:\U se r s\f rys\AppOa t <l\Locai\Temp\20 16 Lake StudV·l.d o cx
Page 17
Lake St udy Llo yd and A ss o cia t es, Inc.
Figure 10. Mixture of M. spicatum, P. crisp us, and E. canadensis at the mid-point of
Transect 4.
Figure 11. Gravel and cobble substrate (fish rock) observed along Transect 7.
As discussed in Section 2.2, six species of aquatic macrophytes have been documented within
and near the proposed expanded dredging area during past SCUBA/snorkel surveys. In general,
high densities of E. canadensis, M. spicatum, and P. crispus have been observed in the
nearshore portion (depths less than 12 feet) during the summer months (Harza 2000, Meridian
Environmental, Inc. 2007; Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2012). The highest abundance is
typically seen in depths of 6 to 9 feet, especially in areas with sandier substrates. Along the
Lak e Ho uses At Eagle Cov e Page18
C:\Us er s \f rys \AppData\local\ T e rnp\2016 La ke St udy-l ,duo
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
deeper water transects (greater than 12 feet). the distribution of aquatic macrophytes is
patchier and less abundant. Very few if any macrophytes are found in depths greater than 15
feet.
In 2016, biologists observed low, moderate, and high densities of E. canadensis, M. spicatum,
and P. crispus in the project vicinity, depending on the transect. Densities were highest along
transects 3 and 4 at depths less than 12 feet (Figure 4) and lowest along transects 1, 2, 3, and 7.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
For decades, the Barbee Mill site (owned by the Cugini family) and May Creek delta have been
affected by ongoing development in the upper May Creek valley. Upstream development has
resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased impervious surface in the watershed. Peak
flows have increased approximately 15 to 20 percent compared to pre development conditions
for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year flood event return intervals (King County 2001). In addition, this
increased run-off has resulted in severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper
basin, which is deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. Subsequently,
wave action in Lake Washington transports fine sediment from the delta to the boathouse area,
which is located to the south of the May Creek delta.
Dredging of the May Creek delta and Cugini property boathouse area has occurred for over 50
years on a 3-to 4-year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. The amount
of sediment deposition has been described as increasing from 3,000 to 4,000 CY every 3 to 4
years throughout the 1990s to 4,000 to 6,000 CY per in the 2000s.
3.2 PROPOSED SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS
The proposed project would involve amending the current Corps programmatic permit to allow
dredging of up to an additional 4,000 cubic yards of sediment in an area located adjacent to the
existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). Dredging to achieve the desired navigational
depth profile would deepen the expanded dredge prism by approximately 10 feet (Appendix A).
This expansion of the dredge prism would align it with the existing property and inner harbor
lines, facilitate safe navigational access to the boathouse, and promote future recreational
uses. The current permit reference is NWS-2007-1019-NO.
There would be no change in the frequency of dredging events. Dredging events would
continue to occur in both the existing and expanded dredge prisms every 3 to 5 years, based on
periodic evaluation of sediment depth.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-Ldocx
Page 19
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
There would be no change in the duration or timing of dredging events. As in the past, work
would be accomplished within a 3-to 5-day period, and would be scheduled to occur within the
in-water work window specified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The NMFS in-
water work period, which is designed to limit impacts to aquatic species, is July 16th to
September 15 th
•
As is currently permitted, accumulated sediments would be removed with a small dredge and
clamshell bucket. Portions of the work may also be conducted with a long-reach excavator
from the land or an excavator mounted on a fenced flat barge. Use of any other type of dredge
would require prior approval from the Corps and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Sediments would be loaded on a barge, transported, and off-loaded at an approved fill material
stockpile zone for beneficial upland uses.
4.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
An alternative location for the project is not feasible, as the project is intended to ensure
continued safe navigational access to the boathouse and promote future recreational uses.
However, pursuant to RMC 4-9-050-L(I)(b), measures to avoid, minimize, and rectify impacts to
the on-site shoreline critical area have been incorporated into the dredging plan.
Minimization techniques include lining the perimeter of the barge with hay bales wrapped with
filter fabric to prevent dredge material from entering Lake Washington, where it could cause
turbidity. Conducting dredging only during the NMFS approved July 16 -September 15 work
window would also minimize the risk of turbidity, by avoiding work during the rainy season.
To protect and enhance aquatic habitat in the project vicinity, the project proponent is also
proposing to:
• Place 20 CY fish rock along the rockery as well as several yards of fish rock adjacent
to the boat ramp on Lot A;
• Demolish the existing solid-surface 38-foot float and replace it with a grated float
that is 24 feet long. Replace three treated wood piles securing the old float with two
lO-inch galvanized pipe piles;
• Replace two dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each), at the south end of the
project site with a single 12-inch galvanized pipe pile at each location;
• Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline
north of the dredging zone to protect near-shore habitat that may be used by
rearing Chinook salmon; and
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Loca 1\ Temp\2016 La ke Study-l.docx
Page 20
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
• Enhance the north end of the project boundary through the placement of LWD
(approximately five to ten rootwads) to improve aquatic habitat, help stabilize the
shoreline, and facilitate sediment deposition to reduce the need for future
maintenance dredging.
5.0 IMPACT EVALUATION
The proposed mitigation measures described above were designed using best available science,
in accordance with RMC 4-8-120-19, and RMC 4-3-050-L-1-c, to avoid and minimize potential
project impacts on aquatic habitat and salmonids and provide adequate mitigation. A
discussion of project effects, including the effects of mitigation, is presented below.
5.1 HABITAT
The proposed project is unlikely to have an adverse effect on adult salmon and steelhead
spawning habitat, as no dredging would take place in May Creek. The proposed in-water work
window (July 16th to September 15 th ) and relatively short dredging period (3 to 5 days of work)
would also limit the potential to delay migration or spawning in May Creek.
The proposed project may affect juvenile salmon and steel head by causing physical changes to
their early rearing habitat in Lake Washington. However, according to Tabor et al. (2006),
Chinook fry begin entering Lake Washington around the first of the year, peaking in February,
while parr and smolts enter the lake from April through July, peaking in late May. Past studies
of juvenile Chinook salmon distribution and abundance in Lake Washington indicate that they
are concentrated in the south end of Lake Washington from February to May; however, their
density along the shorelines in the spring decreases logarithmically with increasing distance
from the mouth of the Cedar River (Tabor et al. 2006). These studies also found that juvenile
Chinook salmon prefer shallow water habitats with overhanging vegetation, with an
approximately 4.5:1 ratio of fish using overhanging vegetation to fish occurring away from
overhanging vegetation (Tabor et al. 2004, 2006).
While data describing juvenile steel head and coho use of Lake Washington are limited, both
Tabor et al. (2004) and Meridian Environmental, Inc. (2007) have documented the presence of
juvenile steelhead and coho in the proposed project area. Like juvenile Chinook, both of these
species appeared to prefer the shallow water habitat located along the shoreline to the north
and northeast of the proposed expanded dredging area, and were typically associated with
overhanging brush and emergent vegetation. Juvenile coho were also abundant in the shallow
water areas (less than 3 feet deep) located along the northeastern corner of the boathouse
dock. No steelhead or coho were observed at depths greater than approximately 3 feet.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx
Page 21
Lake Study Lloyd and Assoc.iates, Inc.
Based on the results of previous studies completed in the project area, water depths in the
proposed expanded dredging zone are generally deeper than those preferred by rearing
juvenile Chinook, coho and steel head. In addition, the aquatic habitat located immediately to
the south of the May Creek delta and along the shoreline of the lake to the south is not heavily
used by juveniles of these species (Tabor et al. 2004). Limiting in-water work to the NMFS
approved work window would minimize the potential to adversely affect juvenile Chinook, as
the vast majority of juveniles in Lake Washington are expected to migrate prior to July. This in-
work window would also minimize potential impacts on juvenile coho and steelhead.
While the proposed project may cause a short-term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended
sediment (see below) and a reduction in benthic invertebrates in the dredging zone, overall
long-term water quality would be improved by removal of the toxic creosote pilings. Primary
productivity and the fish forage base would be improved as a result of increased light
penetration into the lake, and shoreline and instream habitat quality would be improved
through the addition of fish rock.
5.2 LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
LWD (logs with attached rootwads) is an important component of a healthy stream ecosystem.
Large trees that fall into streams perform an important role in forming pools, regulating storage
and routing of sediment, and trapping spawning gravel. LWD also provides complex fish habitat
that increases carrying capacity, high-flow refugia for fish, and substrate for
macroinvertebrates. The delivery and routing of LWD in May Creek has been altered by past
timber harvest and urban and rural development and its role in forming habitats (especially
pool habitat) is very limited.
The placement of approximately five to ten anchored rootwads along the north end of the
project boundary, as a component of the proposed project, would likely improve aquatic
habitat salmonids, help stabilize the shoreline, and may facilitate sediment deposition to
reduce the need for future maintenance dredging south of the delta. These large pieces of
LWD are also expected to provide relatively stable habitat elements and trap pieces of naturally
recruiting wood to form increasingly complex log jams that would be retained during periods of
high flow. As a result we expect the LWD structures to slightly increase resident and
anadromous fish productivity in lower May Creek.
5.3 OVERWATER COVER
Juvenile Chinook salmon tend to avoid overwater structure. Tabor et al. (2006) found that
upon approaching a pier, juvenile Chinook will move into deeper water and either pass under
or swim around the pier. Similarly, in acoustic tracking studies, Chinook smolts avoided areas
under overwater structures and changed course to move around such structures (Celedonia et
al. 2008). The change in light levels associated with piers and other overwater structures may
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\locai\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx
Page 22
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
make it difficult for juvenile Chinook salmon to detect predators (Tabor et al. 2006), and salmon
predators like smallmouth bass are often associated with pier piles (Celedonia et al. 2008).
The project proponent would remove a solid-decked float in the project area and replace it with
a new fully grated float to maximize natural light transmission. The new grated float would
likely improve primary productivity and the fish forage base by allowing greater natural light
penetration to the lakebed. Grating specifications would comply with previously approved
permit conditions for light transmission. The project proponent would also remove two
dolphins (consisting of three treated piles each) at the south end of the project site and replace
those with a single, much smaller 12-inch galvanized pipe pile at each location to reduce the
amount of structure that would attract predatory fish. Overall, these measures are expected to
improve juvenile salmon habitat conditions and reduce predation in the project area.
5.4 LIGHTING
Artificial nighttime lighting has been shown to affect the behavior of various aquatic organisms,
including many salmonids. Light-mediated behaviors may include changes in foraging, predator
avoidance, reproduction, and migration. Often fish are attracted to artificial nighttime lighting
(positive phototaxis) and their behavior may more resemble daytime behavior than nighttime
behavior, which can potentially make them more vulnerable to predation (Tabor et al. 2015).
No artificial lighting is proposed as part of the expanded dredging project.
5.5 WATER QUALITY (SUBSTRATE DISTURBANCE AND DISCHARGE OF
WASTE PRODUCTS)
Dredging has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e., reduce water clarity) and increase total
suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action area. Turbidity and TSS levels have
been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect salmonid
survival. The potential for adverse effects depends upon several factors, including the duration
of TSS increases, the area of the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambient water
(dilution factor), and the size of suspended sediments. In the case of the proposed project,
increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and
increases would last for only short periods of time; based on previous dredging activities, these
periods are expected to be less than several hours.
Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as such
conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms, landslides, or
other natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic exposure to increased
turbidity that has been found to be the most potentially damaging to salmonids. Studies have
found that when habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid localized areas of
increased turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological impacts (Bisson
and Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003).
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ T emp\2016 Lake Study-l.docx
Page 23
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and
Martens 1991), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU),
presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a, 1987b). Studies have found
that fish that inhabit waters with elevated TSS may experience a reduction in predation from
piscivorous fish and birds (Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases, salmonids may actually
increase foraging activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from predators (Gregory
1993). However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in excess of 70 NTU,
well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon
returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mg/L
suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/L of suspended volcanic
ash were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982).
The highest turbidity values recorded during dredging activity at the site in 2002 were less than
7 NTU, and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less than 1.4 NTU greater
than turbidity outside the dredging zone. Overall turbidity values of less than 7 NTU are very
low, and the effect of slightly increasing turbidity by 1 or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be
considered discountable.
Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short-term (3
to 5 days every 3 to 5 years) and localized elevation of turbidity (less than 5 NTU elevation
above background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed project would rise to the levels
that would be expected to cause harm to salmonids that may be present in the dredging zone.
While some return water from dredged materials placed on a barge is anticipated to enter Lake
Washington, it is extremely import to understand that the dredged material is highly porous
and drains very quickly during dredging as the bucket is raised out of the water. This return
water is the subject of the Water Quality Certification approved by Ecology. Notably, there is
very little silt or clay content in dredged materials as indicated in recent sediment testing.
Essentially, the sediments are virtually dryas loaded onto the barge. The perimeter of the
barge will be lined with hay bales wrapped with filter fabric to further reduce the potential for
introduction of sediments into Lake Washington.
Considering that the turbidity produced by any construction activity would be localized and
temporary, the most probable impact on juvenile salmon ids would be a behavior modification
(avoidance response), rather than injury or reduction in growth potential. An avoidance
response could expose juvenile salmonids to increased predation or force them away from
preferred rearing areas. The project proponent would employ the most effective strategy for
minimizing or eliminating potential construction related impacts, which is to restrict
construction to periods when the presence of Chinook and coho salmon, steel head, and bull
trout is improbable.
In-water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the spill
of toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging or pile placement equipment.
This potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by
maintaining a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a SPCCP
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 24
C:\Users\frys\App Data\local\ Temp\2016 lake Study-l.docx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
would specify areas for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention and emergency
response strategies, requirements for keeping emergency response spill containment kits
onsite, and for having trained personnel be onsite during in-water work. For this project,
preparation of a SPCCP would limit the potential for toxic material spills during dredging and
pile replacement.
If oil or other unknown substances appear on the water surface or in dredged material while
equipment is being operated, the contractor will cease operations immediately to identify the
source of the contaminant and remedy the problem. If necessary, an oil absorbent boom
secured to a debris boom will be utilized to encircle the work zone to capture sheen or
potential floating debris.
Finally, replacing the three creosote treated wood piles and two dolphins in the project area
with galvanized pipe piles is expected to provide an overall increase in water quality, as slow
solution of some creosote components and physical breakdown of the treated wood leads to
toxicity in the surrounding water and sediment .. These piles would be pulled concurrent with
the May Creek enhancement work. All creosote treated pilings would be cut into 4-foot lengths
and disposed of in an approved upland landfill.
6.0 CONCLUSION
Periodic maintenance dredging every 3-5 years in the proposed expanded dredge prism
coupled with the protection and enhancement measures outlined in Section 4.0 are expected
to preserve navigational access to the project proponent's docks and boathouse; maintain and
possibly improve water quality conditions in the project area; enhance aquatic habitat and
hydraulic functions in lower May Creek; slightly increase primary productivity and near-shore
habitat quality in lake Washington; and reduce predation in the project area. Overall, no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions will result from the proposed project.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 25
C: \U sers\fryS\AppData\local\ Temp\2016 lake Study-I. docx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
7.0 REFERENCES
Bisson, P.A, and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371-374.
Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems-
measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings of the
Watershed '93 Conference. U.S. GPO, Washington D.C.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in
Estuaries. Part I: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70.
Cyrus, D.P., and SJ.M. Blaber. 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in
Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91.
F oster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report.
Prepared for King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Bothell,
Washington.
Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous
salmonids in the Lake Washington watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525-544 in
E.E. Knudsen, C.R. Steward, D.o. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.W. Reiser (editors).
Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton.
Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile
Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241-246.
Gregory, R.S., and C.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile
Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(2):275-285.
Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization Assessment for
the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993. Prepared for Lloyd and
Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates Inc. Bellevue, W A.
Hodgson S., Quinn T.P., Hilborn R, Francis R.C., Rogers D.E. (2006). Marine and freshwater
climatic factors affecting interannual variation in the timing of return migration to fresh
water of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Fish Oceanogr IS( 1): 1-24.
Karr,l.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management.
Ecological Applications, 1:66-84.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-I.doc:.:
Page 26
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Keister, J.P., Jr., R.G. Anthony, and E.J. O'Neill. 1987. Use of communal roosts and foraging
areas by bald eagles wintering in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51 (2):
4154.20.
Kerwin, J. 200 I. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar-Sammamish
basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 2001. Washington Conservation
Commission. Olympia, W A. 587 pp.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of
Renton. April 2001.
May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization
on small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4): 483-
494.
Meridian Environmental Inc. 2007. Barbee Boat House Renovation and Maintenance Dredging
Project Biological Assessment. Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared
by: Prepared by: Meridian Environmental, Inc. July 11,2007.
Meridian Environmental Inc. 2012. Cugini Property Boathouse Expansion of the Existing Lake
Washington Dredge Prism Biological Assessment. Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Prepared by: Meridian Environmental, Inc. August 27, 2012.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 200 I. Cugini property May
200 1, aquatic habitat and fish population survey and joint-use dock biological assessment.
June 25, 2001.
Newell, J. c., and T. P. Quinn. 2005. Behavioral thermoregulation by maturing adult sockeye
salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in a stratified lake prior to spawning. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 83:1232-1239.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound
Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from
Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW. Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003.
Redding, 1.M., C.B. Schreck. and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and
steel head of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
116:737-744.
Servizi, J.A .. and Martens. D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute
lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon. Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 48: 493-497.
Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for King
County Department of Natural Resources.
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove Page 27
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 lake Study-l.docx
Lake Study Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Appendix A
Site Plan -Dredge Area Expansion
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-1.doc:.:
Page 28
Lake Study
--r'-/' \
o
<D
/ o
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
" --
\
\
I
)
CQ -o
...,J
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Loca 1\ Temp\2016 La ke Study-l.docx
(,) -o
-..I
Q -o
:oJ '-'.
o
Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
.
o
"
o
o
Page 29
Lake Study
-
Lake Houses At Eagle Cove
C:\Users\frys\AppData\Local\ Temp\2016 Lake Study-l.doc)(
Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
Page 30
21) I 6-2 I ; ScJ 1l1lcnL ~ul1lrllllg Rl'~u lt~ I )Ivl \111. 1
' ..
,;, Ii j
'., ..!
Sediment Sampling and Analytical Results
Barbee Maintenance Dredging
Barbee Company, P.O. Box 359
Renton. Washington
SUHMJ'rll:D To:
USACEI
DREDGE MATERIAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by:
Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
255 Camaloch Dr.
Camano Island, W A 98282
Revised: December 12.2016
Page I of 30
2() I (1-21"1, "ieJIITlI.:l1l <";uT1lpllllg !{l'~lIlt~ i)l\li'vll -I
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
Site History -Historical Dredging
Sediment Sampling Results Summary
Suitability for Open Water Disposal
2.0 Sediment Sampling
Sample Stations
Sampling Equipment
Field Sampling Procedure
Equipment Decontamination
Composite Preparation
Chain-of Custody
Grain Size Distribution/Field Observations
3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses
Sediment Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides and PCBs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Dioxins and Furans
4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary
5.0
Limd &. i\~SO(l<lles. IIll:
Sediment Chemical Analyses
Total Metals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Pesticides and PCBs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Dioxins and Furans
Conclusions and Recommendations
Sediment Sampling Considerations
Page 2 of 30
Table of Contents (continued)
Figures and Tables
Figure 1-1: Site Photograph
Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations
Figure 2-2: Sediment core 0710211Barbee/G-
Figure 2-3: Grain Size Distribution
Table 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations
Table 2-2: Grain Size Data
Table 3-1: Sediment Results I Conventional Parameters
Table 3-2: Sediment Results I Total Metals
Table 3-3: Sediment Results I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Table 3-4: Sediment Results I Pesticides and PCBs
Table 3-5: Sediment Results I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 3-6: Sediment Results I Dioxins & Furans
Table 4-1: QA Summary I Conventional Parameters
Table 4-2: QA Summary I Total Metals
Table 4-3: QA Summary I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Table 4-4: QA Summary I Pesticides and PCBs
Table 4-5: QA Summary I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Table 4-6: QA Summary I Dioxins & Furans
Attachments
Attachment A -Sediment Sampling Logs
Attachment B -Grain Size Distribution
Attachment C -Laboratory Reports and Quality Control Summary
Attachment D -Historical Sampling and Analysis Results
Page 3 of 30
2tll />-2 i:1 SCUI11K111 S(lll1pll11g RCSlIih ])1\1 \11 -I
1.0 Introduction
This report provides results of sediment sampling and chemical testing of sediments
in conjunction with proposed Maintenance Dredging. The purposes of this sampling
and analysis program are: (I) to chemical collect data regarding the level(s) of
contamination that mayor may not be present within sediments of the permitted
dredge area; and (2) to assess the suitability of dredged materials for open-water
disposal. The purpose of the proposed dredging is to maintain navigational and
recreational access. As currently permitted, we anticipate approximately 2500 to
2700 CY of material will be dredged in 2017 based on 2016 hydrographic data.
Site History -Historical Dredging
The project area (see Figure 1-1) has been dredged for many decades. In recent
history, the area was dredged in 1994, 1997,2001/2002 and 2011. The boathouse
was constructed in the 1950's, and has been in continuous use. A portion of the
Barbee Boathouse Navigational Dredge area was last dredged in 20 II, concurrent
with boathouse renovation under USACE Permit Reference #NWS-2007-1 0 19.
Figure 1-1: Site Navigational Access Photograph. Photograph looking west toward
A1ercer Island, showing the current status of the .\"avigalional Access 10 the Boathouse The
navigational assess ·'channel ' is immediately to the le./! of the line oipiling and boom logs.
1 lo\cJ (\: /b~O(ld\"::S_ 11lL' P3f'-e -1 01':10
:)) 16-213 Sediment I.;aml'illlg RC~lIlt~ !)\1\;lll-,
North of the former Barbee Mill facility (approximately 2000 ft), is Quendall
Terminals. Quendall Terminals is a CERCLA (superfund) site managed by EPA.
Primary contaminants at this site are creosote residues (PAH compounds) and
petroleum hydrocarbons. Barbee Lumber Mill operations occurred north of the May
Creek Delta, and south of Quendall Terminals. Lumber mill operations were
essentially shut down in 1999. The boathouse area has been periodically dredged
since the early 1950' s to maintain navigational access to the boathouse. There is no
record of spills or other discharges impacting sediments in the proposed dredge area
although low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected during sampling and
chemical analysis in 2008. Sediments in the proposed dredge area arise principally
from deposition during severe storm events (high energy) when sediment loadings
carried from the May Valley Drainage Basin are substantial.
Sediments to be dredged in the future are derived from depositional events that have
occurred at the May Creek Delta for many years. The project proponents seek to
dredge depositional sediments that have infilled the navigational access to the
boathouse. The Barbee Company has secured all permits to dredge the area from the
USACE and is currently updating permits from state and local jurisdictions.
As permitted by USACE, our proposal is to dredge the permitted profile approved by
USACE. This profile will not reach depths that will encounter sediments that are
older than dredging work completed in 20 II or in previous dredging events. In all
respects we will not be dredging to depths that at or below 10-12' elevation (MSL,
Corps Datum). In 2002 the depth at the western edge of the dredge footprint was
approximately 15-20 feet deep, well below proposed dredge profile. In 2005. for
example. the water depth at the Eagle Roost (also periodically referred to the Osprey
Nest) was approximately 10' (12' EI. MSL). Since 2005. there has been over 10' of
depositional infill from on going erosional events. While the numbers are not well
developed, the volume of material deposited in Lake Washington at the May Creek
Delta is at least 25,000 CY (and likely substantially higher).
The point is that the project proponents are not dredging older lakebed sediments by
any means. We are simply looking at dredging the least amount of depositional
material possible to maintain access to the boathouse. boat ramp. and shoreline access
for protected recreational uses. The proposed depth profile for dredging will occur
within recent infill/deposition.
These results are also to be considered a supplement to previous sediment sampling
and analysis work conducted in 2007 (reported in 2008) and years prior (see
Attachment D -Historical Summary Data Summary).
Sediment Sampling Results -Summary
Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-I) is very
limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for
all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some
motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel
Lloyd & !\~~OCi<lll's. Illc. Page 5 onu
range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry
basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PABs) were
detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at24 ug/Kg (dry basis).
Suitability of Dredged Material for Open Water Disposal
All data indicate that detected chemical contamination levels are below all low-level
screening criteria, and that the materials are acceptable for disposal at a DMMP open-
water disposal site.
Lloyu & /\ssocmles_ Inc Page 6 of 30
::1 i I 11-21 ~ 'i('dllll.;nl S<llllpllllg RC~lIl!s 1)1\1 \11 i. 1
2.0 Sediment Sampling
Sediment sampling at the Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area was conducted on Monday
July 4, 2016. Sediment samples were collected, composited and preserved for next
day delivery to Analytical Resources, Inc. (Seattle, W A). This section provides a
summary of sediment sampling information. Sediment Sampling Logs are provided
in Attachment A.
Sample Stations
Differential GPS was utilized to locate sediment sample stations. Sampling occurred
close to proposed locations as moderated by observed field and gusty weather
conditions. Sampling locations are summarized in Table 2-1 below. All data was
collected using North America Datum (NAD83-Washington North). Lake Elevation
at the time of sampling was provided by the USACE at Chittenden Locks. Lake
elevation was 20.6 feet (MSL), approximately 1.2 feet below the Ordinary High
Water Line (OHWL).
Table 2-1 Sample Stationing
Actual Sampling
Sample Location
State Plane (ft)
Easting Northing
Monday, July 04, 2016
Mudline Proposed Sampling
Elevation Design EL. Thickness (ft)
SED-1 SSE about 39' from Osprey pole 1301394.0 195430.7 18.5 14.5 4.0
3.1
1.0
2.7
SED-2 South of peninsula about 38'
SEO-3 Adjacent to Boathouse Door
Notes
1301509.0 195448.0 19.1 16.0
13016125 195476.9 13.0 12.0
Average Thickness (ft) =
SEO-1 Moved south nearer to sharp increase in depth
SED-3 Boathouse door locked, sampled just outside of boathouse door
All elevations are in feet, MSL (USAGE Datum)
Sampling Equipment
Samples SED-I and SED-2 were collected as drive samples using a gravity corer
from University of Washington. Sample recoveries were generally very good fro
Sample SED-2(> 70%) as shown in Sediment Sampling Logs provided in
Attachment A. However, recovery at SED-I was poor due to nature of materials
sampled. The middle section of the drive met little resistance, and it is believed that
we hit a homogeneous loose sandy layer that was lost with extraction of the gravity
corer. A repeat drive was conducted with the same results. At no time did it appear
that we hit a hard substrate such as might be anticipated in a lake bottom. Because of
the consistency of core results (mostly fine to medium sand) all sediments appear to
Lln~d &. A::,~ocia\l'':>. 111(.: Page 7 ono
~1116-21:; SCJllTl<.'ll1 S,\lllrllT1~ RC"lIlt~ D\I\ll -1
of recent depositional origin. Because of the shallow sampling thickness. SED-3,
was collected with a small vanVeeen sampler with 100% recovery. Sediment
Sampling Stations are shown in Figure 2-1.
/ L
Figure 2-1: Sediment Sampling Stations (I'rol""eu and Actual)
Field Sampling Procedure
Because of the recent substantial deposition (arising from May Creek), sampling was
accomplished by walking out to the sampling locations with the exception of the
boathouse sample (SEO-3) which was collected just outside the boathouse from an
adjacent float. Depth to mudline (something of a misnomer, since no mud was
encountered) was measured with a weighted line. The 8' gravity corer included a 24"
extension with an added drive weight. The sampler was generally easily extracted
and raised out of the water. The only problem encountered with sampling recovery
occurred at SEO-I where we hit a pocket of low resistance, believed to be
homogeneous sandy materials. Sediment cores at SEO-l and SEO-2 had low water
content when extracted.
Once extracted from the lined sampler, the sample core was visually inspected and
logged. Core contents from within the dredge profile were retained in individual
stainless steel bowls. Mixing of the core contents was with a clean stainless steel
spoon. No attempt was made to select layers or otherwise alter the sample contents.
Equipment Decontamination
Prior to sampling, all sampling equipment was decontaminated by scrubbing with a
dilute solution of Alconox, rinsed with tap water, and then followed by two rinses of
distilled water. In the field, the samplers were rinsed with lake water and visually
inspected prior to moving to the next sampling station. A solvent rinse was not
utilized at any time.
Composite Preparation
l.Io)J & ASSOCIates, Inc Page 8 of 30
2u I (,-213 SedlllKllt S:.lll1rlll1g He-;ulh I)M'vll -I
A composite sample was constructed from SED-I, SED-2 and SED-3 sediments. The
composite was weighted 45% each of SED-I and SED-2. and 10% of SED-3. It is
unlikely that dredging will occur at the boathouse (SED-3) in the near future because
recent sediment deposition patterns to the west predominate, and there is currently
adequate navigational depth. A pre-cleaned stainless steel bowl and spoon was
utilized to composite samples. Portions were well mixed to a homogenous
consistency. The composite sample was identified as 070420l6/SED-C.
Chain-of Custody
The laboratory provided chain of custody was utilized to record basic sample
infonnation and requested analyses. All samples were labeled, bagged in Ziploc
bags, chilled with ice, and delivered to the laboratory the next day under chain of
custody. A copy of the Chain of Custody is provided in Attachment C.
Grain Size Distribution Logs I Field Observations
Sediment Sampling Logs are provided in Attachment A. In general. sediment
sampling yielded good recoveries because of the cohesive nature of the sediment in
the sampling profile. However, recoveries at SED-1 were marginal as the lower
portions of the core were lost during sampler extraction. Grain Size Data is provided
in Table 2-2 and graphically presented in Figure 2-2. These sands appear to be
relatively recent origin and do not suggest that sediments below the proposed dredge
profile were encountered. Sediments from SED-l and SED-2 were odor free and no
apparent sheen was observed in any grab sample although a light stringy sheen was
observed in SED-3. A transient "rotten" smell was also noticed in SED-3 The upper
few inches of each core was layered with coarse sand and pebbles with the exception
of SED-3 which had twigs, leaf litter, and milfoil stringers. Milfoil distribution was
extensive throughout shallow waters. However, in those areas of recent sediment
deposition, the surface was bare of vegetative growth as observed at SED-l and SED-
2 Sampling Stations. All samples, as collected. were sandy and gritty to the touch.
Table 2-2 Grain Size Distribution Data
Sample: 07042016Barbe8-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample OMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSEP Methodology
Sieve Microns Re!2. -1 ReI::!. -2 ReE!. - 3
Average (%)
318" 100 100 100 100
#4 4,750 83.6 80.9 84.6 83.0
#10 2000 80.1 76.4 80.6 79.0
#18 1000 75.9 724 76.6 75.0
#35 500 62.4 59.9 63.4 61.9
#60 250 24.0 23.6 25.6 244
#120 125 5.5 6.0 7.2 6.2
#230 63 2.2 2.9 4.0 3.0
31.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2
15.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
7.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3
3.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
2.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Gravel
Very Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Sand
Very Fine Sand
Silt
Clay
Page 9 of 30
,~
~
"" it o c
~
g
-0
" "" ~
co
o
~
G,
co
PSEP Grain Size Distribution
Trlphcate Sample Plot
GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY KT I T I I .. ,--------, I I Tl ji\~ uri .1, j d .
Ii I ~t><~C ' . .L_'," ~ )jl"~
I , " I I ~-O-"lr\l---r--,----'----'l----O---,---+ 0 I-II~ ,-'
1-1----1 _. ____ J I ' -i ~ ---'--.c..r-+-t+---t
I I,,·· .1. 1-
1--1' -
i ; I
f--__ +--'-_-_-_·-t----
i
~:-,' • " _I 'J .:Tl~" '-~ ~ .. _,Jll~
'0000 1000 100 10
Particle ot.arneter (mlt:lfOl'lS.
--+--07042016BARBEE-C ....... 07042016BARBEE-C --.-070420 16BA R BEE-C
I~
0
,'~
'»
~
~
"l c
3 ':<;' ~ = 3 .... " " N ci'l , " N c.
~ ....,
00 ~
1"'1 '" ...., ::
100 C"J '-.... .,
S·
90 00 .r
" 80 t:) ,,' .... ....
70 c= = ....
60 I o· = l ~
50 a ... s·
~
40
30
2C
'0
0
2UI h-21.i S":UIlll(:nl "umpllllg Reslilb I X..,l MIL I
3.0 Sediment Chemical Analyses
All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources. Inc .•
Seattle. W A) on ice under Chain of Custody. The composite sample was analyzed for both
conventional parameters. and the measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have
been identified by DMMP as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were
utilized to provide low level detection limits for COe's. A rinsate sample was not collected.
as recommended by USACE/DMMP.
As provided in the Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan.l the sediment samples. as a composite
was submitted for chemical analysis for the following parameters:
• Conventional Parameters -EPA/PSEP Methods
• Semi-Volatile Organics -EPA 8270D GC/MS (8270D SIM to achieve the required
screening level for 2,4-Dimethylphenol)
• Total Metals -EPA 200.8; (Except as noted)2
• PesticideslPCBS -EPA 8081/8082 GC/ECD
• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -NWTPH-D
• Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B
Sample containers. preservation. holding times (extraction/time to analysis) were acceptable
and in compliance with accepted PSEP protocols.
Conventional Testing Results
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for Total Solids. Preserved Total
Solids, N-Ammonia. Total Sulfides. and Total Organic Carbon. These results are provided in
Table 3-1 at the end of this section. Laboratory report forms for this data are provided in
Attachment C. Hexavalent Chromium was not detected. reported by ARI as a conventional
parameter. Total solids were reported at 80.5% and Total Organic carbon was reported at
less than 0.2%. These results are consistent with field observations of well draining sands
and gravels with only traces of organic malter.
There are no Marine or Fresh water screening levels for conventional parameters. Ammonia
levels were detected at 19.6 mg-N/Kg (dry basis). Total Sulfide was reported at 1.8 mg/Kg
(dry basis).
" Draft Barbee Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan, (L&AI. 20 16)
BlIl) I 1111 compOlUIus wen .. ' Ilol required ror chemlciJl anah'~ls_ per lISA(T)
Page II ono
Total Metals
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are
provided in Table 3-2. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. Traces of
Arsenic, Cadmium, and silver were detected along with Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel,
and Zinc. Mercury was not detected. Antimony was analyzed as a supplemental parameter.
All detected and undetected metal concentrations were less than DMMP Screening Levels for
both Marine and Fresh Water.J
As requested by USACE, antimony is reported as a supplemental parameter extracted and
analyzed by ARI. All detected and undetected results were less than low-level Screening
Levels for both Marine (SLI) and Fresh Water (SLl).
Semivolatile Organics
Composite Sample 070420 16/Barbee-C was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds by
GCMS Method 82700 per PSEP protocols. Results are provided in Table 3-3. Laboratory
report forms are provided in Attachment C. Several semivolatile organics were detected,
including: PAHs, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The total HPAH concentration was 328
ugIKg-dry. Benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg-dry, just above the detection limit.
The carcinogenic PAH (cPAH, calculated quantity, as TEQ) was 36.3 ug/Kg-dry. Detected
and undetected parameters for all semivolatile organic compounds were less than DMMP
Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
Pesticides and PCBs
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by GC/ECD
(Dual Column -Methods 8081A and Method 8082, respectively). Results are provided in
Table 3-4. Laboratory report forms are provided in Attachment C. As shown in Table 3-4,
no pesticides or PCBs were detected above detection limits. All reporting limits for all
pesticides and PCB's were less than DMMP Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh
Water.
Several supplemental parameters were subsequently analyzed by ARI. Results are included
in the data set tables, as requested by USACE I DMMP. All detected and undetected results
were less than DMMPSL I Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by
GC/FID (Method NWTPH-Dx). Results are provided in Table 3-5. Laboratory report forms
are provided in Attachment C. Diesel was detected at 8.3 mg/Kg-dry, and Motor Oil was
detected at 39 mg/Kg-dry. As noted in sampling logs, a light stringy oily substance was
observed when sampling at Station SED-3. This transient type of sheen is typical of
decaying organic matter. There were no visible indications of a petroleum sheen in any grab
sample or the composite. All detected and undetected results were less than Screening
Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water.
, Sed line 111 ()uallt) (j uiJtl irlt~ li)r Slalllkwd Ch .... mlcals of l'olll:ern and from DM M P L'scr" S \tlilll llal (c urrelll eJ ItlOn)
Page 12 of 30
~[II (><~ 13 :-'l'UIlIll'lll Samrllllg [{l'~lIlh I )\1MI '" I
Dioxins and Furans
Composite Sample 070420 16/8arbee-C was analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method
16138. Results are provided in Table 3-6. Laboratory report forms are provided in
Attachment C. Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents were measured and calculated at 0.65 pg/g-dry
(ppt or ug/Kg), substantially below the Marine Screening Level of 4 pg/g-dry (ppt).
Llo~ U & I\~sol·iales. !m: Page 13 of30
Table 3-1: Sediment Results / Conventional Parameters
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-l
Analytical Method: Varies by Analyte'
Conventional Parameters Units Result Q RL
Hexavalent Chromium mglKg-dry < 0.493 U < 0.493
Total Solids Percent 80,75 0,01
Preserved Total Solids Percent 74,44 0.01
Total Volatile Solids Percent 1,12 0.01
N-Ammonia mg-NIKg 19,6 0,98
Sulfide mglKg-dry 1,8 1.28
Total Organic Carbon Percent 0,182 0.02
Notes:
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
MTCA Screening Levels (2)
Method A") Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
19
(1) Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1), Units are shown above,
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern (Table 8,3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
Table 3-2: Sediment Results / Total Metals
Sample:
Description:
Analytical Methods:
07042016/Barbee-C
Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-l
EPA 200,8 (Except as noted)'
Results
mg/Kg-dry
MTCA Screening Levels (2)
METALS
Notes:
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium + 6 (see Conventionals)
Copper
Lead
Mercury (EPA 7471A)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
0,25
2,1
0,081
22,1
13,9
4
0.Q3
28,2
0,577
0,023
48
Q
U
J
U
J
J
Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
LOQ Method A")
0.25
0,2 20
0.115 2
0.6 2,000
0,6
0,1 250
0,03 2
0,6
0.577
0,231
5
(1) Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mglKg
Marine (Sl1) Fresh (SL 1)
150
57 14
5,1 2,1
260 72
390 400
450 360
0,41 0,66
38
11
6.1 0,57
410 3200
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern (Table 8.3) and from DMMP User's Manual (current addition)
Lloyd & A:-,s(lclat~s_ 1111.' Page 14 of 30
2(l1 {<?1 :; SCdll1Kllt S:lmrllllg 1<:<'~l!II~ [)\'lMl -I
Table 3-3: Sediment Results I Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample: 07Q42Q16/Barbea-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSDDA Samivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS"
Extraction Method: SW3546
Results MTCA Screening Levels\~i
Method AI'! Marine (SL 1)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <: 9,6 U 9.6
1,2-Dichlorobenzene <: 9.6 U 9.6
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <: 9.6 U 9.6
Hexachlorobutadiene <: 9.6 U 9.6
Hexachlorobenzene <: 9.6 U 9.6
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane <: 0.49 U 0,49
PAHs
Naphthalene < 19 U 19 50001"!
Acenapthylene < 19 U 19
Acenapthene 8,7 J 19
Fluorene 8,7 J 19
Phenanthrene 40 19
Anthracene 9,6 J 19
2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 500Q\"!
1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000\'>!
TotallPAW'" 67
Fluoranthene 88 19
Pyrene 66 19
Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c
Chrysene 30 19 c
Benzofluoranthenes 55 38 c
Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 100\O!
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c
Dibenz(a, h)anthracene 19 U 19 c
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19
Total HPAH,b, 328
Total cPAH (catc_ wI TEF) 36,3
Total PAH'!I 395
PHTHALATES
Dimethytphthalate <: 9.6 U 9.6 71
Di-n-Butylphthalate 8,7 J 19
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phlhalale 48 50 Q
Diethylphlhalate < 19 U 19
Butylbenzyphthalate <: 9.6 U 9.6
Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19
PHENOLS
Phenol < 19 U 19
2-Methyiphenol <: 9.6 U 9.6
4-Methytphenol < 19 U 19
2.4-Dimethylphenol\~1 <: 19.1 U 19,1
Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACT/BLES
Benzoic Acid <190 U <190
Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19
Carbazole < 19 U 19
Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine <: 9.6 U 9,6
Notes:
Analytical Resources, In!;:. (Tukwila, WA 98168 3240)
MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1) Units are ug/Kg) '" '" Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concem and DMMP User's Manual
,'J Total shown for Naphthalene. l-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalene
14J Totals shown are for both band k 6enzofluoranthenes
110
35
31
22
7.2
2,100
560
500
540
1,500
960
670
5,200
1,700
2,600
1,300
1,400
3,2001"t!
1,600
600
230
670
12,000
1,400
1.300
200
63
6,200
420
670
400
650
540
28
,'J
'"
Does not include undetected parameters or I-and 2-methylnaphthalene, estimated (Jj parameters all/2 reported
Benzo(a )pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenz(a,h )anthracene, I ndeno( 1,2, 3-cd )pyrene, Benzo(bfJlk)fluoranthenes
'" ,OJ
,'J
and Benzo(ajanthracene. T alai does not inClude undelected paramelers
Total PAHs calculated er Table 8.2.3 DMMP User Manual
Melhod B -Soil Ingestion Pathway
Initial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re analyzed 2,4-dimethylphenol via 82700 SIM
1.10\ d & Assoclaks. Inc
Fresh (SL1)
17,000
380
500
39
120
260
1,200
2900
900
200
Page 15 of 30
2(11 fl-:2 I., Sed 1l11CI1l ~<lmplll1g ]{l'SU I b Drvll'v1l ,-1
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Description: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: PSDCA Samivolatiles by SW8270D GC/MS*
Extraction Method: SW3546
Results MTCA Screening Levels\£J
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS U!i!/K!i!-d~ a LOa Method AI" Marins (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
CHLORINATED ORGANICS
lA-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 110
1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 35
1,2A-Trichlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 31
Hexachlorobutadiene < 9.6 U 9.6
Hexachlorobenzene < 9.6 U 9.6 22
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane < 0.49 U 0.49 7.2
PAHs
Naphthalene < 19 U 19 SOOOP} 2,100
Acenapthylene < 19 U 19 560
Acenapthene 8.7 J 19 500
Fluorene 8,7 J 19 540
Phenanthrene 40 19 1,500
Anthracene 9.6 J 19 960
2-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 5000 1" 670
1-Methylnaphthalene < 19 U 19 50001~}
Total LPAH\~I 67 5,200
Fluoranthene 88 19 1.700
Pyrene 66 19 2,600
Benz(a)anthracene 27 19 c 1,300
Chrysene 30 19 c 1.400
Benzo(blj/k)fluoranthenes 55 38 c 3,200I"'l-}
Benzo(a)pyrene 24 19 c 100 10} 1,600
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 19 c 600
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 19 U 19 c 230
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 19 19 670
Total HPAH\'" 328 12,000
Total cPAH (calc_ wi TEF) 36,3
Total PAH'" 395 17,000
PHTHALATES
Dimethylphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 71
Di-n-Butylphthalate 8,7 J 19 1.400 380
bls(2-Ethylhoxyl)phthalate 48 50 Q 1.300 500
DiethyJphthaJate < 19 U 19 200
Butylbenzyphthalate < 9.6 U 9.6 63
Di-n-Octylphthalate < 19 U 19 6,200 39
PHENOLS
Phenol < 19 U 19 420 120
2-Methylphenol < 9.6 U 9.6
4-Methylphenol < 19 U 19 670 260
2,4-Dimethylphenoll~' < 19.1 U 19.1
Pentachlorophenol < 96 U < 96 400 1,200
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACT/BLES
Benzoic Acid <190 U <190 650 2900
Benzyl Alcohol < 19 U 19
Carbazole < 19 U 19 900
Dibenzofuran < 19 U 19 540 200
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine .: 9.6 U 9.6 28
Notes:
Analytical Resources, Inc. (TukWila WA 98168-3240)
'" MTCA 5011 Cleanup Levels for Unrestncted Land Use (Table 740-'). Units are ugfKg)
'" Manne and Freshwaler Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and DMMP User's Manual
'" Total shown for Naphthalene, 1-Methyl Naphthalene, and 2-Methyl Napthahalene ,.,
Tolals shown are for bolh band k Benzofluoranthenes
'" Does not include undetected parameters or 1-and 2-methylnaphthalene, estimated (J) parameters at 112 reported ,.,
Benzo( a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dlbenzo(a, h )anthracene, Indeno( 1,2, 3-cd )pyrene. Benzo(blJlk )fluoranthenes
and Benzo(a)anlhracene Total does nol include undetected parameters
'" Total PAHs calculated er Table 8 2 3 DMMP User Manual ,.,
Method B -5011 IngestIOn Pathway ,.,
Inilial value higher than SL of 29. ARI re analyzed 2,4--dlmethylphenol via 8270D 81M
Lloyd & !\SSOUal,S Inc Page 16 of 30
201 h-21_~ SeUllllent "amrllllg Result'-, ])1\'1\1\ "-I
Table 3-4: Sediment Results I Pesticides and PCBs
Sample: 07042016/Barbee-C
Descri ption: Composite Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: GC/ECD -Pesticides IPCBs'
MTCA Screening Levels(2)
Results Method A(1)
PESTICIDES & PCBS u~/K~-d!J: Q LOQ/RL u~/K~(1) Marine (SL 1) Fresh (SL 1)
Heptachlor < 0.49 U 0.49 1.5
Aldrin <0.49 U 0.49 9.5
Dieldrin < 0.98 U 0.98 1.9 4.9
4,4 '-DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 9
4,4 '-DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 16
4,4 '-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 12
Endrin Ketone < 0.98 U 0.98 8.5
trans-Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49
cis-Chlordane < 0.49 U 0.49
2,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98
2,4'-DDE < 0.98 U 0.98
2,4'-DDD < 0.98 U 0.98
Oxychlordane < 0.98 U 0.98
cis-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98
trans-Nonachlor < 0.98 U 0.98
sum of 2,4'-DDD & 4,4'DDD < 0.98 U 0.98 310
sum of 2,4'-DDE & 4,4'DDE < 0.98 U 0.98 21
sum of 2,4'-DDT & 4,4'-DDT < 0.98 U 0.98 100
Total DDT(')(5) < 0.98 U 0.98 3000
Total Chlorodane(5) < 1.47 U 0.98 2.8
Aroclor 1016 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1242 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1248 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1254 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1260 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1221 < 3.9 U 3.9
Aroclor 1232 < 3.9 U 3.9 130 110
Total Aroclors < 3.9 U 1000 130 110
Notes:
• Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
(1) MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are ug/Kg
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and DMMP User's Manual (current edition)
(') Includes DDE, DOD, DDT
(5) Sum of cis & trans chlordane, cis & trans nonachlor, and oxychlorodane
Lloyd & ASSOCiates. Ine Page 17 of 30
Table 3.5: Sediment Results I Petroleum Hydrocarbons
NWTPHD
Notes:
Diesel
Motor Oil
Sample:
Oescription:
Analytical Method:
07042016/Barbee-C
Composite Sediment Sample OMMU-l
GC/FIO -NWTPHO*
Resu;ts MTCA
mglKg-dry Q RL Method A(1 )
8.3 6.3 2000
39 12 2000
* Analytical Resources, Inc. (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
Screening Levels (2)
Marine (Sl1) Fresh (SL1)
340
3600
(1)
I')
MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1). Units are mg/Kg
Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual (current edition)
Lloyd & Assocmll's. Inc Page 18 ofJO
Table 3-6: Sediment Results Dioxins I Furans
Sample: I0720161Barbee/C
Description: Sediment Sample DMMU-1
Analytical Method: Dioxins/Furans by EPA 1613B'
Results
Dioxins I Furans (ng/Kg) Q RL
2,3,7,8-TCDF 0,0776 BJEMPC 0,970
2,3,7,8-TCDD 0,145 JEMPC 0,970
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0,0737 BJEMPC 0,970
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF < 0,0563 U 0970
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0,182 BJEMPC 0,970
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0,114 BJEMPC 0970
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0,111 BJ 0,970
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0,136 BJEMPC 0,970
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0,130 BJEMPC 0,970
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.242 BJEMPC 0,970
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0,532 BJEMPC 0,970
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.464 BJ 0,970
1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDE 1.59 0,970
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDD < 0,101 U 0,970
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 9,93 B 2.42
OCFD 2.62 1,94
GCDD 62,9 B 0970
Total TCDF 0,911 EMPC 0,970
Total TCDD 1,52 EMPC 0,970
Total PeCDF 1.43 EM PC 1,94
Total PeeDJ 106 EMPC 0,970
Total HxCDE' 3,15 EMPC 1,94
Total HxCDD 5.46 EM PC 1,94
Total HpCDF 4.34 1,94
Total HpCDD 21.2 1,94
Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents 0,64
(NO = 0, Including EMPC)
Total 2,3,7,8 Equivalents 0,65
(ND = 0,5 Including EMPC)
Notes:
Analytical Resources, Inc, (Tukwila, WA 98168-3240)
MTCA
Method A(1 1
ng/Kg(1 1
Screening Levels(2)
Marine (SL1) Fresh (SL1)
4,0
4,0
(11 MTCA Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use (Table 740-1), Units are nglKg or pglg
(2) Marine and Freshwater Screening Levels from Sediment Quality Guidelines for Standard Chemicals
of Concern and from DMMP User's Manual
Page 19 ofJO
20Ih-21) SeJIl11Cllt S,tlllrling RC~lIllS 1)\1\;111-1
4.0 Quality Assurance Review Summary
All samples were delivered the next morning to the laboratory (Analytical Resources,
Inc" Seattle, W A) on ice under Chain of Custody. As described in the previous
section, the composite sample was analyzed for both conventional parameters and the
measurement of concentrations of chemicals, which have been identified by DMMP
as chemicals of concern (COCs). EPA Analytical Methods were utilized to provide
low level detection limits for 07042016Barbee-C. Quality Assurance for the project
included (where applicable):
• Matrix Spikes
• Matrix Spike Duplicates
• Blank Spikes
• Certified Standard Reference Material SRM 1944
• Puget Sound Reference SRM.
• Laboratory contro Is
Sample containers, preservation, holding times (extraction and time to analysis) were
acceptable and in compliance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan and PSEP
protocols (see Attachment C)
Conventional Testing Results
The QA review summary for Conventional Parameters is provide in Attachment C /
Conventionals. Precision data was acceptable with an RPD less than 4 % (except for
Sulfide at less than 17%) for all parameters. Matrix spike recovery data was
acceptable for all parameters, and Standard Reference recoveries were greater than
80%. All Method Blanks were at or below reporting/detection limits. All
conventional data reported in Table 3-1 is believed acceptable as reported by ARl.
Total Metals
Composite Sample 070420 I 6/SED-C was analyzed for total metals. These results are
provided in Table 3-2. Hexavalent Chromium was also analyzed and reported by
ARI as a conventional parameter.
As summarized in Attachment C / Metals. Precision data for metals (except
Mercury and Hexavalent Chromium) was with control limits for all matrix spike
duplicate data. Spike recoveries ranged from 90.3 to 120% and were deemed
acceptable. Laboratory Control Sample Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate
l.lo)d & AssoclUlcs. Inc Page 20 of 30
data were within acceptable limits. Method Blank spike recoveries were acceptable,
although trace quantities of zinc and silver were detected in the method blank.
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met the Advisory Range for all
metals. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All metals
data presented in Table 3-2 are acceptable as qualified by the laboratory.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee/C was analyzed for semivolatile organics by
EPA GCMS Method 8270D, following PSDDA protocols. Sample reports and QC
reports are provided in Attachment C. Duplicate precision data was acceptable with
RPDs less than 20% for all parameters. Matrix spike and matrix spike recovery data
were acceptable, as well acceptably reproducible. Surrogate recoveries met EPA
method recovery limits/action criteria. Surrogate recovers were with QC warning
limits. Initial instrument calibration for bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate was out of control
and appropriately qualified, as Q.
Standard Reference (SRM-070716) recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory
acceptance criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits.
All semivolatile organic data reported in Table 3-4 is deemed acceptable as qualified.
Pesticides and PCBs
Composite Sample 07042016/Barbee-C was analyzed for pesticides and PCBs by
GC/ECD (Dual Column -Methods 8081A and Method 8082, respectively) following
PSDDA protocols. As shown in Table 3-5 no pesticides or PCBs were detected at
reporting limits. All reporting limits for all pesticides and PCB's were not detected
and less than Screening Levels for both Marine and Fresh Water. Additionally. all
undetected levels were less than MTCA Method A -Soil Cleanup Levels for
Unrestricted Land Use.
A detailed quality assurance summary of pesticide and PCB data, respectively is
provided in Attachment 3. Surrogate recoveries were acceptable and duplicate
precision data was acceptable with RPDs less than 17% for all pesticide parameters
and less that 6% for PCB's. Matrix spike recovery data was greater than 50%. Spike
recoveries were greater than zero for all parameters and within acceptance criteria.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all
surrogates.
Standard Reference recoveries for Laboratory Controls for pesticides and PCBs
(SRM PSR) were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance criteria. Method blanks
results were at or below reporting/detection limits. All data reported in Table 3-5 is
deemed acceptable as reported by the laboratory.
LIm d & A:-.socmle's. irK Page ~I of30
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Composite Sample 070420 16/Barbee-C was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons by
GC/FID (Method NWTHH-D). Results are provided in Table 3-6.
Surrogate recoveries met EPA method recovery limits/action criteria for all surrogates
Standard Reference recoveries were acceptable and met laboratory acceptance
criteria. Method blank results were at or below reporting/detection limits. Spike
recoveries gave acceptable precision, and spike duplicate analyses indicated
acceptable accuracy. All data reported in Table 3-6 for petroleum hydrocarbons is
acceptable as reported.
Dioxins and Furans
Analysis was performed using the application specific RTX-Dioxin 2 column, which
has a unique isomer separation for the 2378-TCDF, eliminating the need for second
column confirmation. Initial calibration and continuing calibration verifications were
within method requirements. However, the initial calibration verification fell outside
the control limits low for 13CI2-2,3, 7,8-TCDF, 13CI2-1 ,2,3,4, 7,8-HxCDF, and
13CI2-1.2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF. All other compounds were within control limits.
Both extraction and cleanup surrogates had recoveries within control limits, and the
method blank contained reportable responses for several compounds. "B" qualifiers
were applied to associated results that were less than ten times the levels found in the
method blank.
The laboratory control sample gave percent recoveries were within control limits.
The PSR SRM (SRM-072116) was analyzed as a reference material. Specific results
have been flagged "EMPC", indicating a response not meeting all requirements of
positive identification. The EM PC values were treated as undetects.
l.loyd & i\:';soclales. Inc Page 22 of 30
~(J16-213 Sedllllell\ ~JlTlllliTlg l'k~lIll~ 1)\11\'11 -I
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Sediment Sampling
Sampling work conducted at the Barbee Navigational -Maintenance Dredging area
was informative. Prior to sampling we had anticipated that medium to course sandy
materials would be encountered based on previous experience. Portions of the
proposed dredge area outside of the boathouse were most recently dredged in 20 II
and previously in 2002. Depositional infill sediments, currently within the proposed
dredge profile, tend to be finer sediments unsuitable for shallow water fish habitat
enhancement along the rockery to the immediate south. Therefore, all dredged
materials will be disposed in open water.
Core sampling in sandy sediments was marginal at best at SED-J where recoveries
were low at 37.5% Nevertheless, we arrived on site with a number of sampling
devices. The gravity corer worked out reasonable well, and the vanVeen sampler
worked great for the shallow sample near the boathouse. However, given the poor
recoveries at SED-I, a better choice for sample collection might be a vibrocore
sampler where a longer continuous core is desirable. Nevertheless, vibrocore
samplers have similar limitations in dealing with fine sands, as were encountered at
the project site. Based on our experience in sampling conditions encountered, it is not
clear that a vibrocore sampler would have worked out better.
Because actual proposed dredging depths are relatively shallow and generally less
than 10 feet, additional sampling data seems unnecessary although a Z sample could
be collected for conformational analyses. At no time will dredging reach former
lake bed elevations as dredged in 2002 or 20 II. In major part the growth of the May
Creek Delta severely limits the steepness of slopes that can be sustained within the
project area. There are also financial considerations. The project proponent is not
interested dredging to the maximum that may be possible. The purpose is to maintain
navigational access, not see how much money can be spent to restore historical
lakebed elevations in Lake Washington.
Sediment Sampling Results -Summary
Detected chemical contamination in the permitted dredge area (DMMU-I) is very
limited. Testing results are below DMMP fresh water and marine screening levels for
I Inyd & A<;soclates. Inc Page 23 of30
all parameters (see Section 3.0 Chemical and Physical Data). Nevertheless, some
motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbon was detected at 39 mg/kg (dry basis). Diesel
range petroleum product was detected in the composite sample at 8.3 mg/kg (dry
basis). Additionally, traces of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
detected. For example, benzo(a)pyrene was detected at 24 ug/Kg (dry basis).
Based on Analytical Testing Data and Screening Level comparisons, sediments to be
dredged in 2017 at the project site are suitable for open-water disposal.
Llo;.d & i\:-':-'oclates. In\.· Page 24 oDO
Attachment A -Sediment Sampling Logs
1,10\ d & Asvll'lates. Illl' Page 25 of 30
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sample Location: 070420165 EO-1
Sediment Sampling -Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Sample Time: 1235
Sample Type: Gravity core
Location: About 45' S. of Osprey Nesting Pole Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL o (ft) Lithology Description
State Plane: NAD83 -WA South (ft) 20.6 Lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual Water is very clear
Easling: 1.301.380 1.301.394
Northing: 195,438 195,431 18.5 2.1 'V Mudline Contact
Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 SP Fine to medium grained sand
Depth (D) to Mudline: 208 Scatered gravel at surface
predged Profile EL (ft. MSL): 14.5
SED Design Thickness: 4.0 16.0 4.6 Loose material in middle of drive
% Recovery: 37.5% fine sand to bottom with low
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT resistance to penetration.
2" Gravity corer driven to depth
Low recovery attributed to fine to medium 14.5 6.1 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
sand lost during extraction of corer Second core
drive gave same results
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Fine to medium sand (SP)
Density: Compact (very loose middrive)
Color: Grey
Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel
Odor: None Note: Sediments collected have very little water
Stratification: Fine sand at 15.5 feet observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly
draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content
Vegetation: None greater than 75%
Debris: None
Oily Sheen: None
Other:
NOTES/COMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Station moved to avoid milloil bottom and deeper
water than anticipated
Density I Consistency estimated by resistance
to penetration of sampler. Sediment description
based on visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected: SED-1
R Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sample Location: 07042016SED-2
Sediment Sampling -Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Sample Time: 1115
Sample Type: Gravity core
Location: Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL D (ft) Lithology Description
State Plane' NAD83 -WA South (It) 20.6 Lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual
Easting: 1,301,509 1,301,509
Northing: 195,448 195,448
Lake EL (MSL-ft): 20.6 19.1" 1.5 \l Mudlin. Contact
Depth (D) to Mudline: 1.5 SP Surfce gravel/dense
predged Profile EI. (ft. MSL): 16.0 Medium to fine sand
SED Thickness 3.1
% Recovery: 80.0% 16.0 4.6 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
2" Gravity corer driven to depth
Bottom 8" believed to be fine to medium sand
Sand lost during extraction of corer Second core
drive gave same results Note: Sediments collected have very little water
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
observed in the cores. Materials are rapidly
draining as anticipated. Anticpate solids content
Sediment Type: SP greater than 75%
Density: moderately dense
Color: Grey * Revised 12/12 to correct typgraphical error.
Consistency: fine to medium sand
Odor: None
Stratification: Coarse grading to fine sand
Vegetation: None
Debris: None
Oily Sheen: None
Other:
NOTES/COMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Density / Consistency estimated by resistance
to penetration of sampler. Sediment description
based on visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected: SED-2
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sample Location: 07042016SED-3
Sediment Sampling -Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Sunny and warm Sample Time: 0930
Sample Type: Grab
Location: Adjacent to Boathouse on west side Sediment Section: DMMU-1
SAMPLING SUMMARY EL o (ft) Lithology Description
State Plane: NAD83 -WA South (It) 20.6 lake Elevation
Coordinates: Proposed Actual 13.0 7.6 \1 Mudline Contact
Easting: 1201635 1.301,612 Leaf litter, stems
Northing: 195475 195,477 Milfoil
Lake EL (MSL-It): 20.6 Silty with some coaser sand
Depth (D) to Mudline: 7.6 12.6 8.0 Design Dredge Elevation (est)
Dredged Profile EI. (It. MSL): 80
SED Thickness: 0.4
% Recovery: 100.0%
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
2" Van Veen Sampler
Penetration about 6"
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Grab
Density: Loose/soupy
Color: Grey to blackish brown
Consistency: poorly graded, trace of gravel
Odor: Slight rotting smell
Stratification: None
Vegetation: Milfoil
Debris: twigs, leaf litter (25)
Oily Sheen: None, looks like decayin" leaf
Other:
NOTES/COMMENTS
Lake Elevation per USACE at Hiram Chittenden
Locks (206-783-7000)
Boathouse locked no access. Sampled near entry
of garage door.
Sample collected with a van Veen sampler
Sediment description based on
visual-manual ASTM Method
Sample Collected: SED-3
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist
Project 2016-1 Sampling Information 4 20 16.xls Page 3 of 5
Lloyd & Associates, Inc. Sample Location: 07042016SED-C
Sediment Sampling -Barbee Boathouse Dredge Area Sample Date: 7/4/2016
Weather: Overcast with cloud breaks Composite Time: 1300
Sample Type: Composite
Location: Barbee Sediment Section: DMMU-1
COMPOSITE SUMMARY COMMENTS
SEO-1 45% of SEO-1 The majority of material to be dredged arises near SEO·1
SEO-2 45% of SEO-2
and SEO-2. It IS unlikely that more than 1 % of all material
to be dredged arises at SEO-3 near the boathouse.
SEO-3 10% of SEO-3 Weighting at 10 % is on the high side and may skew
chemical and physical testing data.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Sediment Type: Composite
Density: Compact, rapidly draininQ
Color: Grey to Black
Consistency: qrittv
Odor: None
Stratification: N/A
Vegetation: Minor leaf litter
Debris:
Oily Sheen: None
R. Michael Lloyd, PhD (Chemistry) Dan Berta
Project Manager Registered Geologist
Project 2007-1 Sampling Information 4 20 16.xls
Revised to
Page 4 of 5
Attachment B -Grain Size Distribution
Llmd & As~ocmks_ 1m: Page 26 of 30
Geotechnical Analysis
Report and Summary QC Fonns
ARI Job ID: BCWl
BCWi;00:2iiO
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • Special Inspection • Materials Testing • Environmental Coosulting
Dote R_'''':~J~ul't:y=5.,-,2",O,-,16,---_____ _
Sampled By: ~021h;::cn;7-:;-;;= ______ _
Dot, Tal"': luly 21, 2016
Tested By: B. Gobi., K. O'Connell
CASE NARRA TlYE
! L One sample w';" -;;;-b~i~ r;'; grain size analysis according to Puget Sound Estuary Protocol I'
i (PSEP) methodology. _
i 2. The sample was run in a single batch and was run in triplicate. The triplicate data is reported on
! the QA summary.
! 3. Two of the sub samples did not contain the required amount of fines (5-25 grams). A sample
. could not be resplit to meet the required amount of fmes and stay within the capacity of the balance.
, The samples have been qualified on the QA summary.
i 4. The data is provided in summary tables and plots. i 5. There were no other noted anomalies in this projecl
i
i
!
I
I
I l ______ ._. ___________________ _
A!1_ull'''I'!'I)-anl~ID''''~I'-''''''''''_alstal<d. ..... LmaIIIIOIPfOI_IC~litoIu.lhePl'''uEllf~.l\Ilrqxln$ ... s1lbmJlII!d:lO!b.t~ .. I'''lF*''ot'liaII.i • ...,~i'*fOr
pdlllc.oO<lq[$I.M_<:<lN:luoi ....... _.6un ... ~CIIr"'l"""'" .. "*"""",.,mn,_...;~"J'I'I'O"'I1
CCi5..J--~<'.e. Ke>iewed by: _____________ _
Corporate ... 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fall (360) 155-1980
Reponat omc.s: Olympia -360.534.9777 BeUingbmn -360_647_6111 Silverdale -360.698.6787 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Vi$it our website; www.mtc-inc.net
C:
r' :[
i~'
lSI
lSI
1\1
1-"
I\,i
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering • SpeciailIUpection • Materials Testing • Environmenlal Consulting
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Proj.cU:~B~CW~~1 =c;------------
Dat. Received: ~Ji'ul"'y_;5", "'20,,1"'6';-_________ _
Date Tested: July 21, 2016
Sample No. Gravel V~COlll!ilC
""'"
Phi Size -3 -2 -1 0
SicVi: Size (microns) 3/8-M #10 018
r475<l) (2000) (JOOO)
07042016BARBEE-100.0 83.6 80.1 75.9
C 100.0 80.9 76.4 72.4
100,0 84.6 80.6 76.6
Clleot: Analytical Resources.loc.
Sampled by: .. Oth<r~'"s,..,...."..=:;-=,_-----
T ... ed by: B. Goble, K. O'Connell
Apparent Grain Si'J,je Distribution Summary
Percent Finer Than Indicated Size
Coarse Medium Fine Sand Very Fine
Sand Sand Sand
1 2 3 4
." /160 mo #230
,5001 (1:501 (llj t (ti3l
62.4 24.0 55 2.2
59.9 23.6 6.0 2.9
63.4 25,6 7.2 4.0
Silt
j 6
31.0 1.5.6
2.2 1.6
2.2 1.6
2.3 1.7
I Notes 10 thl! T~: O!'pnic matttt WIIS DOt ruooved Ilriocto te$tin" tbus the reponed ....wei. am the "appm:n.t" gnill size dWriblllion. SO!l Dllml.tive for di.scll5Siotl oftbe Iiesting..
Reviewed by:
~~~
7
1.'
1.2
1.4
1.3
Corporat. -777 Chry.ler Drive • Burlinllloo, WA!I8lJ3 • 1'1100. (360) 755-1'190 • Fa. (360) 755-1'180
8
3 .•
0.9
0.9
0,9
Regiooalom ... : Olympia -360.534,9777 Bellingham -360.647.6111 Silverdale -360.698.6787 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net
Clay
9 10
2.0 1.0
0.7 0.6
0.7 0,6
0.7 0,6
!~' ~,
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering· Special Inspection • Materials Testing. Environmenral Consulting
Project: BARBEE DREDGING
Pro~#:~B~C~W~I~~ __________________ ___
Date Received: July 5, 2016
naleTested: Jul,21,2016
Sample No. Gravel Vcr; Coarse Coarse Medium
SaDd Sand Sand
Phi Size < -I -I toO 010 I 1102
Sieve Size (microns) >fHl 10·" (2OOC IB-l."i ,5-60
(2000) lOOO) (l000-5('.O) (~250)
19.9 4.2 13.6 38.3
1l7042016BARBEE-( 23.6 4.1 12.5 36.3
19.4 4.0 13.2 37.8
Clitnt: Analytical Resources, Inc.
Sampled by: Others TestedbY:';:B".:;:G20~bl-:-e.·K'.row'Co=nne=II'------------
Appar<nl GniD Siu Distributioo Summary
Percent Retained in Each Size Fraction
Fine Sand Very Fine Coarse Silt Medium
Sand Silt
2to3 3 to 4 4to 5 5 to 6
60-120 (2.1<] 120-230 31.0-IS.6 125) (125-62) 62,j-31.0
18.6 3.2 0.0 0.6
17.6 3.1 0.7 0.6
18.4 3.2 1.7 0.6
Fine Silt Very Fine
Sill
6to7 7 to 8
IS.6-7.8 7.8-3.9
0.4 0.]
0.2 0.5
0.4 0.4
n
t: ~. I Nets t. the TfStinJ.: Organic matl1er was DC4 ~'OOI!d prior 10 1esIing. thu~ the report;d value.<! :are tbe "nppllml.t~ grain si:rJe distributian. See TlMr.l.tive {or di3lCussiOllQf dte testing.
Reviewed by: ~
8to9
3.9-2.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
lSI
lSi
1\.
1-"
f.l;i C<I.,...,.1e -777 Cbrysler Drive • BurliDgt .... WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fe (360) 755-1980
Clay
91010
20-1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
RCliooai Ollie .. : Olympia -360.534.9777 Bellingham -360.647.6111 Silverdale -360.698.6787 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Visit our website: .WWW.mtc-ir\(:.net
Total Fines
>10 >4
<1.0 <230
«62)
0.6 2.2
0.6 2.9
0.6 4.0
III n :t::
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
GeoIecIulkal Engineering + Speciallrulpection • Materials. Testing· Environmental Consu.lting
Project: BARBEE DREDGING ProJecjj:~BCWli1~i~~~~~~~~~~ Date Receiwd: julY 5, 2016
DateT ...... : Juty21, 2016
SampleID -3 -, -1
100.0 83.6 80.1
01042016BARBEE-C 100.0 80.9 76.4
100.0 ".6 80.6
AVE 100.0 83.0 79.0
SroEV 0.0 1.6 1.8
%RSD 0.0 I.. 2.3
0
75 .•
72.4
76.6
7'5.0
1.8
2.5
Oient: AnaI)'!icaJ Resources. Inc.
Sampled by: -i;0Ih~."i""-=-.,--;"",,==
TiI!IIted. by! B. Goble, 1<. O'COnn9IJ
Rdative Standard Deviation. By Phi Size
1 2 3 4
62.' 24.0 5.5 2.2
59.9 23.6 6.0 2 .•
63.4 25.6 72 4.0
61.9 24.4 6.2 3.0
l.5 0 .• 0.7 0.7
2.3 3.5 11.8 24.0
Client 10 Date Sampled Date Extracted
07042016BARBEE-C
.... • MTC Iftkmw,QA limits "'~-I05"
IS!
lSI
1,1
I":' ,c::
Notts til dH Ttatlq: ~ m.l1a: _ DOt. TeIJlUII'ed pOOr In ~ing.. thus the ~ villues are ~ ~:appQnQt' ttr.un Slu. dNtributim.. See ~ve fill" dist:useiou. of the CftItinj;.
Re';<wOOby: ~~f!c...
5 6
2.2 1.6
2.2 16
2.3 17
2.2 1.6
0.0 0.0
2.0 2.4
Date Complere
C ......... ,. -777 Cbrysler 01'1.< • Barlln,_ WA 98233 • Ph ... (3IiO) 755-1990 • F .. (3IiO)7SS-I980
7 8 9
1.2 0 .• 0.7
1. 0 .• 0.7
1.3 0.9 0.7
1.3 0.9 0.7
0.1 0.0 0.0
5 .• 2.9 2.4
QA Ratio Data
(95~I05) Qualifiers
1 SS
7 SS
'.6
Rrcienal Offices: Olympia -360.H4.9777 Bellmgharn -360,641.61 J I Silverdale -360.698.6181 Tukwila -206.241.1914
Visit our website: www.tt\k-:irtc.net
10
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.8
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering. Special Inspection· Materials Testing· Environmental Comioulting
Date Rtaived:-;:Ju;;:l:c:y::5,;-:2"O;.:.16=-______ _
Sampled By: Others DateTesIed:-;Ju:;l:::y;;:21~,-:;:20;;;1-;6-------
Tested By: B. Goble, K. O'Connell
Data Qualifiers
PSEP Grain Size Analysis
SM -The sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This normally refers t{l sa~le5 cOQlaminated with an
organic prod~( that interferes with the sieving process and/or moisture content, porosity and saturation calculations.
SS • The sample did not contain me proportion of "fines" required to perfonn the pipette portion of the gram size analysis.
W . The weight of the sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level required for accunlle weighing.
F -The sampJes were frozen prior to partide size delennination.
LV -Due to low ~ample volume provide:). the samples could 00( be laUD to meet QA requiremenK
COlporate-777Cbrys/erDrlve • Burllngtou, W~93l33 • PboDe~)7SS.199G • Fa. (J60)755·191W
ReglonalOllke!: Olympia -360.534.9777 Bellingham-360.647.6111 Silverdale -360.698.6181 Tukwila -206.241.1974
Vi~it our website: www.mtc-inc.nel
5Cwi 00.2i~:
PSEP Grain Size Distribution
Triplicate Sample Plot
GRAVEL SAND
I I I I I I
SILT CLAY 100
111_1_11
. -.. --..... -..... -,
90
-1 :
. -f---H I I I I ---t-----~ -~--. ~
50..,
50 !
1I
::0
II:
40
III I III I I I 1 IIII +++
.---t---I ~30
I
20
10
1;;
(")
:t::
0
1
,.,.
I 10000 1000 100 10
lSI
lSI
"I
Panicle DIam_ (mlcrono)
,---.-07042016BARBEE-C --07042016BARBEE-C -.-07042016BARBEE-C
I""
0'1
Materials Testing & Consu~ing, Inc_
PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
MTC Job No.: \!iI!.J!;l \ -!i){MTC Sample IcrIlI! -11,-\.3-1 Client Sample No.: (2 10'{ ZO I c., Grt12-a"E -<
Set Up Date: T /1·11 If Sample Descrip~on: l--:xuj SrI ad \ ll-\1b 9rw>fl
SOLIDS CONTENT
Moisture Content Initials:
Container No.
Tare Weight
Wet Weight + Tare
Dry Weight + Tare
Test Sample Initials:
Container No.
Tare Weight
Wet Weight + Tare
Dry Weight + Tare
Calgon Batch It. .....:'~~d:...-'O~ __
711912016
Temp:~2
TIME
12:30:00
12:30:20
12:31:49
12:37:15
12:56:59
14:26:00
I JlSF A
PIPETTE ANALYSIS
Inttials: .h:f-
PSEP Particle Size Distribution
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve Date:~ It· t V
Sieve Set It. 2 Inmals:~
Sieve Size Weight Retained
Tare r;o. q ·>'3 It"
4 :t1.1'2-ID
10 :}S'. oSI \
18 r.o .4-'C-'l't,
35 'l1"\~
60 14Y.\~\3
120 \~td .'\1 ~
230 \~.~\A
PAN O'~(p+1-
SALT CORRECTION
Date: ___ Initials:_
I TareW~ht I Dry wejit + Tare
Rev. 001
9121113
-------.-1-,---------------~~------DGWi; raG2i (
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANAL VSIS
MTC Job No.: \Irtr.(l \jJs1MTC Sample ID:JJII· ",:\1-/ClientSample No.: Q of O'"\'WltJ e:.A¥&fE -(
Setup Date: -=t 1"'1 ) 1.0 Sample Descfiption \:XIlI.i\ ~'(\cl \t?\\h (~
\
SOLIDS CONTENT
Moisture Content Initials: 12-
Conlainer No. (0(0
Tare Weight I. '\. ~ ~<-I
Wet Weight + Tare ( I'J r ('V)t.{ q
Dry Weight + Tare SO. 'bIS4
Test Sample Initials:~
Container No.
Tare Weight
Wet Weight + Tare
Dry Weight + Tare
Calgon Batch #: '>~. ~®~ __ _
711912016
Temp:22
TIME
12:33:00
12:33:20
12:34:49
12:.(0:15
13:01:59
14:29:00
18:1l'nt
11*:1»
11l5F A
PIPETIE ANALYSIS
InitiaIS:~
Tare ID Tare WI
iIl4r-"1-1.6j(A,,~
14':3-'2 \ .1-\:(,,20 <-
II~-'l \ .t(-¥~-:r
11\ 2-LlI/.N'3
14 -2-l.4-lil"Lf c:.
\~ :~-z Itflplilf " 1~2. I.;UDI
PSEP Particle Size Distribution
Dry WI & Tare
(. S s",'-\
(·SZ-:}D
\. S) 'ltO
.5112-
\, S (Joe;;
\.'_ \" 2"\
L4S'tO
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve Date:1 • Il . I (.,
Sieve Set #:..l.-In~iaI5; ~
Sieve SIze Weight Retained
Tare S-D .• ;r~1.A
4 ~.4-"31-~
10 5D ,0'1-,\'0
18 8S". d. ?>\t.{-
35 '01.0'323
60 14fe1.011?;. ®
120 ((A.~
230 1'1-3.'2.1-1<t
PAN O."l-5'l~2
SALT CORRECTION
Dale: ____ Initials:_
I Tare Weight I
DIY Weight + Tare
Rev.oot
9121113
Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc.
PSEP GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
MTC Job NO.:!\iID)I· Oj5Z MTC Sample 10:1\(.-\1'-\ 5'£lient Sample No.:Q 1042-'0 \ lo9.:.rtl.j!.£ 'C -<..
Set up Date: 1/"1 b.., Sample Description: ~ ?lirA '\\Ii <&'f71.1!Q.,~
\ '
SOLIDS CONTENT
Moisture Content Initials:
Container No.
Tare Weight
Wet Weight + Tare
Dry Weight + Tare
Te$tSample Initials: Yl:2...
Container No. n S
Tare Weight S;;1.lZ~Y
Wet Weight + Tare 'lOS· ~'f4. f
Dry Weight + Tare l'+lr.O'5''+"2-
7/191'2016
Temp:22
TIME
12:36:00
12:36:20
12:37:49
12:43:15
13:04:59
14:32:00
11I5f A
Calgon Batch #: _'3;;.... d'O:;..;:::.. __ _
PIPElTE ANALYSIS
Initials: -l2t-
Tare 10 Tare VIII
1\'\:(3 \.4-1-\ \
Dry WI & Tare
\ S'l..OS
\ ·SI 30
\.51-\ 0
PSEP Particle Size Distribution
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve Date: T . \ \. , ""
Sieve Set #: (;l. Initials: .h:tf
Sieve Size Weight Retained
Tare S-I.-z. '21--:t-
4 .~!. \ Oe~)
10 tv.'3?'1-1
18 S\·S0to&
35 9v·S"t£S"
60 , Lf 1-.31.150
120 11-1.11'3"+
230 nS-.2.'14-2
PAN O."I?-"">I
SALT CORRECTION
Date: ___ Initials'
I Tare Weight I
Dry Weight + Tare
Rev. COl
9/21113
~~; 3~<o +.\1..\\i(bl
~ 1>Y~ Wr~.t VJt( ~ WjImWH"l) \~wH,,)
It!. \. L.\-9t \ \. q -:,'\\ a.L\'O~ .. . .
....... -. ~\.~ \.'1,-\\ r ~ . \.j. €I?' ':l..
31>, I. tfS1f 1-\. q~ l?.:; O. 4~?'1.t-
.lt~ Ltt{f{o I . q-'-\!cf5 C'.4'b:;tt;
?QlIAi£lq). \ q~~'6 l' . L\-'¥\ \.r -. ) ~
IPNeVo.,t e c: t>1...\ IQ 'L -:j e.-,
~ ..-/
Cugini Property Boathouse
Expansion of the Existing Lake
Washington Dredge Prism
· ,'~: ~ '. j
Biological Assessment
Action Agency
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared by
Meridian Environmental, Inc.
August 27,2012
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
CONTENTS
I. Background / History .......................•.......•.••.........•.••..••......•••••••......•••..••......••...••.....••...••..•....••••. 1
A. Project and Federal Action History ............................................................................................... 3
II. Description of the Action and Action Area .................................................................................... 4
A. Federal Action and Legal Authority .............................................................................................. 4
B. Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 4
Timing and Duration of Work ....................................................................................................... 5
Sediment Disposal ........................................................................................................................ 5
Conservation Measu res ................................................................................................................ 6
C. Relation of Proposed Project to other Actions ............................................................................. 7
D. Project Area and Action Area Defined .......................................................................................... 7
III. Status of Species and Critical Habitat ........................................................................................... 9
A. Species Lists from the Services (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS) ..................................................... 9
Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DPS ............................................................................... 9
Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH ......................................... 10
B. Description of Species ................................................................................................................. 11
Chinook Salmon .......................................................................................................................... 11
Steelhead .................................................................................................................................... 15
Bull Trout .................................................................................................................................... 17
Coho Salmon ............................................................................................................................... 20
IV. Environmental Baseline .............................................................................................................. 22
A. Description of the Action Area and Project Area ........................................................................ 22
Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington) ......................................................................... 22
Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 25
B. Description of the Environmental Baseline ................................................................................ 39
Environmental Baseline Matrix .................................................................................................. 39
V. Effects of The Action on Fish Species .......................................................................................... 46
A. Direct Effects ............................................................................................................................... 47
Direct Effects on Fish .................................................................................................................. 47
Direct Effects on Habitat ............................................................................................................ 48
Direct Effects on Water Quality .................................................................................................. 49
B. Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................................ 50
C. Effects from Interdependent and Interrelated Actions .............................................................. 50
D. Effects from Ongoing Project Activities ...................................................................................... 50
E. Description of How the Environmental Baseline would be Affected ......................................... 51
F. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................... 51
G. Take Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 51
H. Critical Habitat Effects Analysis .................................................................................................. 52
VI. Effects Determination for Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat ................................... 53
VII. Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................. 53
Biological Assessment Page i
Q,\ProJects\Harbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 RA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
A. Description of the Proposed Action ............... """""""."." .... " ....... """""""""."."." ....... " ........ 54
B. Appropriate Fisheries Management Plan(s) "" .. "" .. """" ........ " ... """" .. " .... " .... " .... " .... " .. "" .. ,, 54
C. Effects of the Proposed Action .... " .... " .... " .... " .. "" .. " .... "" .. " .... " .... " .... """""" .... " .... " .. ,,"",, ... 54
D. Proposed Conservation Measures ..... " .... " .... " ........... " .. "" .... """,, ............................. """,,. """ 54
E. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 54
References .......... ""."" .. " .................................................................................................................. S6
Appendix A Site Maps -Dredge Area Expansion
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the proposed project area ... "" .. """"""""""" .. "" .. ,,""""""""""""",,. 2
Figure 2. High elevation aerial photograph of the proposed project area and action area in Lake
Washington ............................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3. May Creek delta 2012 SCUBA/snorkel survey transect locations ... """"".""".".""""",,.,,.,,. 26
Figure 4. Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet during the 2005 SCUBA survey
(M e ri dian E nvironmenta I Inc. 2005) ... "" .... " ........ " ....... " .... " ........ " .......... " .... " .... " ........... " .. 27
Figure 5. Photograph of juvenile coho observed near the existing boathouse structure during
the 2012 SCUBA survey (located inside the yellow rectangle) ... """ ...... " ........ " .... " .... " .. ,, .... 31
Figure 6. Photograph of prickly sculpin observed along transect 1 during the 2012 SCUBA
survey ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 7. Photo graph of the culvert structure located at the eastern end of transect 1 (2012
survey) ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 8. Historical aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site. " .... " .... " .... " .. "" .... """" .. "" .. "" .. " .... ,, .. 33
Figure 9. Riparian condition at the confluence of May Creek with Lake Washington in 2012
(looking west from the boathouse dock at the proposed expanded dredging area). " .... " .... 33
Figure 10. Curly-leaf pondweed photographed along transect 6 (2012 SCUBA survey) ... " .. " ...... " .. " .... 35
Figure 11. Riprap cobble substrate and caddisfly larvae observed along transect 1 during the
2012 SCU BA survey ............. " .......... " ....... "." .... " .. " .... " ... " ........ " .... " .... " .... " .............. " .... " ... 36
Figure 12. Gravel substrate observed along transect 2 during the 2012 SCUBA survey ... " .......... " .. " .... 37
Figure 13. Silt substrate observed along transect 4 at a depth of approximately 16 feet during the
2012 SCU BA survey ... " .... " ....................... " .... " .... " ..... " ................ " .... " .... " .... " .... " ........ " .... " 3 7
Figure 14. Existing riparian conditions along lower May Creek, located to the north of the
proposed actio n area ... " .. " ......... " ..... " .. "" .... " .. "" ..... " .......... " .... " .... " ....... " .............. " .... " ... 38
Figure 15. The dock and boathouse dock structures located to the east ofthe proposed
expanded dredging area .......................................................................................................... 39
Biological Assessment Page ii
Q \ProJects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BAI2012 BA 082712.docx
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of recent ESA dredging consultations ....................................................................... 3
Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) Species ...... 10
Summary of May 3 and May 17, 2012 SCUBA survey results within the proposed
project area ............................................................................................................................. 29
Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental baseline on
relevant indicators ................................................................................................................... 40
Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11 days of sampling over
the dredging period) ................................................................................................................ 50
Biological Assessment Page iii
Q:\Prujects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712_docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
I. BACKGROUND / HISTORY
This Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to obtain a modification of the Cugini's existing U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) programmatic permit (NWS-2007-1019-NO) which allows
maintenance dredging activities in the amount of 2,000 to 4,000 cubic yards from a 1O,000-square-
foot area of Lake Washington near the May Creek delta over a lO-year period (Figure 1). The
proposed action is to allow dredging of up to an additional 2,700 cubic yards (up to 14,000 square
feet of lakebed) adjacent to the existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). This expansion of
the dredge prism would align it with the dredge area permitted by the City of Renton in 2006;
expand the current permitted dredge footprint to the west by approximately 160 feet (to the Inner
Harbor Line), and align the dredge footprint along the property line on the north of Lot A (Appendix
A, Sheets 1 through 4). The purpose of this proposed expansion is to facilitate safe navigational
access to the boathouse and promote future recreational uses.
While periodic maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments has occurred within and
near the May Creek delta for over 50 years, the proposed expanded dredging project addressed in
this BA is focused on the zone shown in Appendix A, Sheets 1 through 4). Based on the project
proponent's experience over the past 50 years, dredging of this area would be necessary every 3 to
5 years to maintain navigational depths and other project objectives. In addition to expanding the
existing dredging prism, the proposed action would involve three environmental enhancements in
the local area. These include placing 10 cubic yards of rounded river rock adjacent to the existing
boat launch and boathouse to enhance shallow water habitat for fishes; removing two dolphins (6
creosote piles) at south side of Lot D and replacing them with two 12-inch-diameter galvanized pipe
piles; and removing three large creosote pilings near the delta, coupled with the installation of a fish
friendly float with grated decking.
Biological Assessment Page 1
Q \Pr~iects\Barbee BA 20 12\20 12 Drall BA\20 12 SA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the proposed project area.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) directs federal departments
and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, and/or conducted by them are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed species, or result in
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such species. Section 7(c) of the ESA
requires that federal agencies contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), subsequently referred to as the Services, before beginning any
construction activity to determine if federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species or
designated critical habitat may be present in the vicinity of a proposed project. A BA must be
prepared if such species or habitat are present. With respect to the proposed action, federal
permits from the USACE would be needed to complete the project. The Services have determined
that T&E species, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and Coastal/Puget
Sound bull trout may be present in the proposed project action area; therefore, this BA is required
by the ESA to ensure that the proposed expanded dredging project would not jeopardize the
continued existence or recovery of these listed species.
This document also contains an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment in accordance with section
305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.s.c.
1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. The MSA includes a mandate that NMFS
identify EFH for federally managed marine fish. In addition, federal agencies must consult with
NMFS on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded or undertaken by the agency that
may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for
the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fish and coastal pelagic fisheries. The ESA
consultation process can be used to address EFH (NMFS 2001). This BA addresses EFH for Chinook
and coho salmon, which are the only MSA-managed species that may be present in the project area.
Biological Assessment Page 2
Q:\Proiects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Drat! BA\2012 BA OS2712_docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
The objective of this BA is to review all pertinent and available information on the potential effects
of the proposed project on MSA managed species, EFH, ESA listed T&E species, and associated
critical habitats under NMFS and USFWS jurisdiction.
Based on our analysis in Section V, the proposed project would likely cause a short-term negligible
increase in turbidity/suspended sediment in the action area and a reduction in benthic invertebrates
in the dredging zone. However, overall water quality would likely be improved over the long term
through the removal of the toxic creosote pilings near the dredging area. Primary productivity and
the fish forage base within the project vicinity would also be improved through the installation of a
fish friendly float and the placement of additional "fish rock" along the Lake Washington shoreline.
For these reasons, implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project
would be expected to benefit listed Chinook, steel head, and bull trout. Take of any listed species is
very unlikely, and designated Chinook and bull trout critical habitat would not be destroyed or
adversely modified by the project. Therefore, the proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to
adversely affect" Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. In addition, the proposed project would not
adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, and would not hinder a sustainable
fishery for these two species.
A. PROJECT AND FEDERAL ACTION HISTORY
Dredging of the May Creek delta and boathouse area has occurred for over 50 years on a 3-to 4-
year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. Since the delta area was dredged
in 2002, an estimated 20,000 to 24,000 cubic yards have been deposited at the delta in Lake
Washington. The most recent dredging occurred in 2011. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards
of sediment have been removed during each dredging cycle. The dredged material was previously
stockpiled on upland areas of the Barbee Mill property (owned by the Cugini family) and sold as
clean construction fill material. Previous consultations with the USACE were completed for May
Creek delta dredging and for bark debris removal in Lake Washington adjacent to Barbee Mill. Bark
removal work was voluntarily undertaken to restore aquatic habitat under lease agreements with
the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Most recent consultations for these projects at
the Barbee Mill site (summarized in Table 1) resulted in a "not likely to adversely affect"
determinations for listed Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout.
T hI 1 a e s f S d d ummary 0 recent E A re 19in~ consu tations.
USACE Project Implementation
Year Reference # Action Consultation Date
2001 195-2-0097 May Creek delta "May affect, not likely to 2001 dredging adversely affect" for all species
2002 1995-2-00997 Lake Washington "May affect, not likely to 2002 bark removal adversely affect" for all species
2008 NWS-2007 -1 019-NO May Creek delta "May affect, not likely to 2011 dredging adversely affect" for all species
Biological Assessment Page 3
Q:\Projects\Barbee SA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 AA 082712_docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND ACTION AREA
A. FEDERAL ACTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
It is anticipated that the USACE would be the lead federal agency for this ESA consultation, as USACE
permits are the only federal approvals (i.e., federal action) required for the proposed dredging
project. Therefore, this BA follows the USACE BA template. This BA is required by the ESA to ensure
that dredging actions that may be authorized by the USACE under section 404 of the federal Clean
Water Act are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally proposed or listed
species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed action would involve amending the current USACE programmatic permit to allow
dredging of an additional 2,700 cubic yards of sediment (1,400 square feet of lakebed) in an area
located adjacent to the existing permitted dredge prism (Appendix A). This expansion of the dredge
prism would align it with the Cugini property and inner harbor lines, facilitate safe navigational
access to the boathouse, and promote future recreational uses. The current permit reference is
NWS-2007-1019-NO.
For decades, the Barbee Mill site (owned by the Cugini family) and May Creek delta have been
affected by ongoing development in the upper May Creek valley. Upstream development has
resulted in higher peak flood flows due to increased impervious surface in the watershed. Peak
flows have increased approximately 15 to 20 percent compared to predevelopment conditions for
the 2-, 25-, and lOO-year flood event return intervals (King County 2001). In addition, this increased
run-off has resulted in severe bank erosion and sediment transport from the upper basin, which is
deposited in the May Creek delta adjacent to the Barbee Mill. Subsequently, wave action in Lake
Washington transports fine sediment from the delta to the boathouse area, which is located to the
south of the May Creek delta.
Dredging of the May Creek delta and Cugini property boathouse area has occurred for over 50 years
on a 3-to 4-year cycle, depending on the volume of sediment accumulation. As is allowed under the
existing permit, a small dredge and clamshell bucket would be used and the material would be
disposed of at an approved upland location. The sediment from this area has been tested in the
past using the procedures speCified by the Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) and
the DMMP has determined that all of the material is suitable for appropriate beneficial use.
Under the proposed action, dredging events would continue to occur in both the existing and
expanded dredge prisms over a 3-to 5-day period every 3 to 5 years within the approved in-water
work period. Up to a maximum of 2,700 cubic yards of additional sediment would be removed to
accomplish the desired navigational depth profile. Dredging would deepen the expanded dredge
prism by approximately 10 feet over 1,400-square-feet of lake bed (Appendix A). Periodic
evaluation of sediment depth would trigger future dredging activities. As is currently permitted,
accumulated sediments would be removed with a small dredge and clamshell bucket. Portions of
the work may also be conducted with a long-reach excavator from the land or an excavator
mounted on a fenced flat barge. Use of any other type of dredge would require prior approval from
Biological Assessment Page 4
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 HA 082712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
the USACE and Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Sediments would be loaded on a
barge, transported, and off-loaded at an approved fill material stockpile zone for beneficial upland
uses.
Based on monitoring records from previous and currently permitted dredging actions at the site,
conservation measures such as silt curtains to reduce turbidity should not be required. During 2002
dredging, the highest turbidity values recorded were less than 7 NTU. However, turbidity would be
monitored during future dredging. Conservation measures, such as silt curtains, would be deployed
as necessary fol[owing conditions set by the WDOE 401 certification for this project. [t is anticipated
that the WDOE would require the deployment of a silt curtain if turbidity in the dredging zone
exceeds 10 NTU above background levels.
To enhance aquatic habitat in the project vicinity, the project proponent is also proposing to place
an additional 10 cubic yards of 3-to 6-inch diameter "fish rock" along the lake Washington
shoreline just south of the existing boathouse. The Cuginis would also extract and replace three
existing creosote piles with two 8 inch diameter galvanized pipe piles and demolish and rep [ace the
existing solid-surface 38-foot float with a grated float that is 24 feet long. The grated float would
increase light transmission to the shallow water habitat. Grating specifications would comply with
previously approved permit conditions for light transmission. [n addition to these measures, two
dolphins (six creosote piles) at the south side of lot D would be extracted and replaced with two 12-
inch diameter galvanized pipe piles. Piles would be pulled concurrent with the Area 2 enhancement
work. As previously approved in the existing USACE permit, all creosote treated pilings would be cut
into 4-foot lengths and disposed of in an approved upland landfi[l, consistent with existing permit
requirements.
Timing and Duration of Work
Conducting all dredging and habitat enhancement work addressed in this BA within the existing
NMFS approved in-water work period and implementing conservations measures detailed in this BA,
would minimize or avoid impacts to listed fish species and their habitat in the action area. Detai[ed
information for each project element is presented be [ow. The NMFS approved lake Washington in-
water work time, which is designed to limit impacts to aquatic species, is Ju[y 16th to September
15th (NMFS 2008). Consistent with the existing permit, the proposed expanded dredge area would
be dredged during this time frame, once approximately every 3 to 5 years over the existing permit's
lO-year period.
Sediment Disposal
Sediments from the expanded dredge area would be dredged and transported by barge for off-
loading at the adjacent Quendall Termina[s located immediately north of the delta. Dredged
materials would be loaded into a dredge scow and unloaded with a long-reach excavator.
Sediments would be used for upland beneficial uses, subject to an assessment of sampling results
and chemical analysis. All debris ([arger than 2 feet in any dimension) would be removed from the
dredged sediment prior to disposal.
Bio[ogical Assessment Page 5
Q:\Projects\Harbcc 8A 201212012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures are activities that the applicant would implement to avoid or minimize take
of listed species and avoid or reduce impacts to their habitat. As part of the proposed action, the
applicant would implement several conservation measures to minimize impacts to listed species.
These measures are consistent with the existing dredge permit and are listed below.
The applicant would:
1. Limit the duration of in·water work to the extent necessary to accomplish project objectives,
estimated to be 7 to 10 days of work, once every 3 to 5 years. Work would be conducted during
the approved NMFS Lake Washington in-water work time (July 16 to September 15).
2. Monitor water quality during each dredging event in accordance with the WDOE 401 water
quality certification. Monitoring would be conducted at least daily within and adjacent to the
dredging zone in order to determine the background turbidity level and any increases caused by
dredging.
3. If construction induced turbidity levels in the work zone exceed 10 NTU over background levels,
modify dredging activities by employing standard methods such as silt curtains to reduce the
opportunity for fish exposure to turbidity. Dredged material would not be stockpiled on a
temporary or permanent basis below the ordinary high water line.
4. If oil or other unknown substances appear on the water surface or in dredged material while
equipment is being operated, cease operations immediately to identify the source of the
contaminant and remedy the problem. If necessary, use an oil absorbent boom secured to a
debris boom to encircle the work zone to capture sheen or potential floating debris.
10. Avoid dredging along shoreline slopes and shallow water habitat along the shoreline north of
the dredging zone to protect nearshore habitat that may be used by rearing Chinook salmon or
steelhead.
11. Conduct a post-dredge bathymetry survey to ensure that only the specified amount of material
was removed.
12. Confine dredging impacts to the minimum area necessary to complete the project. During
dredging, the Cuginis would have a boat available on site at all times to retrieve debris from the
water.
13. Prepare and make available a summary report documenting monitoring activities immediately
following the dredging to confirm that these conservation measures were implemented.
14. Comply with any additional measures that are currently required in the existing Biological
Opinion (NMFS 2008) and Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WDOE 2008).
Biological Assessment
Q'\Pro)ects\Barbee SA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 81\ 082712.docx
Page 6
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
c. RELATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO OTHER ACTIONS
The proposed expansion of the dredge prism is directly related to the existing (permitted) dredging
activities occurring just south of the May Creek delta. The purpose of this proposed expansion is to
align it with the existing property and inner harbor lines, facilitate safe navigational access to the
boathouse, and promote future recreational uses.
D. PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA DEFINED
The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402-02). The action area for this
proposed project is in the Lake Washington shoreline corresponding to the immediate vicinity of
3901 Lake Washington Boulevard Avenue, near Renton (Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section
32). The action area includes EFH for Chinook salmon and coho salmon. Appendix A shows the
proposed expanded dredging zone. The removal of up to a maximum of 2,700 cubic yards of
sediment would disturb approximately 14,000 square feet of substrate in Lake Washington.
In order to encompass all indirect effects, such as increased turbidity during dredging, the action
area for this project encompasses the lower portion of May Creek and southern Lake Washington
within approximately one half mile of the May Creek delta (Figure 2). It is anticipated that the one
half mile action area is more than sufficient to encompass small and temporary increases in turbidity
during dredging based on water quality monitoring during previous dredging in the delta.
Biological Assessment Page?
<)"IPro.1ccts\Barbee BA 20!2\2012 Draft BAI2012 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Figure 2. High elevation aerial photograph of the proposed project area and action area in Lake Washington.
Biological Assessment Page 8
() '"I'rolccts'.Bmhl'C In 2012''.2ilI2Dra:\ H,\'..?:I)11 Bl\ m(.?:712 duc".
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
III. STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
A. SPECIES LISTS FROM THE SERVICES (NOAA FISHERIES AND USFWS)
A list of federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species and critical
habitat that may occur in the action area was compiled using the NMFS and USFWS electronic
species list websites and critical habitat designations. The USFWS and NMFS websites were
accessed on June 1, 2012.
Identification of Listed Species and ESU/DPS
On March 24, 1999, the NMFS listed Chinook salmon (Gncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Puget
Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the ESA (64 FR 14308), and the
listing was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of
Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits of Juan De
Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South
Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Washington, as well as twenty-six artificial
propagation programs.
Puget Sound steel head (G. mykiss) were listed as threatened under the ESA on May 11, 2007 (72 FR
26722). The Distinct Population Segment (DPS) includes all naturally-spawned anadromous winter-
run and summer-run steel head populations in streams in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to the west by the Elwha River (inclusive)
and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek (inclusive), as well as the Green River
natural and Hamma Hamma winter·run steelhead hatchery stocks.
The Coastal!Puget Sound bull trout DPS was listed as threatened under the ESA on November 1,
1999 (63 FR 31693). The Coastal-Puget Sound DPS comprises all Pacific coast and Puget Sound bull
trout populations within Washington State, including the Snohomish River and its tributaries. This
population segment is geographically segregated from other subpopulations by the Pacific Ocean
and the crest olthe Cascade Mountain Range. It is significant to the species as a whole because it is
thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the coterminous United States.
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon (0. kisutch) are not listed under the ESA; however, they
were classified as a Species of Concern on April 15, 2004 due to specific risk factors. The ESU
includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon from drainages of Puget Sound and Hood
Canal, the eastern Olympic Peninsula (east of Salt Creek), and the Strait of Georgia from the eastern
side of Vancouver Island and the British Columbia mainland (north to and including the Campbell
and Powell Rivers). excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope.
Table 2 summarizes the federally-listed, proposed, and candidate fish and marine mammal species
that are known to occur near the action area or that may be potentially affected by the propose
action. The table also indicates whether critical habitat or EFH has been designated or proposed for
each species.
Biological Assessment Page 9
Q,\Projecb\ilarbee IJA 2012\2012 Draft BA\20 12 BA 082712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Table 2. Summary for Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson·Stevens Act
(MSAl Species.
Species
Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Bull trout
(Sa/velinus confluentus)
Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch)
1 Evolutionary Significant Unit
:;; Distinct Population Segment
ESA Status
(Listing Unit)
Threatened
(Puget Sound ESU')
ESA listed Threatened
(Puget Sound DPS')
Threatened
(Coastal I
Puget Sound DPS')
Species of Concern
(Puget Sound I
Strait of Georgia ESU)
Designated Proposed
ESA Critical ESA Critical MSAManaged
Habitat Habitat with EFH
No Yes Yes
N/A under No development
No Yes No
N/A N/A Yes
Identification of Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat and EFH
The NMFS issued a final rule designating critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on
September 2, 2005 (with an effective date of January 2, 2006). Designated critical habitat Puget
Sound Chinook salmon includes Lake Washington (freshwater rearing and freshwater migration);
however, no critical habitat is designated in May Creek. On January 19, 2007, the NMFS adopted a
final ESA recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Shared Strategy Development Committee
2007). The plan includes specific protection and restoration actions for each watershed in the Puget
Sound region as well as actions at the regional E5U scale. The action area contains juvenile Chinook
salmon rearing and migration primary constituent elements (PCEs) and adult Chinook salmon
migration PCEs.
ESA critical habitat was proposed by the USFWS for the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS on June
24,2004 (50 CFR Part 17). Proposed critical habitat for the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS includes Lake
Washington, but does not include any Lake Washington tributaries, except the upper Cedar River.
Lake Washington is proposed as foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO) critical habitat for
bull trout.
Proposed Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Steelhead is currently under review by the NMFS. A
recovery plan has not yet been developed for the Puget Sound Steelhead DPS.
The MSA defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary for fish use in spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity. MSA manages species that may occur in the action area, including
Chinook and coho salmon. Freshwater EFH for these salmon species includes all those streams,
lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to these species
in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Lake Washington is designated EFH for Chinook and
coho salmon. There are four major components of freshwater EFH for salmon including 1) spawning
and incubation; 2) juvenile rearing; 3) juvenile migration corridors; and 4) adult migration corridors
Biological Assessment Page 10
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft RA\20 12 AA 082712,docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
and adult holding habitat. The components of EFH in the action area include juvenile rearing and
migration corridors, and adult migration corridors and holding habitat.
B. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES
Chinook Salmon
Status ofthe ESU
The Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has been defined to include all
PS Chinook salmon populations residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing
natural water falls) in the Puget Sound region from the Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the
Olympic Peninsula, inclusive. The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is assessed
based on their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. Within the action area in
Lake Washington, there are two native populations (the North Lake Washington population and the
Cedar River population) that use the area from rearing and migration. A third population, the
Issaquah stock, is not included in the assessment because they are a non-native stock from the
Issaquah Hatchery that has been in operation since the 1930s (WDFW 2004).
Overall abundance ofthis ESU has declined substantially from historical levels, and many
populations are small enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively high
(March 9, 1998, 63 FR 11494). Historic abundance has been estimated to be approximately 609,000
adult returns (Myers et al. 1998), while average present day (1998-2002) abundance of natural
origin spawners is 30,182 fish (NMFS 2005). NMFS (Good et al. 2005) listed approximately 331
geometric mean spawners in North Lake Washington population and 327 in the Cedar River
population, and no estimates of historical abundance for comparison. The general trend in the
abundance for the North Lake Washington Tributary Chinook salmon has remained generally
consistent, with escapements between 200 and 500 adults (WDFW 2004). The Cedar River Chinook
salmon have shown a long-term negative trend in escapements and chronically low escapement
values (WDFW 2004).
The lambda (productivity estimate) for North Lake Washington Chinook (short term trend) is 1.07
(±0.07) (Good et ai., 2005), indicating the population is just replacing itself. For the Cedar River,
short term lambda is (0.99±0.07) also indicating the population is probably just replacing itself.
Significant population growth would require an increase in productivity. For salmon recovery, the
target goal lambda amount is 3.4 to increase abundance to a level that would remove the
populations from the threat of extinction.
Genetic analysis of the three populations in the Lake Washington basin indicated that the North
Lake Washington Tributary population and the Cedar River Chinook are significantly different
(WDFW 2004). Therefore, the genetic differentiation between the two populations increases the
possibility for recovery when faced with an environmental change and an increase of available
habitat.
Life History and Habitat Requirements
Throughout their range, Chinook salmon exhibit diverse and complex life history strategies.
Differences exist in age at seaward migration; freshwater, estuarine, and ocean residence; and in
age and season of spawning migration (Healey 1991, page 314; Myers et al. 1998, page 9). Most of
Biological Assessment Page 11
Q:\Pro.lects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Dra!t BA\2012 IJA 082712.doo.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
this variation is exhibited in two distinct behavioral forms commonly referred to as stream-type and
ocean-type {Healey 1991, page 314}. Stream-type Chinook rear in freshwater for a year or more
before migrating to sea, perform extensive offshore migrations, and return to their natal river in
spring or summer, several months prior to spawning. Ocean-type Chinook typically migrate to sea in
their first year of life, only a few months after emergence, remain in nearby coastal areas, and
normally return to their natal river in the late summer or fall, a few days or weeks before spawning.
Ocean residence for both stream-type and ocean-type Chinook usually ranges from 1 to 6 years;
however, a small proportion of yearling males, called "jacks" mature in freshwater or return to
freshwater after 2 to 3 months in salt water. Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU typically
exhibit an ocean-type life history; however, a number of spring-run populations in the ESU include a
high proportion of yearling smolt emigrants.
Adult Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound typically return to freshwater in August and spawn in the
lower and middle reaches of rivers from late September through January {WDF et al. 1993}.
Preferred water temperatures for spawning range from 42.1 and S7"F {Reiser and Bjornn 1979}.
Often, the preferred spawning sites are located near deep pools and in areas with abundant
instream cover. Adequate spawning area, abundant clean gravel {O.S to 4 inches in diameter}, a
relatively stable stream channel (with minimal bedload movement), and sub-gravel flow are very
important in the selection of redd sites {Healey 1991, page 323}. Depending on water temperature,
incubation takes between 90 and 150 days.
While rearing in freshwater, juvenile Chinook are normally associated with low gradient,
meandering, unconstrained stream reaches. As they grow, submerged and overhead cover in the
form of rocks, submerged aquatic vegetation, logs, riparian vegetation, and undercut banks provide
food and shade and protect juveniles from predation. When adult Chinook return to spawn, they
often rely on deep pools for resting. These pools provide an energetic refuge from river currents, a
thermal refuge from high summer and autumn water temperatures, and protection from potential
predators.
Chinook stocks in Lake Washington exhibit ocean-type life history patterns, with juveniles typically
migrating to sea within the first three months after emergence. However, juveniles have also been
found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended time periods
{Wydoski and Whitney 1979}. In Lake Washington, Tabor et al. {2004} found that juvenile Chinook
salmon prefer shallow, low-gradient delta and shoreline habitats composed of sand and gravel
substrates with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris accumulations. The preferred
temperature range for Chinook salmon fry ranges from 54 to S6.8°F {Reiser and Bjornn 1979}.
After a variable freshwater residence time, Chinook salmon juveniles migrate to estuaries.
Migrations occur primarily during spring and early summer, but continue at lower levels through the
fall {USFWS 1983}. Chinook salmon in the Skagit River estuary occupied the inner estuarine salt
marshes for 2 to 3 days before emigrating farther out in the estuary {USFWS 1983}. Smolts
congregated in tidal streams at low tide, with the majority of fish observed in deep, slow water over
soft substrates {USFWS 1983}. The highest nearshore juvenile Chinook salmon densities occurred in
tidal areas without any freshwater influence {Shepard 1981}.
Factors of Decline
Threats to the Chinook salmon include watershed development, such as forest practices, mining,
agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower development and water manipulation and
Biological Assessment Page 12
Q:\Projects\l:3arbee BA 2012\20 12 Draft BA\20 12 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
withdrawal. Over-fishing, artificial propagation and introduction of nonnative species have also
impacted Chinook salmon. Forest practices, mining, agricultural land use, urbanization, hydropower
development and water withdrawal have resulted in increased sedimentation, changes in flow
regimes and channel morphology, decrease in water quality and quantity, loss of riparian habitat,
loss of large woody debris (LWD), and loss of LWD recruitment, higher water temperatures,
decreased gravel recruitment, reduction in pools and spawning and rearing areas, rerouting of
stream channels, degradation of streambanks and loss of estuarine rearing areas (Bishop and
Morgan 1996; Myers et al. 1998). These changes have affected the spawning and rearing
environment of Chinook salmon. Harvest, hatchery practices and the introduction of nonnative
species have also impacted the expression of the varied life history strategies of Chinook salmon
within the ESU.
Current and future development pose many risks to the Chinook salmon populations in Lake
Washington, primarily through increased water pollution and further habitat degradation by such
mechanism as increased impervious surface, which alters stream hydrology causing increased
erosion and sedimentation of Chinook spawning grounds. A detailed discussion of Chinook limiting
factors in the Lake Washington basin is given in Kerwin (2001).
In addition to extensive shoreline development, other factors that can compromise the survival of
juvenile Chinook salmon include poor water quality and high water temperatures in the Ship Canal
and Ballard Locks. All juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids must pass through the Ship Canal
during migrations to and from saltwater. The significant differences in water temperature and
salinity encountered at the Ballard Locks require a rapid transition by the fish and may cause severe
stress. For example, recorded delays in egg development in returning adult salmon may be
connected to the temperature transition when entering freshwater and prolonged exposure to high
temperatures in the Ship Canal (Kerwin 2001). In addition, the sharp demarcation between the
fresh and saltwater environments at the Lake Washington outlet is likely a stressor for juvenile
salmonid out-migrants. The Locks are also a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation on adult
salmon at the Locks is a common and recurring problem.
Hatcheries continue to pose risk to natural spawning Chinook salmon in Lake Washington, although
hatchery impacts are becoming increasingly recognized and elforts are being made to reduce
hatchery effects listed populations. Several hatcheries and hatchery programs exist in the Lake
Washington basin. Releases offall-run Chinook salmon in the Lake Washington system accounted
for about five percent of all Puget Sound releases from 1991 through 2000, with about 2.6 million
fish per year. In Puget Sound, hatchery fish greatly outnumber natural origin fish in terms of
juvenile out-migrants and adult returns (NMFS 2003).
Detailed descriptions of harvest rates for Lake Washington Chinook stocks are provided in (NMFS
2003). While harvest rates frequently change, the harvest rate of Lake Washington Chinook has
diminished over time. The total exploitation rate for Chinook salmon returning to the Lake
Washington watershed was 67 percent from 1983 through 1996, and 26 percent from 1997 through
2000.
Local Stock Information
The primary Chinook salmon stock in the project vicinity (the southern portion of Lake Washington)
originates from the Cedar River. The Cedar River Chinook run, although a naturally spawning
population without current supplementation from hatchery stocks, is not native to Lake
Biological Assessment Page 13
Q-\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\20 [2 Draft BA \2012 BA 081711.do(:'i.
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Washington, May Creek is not thought to have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon run and individuals
using the stream are likely strays from the Cedar River, Chinook are reported to use the lower three
miles of May Creek for limited spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002), Lucchetti (2002) rated the
lower May Creek sub-basin (from mouth to RM 3.0) as moderate to high for spawning habitat. This
rating signifies areas in which Chinook are known to spawn and that are characterized by adequate
flows and physical attributes (e.g., channel size, gradient, and substrate) that typically support
Chinook spawning (Lucchetti 2002). According to King County (2011). nearly all spawning occurs in
the lower two miles of May Creek, though spawning has been observed up to RM 3.0. The number
of Chinook observed in May Creek varies between zero and 12 fish annually (pers. comm. Aaron
Bosworth, WDFW, November 15, 2010, as cited in King County 2011).
Adult Cedar River Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington through the Ballard Locks from late June
through September, with the run peaking in late August. Spawning occurs from mid-September
through mid-to late-November, with a peak in early to mid-October (WDF et al. 1993). In the Cedar
River, fry probably begin to emerge in February and continue through March and perhaps April (City
of Seattle 2000), which is also probably true in May Creek as well.
Unlike most systems in which juvenile Chinook rear in rivers and estuaries, juvenile Chinook in Lake
Washington rear in the littoral areas of the lake from January to July. While rearing in the south end
of Lake Washington, the nocturnal distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon appears to be related to
slope, substrate, and depth. Tabor et al. (2004) studied juvenile Chinook salmon use of shoreline
habitats in Lake Washington and found that juvenile Chinook were concentrated in very shallow
water, approximately 1,3 feet in depth, and prefer low gradient shorelines and deltas with
substrates composed of sand and gravel. In comparison to lake shore reference sites, the delta sites
had a higher density of juvenile Chinook salmon. On average, the delta sites had almost twice as
many fish as the lake reference site. Of the delta sites studied, Tabor et al. (2004) found that
juvenile Chinook appeared to use low gradient and shallow deltas that were close to natal streams
(such as the Cedar River).
Tabor et al. (2004) also found that juvenile Chinook had no preference for woody debriS piles alone;
however, they did show a preference for woody debris piles in combination with overhanging
vegetation. In fact, over 80 percent of juvenile Chinook observed during the study were found along
shallow sites in association with overhanging vegetation and small woody debris.
The majority of juvenile Chinook observed by Tabor et al. (2004) were concentrated in the south end
of Lake Washington from February to May, with peak abundance occurring in May. The last
shoreline survey was conducted on July 14, when only one juvenile Chinook was observed out of
five sample sites.
The lower 912 feet of May Creek and the May Creek delta (convergence pool) were included in the
study sites evaluated by Tabor et al. (2004). Tabor et al. (2004) also surveyed a lake reference site
located approximately 2,000 feet south of the May Creek delta (the Kennydale Beach Park swim
beach). In March of 2002, only two Chinook salmon were observed during the surveys, one in the
convergence pool and one in a pool in May Creek. The density of juvenile Chinook salmon was
Similar between the lake reference site and delta area.
Juvenile coho salmon were also present primarily in the convergence pool, while large trout
primarily occupied the upstream pools. Small resident trout were scattered throughout the study
Biological Assessment Page 14
Q:\Pr~iects\l::3arbee SA 20 12\20 12 Draft BA\20 12 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
reach. Tabor et al. (2004) noted that predation of juvenile Chinook salmon by large trout has been
documented in Lake Washington (Tabor and Chan 1996) and the Cedar River. Few predatory fish
were present in the shallower deltas, which were used by up to 10 times more Chinook compared to
the May Creek delta. Based on habitat preference, Tabor et al. (2004) hypothesized that the
presence of large trout and large sculpin in the large tributaries may inhibit the use of the
convergence pool and other stream habitats by Chinook. It may be that the lack of juvenile Chinook
in the deep delta habitat has more to do with this habitat type being preferred by predatory fish,
and not that deep delta habitats are not "good" Chinook habitat.
Steel head
Status ofthe DPS
The NMFS defined the Puget Sound Steelhead DPS to include naturally spawning steelhead stocks
below natural and manmade impassable barriers, in streams and rivers ranging from the Canadian
border (Nooksack River basin), south through Puget Sound and Hood Canal, north and west to the
Elwha River, which empties into the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Puget Sound 5teelhead are
at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, and were listed as threatened on June 11,
2007 (72 FR 26722). The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is assessed based on
their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. The two populations of steelhead
found in lake Washington use the lake for migrating, holding and rearing.
Early abundance analysis from catch records in 1889 indicate that the catch peaked at 163,796
individuals in 1895 (Little, 1898). Assuming a harvest rate of 30 to 50 percent, Little (1898) estimated
that the peak run size ranged from 327,592 to 545,987 fish. In the 19905 the total run size for major
stocks in this DPS was greater than 45,000, with total natural escapement of about 22,000, a
fraction of the 1889 abundance. The abundance treat for the Cedar River population is decreasing.
Counts between 1980 and 2004 estimate an escapement of 137.9 natural spawners, and more
recent data (2000-2004) has the estimates at 36.8, showing a steep decline (Hard et al. 2007). The
Lake Washington population shows a similar declining trend with 308.1 natural spawners between
1980 and 2004, and 36.8 between 2000 and 2004 (Hard et al. 2007).
To estimate existing productivity in Lake Washington steelhead, Scott and Gill (2006) used
escapement data or indices of escapement from the previous eight years to create a time series.
Population viability analyses were conducted under the assumption that only anadromous spawners
contribute to the abundance of each population. This assumption may result in estimates of
extinction that are too high because the presence of resident forms of O. my kiss (rainbow trout)
may reduce the likelihood of extinction. The Lake Washington winter-run steelhead last escapement
data was listed at 44, with a growth rate estimate of -0.16, indicating a decrease in productivity. The
relative risk of extinction for populations of steelhead in the Puget Sound region is very high,
because productivity is poor. More recent productivity analysis included lambda calculations,
showing Cedar River steelhead lambda at 0.808 (±0.004), and Lake Washington steel head lambda at
0.802 (±0.002) (Hard et al. 2007), supporting Scott and Gill's (2006) productivity decline.
Allozyme analysis of steelhead sampled in the Cedar River in 1994 clusters them with winter
steelhead in the Green, White, and Puyallup rivers, and with some Snohomish basin steel head
stocks (WDFW 2004). The Cedar River population is a distinct population that has undergone
minimal hatchery introgression (Hard et al. 2007).
Biological Assessment Page 15
Q \ProjectslBarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BAllO 12 HA 082712.uocx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
The status of the Lake Washington winter steelhead was defined in the SaSI report (WDFW 2004).
Based on the chronically low escapement and short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock
status declined from "depressed" in 1994 to "critical" in 2002. Past hatchery practices by WDFW
included planting of steelhead fry throughout tributaries in the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish
Basin and were unsuccessful in producing return adult spawners. The Cedar River has a naturally
spawning population of steelhead and weekly surveys are conducted annually to assess abundance.
Redd counts have been steadily declining and 2010 surveys observed only one redd (pers. comm.
Hans Berge, King County, November 22,2010, as Cited in King County 2011).
Life History and Habitat Requirements
Unless otherwise Cited, the following steelhead information is summarized from the federal register
proposal to list Puget Sound steelhead as threatened (50 CFR Part 223). Steelhead is the name
commonly applied to the anadromous form of the biological species Oncorhynchus mykiss, which
includes rainbow trout). The present distribution of steelhead extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east
to Alaska, and extending south along the Pacific coast to the U.S. Mexico border.
O. mykiss exhibit a complex suite of life-history traits and can be anadromous (i.e. steelhead), or
freshwater residents (rainbow or redband trout), and under some circumstances yield offspring of
the opposite life-history form. Steel head juveniles generally migrate to sea at age 2 to 3, but can
spend up to 7 years in freshwater. Peak outmigration to the sea is generally in the late spring and
early summer. Steelhead generally spend 1 to 2 years at sea before returning to freshwater to
spawn. O. mykiss may spawn more than once, whereas the Pacific salmon species are principally
spawn once and die. As with most salmon ids, spawning typically occurs in streams where the water
is cool, clear, and well oxygenated. The optimum spawning temperature for steel head is about
45°F, but they have been reported spawning at temperatures of 39 to 55°F.
After emergence, steelhead fry form small schools and inhabit the margins of the stream. As they
grow larger and more active, they slowly begin to disperse downstream. Steelhead prefer relatively
small, fast flowing streams with a high proportion of riffles and pools. Most steelhead in their first
year of life in riffles, but some larger fish also inhabit pools or deep fast runs. Instream cover such as
large rocks, logs, root wads, and aquatic vegetation are very important for juvenile steelhead. This
cover provides resting areas, visual isolation from competing salmon ids, food, and protection from
predators. Often steelhead densities are highest in streams with abundant instream cover. The
preferred water temperature for rearing steelhead ranges from 50 to 55°F.
Factors of Decline
Factors leading to the decline of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS are essentially the same as
described previously for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and generally include habitat degradation by
human disturbance such as forestry, agriculture, and general urbanization. Access to large reaches
of spawning and rearing habitat has been blocked by dams and other manmade barriers. Existing
regulatory mechanisms inadequately protect steelhead habitats as evidenced by the historical and
continued threat posed by the loss and degradation. Hatchery practices have had genetic and life
history effects, and lead to competition between naturally produced and hatchery fish. Over-
harvest has also reduced abundance throughout the DPS.
Biological Assessment Page 16
Q:\Pro)ects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Drat( BAl.2012 HA OS2712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Local Stock Information
Steelhead occurring in the project action area are part ofthe Lake Washington winter-run
population (a native stock). They typically enterfresh water between November and April and
spawn from mid-December through early June. Abundance of this stock has greatly declined over
the past decade. The escapement goal for Lake Washington winter steelhead is 1,600 adult fish.
However, from 2000 to 2004, the total Lake Washington winter steel head spawner escapement
estimate ranged from only 20 to 48 fish, far below the escapement goal. WDFW considers the
status of the Lake Washington stock as "critical" due to chronically low escapements and a short-
term severe decline in escapement.
Steelhead spawning occurs throughout the Lake Washington basin including the Sammamish River
and its tributaries, Issaquah Creek, Coal Creek, May Creek, the lower Cedar River and several smaller
Lake Washington tributaries. Survey data from 1984 through 1987 observed steelhead in the lower
reaches of May Creek (Newcastle 2002 as cited in King County 2011). Data from the WDFW Salmon
Scape website report that steelhead have been observed in the lower three miles of May Creek.
Bull Trout
Status of the DPS
Bull trout, a member of the family Salmonidae, are a char native to the Pacific Northwest and
western Canada. The species historically occurred in major river drainages in the Pacific Northwest
from about 41°N to 60 0 N latitude, from the southern limits in the McCloud River in northern
California and the Jarbidge River in Nevada to the headwaters of the Yukon River in Northwest
Territories, Canada (Cavender 1978; Bond 1992). The Coastal-Puget Sound DPS comprises all Pacific
coast and Puget Sound bull trout populations within Washington State. This population segment is
geographically segregated from other subpopulations by the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the
Cascade Mountain Range. It is significant to the species as a whole because it is thought to contain
the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the coterminous United States.
The USFWS conducted a 5-year review of the ESA listing status for bull trout in the coterminous
United States that was published in April, 2008 (USFWS 2008a). This review includes the following
observations: most population trends are unknown; there is a broad distribution of risk across the
landscape; most core area bull trout populations are at high risk or at risk of extirpation; and the
smallest core areas tend to be at a higher risk. Ultimately, the USFWS determined that "threatened"
status remains warranted for bull trout, including the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS. The 5-year review
final report indicated the USFWS would initiate a new, separate assessment to identify the
individual status of each current DPS and determine if they need reorganization (possibly into
smaller spatial units). This effort has not yet been completed.
Although bull trout remain threatened in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS, many of the local
populations are apparently healthy enough to sustain angling and harvest in the Puget Sound region
in several core areas. The Skagit and Snohomish River basins are seasonally open to angling and
harvest of bull trout. This is a significant distinction, as on a rangewide basis, most core areas are
closed to angling and harvest of bull trout.
Biological Assessment Page1?
Q,\Projl!ds\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Dratl 81\\2012 SA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Life History and Habitat Requirements
Throughout their range, bull trout are primarily freshwater species that exhibit both resident and
migratory life-history patterns. The entire Iifecycle of the resident bull trout takes place in
headwater streams. Resident fish spawn, rear, and live as adults generally in one headwater
stream, although short migrations may occur. Migratory bull trout spawn and rear in headwater
streams, then after two to four years rearing in their home stream, juveniles migrate downstream to
larger rivers (fluvial) or lakes and reservoirs (adfluvial) where they grow to maturity. Migrations can
range from a few miles to well over 50 miles (Goetz et al. 2004). Mature adults migrate back
upstream to spawn in headwater reaches. There is increasing evidence that several coastal and
Puget Sound popUlations have an anadromous or amphidromous component in Washington
(Rieman and Mcintyre 1993; Kraemer 1999; Goetz et al. 2004; Yolk 2000; Goetz et al. 2004).
Adult anadromous char are thought to prey primarily on fish. A study by Brenkman (2002) at the
mouth of the Hoh River on the Olympic Peninsula found that surf smelt (Hypomesus pretious) was
the primary prey item and was found in 96 percent ofthe stomachs analyzed; other species included
herring (Clupea harengus pal/asi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and sculpin (Cottus spp.).
Other limited stomach content work and feeding observations in Skagit Bay and Port Susan also
indicate that anadromous char feed most commonly on surf smelt, and other fish such as herring,
sand lance, pink and chum salmon fry, and a number of invertebrates (Kraemer 1999). Kraemer
(1999) and Brenkman (2002) suspected the distribution of char in marine waters is closely tied to
the distribution of forage fish, especially spawning beaches for surf smelt and herring.
Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall from late August into December (timing varies based on local
conditions) and is thought to be correlated with particular flows, water temperatures, and photo
period. Peak spawning usually occurs in September and October for most populations (Brenkman et
al. 2001). Bull trout spawning generally occurs when water temperature drops below 48"F. Bull
trout spawn in substrate ranging from large sand to gravel over 2 inches in diameter. In western
Washington, bull trout spawning occurs above an elevation of 1,000 feet or in streams with very
cold temperatures similar to high elevation streams (Kraemer 1999). Fry emerge from spring into
the summer months (McPhail and Murray 1979). Mature adult bull trout can spawn more than
once in a lifetime. First spawning is often noted after age four, with individuals living ten or more
years (Rieman and Mcintyre 1993). Sexual maturity for both sexes has been documented in fish
smaller than 6 inches fork length in resident populations (Hemmingsen et al. 2001).
Bull trout appear to have more specific habitat requirements than other salmon ids (Rieman and
Mcintyre 1993), requiring cold clean water and a high degree of habitat complexity (Dambacher et
al. 1992; Rieman and Mcintyre 1993). Water temperatures over approximately SO"F are thought to
limit their distribution; however, bull trout may be able to migrate through reaches with elevated
water temperatures for short durations.
Factors of Decline
Bull trout are threatened by habitat degradation and fragmentation from past and ongoing land
management activities such as mining, road construction and maintenance, timber harvest,
hydropower, water diversions/withdrawals, agriculture, and grazing. Bull trout are also threatened
by interactions and hybridization with introduced non-native fishes such as brook trout (Sa/ve/inus
fontinalis) and lake trout (Sa/velinus namaycush). Although some strongholds still exist, bull trout
Biological Assessment Page 18
Q \Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft RA\20 12 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
generally occur as isolated sub-populations in headwater lakes or tributaries where migratory fish
have been lost.
Although the bull trout distribution in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS is less fragmented than the
Columbia River DPS, bull trout subpopulation distribution within individual river systems has
contracted and abundance has declined. The decline of the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS has
been attributed to habitat degradation, migration barriers, interaction with introduced species,
water quality degradation, and past management practices. CommerCial and recreational fisheries
also impact native char populations in Puget Sound. Native char are occasionally caught in sport and
commercial fisheries in Puget Sound, as well as by in-river net fisheries. They are common in
nearshore marine areas of Puget Sound from Everett north, and are vulnerable to beach seine and
set net fisheries. Current and future population pressures on bull trout in Puget Sound and Lake
Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook.
Local Stock Information
The following Lake Washington bull trout information is summarized from USFWS (2004) unless
otherwise cited. The Cedar River watershed upstream of the Masonry Dam supports the only
known self-sustaining population of bull trout in the Lake Washington basin. The Chester Morse
Lake bull trout core area is located within the Cedar River in the upper reaches of the Cedar River
drainage, upstream of a natural migration barrier at Lower Cedar Falls (river mile 34.4). The level of
emigration of bull trout occurring from Chester Morse Lake to the lower Cedar River is unknown.
The only means for bull trout to leave the reservoir complex and pass to the lower Cedar River is
during use of the emergency spill gates and/or the smaller spillway near the south end of the
Masonry Dam. These gates are rarely opened except under emergency conditions of high reservoir
elevation (e.g., 1990 flood) or for special operational purposes. It is presumed impossible for live
fish to pass through the other structure used to release water from Masonry Pool (Masonry Dam
spill valve/Howell-Bunger valve) at the base of the Masonry Dam. It is possible that bull trout do
successfully pass through the spill gates when water is released and thereby gain access to the
'canyon reach' and the lower Cedar River, but no accurate estimate of numbers of fish passing the
dam has been made.
No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning populations are
known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse. The
potential for spawning in the Lake Washington basin is believed to be very low as a majority of
accessible habitat is low elevation, below 500 feet, and thus not expected to have the proper
thermal regime to sustain successful spawning. However, there are some coldwater springs and
tributaries that may come close to suitable spawning temperatures and that may provide thermal
refuge for rearing or foraging during warm summer periods. These include Rock Creek (tributary to
the Cedar River below Landsburg Diversion) and Coldwater Creek, a tributary to Cottage Lake Creek
immediately below Cottage Lake. In addition, the upper reaches of Holder and Carey creeks, the
two main branches of Issaquah Creek, have good to excellent habitat conditions and may hold
potential for bull trout spawning due to their elevation and aspect. However, despite survey efforts
by King County (Berge and Mavros 2001), no evidence of bull trout spawning or rearing has been
found.
The connection with the Chester Morse Lake core area is one-way only, and currently the level of
connectivity with other core areas is unknown. However, a number of observations of subadult and
adult sized bull trout have been made in Lake Washington and at the Ballard Locks (Shepard and
Biological Assessment Page 19
Q:\ProjecLs\Barbee SA 2012\2012 Draft BA\20 12 SA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Dykeman 1977; KCDNR 2000). Observations of bull trout in the Ballard Locks and cursory
hydroacoustic tagging suggest that these fish may be migrating to the Lake Washington area from
other watersheds such as the Stillaguamish or Snohomish systems (Goetz et al. 2004). Bull trout
have been caught in Shilshole Bay and the Ballard Locks during late spring and early summer in
recent times. In 2000, eight adult and subadult fish (mean size 370 millimeters; 14.5 inches) were
caught in Shilshole Bay below the locks between May and July. These fish were found preying upon
juvenile salmon (40 percent of diet) and marine forage fish (60 percent of diet) (Footen 2000, 2003).
In 2001, five adult bull trout were captured in areas within the Ballard Locks and immediately below
the locks. One bull trout was captured in the large lock in June, and in May one adult was captured
while migrating upstream through the fish ladder in the adult steel head trap. Three adult bull trout
were also captured below the tailrace during the peak of juvenile salmon migration on June 18
(Goetz et al. 2004).
Coho Salmon
Status ofthe ESU
The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon ESU includes populations from drainages of Puget
Sound and Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula east of Salt Creek, and the Strait of Georgia from the
east side of Vancouver Island (north to and including Campbell River) and the British Columbia
mainland (north to and including Powell River), excluding the upper Fraser River above Hope. WDF
et al. (1993) identified 40 coho populations within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Strait of
Georgia ESU. While most were sustained by natural production, only three of these populations
were determined to be of native origin.
Weitkamp et al. (1995) noted that while coho salmon within the Puget Sound ESU were abundant,
and with some exceptions run sizes and natural spawning escapements generally stable, there are
substantial risks to whatever native production remains. The Puget Sound coho ESU remains a
candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. From 1991 through 2000, the
annual run size of coho populations entering Puget Sound was 669,000, of which 44 percent were
derived from natural spawning. Over this same period, wild coho escapement increased, which is
primarily attributed to a reduction in Puget Sound fisheries, allowing more fish to reach spawning
grounds even though total run sizes decreased. High harvest rates and a recent decline in average
size of spawners is a concern because of the potential for reduced fecundity and/or productivity
(Weitkamp et al. 1995). Hatchery coho programs are also intensive in Puget Sound, influencing
population trends. From 1991 through 2000, an average of approximately 24 million hatchery-
produced juvenile coho were released into Puget Sound annually. Over this period, total hatchery
releases decreased from about 40 million in 1991 to less than 10 million in 2000 (PSMFC 2002).
Life History and Habitat Requirements
The coho salmon life history roughly consists of 18 months of freshwater rearing followed by 18
months of ocean rearing (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon typically spawn in relatively shallow
tributary streams from October through February. Spawning generally occurs in temperatures
ranging from 42 to 49T Coho salmon spawning gravel ranges from 0.5 to 4 inches (Reiser and
Bjornn 1979). Fry emerge in the spring and occupy most stream habitats, but are usually associated
with the channel margin. Coho salmon fry densities are greatest in backwater pools, beaver dam
pools, and off-channel areas (WDW 1991).
Biological Assessment Page 20
Q \Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712_docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
At least one year of freshwater residence is normal for coho salmon juveniles (USFWS 1986a), Coho
salmon parr are frequently associated with side channels, wetlands, and off-channel sloughs for
rearing (Sandercock 1991), Other important juvenile habitats include large wood accumulations,
undercut banks, and complex pool habitats, Coho salmon juveniles are generally absent in channels
lacking cover. Mason and Chapman (1965) reported that coho salmon juveniles are aggressive and
territorial soon after emergence, and establish intraspecific dominance hierarchies, Where coho
and Chinook salmon juveniles occurred together in streams, the coho were socially dominant,
defending optimum feeding territory (Stein et ai, 1972). Water temperatures that average between
50 to 59'F in the summer are considered optimum for juvenile coho salmon rearing (USFWS 1986a).
Bell (1973) reported the upper lethal limit to be 78.5'F, Out-migration of smolts to marine areas
usually occurs from April to August of the year following their hatching, with peak migrations in May
in nearly all areas (USFWS 1986a).
Factors of Decline
Risk factors associated with Puget Sound coho salmon stocks include high harvest rates, widespread
habitat degradation, hatchery practices, and unfavorable ocean conditions. The genetic fitness of
Puget Sound coho salmon stocks has been affected by widespread artificial propagation that
includes inter-basin transfers of brood stock, and by hatchery fish escapement and introgression
with wild populations (Weitcamp et al. 1995). Current and future population pressures on coho
salmon in Puget Sound and Lake Washington are the same as those listed for Chinook.
Local Stock Information
Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production; therefore, recent
studies have not been able to fully evaluate the status of self-sustaining naturally spawning coho
populations in the region. Trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are
showing a decline that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation,
and poor ocean conditions (Fresh 1994; WDF et al. 1993). Naturally spawning coho escapement
(which could be a mix of native and hatchery origin coho) in Lake Washington was as high as 30,000
fish in 1970 and declined to less than 2,000 in 1992 (Fresh 1994).
Index escapement values for Cedar River coho in the 1990s have declined to levels far below those
observed in the 1980s, so the stock is now rated depressed by WDFW due to both the long-term
negative trend in the index values and the chronically low nature of the indicator values. The Lake
Washington/Sammamish tributaries coho stock is also rated as depressed by WDFW for the same
factors (WDFW 2002). Available spawning survey information for May Creek suggests the same
negative trend. Spawning surveys conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found peak coho adult
spawner densities in lower May Creek at 23, 5, and 55 coho per mile, respectively, while surveys in
1992 and 1993 found peak densities of only 2 fish per mile (Foster Wheeler 1995).
Biological Assessment Page 21
QWrojccts\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Oraft HA\2012 HA OR2712_docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private
actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal
projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and
the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process
50 CFR § 402.02(d). The baseline provides a reference for NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS to
evaluate the species' current status in relationship to the proposed action.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA AND PROJECT AREA
The action area for the proposed project encompasses the southern portion of the May Creek Delta
(southern Lake Washington) (Figure 2). The environmental baseline of the action area is generally
described below, including the Lake Washington basin, May Creek watershed, and the project area.
Action Area (May Creek and Lake Washington)
May Creek
May Creek drains approximately 14 square miles between the Coal Creek and Cedar River basins.
The basin contains approximately 26 miles of mapped streams, two small lakes, and over 400 acres
of wetlands (Foster Wheeler 1998). The mouth of May Creek is located on Lake Washington
approximately two miles north of the Cedar River in Renton, Washington.
Historically, the May Creek watershed was forested with predominantly coniferous stands. Over
recent decades, land uses in the western one-third of the basin have changed to intensive
residential development, with some industrial development in the lowermost reaches, including the
Barbee Lumber Mill. The eastern two-thirds of the watershed retains a mix of rural residential,
small farms, and some forested areas (King County 2001). Developed communities in the watershed
include Renton, Newcastle, and around Lake Boren, Honey Creek, and Lake Kathleen (Foster
Wheeler 1998).
The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), established in accordance with the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), bisects the May Creek basin, which limits urban-scale development from
encroaching on the headwaters of the basin. Land development in the lower basin has substantially
reduced forest cover, increased impervious surfaces, and filled wetlands. Currently, the amount of
effective impervious surface coverage basin-wide is approximately 7 percent. In addition, under
current zoning, full build-out would result in approximately 12 percent of the May Creek basin being
covered in impervious surfaces (King County 2001). This is significant, as basin-wide impervious
surface areas of 10 percent or greater have been found to have significant impacts on the health of
aquatic ecosystems (May et al. 1997; Booth and Reinelt 1993; Karr 1991). Logging, coal mining, and
agricultural activities have resulted in channelized streams, floodplain encroachment, and eroding
slopes in the May Creek watershed.
The lower four miles of May Creek are within an urbanized area. This portion of the creek
experiences high sediment loading and lacks current and future sources of LWD (Foster Wheeler
1998). The lack of LWD has resulted in loss of habitat complexity, specifically pool habitat.
Biological Assessment Page 22
Q:\Proje\:ls\8arbee BA 20!2l2012 Draft HA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Sediment deposition in lower May Creek has increased due to forest removal, the presence of rock
quarries, and the expansion of road networks. Vegetation removal throughout the basin has
resulted in higher maximum flows and lower minimum flows. Higher flows than what naturally
occurred can result in stream substrate scour, which may negatively impact salmon redds (Foster
Wheeler 1998). The increase in flood flows has resulted in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding
and sediment deposition in May Valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and
flooding and sediment deposition near the mouth of May Creek (King County 2001). Peak flows
have increased moderately in May Valley, on the order of 15 to 20 percent greater than the
predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year return intervals (King County 2001).
From approximately RM 3.9 to 7.0, the riparian area of May Creek is heavily impacted by grazing
(Foster Wheeler 1998). Agricultural activities in May Valley have drained historic wetlands and
channelized May Creek (Buchanan 2003). The South Fork of May Creek starts at RM 7.0. Portions of
the South Fork go dry in the summer from RM 7.0 to 9.1. A 128-foot-long culvert blocks
anadromous fish passage at RM 7.7. The North Fork of May Creek parallels State Route (SR) 900,
resulting in degraded riparian conditions and channelization. Three quarries along the North Fork
contribute to high sediment loading in the system (Foster Wheeler 1998). The East Fork of May
Creek flows into the South Fork at RM 7.2. Habitat conditions in the East Fork are highly degraded
due to the presence of man-made berms, culverts, and man-made ponds (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Almost all of the basin's nearly 80 identified wetlands have been disturbed by deforestation, filling,
draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring since the
wetlands were first inventoried in 1983 (King County 2001).
The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) includes several goals, one of which is to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin. Implementation of
habitat restoration actions under the Basin Plan is dependent on funding availability. Restoration
work along May Creek has recently taken place; the Barbee Mill Company has substantially
improved the vegetated cover in the May Creek riparian area upstream from the lowermost bridge
to Lake Washington Boulevard by planting willows, cottonwoods, grasses, and other native
vegetation. In this area (located upstream from the proposed dredging area). the vegetated stream
buffer ranges in width from 5 to over 100 feet in width.
Despite the current habitat conditions, the lower reaches of May Creek experience the heaviest use
by fish (Foster Wheeler 1998). Steelhead, cutthroat trout, Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon
spawn in May Creek. Spawning gravel, although embedded, likely supports successful incubation
(Buchanan 2003). The primary limiting factor for Chinook and sockeye in May Creek likely is
available spawning area and incubation success (Foster Wheeler 1998). The primary limiting factor
for coho, steel head, and cutthroat in May Creek likely is the availability of high quality rearing and
over-wintering habitat (Foster Wheeler 1998).
Lake Washington
Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state of Washington with 80 miles of
shoreline, including about 30 miles along the shore of Mercer island (Shared Strategy, 2007). Over
82 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored and is shaded by more than 2,700 piers and
docks (Shared Strategy, 2007). Regulated lake levels and extensive armoring have hampered
sediment transport and sandy beaches need to be augmented by periodic sediment supplies.
Additional factors affecting the habitat features in the Lake Washington basin include a lack of
riparian vegetation due to clearing and development; loss of channel and shoreline complexity
Biological Assessment Page 23
Q:\Projccts\Rarbcc HA 2012\2012 Draft BA\20 12 DA 082712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
including a lack of woody debris and pools; the development of fish passage barriers with the
construction of road crossings, weirs, and dams; and degraded water and sediment quality caused
by increases in pollutants and high temperatures (Shared Strategy, 2007).
The Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish area includes two major rivers systems, the Cedar and
Sammamish, and three large lakes (Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish). It also
includes numerous smaller streams such as Bear, North, and Swamp creeks that drain into the
system from the north.
Historically, Lake Washington had a vegetated shoreline of wetlands, trees, brush, and other mixed
vegetation that created a diverse nearshore habitat for juvenile salmonids. The shoreline's natural
structural complexity was beneficial for fish and other aquatic species. Larger conifers that grew in
the riparian area provided shade and contributed plant material (branches, needles) and terrestrial
insects to the aquatic food chain. The United States Fish Commission Bulletin published in 1898
describes the lake as follows; "Only in a few places along the shore of the entire lake is the bottom
sufficiently free from snags, fallen trees, and other material to permit the successful hauling of
nets",
In the past 150 years, the Lake Washington/Lake Sammamish watershed has been dramatically
altered from its historical condition. Habitat degradation started with heavy logging of old growth
forest throughout much of the watershed in the late 19th century. In 1901, the City of Seattle
began diverting water out of the upper Cedar River to serve as its main water supply. Between 1910
through 1920, the natural Lake Washington outlet was redirected from the Black River to the Lake
Washington Ship Canal and Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, which were excavated to connect Lake
Washington to Lake Union and then to Puget Sound. Previously Lake Union was a freshwater lake
that was not connected to Lake Washington and had no outlet to Puget Sound. The redirection of
the Lake Washington outlet ultimately resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 to 10 feet
and the loss of over ten miles of shoreline and approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake
margins and wetlands are generally considered to be high quality and preferred habitats for juvenile
salmonids such as Chinook and coho salmon. During that same decade, the Cedar River was
redirected from the Black River into the south end of Lake Washington.
In the ensuing years, the most important cause of physical change to the watershed area has been
the expansion of urban and suburban development. In the upper Cedar River, land is devoted
almost entirely to preservation of forests. Residential, industrial, and commercial uses prevail in the
lower reaches of virtually all the streams. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing
shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change
shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into the lake, introducing a different pattern of
shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from
complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). Piers are also
used heavily as ambush cover by non-native species such as bass, which may prey heavily on native
juvenile salmon ids. The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant
community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat.
The current lake level is artificially regulated within a two-foot range. The high water/low water
regime is reversed from the natural state. High water occurs during the summer for extensive
operation of the Ballard Locks. Low water occurs during the winter protect property from winter
wave action.
Biological Assessment Page 24
Q:\Projects\Barbee SA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Despite the heavy a Iteration of the Lake Washington basin, it continues to support numerous
sa[monid stocks. The three watersheds in the basin with the largest sa[monid populations, the
Cedar River, and Bear and Issaquah creeks, support Chinook, sockeye, coho, kokanee, steelhead,
rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout as well as native char. Some of the small independent Puget
Sound tributaries also support chum, coho, and cutthroat. Maps illustrating known and presumed
distributions for each of these species are avai[able in Kerwin (2001). Additionally, at least 40 non-
native fish species (of which approximately 24 persist) have been introduced into the Lake
Washington basin, most notably smallmouth and largemouth bass, creating numerous trophic
interactions with native species, most notably predation on native sa[monids. Sockeye salmon in
the lake system are believed to be primarily the descendants of fry transplanted from Baker Lake in
the 1930s. While many species have been introduced, native species such as Cedar River pink and
chum salmon have been extirpated.
Project Area
On May 3 and May 17, 2012, Meridian Environmental fisheries biologists completed detailed aquatic
habitat and fish presence surveys in the area of Lake Washington located immediately south of the
May Creek delta. The objective of these surveys was to document the existing aquatic habitat
conditions; determine the species composition and average densities of aquatic macrophytes; and
describe the distribution and relative abundance of fish species observed during the survey. An
additional objective was to compare the results of 2005 surveys with the results offish habitat and
fish population surveys completed within and near the project area in 1993, 2000, 2001, and 2005
(Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza 2001, Meridian Environmenta[ Inc.
2005). It should be noted that the timing of the 2012 surveys was designed to coincide with the
expected residence period of juvenile coho, stee[head, and Chinook.
Survey Methods
Eight underwater (SCUBA) transects were placed between the south end of the May Creek delta and
the existing dock and log boom located at the south end ofthe proposed project area (Figure 3).
Transects ranged from 75 to 250 feet in length, and extended approximately 480 feet into Lake
Washington. Transects 1, 2 and 8 were shallow-water snorkel survey transects located along the
north and southeast shoreline. Transects 4, 5, and 6 paral[eled each other, oriented from roughly
20· to 200·, and transect 3 extended from an area located just southeast of the osprey nesting
platform to the end of the log boom (Figure 3).
Bio[ogical Assessment Page 25
Q:\ProJects\Harbee HA 2012\2012 Dran BA\1012 BA 082712_docx
Cugin i Pro pe rty Bo athouse Expanded Dredge Pr ism
Figure 3. May Cr e ek delta 2012 SCUBA/s n o rkel survey transect locations.
Bio log ica l Assess m ent Page 26
() \]'ro 1L'Lis\Harhee nA 2012 \2fl 12 J)mti H:\\20 12 HA 082712 dOl"\
Cu g ini Propert y Boa th o use Expanded Dredge Pri sm
Two fisheries biologist s use d SC UBA gear/snorkeling equipment to sw im eac h of the eight survey
tran sec t s approx imatel y 3 feet ab ove the surfa ce of th e lake bed . While swim min g each transect,
surveyors co unted and id entified fi sh to species. Fis h age classes and species associations were also
noted . In addit ion , divers re co rded the depth , dominant substrate, ma cro ph yte specie s composition
and density, and underwater v isib ility at a series of fi ve square ya rd station s along each transect.
Aquat ic ma cro phyte densitie s were vis uall y estimated cl assif ied as low (less than or equal to 10
st ems per square yard), moderate (11 to 100 stems per square yard), or hi gh (g reater than 100
stem s p er square yard). Underwater photograph s of r e pr ese ntative habitat conditions and fi sh
were also t ake n along se lec t ed transect s.
Survey Res ults
Fish Use
Over the past 19 years numerou s sa lmonid species have been do cumen te d at or near the project
site, including co ho, Chinook, and so ckeye sa lm o n, a nd rainbow and cutthroat trout (Figure 4). No n-
salmonid sp ec ies documented during surve ys includ ed largemouth and smallmouth ba ss,
pump kinseed sunfish , ye ll ow perch , northern pikeminnow, three -spine stick l ebac k, prick ly sculpin ,
dace , and shin er (Harza 1993; Harza 2000; Meridian Enviro nm ental In c. 2005 , and Meridia n
Env ironmental I nc. 2005).
Figure 4. Coho salmon juveniles feeding near the culvert outlet during the 200S
SCUBA survey (Meridian Environmental Inc. 200S),
Biologica l Assessment Pag e 27
Q :\P ro.i l'l:l s\IJ;lIlx·~· BA 2012 \20 12 Dra ft B/\\20 12 R" 08 27 12 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Fish species observed during the May 3 and May 17, 2012 surveys included Chinook and coho
salmon, rainbow trout/steelhead, three-spine stickleback, and prickly sculpin (Table 3) (Figures 5
and 6). As in past years, the majority of all fish observed were found in relatively shallow water (less
than 6 feet deep) along transects 1, 2, and 8. Typically these fish were associated with overhead
and underwater cover in the form of riprap, emergent vegetation, submerged logs, the existing
boathouse dock, and the small culvert located adjacent to the existing boathouse dock. In 2012, the
coho and Chinook were observed adjacent to and under the boathouse dock (at the eastern end of
transect 1 and northern end of transect 2) (Figure 7); however, coho and rainbow trout were also
observed using nearshore emergent vegetation as cover along transect 1.
Biological Assessment Page 28
Q \Projects\Barbee DA 20 12\20 12 Draft BA\20 12 SA 082712.uocx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
hI -----~. ~---------f ~-.---.., ----."--~.,-... ~-.... ~ ..... . -~--.-. _ ......... .. -----------. -........ _--~ --...... __ .
Depth
Transect Survey Distance Range
Aquatic
Macrophyte Aquatic Macrophyta Comments I Fish Observations Comments I Fish Observations
Number Mathod Bearing (feet) (feet) Substrate Density 5pe<:les May 3, 20102 Survey May 17, 20102 Survey
1 Snorkel 80° and 185 0-4 Sand, NA Abundant emergent One Chinook (fry) and 5 coho Ten Ihree-spine slickleback, 2
Survey 65° cobble, riparian vegetation and (fry) near Ihe boal dock; 1 sculpin sculpin (sp,), 7 coho yearlings, 1
and floating American (sp,), 1 crayfish, abundanl coho fry, 6 Iroul fry (nol idenlified
gravel waterweed (Elodea neomysis, and caddisfly larvae. to species), t adult (12")
canadensis), Brazilian Water temperature 47.3°F small mouth bass, and 7 pond
elodea (Egena densa), turtles. Yearling coho were
Eurasian watermilfoil observed under the dock. Water
(Myriophyiffum lemperature 61 ,O°F,
spicatum), and
pondweed
(Pofamogefon spp,),
2 Snorkel 40°, 250 0-4 Sand, NA Floating American No fish observed, Abundanl One 8" smallmouth bass and 1
Survey 45°,0°, cobble, walerweed, Eurasian neomysis, and caddisfly larvae western pond turtle. Abundant
and rip-rap, watermilfoil and neomysis and caddisfly larvae.
330° and pondweed.
gravel
3 SCUBA 240° 250 8-23 sill High «12 feet American waterweed No fish observed. Several "holes" One sculpin (sp,) and 1 (8')
Survey and deep) to none and Eurasian in the silt substrate measuring small mouth bass. Abundant
Stations 200° (>16 feet watermilfoil approximately 18" in diameter neomysis and fresh water
1-5 deep) and 6" deep. Abundant neomysis mussels. Visibility approximately
and approximately 10 fresh water 4-5 feet
mussels. Visibility 6-8 feet.
4 SCUBA 200° 235 3-21 Silt sand High «12 feet American waterweed No fish observed. Abundant Spooked 1 unidenlified large fish,
Survey (at depths deep) to none and sparse Eurasian neomysis and several fresh water Macrophyte line at 16 feel deep,
Stations less than (>t6 feel watermilfoil. mussels. Sedimenls from Ihe May Creek
1-5 5 feel) deep) delta appear to inhibit
macrophyte growth.
5 SCUBA 200 0 185 3-12 Silt, sand High «12 feet American waterweed No fish observed. Abundanl Spooked 2 unidenlified large fish,
Survey (at deplhs deep) to none and Eurasian neomysis and several fresh water Abundant caddisfly larvae.
Stations less than (>16 feel waterrnilfoil mussels. Numerous holes in the
1-5 8 feel) deep silt substrate (possibly resulting
from pasl dredging), One 8"
diameter log.
6 SCUBA 200 0 185 2-12 S,II, sand High al deplhs American waterweed, No fish observed, Abundant One (3") pumpkinseed sunfish, 1
Survey (al deplhs ranging from POlamogelon (sp,), and neomysis and fresh several water three-spine stickleback, and 1
Stations less than 5-9 feet Eurasian walermilfoil. mussels. juvenile (2") smallmoulh bass
1-5 5 feel)
Biological Assessment Page 29
Q"\PrOJ~ls\Rarbcc RA 201212012 Draft RAI2012 RA OR2712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Depth Aquatic
Comments I Fish Observations Transect Survey Distance Range Macrophyte Aquatic Macrophyte Comments I Ash Observations
Number Method Bearing (feet) (feet) Substrate Density Species May 3, 20102 Survey May 17, 20102 Survey
7 SCUBA Parallel 185 6-12 Silt, sand Medium to American waterweed, No fish observed. Six juvenile smallmou1h bass (2-
Survey tothe (at depths high Potamageton (sp.), and 3') using the dock as cover. One
5 south less than Eurasian waterilfoil. dead juvenile small mouth bass.
dock 5 feet)
8 Snorkel Parallel 75 2-7 Sand and Medium to American waterweed, No fish observed. One western No fish observed.
Survey tothe silt high Potamageton (sp.), and painted turtle under the
north Eurasian watermilfoil. boathouse dock.
dock
-
Biological Assessment Page 30
Q.\PTOJects\B::lrbee BA 2012\2012 Dmft BA\20!2 SA 082712.Jocx
Figure 5 .
Figure 6.
Cug ini Property Boat house Expanded Dr ed ge Pr ism
Photograph of juvenile coho observed near the existing boathouse
structure during the 2012 SCUBA survey (located inside the yellow
rectangle).
Photograph of prickly sculpin observed along transect 1 during the
2012 SCUBA survey.
Bio l og ic al Assessment Pa ge 31
Q 1Pro.lcc !s\Ba rbl'C' BI\ 20 12120 12 [)rall BA \2012 Bl'I 0 827 12do c \
Cu gini Propert y Boathou se Ex pand ed Dredge Prism
Figure 7. Photo graph of the culvert structure located at the eastern end of
transect 1 (2012 survey).
Riparian Condition
Historically. t he Barbee Mil l property, located adjace nt t o the May Creek delta , was highly m o dified,
with m ill o pe ration s do m inati ng the land u se (Figu re 8). Approximately 8 5 percent of t he site was
covered by impervious surface s i n the f orm o f pavemen t associated wit h m i ll operation s and
app rox im ate ly 15 st r uc t ures u sed for mill o f f ic es, log ha ndl ing, sawi ng , m illi ng, and sto ra ge o f wood
products .
In the past 5 years, coinciding with the con stru ction of t he Barbee Mill housing deve lopm ent, the
Barbee Mil l Company has sub st antia ll y improved the vegetated cover in t he May Creek riparian area
at the con fluen ce with Lake Washington and upstream from the lowermost bridge by pl ant i ng
willow s, co tto nwood s, gra sses, and other native vege tation. In this area (lo cated to t he nort h of the
propo se d expanded dredging area ), th e vegeta te d stream bu ffer range s in width fr om
app rox imately 5 to over 100 f eet in width. Imm ediately adjac ent to the M ay Cr ee k de lta, the
ripa r ian area is characterized by wi ll ow shrub, blackberry, and g ras s cove r (Figure 9). In add ition ,
the Barb ee Mill Company has pla ced clean grave l over 2,100 square f eet of th e shore lin e alo ng the
roc kery sho reli n e to th e south o f t h e bo athou se d ock to enhance shallow wat er habitat for fi sh.
Bio logical Assessment Page 32
Q \Pr0.l cc1S \Barbcc RA 2012 '<?:O 12 i)rati BA\2() 12 BA ON27 12 doo;
Figure 8.
Figure 9 .
Cug in i Prope rt y Boathouse Expanded Dred g e Prism
Historical aerial photograph of the Barbee Mill site.
Riparian condition at the connuence of May Creek with Lake
Washington in 2012 (looking west from the boathouse dock at the
proposed expanded dredging area).
Bio logica l Assess m e nt Page 33
V \P1 l1.l l'I.'t:;\l3ar bn ' IJA 2012 \2012 Dra ft BI\\20 12 13 A 0827 12.don
Cugini Propert y Boa thouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Aquatic Macrophytes
Six spec ie s of aq uati c macrophytes have been documented within and near the proposed ex p anded
dredging area during pa st SC UBA/sno rkel surv eys. Th ese inc lud e A m e ri can wa t erweed (Elodea
canaden sis). Eurasian wate rm ilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), w hite-st emmed pondweed
(Potamogetan prelongus), curly-leaf pa nd weed (P. crispus ). American wi ld ce lery (Vallisneria
americana). an d common wa t er nymph (Najas guadalupensis) (Ha rza 1993; Har za 2000; Meridian
Environmental, Inc. and Har za 20 01 ; Meridian En viro nm ent a l, In c. 2005). American waterweed is a
native spe cies f o und throu g ho ut m os t of Lake Wa shington. It is noda lly rooting and form s l arg e
mats in shall ow wa ter, nearshore areas. Eur asian wate rmilfoi l is a non -native species that first
appeared in Lake Was hin gto n in the mid-1970s. Thi s spec ies sp rea ds rap idl y and now domin at es
the aquatic macrophyte co mmunity in th e nearshore area s of th e lake (Harza 1993; Me rid ia n
Environmental , Inc. 2005). Acco rdin g to Kerw in (2001). Eura sian water m i lfoi l ha s co loni zed a large
percentage of th e litt o ral zone and replaced much of the nati ve aquatic vegeta tion prese nt in litt oral
areas of Lake Washington. Curly-leaf pondweed al so f o rm s mats of vegetatio n in lakes and strea ms,
and provide s a large area of lea f surface . It is native to Europe, introduced in No rth America , and
known t o occu r in both centra l and western Washington. Amer ica n wi ld celery is nati ve to eastern
Nort h America; however, Hitchcock et al. (1969) notes that it was introdu ce d in to several lakes in
Washington , including Lak e Wa shin gto n (Harza 1993). Co mmon wa t er nymph ex ist s throughout
Washington and is often found in pon d s, la kes and slu gg ish strea m s to depths of 12 fe et.
In addition to the above spe cie s, th e surveyors do cumented low de nsiti es of Brazilian e lodea (Egeria
den sa ) along transects 1 and 2 durin g the 2012 surveys. Brazilian elodea is a noxious, non -nati ve
fre shwater perennia l plant f o und in both still and flowing waters including lakes, po nd s and quiet
st reams . Thi s aggress ive aq u ati c plant ha s sp rea d int o many western Washingto n lak es including
Lakes Was hington, Union , a nd Sam mami sh. When it is introduced into fre sh wate r, it f o rm s dense
bed s that red uce w ater quality and imp ed e re crea t io nal activities1
Based on th e results of underwater surveys conduc ted in 1993, 2000, 200 1, 2005, and 2012 (Harza
1993; Harza 20 00; M eridian Envi ronmental , In c. and Ha rza 2001, Meridian Environmental, In c.
2005). the di stribution and abundance o f these macrophyte communitie s flu ctuat es co nsiderably on
a seaso n al basis wi th in the survey area. In genera l, h ig h de nsitie s of American waterweed , Eura sian
wa t e rmilfoi l, and curly -leaf pondweed ha ve bee n o bserved in th e nea rs hore portion (depths less
than 12 f ee t ) of the propose d ex pan ded project area durin g th e summer m onths. The highest
abunda nce is t yp ic al ly see n in depths of 6 t o 9 f eet. Along the deeper water transects (g re at er than
12 feet), the distribution of aq u atic macrophytes is patch ier and less abund an t. Very few if any
ma crop hytes are found in depths greater than 15 f eet (H arza 199 3 and 2000; M eridian
Environmental In c. 2005). During th e winter and ear ly spring th e d ensities of these species are
relatively low , as most of th eir growth occ urs during th e sum me r months.
In 20 12, biologi sts observed h ig h den sities of Ame ri ca n wa t erwee d and Eura sian wa t e rmilfoi l and
relatively low dens itie s o f pond weed and Bra zilian e lodea in the propo sed expan ded dredging area
at depths less tha n approx imately 12 feet (Tabl e 3). At dept hs greate r than 12 feet, aquatic
macro phyt e densities (all species) were very low . Den sities we re hi g hes t alo ng transe ct s 5 a nd 6,
and th e nort he rn end of t ra nsect 4 at depths less than 12 feet (Fi gure 10) and lowest along t he
1 http://www . ki ngcou n ty .gov I envi ronmen tl ani malsAnd Pia n l sl noxi ous-weeds/wecd iden t i ficat ion /b r az i I ian -
elodea.asDx
Biological A ssessme nt Page 34
Q'\rroj (,cl s\l3,trb~'c 13 ... \ 20 12 \21) 12 I)rati HA \20 12 n ,\ 0827 12,(h:x
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
shallow portions of transects 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 (at depths less than 3 feet) and deeper portions of
transects o f 3,4, and 5 (at depths greater than 16 feet). As in past surveys, American waterweed
was the dominant aquatic plant species both in distribution and abundance throughout the
proposed project area.
Figure 10. Curly-Ieafpondweed photographed along transect 6 (2012 SCUBA
survey).
Shoreline Condition
As discussed previously, the littoral zone and shore lin e of Lake Washington has been extensively
modified in the past 150 years due to the change in lake leve l; construct ion o f piers. docks, and
bulkheads; removal of LWO ; and the expans ion of Eurasian watermilfoil and other non -native
aquatic macrophytes (Fresh and Lu cchetti 2000). Riparian habit at, once dominated by hardstem
bulrush and willow, has been repla ced by developed and hardened shorelines with la ndscaped
ya rd s. According to Toft (2001), an estimated 71 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is
armored with riprap or bulkheads and approximately 2,737 residential piers have been built. This
lo ss of natural sh oreline ha s reduced the occurrence of complex shoreline habitat features such as
overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen trees with branches and/or
rootwads intact). and gravel/cobble beaches, which in turn has reduced the ava ilability of refuge
habitat and forage for juvenile salmon id s.
Like most of the shorel in e along Lake Washington, the shore line in the proposed project area is
armored with riprap; however, emergent vegetation (soft rush, grasses , sedges, etc.) was observed
growing along transect 1, with a substantial increase in the amount of vegetatio n observed in 2012.
In 2005 and 2012, juvenile rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, coho salmon, sculpin, and sticklebacks
were observed using this using this emergent vegetat ion as cover.
Biological Assessment Page 35
():\ProjC cl s\H arbcc BA 2012 \2()12 [)ra tl H A \2012 HA lI 1!271 2 doc:>.:
Cugini Pro perty Boath o use Expanded Dredge Pr is m
Sub strate
As in past SCUBA /snorke l surveys, th e substrat e in the proposed project area w as observed to be a
mi xture of silt and sand , riprap cobble, and gra ve l patches . Riprap co bble, sand , and gra v el were the
dominant substrates observed along tran sect s 1 and 2 (Table 3). Th e ripr ap co bble and gra v el w as
t y pically located within 6 feet o f the sho reline to a depth of appro ximately 3 fe et (Figures 11 and
12). Silt was the only substrate type o bse rved alo ng transect 3 and silt and sand were th e d o minant
sub strate s along transects 4, 5 , 6, 7, and 8 (Fi gure 13).
Figure 11. Riprap cobble substrate and caddisfly larvae observed along transect 1
during the 2012 SCUBA survey.
Bi o l ogical Ass ess ment Page 36
Q:\I'ro )t.'t'isl i:Jar Occ !JA 1012 \20 12 Drafi. 0:\\20 12 IlA 0827 12 dtx'\
Cug ini Prop erty Boathouse Ex panded Dredge Prism
Figure 12. Gravel substrate observed along transect 2 during the 2012 SCUBA
survey.
Figure 13. Silt substrate observed along transect 4 at a depth of approximately 16
feet during the 2012 SCUBA survey.
Bio l ogica l Assess m ent Page 37
Q \Pr0jcc\.,\Harhc:c: B A 2012'.2012 Drat! BA 12012 Hi\ 082712 I,IIKX
Cugini Pro pe rty Bo ath ou se Expa nded Dredge Prism
Overall Aquatic Habitat Complexity
While the recent riparian plantings and added gravel along the Lake Washington shoreline near the
proposed project area have greatly improved nearshore aquatic habitat conditions in the past 5
years (Figure 14), complex habitat features (other than aquatic macrophytes and the log boom)
remain extremely limited in the planned expanded dredging area. Silt and sand are the dominant
substrates and the western portion of the expanded dredge area appears to be continually impacted
by large amounts of sediment (primarily sand) entering the lake from May Creek.
The dock, boathouse dock, and culvert located to the northeast of the project provide overhead
cover for juvenile salmonids at depths less than approximately 2 feet (Figure 15). At depths greater
than 2 feet. these structures also appeared to provide cover for juvenile smallmouth bass; however,
no adult large or smallmouth bass were observed near the boathouse dock or under the dock
located to the south of the dredging area in 2012.
The riprap surrounding the May Creek delta and southeastern shoreline also limits the amount of
shallow-water refuge habitat for juvenile salmon ids and other fi sh specie s by preventing the
establishment of shoreline vegetation cover. However, the large interstitial spaces found within the
riprap shoreline did appear to provide ambush habitat for native cottids (also known to prey on
juvenile salmonids).
In summary , aquatic habitat conditions have greatly improved within and near the May Creek delta
in the past 5 years. However, juvenile salmonid rearing habitat conditions in the proposed
expanded dredging area are still considered poor due to the lack of shallow water structure such as
large and small woody debriS and brush.
Figure 14. Existing riparian conditions along lower May Creek, located to the
north of the proposed action area.
Biological Assessment Page 38
Q :\Pro lc cts \B arhcc Br\ 2012 \2012 Dra ft B:\\20 12 BA 0827 12.dll o.:X
Cug ini Property Boathous e Exp a nded Dr edge Pr is m
Figure 15. The dock and boathouse dock structures located to the east of the
proposed expanded dredging area.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Environmental Baseline Matrix
For proposed actions that affect freshwater habitat, the Services u sually define the biological
requirements for listed species in terms of a concept called properly functioning condition (PFC).
PFC is the sustained presence of natural habitat-forming processes in a watershed (e .g., riparian
community succe ss ion. bedload transport. preCipitation runoff pattern, channel migration) that are
necessary for the long -term survival of the species through the full range of environmental variation.
PFC, then, constitutes the habitat component of a specie s' biological requirement s. The indicators
of PFC vary between different landscapes based on unique phy siographi c and geologic feature s. For
ex ample , aquatic habitats on timberlands in glacial mountain valley s are controlled by natural
processes operating at different scales and rate s than are habitats on low-elevation coastal rivers or
lake systems.
In the NMFS PFC framework, baseline environmental conditions are described as "properly
functioning" (PFC), "at risk" (AR). or "not properly functioning" (NPF ). USFWS also has a PFC
framework that define s ba seline environmental conditions in terms of "functioning appropriately"
(FA), "functioning at risk " (AR), or "fun ctioning at una cceptable ri sk" (UR ). The PFC concept includes
a recognition that natural pattern s of habitat di sturbance will continue to occur. For example ,
floods, landslides, wind damage, and wildfires result in spatial and temporal variabilit y in habitat
characteristics , as would anthropogenic perturbations. If a proposed project would be likely to
Biol og ica l A sse ss ment Page 39
Q \Pf(J.I'.~(ls\B arb ~C" B A 2012 \}0 12 UnItt BA \20 12 1M US271 2.d nc:\
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning of already impaired habitat,
or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it would usually be found likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or adversely modify its critical habitat, or both,
depending upon the specific considerations of the analysis. Such considerations may include, for
example, the species' status, the condition ofthe environmental baseline, the particular reasons for
listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the quality ofthe available
information.
In this section of the BA, we summarize existing environmental conditions and parameters for the
action area and present the status of each indicator as PFC, AR, or NPF following the NMFS and
USFWS "pathways and indicators" matrices (Table 6). For the purposes ofthis analysis we have
integrated the NMFS and USFWS matrices in order to facilitate an analysis of the effects of the
proposed project on bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook salmon simultaneously. For consistency we
have used the terms PFC, AR, or NPF (NMFS terminology) for rating specific environmental
indicators applicable to bull trout from the USFWS (1998) matrix. For practical purposes, PFC, AR, or
NPF (NMFS terminology) are equivalent to FA, AR, and UR (USFWS terminology). Criteria for PFC, AR
and NPF are described in detail in NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998), but summarized for each
indicator following Table 4 along with justification for the status of each indicator in the action area.
The effects that the proposed project may have on each environmental indicator are analyzed
subsequently in Section V.
It is important to note that the current status of a particular environmental indicator may not be
related to a proposed project. For example, road density in the Lake Washington basin may rate as
"not properly functioning" under existing conditions even though the proposed project has no
influence on this indicator. In addition, the 1996 NMFS matrix was originally designed by the u.s.
Forest Service to evaluate timber harvest activities on rangeland watersheds. Therefore, not all of
the parameters below are necessarily applicable to the small spatial scale of the proposed project,
although it is still a useful tool in characterizing the baseline conditions, which can be used to assess
potential effects of the proposed project.
Table 4. Matrix of indicators and pathways for documenting the environmental
baseline on relevant indicators
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Pathway Cause of Degradation from
Indicators Function Description PFC
Water Quality
Temperature NPF High water temperatures present Loss 01 riparian vegetation due
during bull trout spawning, to development; nalurallow
incubation, and migration, and watershed elevation, and
during Chinook and steelhead naturally warm lake surface
spawning, rearing, and migration during the summer
SedimentfTurbidity NPF High sediment loads in May Creek Increased runoff due to
and Lake Washington development has increased
bank erosion and sediment
transport in May Creek and
resultant fine sediment in the
project area of Lake
Washington
Biological Assessment Page 40
Q \ProJects\Aarbcc RA 2012\2012 Draft BA\20!2 SA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Pathway Cause of Degradation from
Indicators Function Description PFC
Chemical NPF 303( d) reaches presen t Residential and commercial
Contamination/ development has increased
Nutrients polluted runoff (point and non-
point sources); agricultural/
hobby farm run-off to May
Creek flows into the lake
adjacent to the project site
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers AR Man-made instream structures Ballard Locks is a predation
present bottleneck and is a quick
transition between salt and
fresh waters, which is
undesirable for salmon smolts
Habitat Elements
Substrate NPF High fine sediment loads in May Increased runoff due to
Creek and Lake Washington development has increased
bank erosion and sediment
transport in May Creek and
resultant sediment
accumUlation in the lake at the
project site
Large Woody Debris NPF Little LWD along the lake shore Development, historic wood
removal, loss of riparian forest
Pool Frequency and NPF NA not applicable to lake habitat NA
Quality type
Off-Channel Habitat NPF Little if any wetland/off-channel Wetland degradation and
habitat present along the lake shore wetland loss due to
development, lowering of Lake
Washington
Refugia NPF No pristine PFC aquatic habitat Wide -scale urbanization has
present in the action area degraded the Lake Washington
subbasin
Channel Conditions and Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio NPF NA (not applicable) to lake habitat NA
type
Streambank Condition NPF Lake Washington's shore is Shoreline armoring along the
extensively hardened with bulk-lake for residential and
heads and piers commercial development
Floodplain NPF Limited floodplain connectivity Lake Washington was lowered,
Connectivity permanently dewatering
shallow wetlands and lake
margin habitat
Flow/Hydrology
Change in Peak/Base NPF Not applicable to lake habitat type NA
Flow
Biological Assessment
Q,\Projects\Barbee BA 20 12\20 12 Draft BA\20 [2 SA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Baseline Environmental Conditions
Pathway Cause of Degradation from
Indlcafors Function Description PFC
Increase in Drainage NPF Not applicable to lake habitat type NA
Network
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and NPF High road density Lake Washington is a highly
Location urbanized area with a well·
developed road network
Disturbance History NPF Massive human caused landscape Diversion of the Cedar River,
altering events have occurred lowering of Lake Washington
and general urbanization have
dramatically altered the historic
landscape
Riparian Reserves NPF Few forested areas compared to Wide-spread clearing in the
historic conditions Lake Washington subbasin
Local Population Characteristics (bull trout only; USFWS matrix criteria)
Population Size NA No local bull trout subpopulation in No bull trout subpopulations
the action area, although foraging are known or suspected to
individuals may be present from occur in May Creek; the Cedar
other basins such as the Snohomish River population is resident
and Stillaguamish, or from the upper above a natural barrier and
Cedar River was not historically connected
to Lake Washington
Growth and Survival NA Same as above Same as above
Life History Diversity NA Same as above Same as above
and Isolation
Persistence and NA Same as above Same as above
Genetic Integrity
Water Temperature
For Chinook and steelhead, NMFS (1996) defines PFC as water temperatures ranging from 50 to
57'F. AR conditions range from 57 to 60'F for spawning and from 57 to 64 'for migration and
rearing. NPF is defined as greater than 60'F for spawning and greater than 64'F for rearing. USFWS
(1998) defines PFC for bull trout as water temperatures ranging from 35.6 to 41 'F for incubation,
39.2 to 53.6'F for rearing, and 39.2 to 48.2'F for spawning. NPF is defined as temperatures outside
the above criteria, with rearing areas and migration corridor temperatures over 59'F.
Water temperatures in the area (East Mercer Channel) are generally below 50'F during the winter
and between 62 and 75'F during the summer at depths of 3.3 feet. At a depth of 33 feet, water
temperatures are about 45'F in the winter and between 59' and 68'F during the summer
(http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/site0840.htm). Under the USFW5 (1998) criteria these
values would rate as NPF for bull trout spawning and incubation and summer migration corridors.
Under the NMF5 (1996) criteria, these values would rate between NPF and AR for Chinook and
steelhead spawning, rearing and migration.
Biological Assessment Page 42
Q:\Prujects\Burbee BA 2012\2012 Drafl BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Sediment/Turbidity
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as containing less than 12 percent fines in gravel, and
NPF is defined as having greater than 17 percent surface fines (greater than 20 percent surface fines
under USFWS 1998).
The surficial substrate in the proposed expanded dredging zone is comprised of silt and sand. This
condition is likely caused by the increased erosion and sedimentation deposition occurring in May
Creek and in the May Creek delta. According to King County (2001), sediment deposition has
occurred from natural erosion but has been accelerated by increased storm water runoff from
upstream development and changes in the watershed land cover. Based on the documentation of
increased erosion and sedimentation, this indicator is likely NPF.
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as characterized by low levels of contamination with no
303(d) designated reaches, and NPF is defined as high levels of chemical contamination and
nutrients and more than one 303(d) listed reach.
lake Washington is a 303(d) water body for fecal coliform concentrations. In addition, Ecology has
given several public warnings regarding lake Washington fish consumption due to high levels of
mercury contamination (Ecology 2004). Based on known water quality degradation in lake
Washington, this indicator rates as NPF.
Physical Barriers
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as man-made barriers that allow upstream and
downstream passage at all flows without significant levels of mortality or delay, and NPF as man-
made barriers that do not allow upstream and downstream fish passage at a range of flows.
The fish passage facilities at the Ballard locks provide adult access to lake Washington and smolt
passage to the Puget Sound; however, the locks are a predation bottleneck. Heavy seal predation
on adult salmon at the locks is a common and recurring problem. In addition, the sharp
demarcation between the fresh and saltwater environments at the lake Washington outlet is likely
a stressor for juvenile salmonid out-migrants. Therefore, the "Physical Barriers" indicator should be
considered AR.
Substrate
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as reach embeddedness of less than 20 percent and NPF
as embedded ness greater than 30 percent.
The substrate in the project area is comprised of sand and silt, based on the results of multiple
SCUBA surveys. According to King County (2001) fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek is an
ongoing problem. This fine sediment is transported immediately to the south to the boathouse area
by wave action. Based on chronic fine sediment deposition in lower May Creek and the boathouse
area, this indicator rates as NPF.
Biological Assessment Page 43
Q.\ProjectsI.Oarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712,docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Large Woody Debris
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as greater than 80 pieces of wood per mile, which are
greater than 24 inches in diameter and greater than 50 feet long. NPF is defined as wood that does
not meet the criteria of PFC and sources of LWD recruitment are lacking.
This indicator does not apply to the proposed action.
Off-channel Habitat
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC for off-channel habitat as many backwaters with cover
and low energy, off-channel areas, including ponds and oxbows. NPF is defined as a watershed with
few or none of these habitat types.
Lowering of Lake Washington in the early 1900s resulted in the loss of over 10 miles of shoreline and
approximately 1,000 acres of wetlands. Shallow lake margins and wetlands are generally considered
to be high-quality and preferred habitats for juvenile salmon ids such as Chinook and coho salmon.
Based on loss of wetlands, this indicator rates as NPF.
Refugia
NMFS (1996) defines PFC for refugia as habitats that are adequately buffered by intact riparian
reserves of sufficient size, number and connectivity to maintain viable populations and
subpopulations. NPF is defined as no adequate habitat refugia.
USFWS (1998) defines PFC for refugia as habitats capable of supporting strong and significant
populations of bull trout that are protected, well distributed, and connected for all life stages and
forms. NPF is defined as the absence of habitat refugia.
The action area has been extensively altered over the past 100 years by human development and
the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed is likely one of the most highly disturbed urban
watersheds in the state. Although adequate bull trout habitat exists in the upper Cedar River, no
bull trout refugia exists in the action area due to high summer water temperatures. The action area
also lacks adequate local refugia for Chinook and steelhead due to extensive riparian, instream, and
shoreline habitat alterations. Therefore, this indicator rates as NPF.
Streambank Condition
NMFS (1996) defines PFC as greater than 90 percent (80 percent under USFWS criteria) of any
stream reach of which 90 percent or more is stable NPF is defined as less than 80 percent stability.
The USFWS (1998) defines NPF as less than 50 percent of any stream reach that is characterized as
at least 90 percent stable.
The shoreline along the action area is developed and bulkheaded. The banks are not actively
eroding, but the bulkheads have disrupted natural shoreline processes. In addition, over 2,700 piers
extend into Lake washington. Lowering of the lake in the early 1900s substantially altered the Lake
Washington shoreline, resulting in the loss of approximately 10 miles of lake shore perimeter. Due
to extensive alteration of the Lake Washington shoreline, this indicator rates as NPF. However,
stream bank condition adjacent to the proposed project site has improved substantially in the past 5
years.
Biological Assessment Page 44
Q.\Projects\Harbee HA 2012\2012 Draft BA\20 12 BA 082712 don
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Floodplain Connectivity
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as well-connected, off-channel areas with overbank
flows of sufficient frequency to maintain function. NPF is defined as a severe reduction in
hydrologic connection with off-channel habitats.
Lake Washington has been lowered, disconnecting the mouths of streams from their floodplains.
Therefore this indicator rates as NPF.
Road Density and Location
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as less than 1 mile of road per square mile with no valley
bottom roads and NPF as greater than 2.4 miles of road per square mile with many valley bottom
roads.
The action area has been heavily urbanized and has a well-developed road network. Road densities,
although not estimated for this analysis, likely rate as NPF.
Disturbance History
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as having less than 15 percent equivalent clear-cut area
(entire watershed) with no concentration of disturbance in unstable or potentially unstable areas,
and/or refugia, and/or riparian area; and for Northwest Forest Plan area (except adaptive
management areas), 15 percent retention of late successional old growth timber in the watershed.
The "Disturbance History" indicator rates as NPF based on extensive historic and ongoing
development.
Riparian Reserves
NMFS (1996) and USFWS (1998) define PFC as a riparian reserve system that provides adequate
shade, LWD recruitment, habitat protection, and connectivity to all sub-watersheds. This reserve
must be greater than 80 percent intact and the vegetation must be greater than 50 percent similar
to the potential natural community composition.
Riparian habitat in the action area along Lake Washington has been highly altered and extensively
cleared, primarily for residential development. This indicator rates as NPF.
Population Size
USFWS (1998) defines FA as the mean subpopulation size or a local habitat capacity of more than
several thousand individuals and all life stages evenly represented in the subpopulation. AR is
defined as fewer than 500 adults in a subpopulation, but more than 50.
The Lake Chester Morse bull trout population in the upper Cedar River would be classified as FA
under the USFWS criteria; however, this is a naturally resident population located upstream of a
passage barrier. In addition, the Cedar River historically was not connected to Lake Washington.
There are no known current or historic (but now extinct) bull trout populations located within the
Lake Washington basin, except for the Chester Morse population. However, it appears that
individuals from the Chester Morse population may pass downstream into Lake Washington and
Biological Assessment Page 45
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 20 12\20 12 Draft BA\20 12 HA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
that anadromous bull trout migrate to the Lake Washington vicinity from other basins such as the
Stillaguamish, Snohomish, and possibly the Skagit River basins.
Bull trout typically exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine watersheds. There is no indication
that a bull trout population historically would have occupied May Creek. Generally, self-sustaining
local bull trout subpopulations are only found in watersheds that have accessible stream habitat
above the average winter snow line (where winter snowpack accumulates) which is approximately
900 feet in western Washington (USFWS 2004). The May Creek watershed headwaters only extend
to an elevation of approximately 500 feet, with no areas of winter snowpack accumulation. Bull
trout spawning in May Creek would not be expected currently or historically because the water
temperature regime is likely too warm due to the low elevation and lack of substantial cold springs,
glaciers, or winter snowpack. As there is no current or historic local self-sustaining bull trout
population or subpopulation indigenous to the action area, this indicator is not applicable.
Growth and Survival
USFWS (1998) defines FA as a subpopulation with the resilience to recover from short-term
disturbances in 5 to 10 years. Additionally, the subpopulation is increasing or stable, with at least 10
years of data to support such a trend.
As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the
action area, therefore this indicator is not applicable.
Life History Diversity and Isolation
USFWS (1998) defines FA as presence of the migratory form with subpopulations in close proximity
to other spawning and rearing groups. There is high likelihood of neighboring subpopulations
straying and adults mixing with other groups. UR is defined as an absence of the migratory form and
the subpopulation is isolated to a local stream and unlikely to support more than 2,000 fish.
As discussed above, there is no known current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the
action area; therefore, this indicator is not applicable. While this indicator is meant to apply to local
subpopulations within an action area, there may be migratory bull trout straying from other basins,
such as the Snohomish and Stillaguamish River basins or the upper Cedar River.
Persistence and Genetic Integrity
USFWS (1998) defines FA as possessing high connectivity among more than five subpopulations with
at least several thousand fish each. UR is defined as having little or no connectivity and
subpopulations that are in low numbers or in decline. As discussed above, there is no known
current or historic bull trout subpopulation indigenous to the action area; therefore, this indicator is
not applicable.
v. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON FISH SPECIES
"Effects of the action" means the direct and indirect effects of an action on the listed species or
critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent
with that action, that would be added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02). Effects of the
Biological Assessment Page 46
Q \ProJecls\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft 8A\20 12 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
action that reduce the ability of a listed species to meet its biological requirements may increase the
likelihood that the proposed action would result in jeopardy to that listed species or in destruction
or adverse modification of a designated critical habitat,
The proposed action may affect Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout by causing physical changes to
the environmental baseline and through indirect effects to the species. These effects may impact
migrating and rearing juvenile Chinook and steel head within the action area, The major concern of
the proposed action is the alteration of Chinook and bull trout critical habitat caused by dredging in
the proposed expanded dredging prism (Appendix A),
A. DIRECT EFFECTS
In this section we analyze the direct effects of the proposed project on three primary elements that
may be influenced by the action, These elements are direct effects on individual fish, such as
harassment or actual mortality through contact with the dredging equipment, pile removal, and root
wad placement; direct effects on habitat by physically disturbing the substrate and removing
sediments from the proposed expanded dredging area; and direct effects on water quality during
dredging and fish rock placement.
Direct Effects on Fish
Take of bull trout in the nearshore area of Lake Washington during the summer is extremely
unlikely, Water quality monitoring in 2002 (within the silt curtain of the dredging zone and
immediately outside the silt curtain) strongly suggest that water temperatures during July and
August (proposed dredge timing) exceed the generally reported upper limit of bull trout
temperature tolerance of approximately 59°F, Temperatures in the dredging zone (within the silt
curtain) from July to late September 2002 exceeded 65°F and averaged 69.4°F, Due to probable
high water temperatures outside the species tolerance range in the dredging zone during summer, it
would be extremely unlikely for bull trout to be present in the dredging area and, therefore, take of
individual bull trout is not expected.
Adult Chinook typically migrate into Lake Washington at the Ballard Locks in mid-June, peaking in
late August (Kerwin 2001), Spawning typically occurs from mid-September through November
(Kerwin 2001), Juvenile Chinook rearing occurs from approximately January through June (Kerwin
2001). Most juvenile Chinook move through the Ballard Locks by the end of June, although the
entire out-migration period is unknown (Kerwin 2001), Limiting in-water work to the NMFS
approved July 16 -September 15 work window would minimize the potential to adversely affect
juvenile Chinook, as the vast majority of juveniles in Lake Washington are expected to migrate prior
to July. Because the proposed in-water work window would overlap with the adult Chinook
migration period, there is some chance that adult Chinook salmon may be present in the dredging
zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by dredging activities, However, it is
anticipated that adult Chinook would avoid direct contact with the clamshell dredging eqUipment,
and would not be physically injured or killed by the dredging activities, Short term increases in
turbidity are not expected to adversely affect adult Chinook,
Adult steel head spawn from mid-December through early June in the Lake Washington basin,
Adults migrate to spawning grounds beginning in the fall. Adult steelhead do not necessarily die
after spawning and post-spawn adults (kelts) migrate downstream back to saltwater after spawning.
Biological Assessment Page 47
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft I:3A\2012 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Therefore, adult steelhead could be present in Lake Washington from the fall through the early
summer. Juveniles can spend several years in freshwater before migrating to saltwater and could be
present in Lake Washington all year. Similar to Chinook, there is some chance that adult or juvenile
steelhead may be present in the dredging zone and may be temporarily harassed and displaced by
dredging activities. However, it is anticipated that adult and juvenile steel head would avoid direct
contact with the clamshell dredging equipment, and would not be physically injured or killed by the
dredging activities.
Coho begin entering Lake Washington in late August and continue to enter the lake through early
December. Most coho spawning occurs in November and December (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho
typically rear for 12 to 14 months in freshwater. In Lake Washington, the peak of the outmigration
occurs in early May (Kerwin 2001). Juvenile coho are present in the project area in the spring and
adult coho are known to spawn in May Creek in the fall. The proposed dredging period, while
optimally designed to avoid the presence of juvenile and adult anadromous salmon ids, does overlap
with the coho rearing and out-migration time and adult coho migration. It is most likely that coho
juveniles may be present during dredging and may be temporarily displaced, but as with Chinook
and steelhead, it is not anticipated that coho would come into direct contact with dredging
equipment and be physically injured or killed.
Direct Effects on Habitat
It is apparent from Tabor et al. (2004) that juvenile Chinook salmon in the south end of Lake
Washington prefer shallow (1 to 2 feet in depth) stream delta habitat with sand and gravel
substrates. Water depths in the proposed expanded dredging zone are generally deeper than those
preferred by rearing juvenile Chinook. In addition, the aquatic habitat located immediately to the
south of the May Creek delta and along the shoreline of the lake to the south is not heavily used by
juvenile Chinook (Tabor et aI., 2004 and Table 4). Even though the proposed project would impact
habitats that are not known to be preferred by juvenile Chinook, the project proponent would
enhance the lakeshore margin with a "fish rock" gravel mix to create additional shallow water
habitat, which Tabor et al. (2004) suggests might be preferred by rearing Chinook.
Similar information regarding juvenile steel head and coho use of Lake Washington shoreline habitat
is not available; however, many rainbow trout (same species as steel head) and coho were observed
by Tabor et al. (2004) and during the SCUBA surveys conducted in 2005. Based on the recent SCUBA
survey observations within and near the proposed project area, it appears that juvenile steel head
and coho prefer the shallow water habitat located along the shoreline to the north and northeast of
the proposed expanded dredging area, and are typically associated with overhanging brush and
emergent vegetation. Juvenile coho were also abundant in the shallow water areas «3 feet deep)
located along the northeastern corner of the boathouse dock. No steel head or coho were observed
at depths greater than approximately 3 feet. Based on these findings, it appears that juvenile
steelhead and coho habitat would not be directly affected by the proposed action.
Due to the overall low numbers of bull trout, if any, and lack of information concerning their habitat
use in Lake Washington, effects of dredging on bull trout habitat use is unknown, but is suspected to
be negligible.
The effect on forage species habitat is likewise unknown, but due to the relatively small area, the
effect is suspected to be discountable.
Biological Assessment Page 48
Q'IPro]ccts\Barbec AA 201212012 Oraft BA\2012 BA 082712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Direct Effects on Water Quality
The proposed dredging project has the potential to increase turbidity (i.e., reduce water clarity) and
increase total suspended solids (TSS) within and near the proposed action area. Turbidity and TSS
levels have been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect
salmonid survival. The potential for adverse effects depends upon several factors, including the
duration ofTSS increases, the area of the turbidity plume, the amount and velocity of ambient water
(dilution factor), and the size of suspended sediments. In the case of the proposed project,
increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would be localized at the point of dredging and
increases would last for only short periods oftime, expected to be less than several hours.
Evidence suggests that salmonids are well adapted to short term increases in turbidity, as such
conditions are frequently experienced in natural settings as a result of storms, landslides, or other
natural phenomena (Redding et al. 1987; NMFS 2003). It is chronic exposure to increased turbidity
that has been found to be the most potentially damaging to salmonids (The Watershed Company et
al. 2000). Studies have found that when habitat space is not limiting, salmonids will move to avoid
localized areas of increased turbidity, thereby alleviating the potential for adverse physiological
impacts (Bisson and Bilby 1982; NMFS 2003). Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of
unacceptably high turbidity (Servizi and Martens 1991), although they may seek out areas of
moderate turbidity (10 to 80 NTU), presumably as cover against predation (Cyrus and Blaber 1987a,
1987b). Studies have found that fish that inhabit waters with elevated TSS may experience a
reduction in predation from piscivorous fish and birds (Gregory and Levings 1998). In such cases,
salmonids may actually increase foraging activity, as they use turbid water as a sort of cover from
predators (Gregory 1993). However, feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by turbidities in
excess of 70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by
adult salmon returning to spawn has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 mg/L
suspended sediments); however, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/L of suspended volcanic ash
were still able to find their natal streams (Whitman et al. 1982).
The highest turbidity values recorded during recent dredging activity in 2002 were less than 7 NTU,
and turbidity measured in the dredging zone was on average less than 1.4 NTU greater than
turbidity outside the dredging zone (Table 5). Overall turbidity values of less than 7 NTU are very
low, and the effect of slightly increasing turbidity by 1 or 2 NTU on listed fish species should be
considered discountable. Washington state water quality regulations allow a short term increase of
10 NTU when background turbidity is less than 50 NTU (WAC 273-201A-030). Based on the 2002
monitoring results, future dredging would likely meet this standard.
Based on these data and the scientific literature cited above, it is unlikely that the short-term (7 to
10 days every 3 to 5 years) and localized elevation of turbidity (less than 5 NTU elevation above
background turbidity levels) generated by the proposed project would rise to the levels that would
be expected to cause harm to Chinook, steel head, or bull trout that may be present in the dredging
lone.
Biological Assessment Page 49
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Table 5. Turbidity monitoring during 2002 May Creek delta dredging (11 days of
sampling over the dredging period).
Within silt curtain Outside silt curtain
(In dredge zone) (out of dredge zone)
Minimum 1.1 NTU 1.1 NTU
Average 2.1 NTU 1.4 NTU
Maximum 5.2 NTU 3.1 NTU
In-water work such as dredging also has the potential to degrade water quality though the spill of
toxic substances, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid from dredging or pile placement equipment. This
potential is best reduced by maintaining equipment in proper working condition and by maintaining
a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP). Typically, a SPCCP would specify areas
for equipment maintenance and refueling, spill prevention and emergency response strategies,
requirements for keeping emergency response spill containment kits onsite, and for having trained
personnel be onsite during in·water work. A SPCCP would be developed by the dredging contractor
and approved by appropriate agencies, such as the WDOE, before dredging occurs. Preparation of a
SPCCP would limit the potential for toxic material spills during dredging and pile replacement.
B. INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects aSSOCiated with the proposed project could affect the Chinook, bull trout, steelhead
and coho prey base (e.g., aquatic macroinvertebrates and small forage fish). or through the creation
of deep water habitat conditions that favor species known to prey on juvenile salmonids (i.e., large
trout, bass, and sculpin). ESA-listed salmonids feed on certain macroinvertebrates, and therefore
any loss of these prey items via dredging or disposal may harm these species. However, these
effects would be localized to deepwater areas of low importance to these species. As a result,
short-term impacts to macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity are likely to be limited. In
addition, the continued growth of overhanging riparian vegetation along the delta (as a result of
recent habitat enhancement) would likely increase the abundance and rate of terrestrial insects
falling into the shallow margins of the lake to some degree, which would result in an increase in the
juvenile salmonid prey base along the lake margin.
C. EFFECTS FROM INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED ACTIONS
No interdependent or interrelated actions have been identified in association with the proposed
expanded dredging project.
D. EFFECTS FROM ONGOING PROJECT ACTIVITIES
These effects are the same as previously described under direct effects of dredging. The only
ongoing portion of the proposed project would be the periodic dredging of the boathouse area to
maintain navigational depths every 3 to 5 years.
Biological Assessment Page 50
Q:\Projecis\Barbcc RA 2012\2012 Draft BA\20 12 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
E. DESCRIPTION OF How THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE WOULD BE
AFFECTED
As discussed previously, the PFC framework for EsA consultation characterizes baseline
environmental conditions as "properly functioning," "at risk," or "not properly functioning." If a
proposed project is likely to impair properly functioning habitat, appreciably reduce the functioning
of already impaired habitat, or retard the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC, it is
usually found likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, or adversely modify its
critical habitat, or both, depending on the specific consideration of the analysis. Such considerations
may include, for example, the species' status, the condition of the environmental baseline, the
particular reasons for listing the species, any new threats that have arisen since listing, and the
quality of available information. Actions that do not compromise a species' biological requirements
to the degree that appreciably reduces the species' viability and chances of survival in the action
area are considered not to reduce or retard.
The project would provide an overall increase in water quality by removing the toxic creosote
pilings, increasing primary productivity and the fish forage base within the lake by increasing light
transmission, and increasing shallow water habitat along the shoreline. Therefore, the proposed
project would result in an overall improvement to the aquatic habitat environmental baseline of
Lake Washington.
F. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects are defined in 50 CFR § 402.02 as "those effects offuture State, tribal, local or
private actions, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the action
area." All areas within approximately 1 mile of the May Creek delta could be affected cumulatively
by the proposed action. Potential cumulative effects may arise due to increased development in the
action area. Expansion of the local economy and diversification would likely contribute to
population growth. This growth is expected to increase demand for electricity, water, and buildable
land in the action area which would, in turn, increase demand for transportation, communication
and other social infrastructure. These actions would affect habitat features such as water quality
and quantity which would directly affect the listed aquatic species. This is currently evidenced by
the fact that runoff, erosion, and sedimentation has increased in May Creek as development has
increased. It is expected that this trend would continue and be further exacerbated as additional
development occurs and as impervious surfaces increase upstream in the watershed. As sediment
deposition increases in the delta and sediment is transported to the boathouse area by wave action,
more frequent dredging may be required to maintain navigational depths.
G. TAKE ANALYSIS
steelhead and Chinook would likely avoid the proposed expanded dredging zone; therefore, direct
mortality of these species is not expected. The potential displacement of a few Chinook should not
be considered harassment because the attributes of the proposed expanded zone are not
considered preferred habitat for Chinook, based on recent SCUBA surveys and on the data
presented in Tabor et al. (2004). Similarly, potential displacement of a few steelhead should not be
considered harassment, as there appears to be ample nearby habitat of similar condition which any
Biological Assessment Page 51
Q IProjects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Omft HA120!2 AA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
displaced steelhead could occupy. Therefore, take of Chinook and steelhead should be considered
discountable.
Due to the overall lack of migratory bull trout within the Lake Washington basin, take of bull trout as
a result of the proposed project is extremely unlikely.
H. CRITICAL HABITAT EFFECTS ANALYSIS
This critical habitat effects analysis determines whether the proposed project would destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat for listed species by examining any change in the
conservation value of the essential features of that critical habitat. This analysis relies on statutory
provisions of the ESA, including those in Section 3 that define "critical habitat" and "conservation,"
those in Section 4 that describe the designation process, and those in Section 7 that set forth the
substantive protections and procedural aspects of consultation; and on agency guidance for
application of the "destruction or adverse modification" standard. With respect to designated
critical habitat, the following analysis relies only on the statutory provisions of the ESA, and not on
the regulatory definition of "destruction or adverse modification" at 50 CFR 402.02.
The action area is designated critical habitat for Chinook. Juvenile Chinook may use the Lake
Washington shore adjacent to the proposed expanded dredging area for foraging and rearing and
adult Chinook may use the area as a migration corridor. The proposed project would have no
influence on the ability of adult Chinook to migrate to spawning tributaries. Furthermore, current
habitat conditions in the project area would not be considered optimal for juvenile Chinook rearing
(Tabor et al. 2004). The proposed project would improve habitat conditions for rearing juvenile
Chinook by creating additional shallow-water shoreline and instream habitat. Primary productivity
and the fish forage base would be improved by allowing greater light penetration to the lakebed
substrate by removing the three existing creosote pilings and replacing the floating platform with a
more fish friendly float with grated decking.
While the effects of this project may temporarily affect water quality through increased turbidity
and reduce the fish forage base by removing lake sediments that contain benthic invertebrates,
overall these attributes would be improved by increasing primary productivity as a result of
increased light transmission, removing the toxic creosote pilings, and enhancing shallow-water
habitats with gravel. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in long-term destruction or
adverse modification of designated Chinook salmon critical habitat, but would result in a net
improvement of critical habitat.
Due to the very small project area and overall lack of migratory bull trout juveniles or adults within
the Lake Washington basin, we conclude that bull trout critical habitat primary constituent elements
would not be affected by the proposed project. Designated bull trout critical habitat would not be
destroyed or adversely modified.
Biological Assessment Page 52
Q'\Projects\Barbee SA 20!2\2012 Draft HA\2012 HA 082712 docx:
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
VI. EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR LISTED SPECIES AND
DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The primary objective of this BA is to determine the effect the proposed project would have on ESA-
listed Chinook salmon, steel head, and bull trout. This determination will be used by NMFS and
USFWS to determine whether the proposed project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the listed species or to adversely modify their critical habitats (if applicable). To facilitate and
standardize the determination of effects for ESA consultations, the Services use the following
definitions for listed species (USFWS and NMFS 1998):
No effect: This determination is only appropriate "ifthe proposed project will literally have no
effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect or an effect that is
unlikely to occur." Furthermore, actions that result in a "beneficial effect" do not qualify as a no-
effect determination.
May affect, not likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when effects on the species
or critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial effects
have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat.
May affect, likely to adversely affect: The appropriate conclusion when there is "more than a
negligible potential to have adverse effects on the species or critical habitat." In the event the
overall effect of the proposed project is benefiCial to the listed species or critical habitat, but may
also cause some adverse effects to individuals of the listed species or segments ofthe critical
habitat, then the proposed project is "likely to adversely affect" the listed species or critical habitat.
It is not possible for NMFS to concur on a "not likely to adversely affect" determination if the
proposed project will cause harm to the listed species.
Implementation ofthe conservation measures included in the proposed project would benefit listed
Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout by increasing light penetration (primary productivity) and
shoreline shallow water habitat (fish gravel), which has been shown to be used more by juvenile
Chinook when compared to existing conditions. Take of any species is unlikely, and designated bull
trout and Chinook critical habitat would not be destroyed or adversely modified. Therefore, the
proposed project "may affect", but is "not likely to adversely affect" Chinook, steelhead, and bull
trout.
VII. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
The MSA-established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species
regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to the MSA, federal agencies must
consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the
agency, that may adversely affect EFH (Section 305{b){2)).
Essential Fish Habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting this definition of EFH, "waters"
Biological Assessment Page 53
Q:\Projecls\Barbee BA 20 12\20 12 Draft 8A\20 12 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used
by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; "substrate"
includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological
communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the
managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth
to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle (50 CFR 600.10). "Adverse effect" means any impact that
reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical
disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide
impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810).
An EFH consultation with NMFS is required for any federal agency action that may adversely affect
EFH, including actions that occur outside EFH, such as certain upstream and upslope activities. The
objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed project would adversely
affect designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise
offset potential adverse effects to EFH.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project and action area are described in Section II of this document.
B. ApPROPRIATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN(S)
Pursuant to the MSA, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for
three species of federally-managed Pacific salmon: Chinook, coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon
(PFMC 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and
other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California, except areas upstream of certain impassable man-made barriers, and longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers (PFMC 1999). Detailed descriptions and identification of EFH for
salmon are found in Appendix A to Amendment 14 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). In
the Lake Washington basin, EFH is designated for Chinook and coho salmon; therefore, EFH is
designated in the action area olthe proposed project.
C. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
As previously described in Sections V and VI olthis document, the proposed project would result in
the improvement of aquatic habitat. The effects on Chinook salmon critical habitat are the same as
for designated EFH.
D. PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES
Proposed conservation measures to minimize impacts to designated Chinook and coho salmon EFH
are the same as those described in Section liB.
E. CONCLUSION
Following the listed conservation measures, as outlined in Section II B olthis document, the
proposed project may cause a short-term negligible increase in turbidity/suspended sediment and a
Biological Assessment Page 54
Q:\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA \2012 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
reduction in benthic invertebrates in the dredging lone. However, overall long-term water quality
would be improved by removal of the toxic creosote pilings. Primary productivity and the fish
forage base would be improved as a result of increased light penetration into the lake, and shoreline
and instream habitat quality would be improved through the addition of fish rock. Therefore, the
proposed project would not adversely affect designated EFH for Chinook and coho salmon, and
would not hinder a sustainable fishery for these two species.
Biological Assessment Page 55
Q:IProjcc(sIRarbcc BA 2011\2()12 Draft BAllO!2 BA mC712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
REFERENCES
Bell, M.e. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. u.s.
Army Corps of Engineers. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, North
Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. Contract DACWS7-68-0086.
Berge, H.B., and B.V. Mavros. 2001. King County Bull Trout Program: 2000 Bull Trout Surveys.
King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington.
Biological Review Team (BRT). 200S. Status review update for Puget Sound steelhead, 26 July
200S. 200S Puget Sound Steelhead Biological Review Team, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington.
Bishop,S., and A. Morgan, (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural Chinook
salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound areas of Washington State. Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA lOS pp.
Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2(4):371-374.
Bond, e.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of bull trout and the effects of
human activity on the species. pp.1-4In: Howell, PJ. and D.V. Buchanan (eds.).
Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the Am.
Fish. Soc., Corvallis, OR.
Booth, D.B., and L. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems-
measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. In: Proceedings of
the Watershed '93 Conference. U.S. GPO, Washington D.e.
Brenkman, S.J. 2002. Unpublished data on bull trout investigations. Olympic National Park.
Washington.
Brenkman, SJ., G.L. Larson, and R E. Gresswell. 2001. Spawning Migration of Lacustrine-
Adfluvial Bull Trout in a Natural Area. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
130:981-987.
Brenkman, SJ., s.e. Corbett, and E.e. Volk. 2007. Use of otolith chemistry and radiotelemetry to
determine age-specific migratory patterns of anadromous bull trout in the Hoh River,
Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1-11.
Brett, J.R. 19S2. Temperature tolerances of young Pacific salmon. Oncorhynchus. J. Fish. Res.
Board Can. 9(6):264-323.
Biological Assessment Page 56
Q_\Projects\Oarbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 SA ()~2712_docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Brewin, P.A., and M.K. Brevin. 1997. Distribution Maps for Bull Trout in Alberta. pp.206-216
In: Mackay, W.e., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita (eds.). Friends of the Bull Trout
Conference Proceedings.
Buchanan, K. 2003. Stream Habitat Conditions During Low Flow Conditions: Coal Creek, May
Creek, Lower Cedar River, and Selected Tributaries, 1-405 North Renton. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Carrasco, K., S. Foley, B. Mavros, and K. Walter. 1998. 1998 Chinook spawner survey data
technical report for the Lake Washington watershed. King County Department of
Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe.
Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus
(Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64:139-174.
City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public
Utilities. Seattle, WA. April 2000.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber. 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in
Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the Southeastern Coast of Africa.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:53-70.
Cyrus, D.P., and SJ.M. Blaber. 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile Marine Fishes in
Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field Data and Conclusions.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 109:71-91.
Dambacher, J.M., M.W. Buktenica, and G.L. Larson. 1992. Distribution, abundance and habitat
utilization of bull trout and brook trout in Sun Creek, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon.
Pages 30-36 in P. L. Howell and D. V. Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the Gearhart
Mountain bull trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society,
Corvallis, OR.
Footen, B. 2000. Preliminary results of an investigation into the impacts of piscivorous
predation on juvenile Chinook (Oncarhynchus tshawytscha) and other salmonids in
Salmon and Shilshole Bays, King Co. Washington. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
Presentation at the 2000 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop, Sponsored by
King County Department of Natural Resources.
Footen, B. 2003. Piscivorous impacts on Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Salmon
Bay estuary, the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Sammamish. Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe. Presentation at the 2003 Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Workshop,
Sponsored by Seattle Public Utilities.
Biological Assessment Page 57
Q:\ProJects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\2012 I3A 082712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1995. May Creek Basin Phase 1 Solutions Analysis.
Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water
Utility, November 1995. Bellevue, Washington.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. 1998. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report.
Prepared for King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Bothell,
Washington.
Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. In: Lake and Reservoir
Management. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 148-151.
Fresh, K.L. and G. Lucchetti. 2000. Protecting and restoring the habitats of anadromous
salmonids in the Lake Washington watershed, an urbanizing ecosystem. Pages 525-544
in E.E. Knudsen, CR. Steward, D.O. MacDonald, J.E. Williams, and D.w. Reiser {editors}.
Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton.
Goetz, FA, E. Jeanes, and E. Beamer. June 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore, preliminary draft.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
httP:J /www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmen u/DOCU M ENTS/Prelim_Bu 11_ Trout_ Report. p
df
Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of turbidity on the predator avoidance behaviour of juvenile Chinook
salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:241-246.
Gregory, R.5., and C.D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile Pacific
salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127{2}:275-285.
Harza Engineering Company. 1993. Fish and Aquatic Plant Habitat Utilization Assessment for
the May Creek Delta, Lake Washington, on September 27, 1993. Prepared for lloyd and
Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey. August 2000. Prepared for lloyd and Associates Inc. Bellevue, WA.
Healey, M.C 1991. life history of Chinook salmon {Oncorhynchus tshawytscha}. Pages 311-
393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press.
Vancouver, B. C.
Hemmingsen, A.R., S.L. Gunckel and PJ. Howell. 2001. Bull trout life history, genetics, habitat
needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon, 1999 Annual Report.
Project Number 199405400, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.
Hitchcock, c.L., A. Cronquist, and M. Ownbey. 1969. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest.
Part 1: vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. University of
Washington Press, Seattle.
Biological Assessment
Q-\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\20 12 BA 082712_docx
Page 58
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Howell, P., J.B. Dunham, P. San kovich, and G. Chandler. 2005. Water temperatures used by
migratory bull trout from the Lostine River. Presentation made at the Oregon Chapter
of the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, February 18, 2005, Corvallis, OR.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management.
Ecological Applications, 1:66-84.
Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors report for the Cedar-
Sammamish basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8), September 2001. Washington
Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA. 587 pp.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of
Renton. April 2001.
King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 2000. Literature review and
recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Seattle, Washington.
Kraemer, C. 1999. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malmo) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the north Puget
Sound region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington.
Leary, R.F., and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Notes -genetic confirmation of sympatric bull trout and
Dolly Varden in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
126:715-720.
Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, and J.E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale assessment
of aquatic species and habitats. in T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide, editors. An
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin, USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR.
Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban
growth areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources.
April 2002.
Mason, J.c., and D.W. Chapman. 1965. Significance of early emergence, environmental rearing
capacity, and behavioral ecology of juvenile coho salmon in stream channels. J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 22(1): 172-190.
Mavros, B., S. Foley, K. Burton, and K. Walter. 1999. 1999 Chinook spawner survey data
technical report for the Lake Washington Watershed. King County Department of
Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe.
May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on
small streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2(4):
483-494.
Biological Assessment Page 59
Q:Wrojects\8arbee HA 2012\2012 Draft RA120!2 BA 082712 dClCx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
McPhail, J.D., and J.5. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history
and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries
management report no. 104. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.
McPhail, J.D., and R. Carveth. 1992. A foundation for conservation: the nature and origin of the
freshwater fish fauna of British Columbia. Fish Museum, Department of Zoology,
University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.
McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life-history and ecology of Dolly Varden
(Salvelinu5 malmo) in the upper Arrow lakes. Department of Zoology and Institute of
Animal Resources, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. and Harza Engineering Company. 2001. Cugini property May
2001, aquatic habitat and fish population survey and joint-use dock biological
assessment. June 25, 2001.
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, U. lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.5. Grand, F.W.
Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon
from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.s. Dept. Com mer., NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 p.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act
determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale.
Environmental and Technical Services Division Habitat Conservation Branch. August
1996.
NMFS. 2001. Guidance for integrating Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act EFH consultations with Endangered Species Act Section 7
consultations. January 2001.
NMFS. 2003. Environmental Assessment Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management
Plan. Prepared by NMFS with assistance from Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW.
Seattle, WA. Draft of May, 2003.
NMFS. 2005. Biological Opinion· Section 7 Endangered Species Act Interagency Consultation
and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat Consultation for the Strosahl/Niven New Pier and Maintenance Deck and Tosti
New Pier Projects, lake Washington, HUC 171100120301, King County, Washington,
March 11, 2005.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon
Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse
Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Portland, Oregon (March 1999).
Biological Assessment Page 60
Q:\Projects\Harbee HA 20 12\2() 12 Draft BA \2012 SA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2002. Regional mark information service
December 2002 database search of hatchery release information by the William Douglas
Company, Seattle, Washington.
Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide (Eds). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the
Interior Columbia Basin And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume I. U.S.
Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of land Management with assistance from the Pacific
Northwest Forest Experiment Station. PNW-GTR-405. Pages 1-351.
Redding, J.M., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and
steel head of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 116:737-744.
Reiser, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids. In: W.R.
Meehan (ed). Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish
habitat in western North America, pp. 1-54. U.S. For. Servo Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-96.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
Rieman, B.E., and J.D. Mcintyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for
conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain
Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), In C. Groot and L.
Margolis (eds.), Pacific salmon life histories, pp. 396-445. University of British Columbia
Press, Vancouver.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Ottawa.
Servizi, J.A., and Martens, D.W. 1991. Effect of temperature, season, and fish size on acute
lethality of suspended sediments to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 48: 493-497.
Seymour, A.H. 1956. Effects of temperature upon young Chinook salmon. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Shepard, M.F. 1981. Status and review of the knowledge pertaining to the estuarine habitat
requirements and life history of chum and Chinook salmon juveniles in Puget Sound.
Final Rep. Wash. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Shepard M.F., and R.G. Dykeman. 1977. A study of the aquatic biota and some physical
parameters of lake Washington in the vicinity of the Sheffleton Power Plant, Renton,
Washington 1975-1976. Washington Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Biological Assessment Page 61
Q,\Projects\Barbee BA 2012\.2012 Draft 8A\2012 RA 082712,docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between juvenile coho
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and fall Chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon.
Journal of the Fishery Research Board of Canada 29:1737-1748.
Tabor, R.A., and J. Chan. 1996. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by piscivorous fishes in the
lower Cedar River and southern Lake Washington. Miscellaneous report. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, Washington.
Tabor, R.A., J.A. Scheurer, H.A. Gearns and E.P. Bixler. 2004. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile
Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, annual report 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries
Division, Lacey, Washington, February 2004.
Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Prepared for King
County Department of Natural Resources.
TRT (Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team). 2002. Planning ranges and preliminary guidelines
for the delisting and recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Unit. April 30, 2002.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Management of
anadromous fish habitat on public lands. Report No. BLM-ID-PT.
U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service (USFWS). 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental
requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) -Chinook salmon.
USFWS, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
TR EL-82-4.
USFWS. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes
and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) -coho salmon. USFWS BioI. Rep. 82(11.48) U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
USFWS. 1998. DRAFT -A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout
Subpopulation Watershed Scale, February 1998.
USFWS. 2004. Listed and proposed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat;
candidate species, and species of concern in western Washington web page.
http://westernwashington. fws.gov/se/SE _ List/endangered_Species.asp. Prepared by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Olympia,
WA.
USFWS and NMFS. 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation
and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Version: 19
May 2002 IX.
Biological Assessment Page 62
Q'\ProjccIs\8arbcc BA 2012\2012 Draft BA\20 12 SA 082712.docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Washington Department of Fisheries and Washington Department of Wildlife, and eastern
Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State salmon and Steelhead
stock inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington salmonid stock
inventory: bull trout and Dolly Varden. Wash. Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 437 p.
WDFW. 2002. Washington State salmon and steel head stock inventory. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/
Washington State Department of Health (WDOH). 2004. Final Report: Evaluation of
Contaminants in Fish from Lake Washington King County, Washington. September
2004. Prepared by: Division of Environmental Health, Office of Environmental Health
Assessments. Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1991. Management recommendations for
Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife,
Olympia, Washington.
Watershed Company, M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of
bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-
listed salmonids in lakes. Prepared for the City of Bellevue. July 12, 2000.
Weitkamp LA, TC Wainwright, GJ Bryant, GB Milner, DJ Teel, RG Kope, and RS Waples. 1995.
Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA
Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-24. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.l. Brannon. 1982. Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on
Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society, 111:63-69.
Wydoski, R. S. and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle, University of
Washington Press.
Biological Assessment Page 63
Q-\ProJects\Harbee HA 2012\2012 Draft AA\2012 BA 082712 docx
Cugini Property Boathouse Expanded Dredge Prism
Appendix A
Site Maps -Dredge Area Expansion
Sheet 1 -Notes:
1. l'roposodexpuulion orille peimilted maintenance
dn>dse area is approximately 14,ooo.rto provide fur
COIltiJwed llllVigatioos1 """""" to BoaIbowe. Expaaaian
~tbe west will rouo;::.~to __ trine for distaru:e of· .
2. Expaaaioo area is within tho peimilted dredge
bouodmy approved by the city ofRmton under aiD
year pennit gnDIed in 2006 (Lake Wuhingtoo/May
Crook Dredging Penni'· LUA-0-138).
3. Aquatic _ to Inner _ Line owned by projoc:t
JlIOPOIlOIIt8. Proporty lines are &hown in red. Expaaaion
of IIIe pennilred dn>dse area will "'" etJ<roOCh OIl
publically owned aquatic lands.
-h. Approval of the oxpandod ~ area does "'"
oupon:edo approvals that may be ~ by the City of
Renton, s .... orwasbington (HPA, Shorlinoa, w_
Quality, etc.), or other fi:deml permitting IIIllhority).
S. All pennit CODditions opeeified in USACE Pennit
NWS·2007·1019-NO will opply to IIIe projoct as
IIlllC>Ddod.
6. Basemap and supplemental ~s provided by
+OTAKand Touma IlnjJineets, ~Iy.
+
+
City of Rkton Permitted
Dredge Area Sou ndary
.,-
+
~~
OHWL ~21.8'
(U!I..-tJSIIICEMTlIQ
SCALE "I.. ..
~si Oee'y..
USACE Permitted
Dredge Area
+
+ + / + ~WL = 21.8'
Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area
Reference: NWS-2007-1019-NO
Applicant: Barbee Company
II
Site Map -Dredge Area Expansion
Supplemental Sheet 1 of 6
M. Lloyd 8121/2012
Hydrographic Survey -Notes:
1. Boathouse area last dredged in August, 2012.
Approximate~y 600 -650 CY of sediment h8.lj infilled
into the U~ Pennitted Dredge Area sin~ugust,
2011 during severe winter stonn events last winter.
2. Approximately 2,000 CY of sediment has been
depositied in the Dredge Exansion area since this area
was surveyed in March, 201 O. 2 4
3. Alilakebed elecations are USACE vertl\al
where the OHWL is 21.8 feet MSL.
o
-+
-+
Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area
Reference: NWS-2007 -1 019-NO
Applicant: Barbee Company
+
10
City of ~ton Permitted
Dredge Area Boundary
OHWL;:: 21.8'
(IISI. -us.ocE IloOo.T1JIoI)
-+
W'-~~ Oee'
-~--
-7
t /
<J to
Current Hydrographic Contours
Supplemental Sheet 2 of 6
M. Lloyd 8/21/2012
-+
Sheet 3 -Notes:
I. Comoun ohown in red.." from the
ponniUod dred&dJ!ea ofpennit
NWS-2007·IOi9.NO
2. Elcvotion 0<lll101u> shown in bhu>
oompriae the anticipaled dredge profile of
the expansion area..
3_ All elevations are abown in USACE
vonical datum where the OHWL -2l.8'
MSL
4. The City of R<nIDD ponniu.d dredge
area is outlined ~ ri The nugor
depooitional_ of the May Crock Delta
wiD not be dredgod
s. Sec: _ 6 for Cmoo-Sec:tioo. A-B,
andB-C
6. B_ and suppl_ materials
provided by OTAK and Touma llngincen,
re-avely.
+
/ r
/
/
+
+
/
!---+
/
/
Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area
Reference: NWS-2007 -1 019-NO
Applicant: Barbee Company
~1.
City of Rlmton Permitted
Dredge Area Boundary
-'!.-.-
-,,--
OHWL = 21.8'
Oof' -.-..."..,
SCALE
~a'i
+
If --..
, ,
+
+
--------. ----"'---------~
,-
+ //
/
-A"..-/ 0 ,--r-. (J
./ '
/~I
---
Amended Dredge Contours
Supplemental Sheet 3 of 6
M. Lloyd 8/21/2012
/
Habitat Enhancement N01:i*-
1. Enhancement Area 1
RoUDded River Rock ("fish rock") will be
p1a<:od adjoccnt to boot """p to provide fur
lmprov<d shallow _ babiIat fur fisboa.
Approximately 500 of to be coV«'Oll wiIIl1W
CY of rock ... peDDIIDCZlI oballow_
babiIat onharu:emont.
2. Enlumcement Area 2
AD -8 solid float and tine """""*'
pil .. will be """"'"" fimn dle prqject ...... c:
+
+
, ,
+ " ,
J.--
"" .-...., Penn'''' "" Cltyof """"" Dredge Area So
, + , + "'~ ~~ ---:c# / ~
+ +
+ +
+ F10at and piks will be cut up and ~ 0
lID approved 1andfill. A 24' float with grating i5l
will roplace the: oxistins solid.uri8co float. .!:
AdditiooaUy, two galvanim pipe pil ... will CI) ii
repW:e dle oxistins _ """""'" piks ~ ~
f---""-''''~ ! ~------~
/;
/.L.---;:.?'
rlwrmck}
I. £>r9o'..Jg& t:xpsaalor; /In~ [
fHJ8T bast mmp
shallow water
3. Enhancement Area 3
Two doIphim cooaisting of 3 pilinp -r;I-
will be extnoted ODd n:pW:ed with two 12"
~ pile pile. Alltraa:d wood piks
will be cut up and dispooed in approved
laodfiU.
,t for fishes
, -c __ t -F---~ =l=~ +
/ I '----cement AI1I8 2 r--------------------L-____ --roI1Jngsolldfloatwith
/ 1--float for HgIrt trsnsmlttal, / ,_ +"/ _ 3 creosote piles, and
/ -/ ' . .J f8()Iece with 2 ga/v8nIzed pipe
I--_ _ _ CItfWL· 21.S' / 0 nila. + I +-----~----~ _+_~~ ~. +
/ " /'t' / ~/ /. /~PI'*I"'''_ // ~ I,":' ~ f,
+ a .~ XI I ;C~~tAnw3
..... r"" r/oq1IIiIs to /JB puI/stImNI fIIPIiJC8d
_2 f/lIIIIIfII1iZr _pips pIN (t2,.
SIX """"""" p/Iss to /JB puI/tJd.
+
+
+
+
Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area
Reference: NW8-2007 -1 019-NO
Applicant: Barbee Company
Amended Dredge Contours
Supplemental Sheet 4 of 6
M. Lloyd 812112012
..
2'.8'~---
-------. =-"'"""
---------
= 21.8'
CJ/ -+
~_~~.EnhaIJc~m~~tArea1
J Fish rock,.frounded river rock) '~~~~71---/ I Will b9.)J1aced near boat ramp
/ to ,,;thance shallow water
~/ abitat for fishes
+ / -+ -+
/
----~-
~ancement Area 2
e'place rotting solid noat with ~
r--. grated noat for light transmittal,
/ " 'extract 3 creosote piles, and
/ <'oJ .... > replace with 2 galvanized pipe / 0" 'I -~ _~. _ " pIles.
T ? :0" ....... -+ +
•
,/ , '-J. _-'_ __ __l~ '_,,-_
/r-.(
/
/
+
, .
--.-, •. -----
.......
.......
"t:-w
~~~~h~n'~m~ntA~3
+
SCAlE m • • • Two dolphins to be pulled and mp/aced
with 2 galvanized steel pipe piles (12'.
Six creosote piles to be puffed.
Notes:
Ellhu_t Area 1 -FIIh Rock PlacemeJlt. Just south of the boathouse adj""""t to an existing boat runp is a ...... of approximately
500 af. This area i. typically 1 ... than 1-3 feet deep at Ordinary High Water. and it is curnmtlycovenld in 3"~" eN.bedrock. Place 10 CY
of rounded river rock adjacent to the existing boat launch and boathouse far enhancing shallow water habitat far tisbes. This same rounded
rock was employed to expand shallow water habitat along the rockety to the south and bas been approved by the Washington State
Department ofFish and Game.
EDlutaoemllDt Ar .. 2 -Flot a.p ..... m ... L Three CI1lOIlO1e piles will he extnIcted and replaced with two 8" galvanized pipe piles. The
_xing solid 8Urliu:c: 38' float will he demooliohed and replaced wi1h a grated float that is 24' long. The grated float will iocn:ase light
transmi .. ion to the shallow water habitat Gtaling specification will comply with previOUBly approved permit conditions for light
transmisaion.
Enh.n_t Area 3 -CreotOte PDIng Removal. Two dolphins (6 creosote piles) at south aide of Lot 0 will he oxtracted and rep\lK:es
with two 12" galvanized pipe piles. Pile. will he pulled COIICUlfeIIt with Area 2 enhaneement work. As previously approved in the existiog
USACE permit, all creosote treated piling will he cut into 4' lengths and wsposed of in an approved upland landfill
expanSion of Permitted Dredge Area
Reference: NWS-2007 -1 019-NO
Applicant: Barbee Company
Habitat Enhancement Areas
Supplemental Sheet 5 of 6
M. Lloyd 812112012
Cross-Section A-B (amended dredge area)
A (_, -,j"------t----T----r---J;----------_ t __ -'" .. "" --~ ----
B ... ,
~~~~~~t T ! ='S~===1 ~! 1 ~ J , .
•
j , 'I
j •
SCALE
6 hll. lib ,110
+ + +
Cross-Section B-C (amended dredge area)
+
+
Sheet 6 -Notes:
1. See Sheet 3 of6 for location ofumple
UOIJI-ac::tetions.
2. The V«Ii<al clcvllion on cross sections A· B aruI
B-Cbave-' .xag~ 2Xto _ilI_ ....
propooed drodging profile.
2. Crou-Soctioo A-B pt'O\'i<Iea an indication of May
Creek Delta ,oojmmtatjOll that oootinues to impact
lIIMJ!ational """""" to .... boadJ ...... A. ohown in
Sheet 2, the major sedimentation impact is on the north
Bide of .... umgational .".,... aDd wi1hin .... propooed
dmlge .... expanaiOll
3. Crooa-Section B-C bao not chauaed_alIy
oincc .... approved pemriUed.,.. was dr<dged in 2011.
-~~~-----------------------------------------------------T
1
c .--
-r-- - ----- - - -------~. ~ ------------------==~ --~~ ---~~~~~~:-------:--........ --
~ >... . . ~ -~ .~. . ~I I ~I; J ~I ~I
> ;" •
SCALE
tlhb III lib u
Expansion of Permitted Dredge Area
Reference: NW8-2007 -1 019-NO
Applicant: Barbee Company
Dredge Area Cross-Sections
Supplemental Sheet 6 of 6
M. Lloyd 8/21/2012
Rerer to NMFS No:
2008/00092
Michelle Walker
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
Regulatory Branch CENWS-OD·RG
Post Office Box 3755
Seattle, Washington 98124·3755
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT DF COMMeRCe
National Oceanic and Atmoapharic Adminlatratlon
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Northwest Region
7600 Sand Point Way N.E .. Bldg 1
Seattle, WA 98115
August 6, 2008
Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 FOID1al Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Barbee
Maintenance Dredging and Boathouse Renovation, 6 th Field HUC 171100120302 (Cedar
River), King County, Washington
Dear Ms. Walker:
The enclosed document contains a biological opinion prepared by the National Marine Fisheries
Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects of
maintenance dredging and a boathouse renovation in Lake Washington. In this Opinion, the
National Marine Fisheries Service concludes that the action, as proposed, is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook.
As required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service
provided an incidental take statement with the biological opinion, The incidental take statement
describes reasonable and prudent measures the National Marine Fisheries Service considers
necessary or appropriate to minimize incidental take associated with this action. The take
statement sets forth a nondiscretionary term and condition. Incidental take from actions that
meet the term and condition will be exempt from the Endangered Species Act take prohibition.
This document also includes the results of our analysis of the action's likely effects on Essential
Fish Habitat pursuant to section 305(b) ofthe Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA), and includes two conservation recommendations to avoid, minimize,
or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on Essential Fish Habitat. The Conservation
Recommendations are not identical to the ESA Terms and Conditions.
Section 305(b) (4) (B) of the MSA requires Federal agencies to provide a detailed written
response to the National Marine Fisheries Service within 30 days after receiving these
recommendations.
@ Prinkd on Recycled Paper
-2 -
If the response is inconsistent with the Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendation, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must explain why the recommendations will not be followed,
including the justification for any disagreements over the effects of the action and the
recommendations. In response to increased oversight of overall Essential Fish Habitat program
effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget, the National Marine Fisheries Service
established a quarterly reporting requirement to detennine how many conservation
recommendations are provided as part of each Essential Fish Habitat consultation and how many
are adopted by the action agency. Therefore, in your statutory reply to the Essential Fish Habitat
portion of this consultation, we ask that you clearly identifY the number of conservation
recommendations accepted.
If you have questions regarding this consultation, please contact Brianna Blaud at (206) 526-
4749 or brianna.blaud@noaa.gov.
Enclosure
cc: Susan Powell, COE
Michael Lloyd, L&Ai
Barbee Mill Company, Applicant
Sincerely,
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
Biological Opinion
And
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
Barbee Maintenance Dredging and Boathouse Renovation
6 th Field HUC 171100120302 (Cedar River)
King County, Washington
Lead Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Consultation
Conducted By:
Date Issued:
Issued by:
NMFS No.:
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northwest Region
August 6, 200
Qv-. Robert Lohn
'\" Regional Administrator
2008/00092
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INlRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... I
Background and Consultation History ........................................................................................ I
Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 1
Action Area ................................................................................................................................. 2
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT .................................................................................................... 2
Biological Opinion ...................................................................................................................... 2
Status of Species ................................................................................................................. 2
Status of Critical Habitat. .................................................................................................... 6
Environmental Baseline ...................................................................................................... 6
Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................... 7
Effects on Critical Habitat .................................................................................................. 9
Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 9
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 10
Conservation Recommendations ................................................................... , .................. 10
Reinitiation of Consultation .............................................................................................. 11
Incidental Take StatemenL. ...................................................................................................... II
Amount or Extent of Take ................................................................................................ 11
Reasonable and Prudent Measures .................................................................................... 12
Tenus and Conditions ....................................................................................................... 12
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT .......... 13
EFH Conservation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 13
Statutory Response Requirement .............................................................................................. 14
Supplemental Consultation ....................................................................................................... 14
DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW ........ 14
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 16
INTRODUCTION
The Biological Opinion (Opinion) and incidental take statement portions of this consultation
were prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in accordance with section 7(b)
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.l531, et seq.), and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402. With respect to designated critical habitat, the
following analysis relied only on the statutory provisions of the ESA, and not on the regulatory
definition of "destruction or adverse modification" at 50 CFR 402.02.
The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation was prepared in accordance with section
305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16
U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600. The administrative record
for this consultation is on file at the Washington State Habitat Office in Lacey, Washington.
Background and Consultation History
On January 9, 2008, NMFS received a letter dated January 8, 2008, from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) requesting consultation under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1898 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize the maintenance dredging and
boathouse renovation by Barbee Mills Company (applicant), in King County, Washington. The
COE determined the proposed action "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" Puget
Sound (PS) Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and PS Chinook salmon critical habitat. After
reviewing the consultation, NMFS determined that the actions may adversely affect the listed
species arid critical habitat, and initiated a formal consultation.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is issuance of a permit by the COE under section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1898 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to authorize the maintenance
dredging and boathouse renovation by Barbee Mills Company (applicant), in King County,
Washington.
The dredging maintains navigational access to a boathouse located to the south of May Creek. It
is estimated that the area will need dredging every three to four years to maintain navigable
depths, but the total amount to be removed over the 10 year life of this Opinion will not exceed
4,000 cubic yards. The proposed dredging area is approximately 10,000 square feet, ranging
from 4 feet to 12 feet deep. The only shallow area proposed for excavation is located directly
under the boathouse, to make it more boat accessible. The dredging will increase the depth by
approximately one foot, maintaining existing slopes, and avoiding any shallow water or
nearshore habitat. To minimize the effects of dredging in the area, 40 cubic yards of spawning
gravel will be installed along 2,100 square feet of shoreline and vegetation will be planted along
200 linear feet of shoreline.
The boathouse renovations will improve the integrity and the light transmission through the
structure. The solid skirting around the boathouse extending from the bottom of the structure to
the lake bed will be replaced with an open 4 inch mesh skirting that extends to the ordinary low
water level. Approximately 20 percent of the boathouse walls will be replaced with translucent
material, improving the light transmission. The surrounding floats will be renovated, replacing
the existing eighteen creosote pilings with twelve 18-inch steel pilings using a vibratory pile
driver, and replacing the solid decking with grated material.
Action Area
The action area is in the Lake Washington shoreline corresponding to the immediate vicinity of
3901 Lake Washington Boulevard Avenue, near Renton. The action area includes EFH for
Chinook salmon and coho salmon.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The ESA establishes a national program to conserve threatened and endangered species offish,
wildlife, plants, and the habitat on which they depend. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires
Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS, or both, to ensure
that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened
species or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical habitats. Section 7(b)( 4) requires
the provision of an incidental take statement that specifies the impact of any incidental taking
and includes reasonable and prudent measures to minimize such impacts.
Biological Opinion
This Opinion presents NMFS' review of the status of each listed species of Pacific salmon and
steelhead' considered in this consultation, the condition of designated critical habitat, the
environmental baseline for the action area, all the effects of the action as proposed, and
cumulative effects (50 CRF 402.14(g»). For the jeopardy analysis, NMFS analyzed those
combined factors to conclude whether the proposed action is likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the affected listed species.
The critical habitat analysis determines whether the proposed action will destroy or adversely
modify'designated critical habitat for listed species by examining any change in the conservation
valued of that critical habitat. This analysis relies on statutory provisions of the ESA, including
those in section 3 that define "critical habitat" and "conservation," in section 4 that describe the
designation process, and in section 7 that sets forth the substantive protections and procedural
aspects of consultation, and on agency guidance for application of the "destruction or adverse
modification" standard.
Status of Species
This section defines the biological requirements of each listed species affected by the proposed
action, and the status of each designated critical habitat relative to those requirements. Listed
I An 'evolutionarily significant unit' (ESU) of Pacific salmon (Waples 1991) and a 'distinct population
segment' (DPS) of steelhead (final steel head FR notice) are considered to be 'species,' as defmed in Section 3 of til.
ESA.
2
species facing a high risk of extinction and critical habitats with degraded conservation value are
more vulnerable to the aggregation of effects considered under the environmental baseline, the
effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects.
Puget Sound Chinook
NMFS listed PS Chinook salmon as threatened (March 1999, 64 FR 14308). The Puget Sound
Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) has been defined to include all PS
Chinook salmon populations residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing
natural water falls) in the Puget Sound region from the Nooksack River to the Elwha River on
the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive. The status of individual populations within Puget Sound is
assessed based on their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. Within the
action area in Lake Washington, there are two native popUlations (the North Lake Washington
population and the Cedar River population) that use the area from rearing and migration. A third
population, the Issaquah stock, is not included in the assessment because they are a non-native
stock from the Issaquah Hatchery that has been in operation since the 1930s (WDFW 2004).
The Issaquah stock will not be consulted on in this Opinion.
Overall abundance of this ESU has declined substantially from historical levels, and many
populations are small enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively high
(March 9, 1998, 63 FR 11494). Historic abundance has been estimated to be approximately
609,000 adult returns (Myers et al. 1998), while average present day (J 998-2002) abundance of
natural origin spawners is 30,182 fish (NMFS 2005). NMFS (Good et al. 2005) listed
approximately 331 geometric mean spawners in North Lake Washington popUlation and 327 in
the Cedar River population, and no estimates of historical abundance for comparison. The
general trend in the abundance for the North Lake Washington Tributary Chinook salmon has
remained generally consistent, with escapements between 200 and 500 adults (WDFW 2004).
The Cedar River Chinook salmon have shown a long-term negative trend in escapements and
chronically low escapement values CWDFW 2004).
Productivity is the measurement ofa population's growth rate through all or a portion of its life-
cycle. A tool to estimate productivity is the median population growth rate (lambda), calculated
by the measure of 10ng-and short-term trends. Long-and short-term trends are calculated on all
spawners, and the short-term lambda is calculated assuming the reproductive success of naturally
spawning hatchery fish is equivalent to that of natural-origin fish (Good et al. 2005). A lambda
greater than I represents a population that is replacing itself. For salmon recovery, the target
goal lambda amount is 3.4 to increase abundance to a level that would remove the populations
from the threat of extinction. The lambda for North Lake Washington short term trend is 1.07
(±O.O7) (Good et aI., 2005), indicating the population is just replacing itself, and a population
greater than one indicates an increase in productivity that will result in a rise in abundance. For
the Cedar River, short term lambda is (0.99±0.07) also indicating the population is probably just
replacing itself. Significant population growth will require an increase in productivity.
3
Diversity is important to population viability because:
1) It allows a species to use a wider array of environments than they could without it;
2) It protects against short term spatial and temporal changes in the environment, increasing
the likelihood that some individuals would survive and reproduce when faced with
environmental variation; and
3) Genetic diversity provides the raw material for surviving long-tenn environmental
changes.
Genetic analysis of the three populations in the Lake Washington basin indicated that the North
Lake Washington Tributary population and the Cedar River Chinook are significantly different
(WDFW 2004). Therefore, the genetic differentiation between the two populations increases the
possibility for recovery when faced with an environmental change and an increase of available
habitat.
The spatial structure of habitat must support the population at the desired productivity,
abundance, and diversity levels through short-term environmental perturbations, longer tenn
environmental oscillations, and through natural patterns of disturbance regimes. Assessing the
adequacy of the spatial structure should include considering whether the population has:
1) Enough habitat to support growth, abundance, and diversity criteria;
2) Habitat of sufficient quality to support the life history activities; pennanent or seasonal
connectivity to allow adequate migration between spawning, rearing, and migration
patches, and;
3) A geographical distribution of habitat that minimizes the probability of a significant
portion of a population being lost due to a single catastrophic event.
The criteria for identifying core areas for spatial structure are focused on spawning, because
spawning is the geographic starting point for structuring populations and there is the most
information available on this life phase (Martin et al. 2004). In the Cedar River, all but one of
the spawning patches are two to four miles apart and ranged from 0.1 to 2 miles long (Martin et
al. 2004).
The status of Chinook salmon populations in the Lake Washington basin were described in the
Salmon and Steelhead Inventory (SaS1) report (WDFW and PSIT 2004). The North Lake
Washington Tribs Chinook salmon is rated "healthy" based on their consistent escapement. The
Cedar Chinook salmon is rated as "depressed" based on their long-term negative trend and low
escapement numbers.
Puget Sound Steelhead
The NMFS defined the PS Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) to include naturally
spawning steelhead stocks below natural and manmade impassable barriers, in streams and rivers
ranging from the Canadian border (Nooksack River basin), south through Puget Sound and Hood
Canal, north and west to the Elwha River, which empties into the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca.
The PS Steelhead are at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, and were listed as
4
threatened on June 11, 2007 (72 FR 26722). The status of individual populations within Puget
Sound is assessed based on their abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. The
two populations of steelhead within the Lake Washington populations use Lake Washington for
migrating, holding and rearing.
Early abundance analysis from catch records in 1889 indicate that the catch peaked at 163,796
individuals in 1895 (Little, 1898). Assuming a harvest rate of 30-50 percent, Little (1898)
estimated that the peak run size ranged from 327,592 to 545,987 fish. In the 19908 the total run
size for major stocks in this DPS was greater than 45,000, with total natural escapement of about
22,000, a fraction of the 1889 abundance. The abundance treat for the Cedar River population is
decreasing. Counts between 1980 and 2004 estimate an escapement of 137.9 natural spawners,
and more recent data (2000-2004) has the estimates at 36.8, showing a steep decline (Hard et aI.
2007). The Lake Washington population shows a similar declining trend with 308.1 natural
spawners between 1980 and 2004, and 36.8 between 2000 and 2004 (Hard et al. 2007).
To estimate existing productivity in Lake Washington steelhead, Scott and Gill (2006) used
escapement data or indices of escapement from the previous eight years to create a time series.
Population viability analyses were conducted under the assumption that only anadromous
spawners contribute to the abundance of each popUlation. This assumption may result in
estimates of extinction that are too high because the presence of resident forms of O. mykiss
(rainbow trout) may reduce the likelihood of extinction. The Lake Washington winter-run
stee1head last escapement data was listed at 44, with a growth rate estimate of -0.16, indicating a
decrease in productivity. The relative risk of extinction for populations of steelhead in the Puget
Sound region is very high, because productivity is poor. More recent productivity analysis
included lambda calculations, showing Cedar River steelhead lambda at 0.808 (±{1.004), and
Lake Washington steel head lambda at 0.802 (±0.002) (Hard et al. 2007), supporting Scott and
Gill's (2006) productivity decline.
Examples of diversity among salmonids include morphology, fecundity, run timing, spawn
timing, juvenile behavior, age at smolting, age at maturity~ egg size, and development rate,
among others (McElhany et al., 2000). Of these traits, some are genetically based, while others
are likely a result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Allozyme analysis of
steel head sampled in the Cedar River in 1994 clusters them with winter steelhcad in the Green,
White, and Puyallup rivers, and with some Snohomish basin steelhead stocks (WDFW 2004).
The Cedar River population is a distinct population that has undergone minimal hatchery
introgression (Hard et al. 2007). No genetic analysis has been performed on the Lake
Washington steel head population.
The metrics and benchmarks for evaluating the adequacy ofa population's spatial structure
include quantity, quality, connectivity, dynamics, and catastrophic risks. Scott and Gill (2006)
estimated that up to 19 percent of the pre-settlement range has been lost for the winter-run
steelhead within the Cedar/Sammamish basin.
Based on the above described criteria and conditions, the status of the Lake Washington winter
steel head was defined in the SaSI report (WDFW 2004). Based on the chronically low
5
escapement and short-term severe decline in escapements, the stock status declined from
"depressed" in 1994 to "critical" in 2002.
Status of Critical Habitat
The NMFS reviews the status of designated critical habitat affected by the proposed action by
examining the condition and trends of Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) throughout the
designated area. The PCEs are the physical and biological features identified as essential to the
conservation. Sites include freshwater spawning, freshwater rearing, freshwater migration,
estuarine areas, nearshore marine areas, and offshore marine areas. The critical habitat in Lake
Washington contains freshwater rearing and freshwater migration. Essential physical and
biological features for freshwater rearing and migration include water quantity and floodplain
connectivity that support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage that support
juvenile development; and natural cover consisting of shade, large wood, log jams, beaver dams,
aquatic vegetation. large rocks and boulders. side channels, and undercut banks and water free of
artificial obstructions that support juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
At the time that each habitat area was designated as critical habitat, that area contained one or
more PCEs within the acceptable range of values required to support the biological processes of
listed species. As part of the process to designate critical habitat within the PS Chinook salmon
ESU, NMFS assessed the conservation value of habitat within freshwater, estuarine and
nearshore areas at the fifth field hydrologic unit code (HUC) scale, across the entire range of the
ESU. The HUC scale corresponds generally to the watershed scale, and these areas were rated as
providing "low", "medium", or "high" conservation value. NMFS rated the fifth field HUC
within which the action area lies as having a "medium" conservation value. As described in
more detail within the Environmental Baseline section below, PCEs of critical habitat within the
project and action area are generally degraded from a variety of human-induced habitat process
and structural changes.
Environmental Basel ine
The 'environmental baseline' includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, or
private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all
proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section
7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the
consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02).
Lake Washington is the second largest natural lake in the state of Washington with 80 miles of
shoreline, including 30 miles along the shore of Mercer island (Shared Strategy 2007). Lake
Washington also has the highest human popUlation of any Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) in Washington State. Over 82 percent of the Lake Washington shoreline is armored and
is shaded by more than 2,700 piers and docks (Shared Strategy 2007). Regulated lake levels and
extensive armoring have hampered sediment transport and sandy beaches need to be augmented
by periodic sediment supplies. The lack of riparian vegetation due to clearing and development
has led to an increase in temperature, a loss in organic debris, and a reduction in insect
recruitment. The loss of channel and shoreline complexity including a lack of woody debris and
6
available shallow water and overwater has led to a decline in nearshore habitat vital to rearing.
The presence of in water structures, such as piles, skirting, and piers hinder migration ofboth
juveniles and adults. Many tributaries and streams have fish passage barriers with the
construction ofroad crossings, weirs, and dams, hindering salmon migration and reducing spatial
structure. The water quality and sediment quality of Lake Washington have been degraded by
pollutants and high temperatures (Shared Strategy 2007). A report by WDFW and PSIT (2004)
states that current habitat conditions constrain productivity and prevent the achievement of
recovery goals.
The action area is located in a cove that is subject to sediment deposits just to the south of May
Creek. The water depth is approximately 12 feet deep in the center of the cove with gradual
slopes leading to the shoreline. The boathouse is located at the innermost shoreline position of
the cove. Skirting extending from the bottom of the structure to the lake bottom completely
shades the foot print oftha boat house. There is a series of solid decking floats paralleling the
shoreline approximately 30 feet waterward, held in place by eighteen creosote treated piles. The
proposed dredge footprint is located waterward of the floats and underneath the boathouse.
Effects of the Action
Adverse effects on listed species include short-term reduction in water quality, such as increases
in suspended sediment and noise, and a potential delay in adult migration, and long-term
reduction in shallow water habitat, maintenance of overwater shading, and in-water obstacles.
Some of the effects of the action will be so small (changes in water quality) or timed such that
salmon and steelhead are exceedingly unlikely to experience them (increased sound pressure
levels from pile driving). Best Management Practices, such as the use of silt curtains and sound
attenuation devices will further minimize the effects from construction. As such, those effeds
are insignificant or discountable and are not analyzed further in this consultation.
Delayed Spawning
Within the South Lake Washington, the work window for construction activities is designed to
avoid work in the nearshore during juvenile migration and rearing. Between February and June,
most juvenile Chinook salmon migrate and rear along the shore, restricting the in water work
window to fall between July 16 th December 31 st. Adult Chinook salmon migrate and enter
streams and tributaries between June and September, and spawning occurs between September
and November. Due to the action areas' close proximity to May Creek, the Applicant will
voluntarily abstain from dredging activities between mid-September and November; however
there may still be overlap hindering adult migration up the streams and tributaries. The dredging
activity may temporarily harass and displace juveniles and adults, which may result in delayed
spawning activity by temporarily hindering adult access to May Creek to spawning habitat.
Under the worst circumstances there will only a few fish will be affected and there it is unlikely
to prevent spawning.
7
Loss of Shallow Water Habitat
Dredging increases water depth by removing material from the lake bottom. The increase in
depth potentially degrades habitat conditions for rearing juvenile salmonids that forage on
organic debris, insects, plankton, and benthic organisms and seek refuge in shallow water
habitat. Greater depths are also used by predator species such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieu) (Tabor et al. 2007). The loss of the shallow water increases the opportunity for take,
due to predation and decreased opportunity for forage. The applicant will avoid dredging in the
nearshore shallow water as much as possible, and will improve the nearshore habitat with
planting along 200 feet of shoreline and installing spawning gravel over 2100 square feet of the
shoreline. In addition the area being dredged is already too deep to provide high quality habitat
for juvenile salmonids.
Overwater Shading
Toft et al. (2007) assessed the abundance offish at the various types of shoreline and determined
that juvenile salmon were not usually observed underneath overwater structures. Juveniles tend
to avoid piers because they physically block normal movement patterns or decrease light levels
(Toft et al. 2007). Additionally, predatory bass species aggregate around in-water and over-
water structures. The amount of light transmission at the project site continues to be
compromised through the excessive walkway widths in nearshore floats. By using grated
decking on the floats and using transparent siding on 20 percent of the boathouse, the applicant
ameliorates some of the adverse affects by increasing the light penetration. However, there is
still an excessive amount by the boathouse, which will still completely cover approximately
1,580 square feet, half of that within 30 feet of the shoreline.
Migration Obstacles
Structures within the water act as barriers and hinder access to habitat. Migration obstacles
cause fish to change their course, expending unnecessary energy to avoid pilings, skirting, and
other similar obstacles. The proposed action will reduce the nwnber of pilings, and using steel
material instead of creosote treated piles will reduce the size of the obstacles. The use of 4 inch
mesh skirting will be an improvement over the existing solid skirting that extends to the lake
bottom, but the mesh skirting will still extend into the water during ordinary high water, creating
migration obstacles for larger fish near the surface.
Relevance of the Effects of the Action to Fish
Individual Chinook salmon and steelhead will be directly and indirectly affected by the dredging
of an inlet south of May Creek, and the repair of a nearby boathouse. The loss of shallow water
will slightly decrease the amount of rearing habitat available to juvenile salmonids for foraging
and refuge from predation. Although dredging in the nearshore will be kept to a minimum, the
degraded nearshore habitat caused by existing structures will be maintained. Construction
activities during the approved work window based on the juvenile migration timing may affect
adult Chinook salmon, delaying their migration into May Creek.
8
The proposed actions occurred in Lake Washington adjacent to May Creek. The effects of the
action are anticipated to affect habitat conditions for the described Chinook salmon and steelhead
populations that rear or migrate in the action area, primarily Cedar River populations of PS
Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Predation on juveniles is expected to reduce the number of
smolts that migrate from the Lake Washington basin.
Although take associated with the action may slightly reduce the ahundance and productivity of
the Cedar River PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead, NMFS does not expect the likelihood of
survival and recovery of the ESUs to be significantly reduced.
Effects on Critical Habitat
The PCEs that the action area provides are freshwater rearing, and migration. The short term
effects of activities at the project site, such changes in water quality (increased turbidity) and
noise (increased sound pressure levels from pile driving), are temporary and localized and will
not affect the functional role of PCEs. in the action area as a threshold matter. As such, they will
have no effect on conservation value of critical habitat in the watershed in which the action area
lies.
The long term effects of the actions include reduction in shallow water habitat, maintenance of
overwater shading, and in-water obstacles. The presence of vertical bulkheads directly impacts
the habitat by removing shallow water, a requirement for rearing salmonids. Overwater
structures increase the amount of shading, providing cover for predators and decreasing the
amount of light that penetrates through to the water. The effects of the overwater structure are
minimized through the use of grated decking material, which allow for light transmission. Piling
and skirting represent migration barriers and obstacles that hinder access to habitat.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are those effects offuture state or private activities, not involving Federal
activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject
to consultation (50 CFR 402.02).
By the year 2025, the projected human population growth for King County is 355,356 people,
which is a 20 percent increase (Redman et aI., 2005). With these pr~jections, NMFS assumes
that future private and state actions will continue within the action area, increasing as population
density rises. New development is likely to further reduce the conservation value of habitat
within the watershed through water withdrawals, stormwater quality degradation and increased
volumes, loss of riparian functions, and encroachment to floodplains.
The NMFS believes that the existing King County regulatory mechanisms to minimize and avoid
impacts to watershed function from future commercial, industrial, and residential development
are generally not adequate, and/or not implemented sufficiently. Thus, while these existing
regulations could decrease adverse effects to watershed function, they still allow incremental
degradation to occur, which accumulate over time, and when added to the degraded
9
environmental baseline, further degrade habitat conditions, and reduce habitat quality and
suitability for PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead.
Conclusion
The effects of action will not affect any of the characteristics of viable salmon or steelhead
populations. Nor will the action influence the conservative role of critical habitat at the
watershed level. After reviewing the status of PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead, the
environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and cumulative
effects, NMFS concludes that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of PS Chinook salmon and PS steel head and is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify the designated critical habitats for PS Chinook sahnon. These conclusions are based on
the following considerations:
1. Dredging will only occur underneath the boathouse and in the center of the cove,
waterward of the floats, avoiding dredging in shallow water habitat where possible;
2. Planting along the shoreline and installing spawning gravel will improve the nearshore
habitat for rearing juveniles;
3. The use of transparent material on the boathouse and grated decking on the floats
improves light transmission; and,
4. The replacement of 20 creosote piles with twelve IS-inch steel piles improves the water
quality and decreases migration obstacles.
Therefore, the proposed action is not expected to appreciably reduce long-term survival and
recovery ofPS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead.
Conservation Recommendations
Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the
purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of the threatened and
endangered species. The following recommendations are discretionary measures that NMFS
believes are consistent with this obligation and therefore should be carried out by the COE:
I. Minimize impacts of overwater structures by minimizing the amount of overwater
structures near the immediate shoreline (within 30 feet of shore) and limiting the
walkway to four feet wide or less. If future actions are taken to modify the existing pier,
all other structures such as ells, boatlifts, or moorage covers, should be relocated to be at
least 30 feet from shore, and the size of the walkway should be reduced to a width of four
feet.
Please notify NMFS if the COE carries out any of these recommendations so that we will be kept
informed of actions that minimize or avoid adverse effects and those that benefi t listed species or
their designated critical habitats.
10
Reinitiation of Consultation
Reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by
NMFS where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is
authorized by law and: (a) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take
statement is exceeded; (b) if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or designated critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (c) if
the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that has an effect to the listed species
or designated critical habitat that was not considered in the Opinion; or (d) if a new species is
listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the identified action (50 CFR
402.16).
To reinitiate consultation, contact the Washington State Habitat Office ofNMFS and refer to the
NMFS Number assigned to this consultation.
Incidental Take Statement
Section 9( a)(l) of the ESA prohibits the taking of endangered species without a specific permit
or exemption. Protective regulations adopted pursuant to section 4( d) extend the prohibition to
threatened species. Among other things, an action that harasses, wounds, or kills an individual
of a listed species or harms a species by altering habitat in a way that significantly impairs its
essential behavioral patterns· is a taking (50 CFR 222.1 02). Incidental take refers to takings that
result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the
Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.02). Section 7(0)(2) exempts any taking that meets the
terms and conditions of a written incidental take statement from the taking prohibition.
Amount or Extent of Take
The affects of the action will co-occur with the presence of both Puget Sound Chinook and
steelhead. Fish exposed to those effects will respond to their exposure in various ways, but some
are certain to respond by changing their normal behavior in the action area such that they will be
injured or killed. Therefore, take of Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound steelhead is
reasonably certain to occur.
For actions that cause take in the form of harm, NMFS' ability to quantify the amount of take in
numbers of fish can be difficult if not impossible to accomplish because of the range of
individual fish responses to habitat change. Some will encounter changed habitat and merely
react by seeking out a different place in which to express their present life history. Others might
change their behavior, causing them to express more energy, suffer stress, or otherwise respond
in ways that impair their ·present or subsequent life histories. Yet others will experience changed
habitat in way that kills them.
While this uncertainty makes it impossihle to quantity take in the form ofharm in terms of
numbers of animals injured or killed, the extent of habitat change to which present and future
generations offish will be exposed is readily discemable and presents a reliable measure of the
extent of take that can be monitored and tracked. Therefore, when the specific number of
11
individuals "hanned" cannot be predicted, NMFS quantifies the extent of take based on the
extent of habitat modified (51 FR 19926 at 19954; June 3, 1986).
Take from this project includes reduced production of prey species and spawning delay
associated with dredging activities. The extent of habitat affected by dredging is 10,000 square
feet, which will occur near the mouth of May Creek. The estimated extent of habitat affected by
proposed action represents the extent of take exempted in this incidental take statement. These
extents are readily observable and therefore suffice to trigger reinitiation of consultation, if
exceeded and necessary (see H.R. Rep. No 97-567, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 27, 1982). This
consultation does not exempt take from the existing boathouse and float locations.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
Reasonable and prudent measures are nondiscretionary measures to avoid or minimize take that
must be carried out by cooperators for the exemption in section 7(0)(2) to apply. The COE has
the continuing duty to regulate the activities covered in this incidental take statement where
discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by
law. The protective coverage of section 7(0)(2) will lapse if the COE fails to exercise its
discretion to require adherence to terms and conditions of the incidental take statement, or to
exercise that discretion as necessary to retain the oversight to ensure compliance with these terms
and conditions. Similarly, if any applicant fails to act in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the incidental take statement, protective coverage will lapse.
The NMFS believes that full application of conservation measures included as part of the
proposed action, together with use of the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and
conditions described below, are necessary and appropriate to minimize the likelihood of
incidental take of listed species due to completion of the proposed action.
The COE shall:
I. Change the work window to accommodate migrating adult salmon.
Terms and Conditions
To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the COE and its cooperators,
including the applicant, if any, must fully comply with conservation measures described as part
of the proposed action and the following terms and conditions that implement the reasonable and
prudent measures described above. Partial compliance with these terms and conditions may
invalidate this take exemption, result in more take than anticipated, and lead NMFS to a different
conclusion regarding whether the proposed action will result in jeopardy or the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitats.
1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent measure No.1, the COE shall ensure that:
No in-water work takes place during the peak adult migration into streams and
tributaries. May Creek is located directly to the north of the action area, and has
12
both vital spawning and rearing habitat. By reducing the work window from July
16 th to September 15 th , it decrease the effect on migrating and spawning adults.
NOTICE. If a sick, injured or dead specimen of a threatened or endangered species is found, the
finder must notify NMFS Law Enforcement at (206) 526-6133 or (800) 853-1964. The finder
must take care in handling of sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment, and in
handling dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible condition for later
analysis of cause of death. The finder also has the responsibility to carry out instructions
provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not disturbed
unnecessarily.
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
TI1e consultation requirement of section 305(b) of the MSA directs Federal agencies to consult
with NMFS on all actions, or proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. Adverse effects
include the direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or
substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other
ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Adverse
effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside EFH, and may include
site-specific or EFH-wide impacts, including individual, c\Unulative, or synergistic consequences
of actions (50 CFR 600.810). Section 305(b) also requires NMFS to recommend measures that
may be taken by the action agency to conserve EFH.
Based on information provided in the BE and the analysis of effects presented in the ESA portion
of this document, NMFS concludes that proposed action will have the following adverse effects
on EFH designated for Chinook salmon and coho salmon.
• Reduced shallow water habitat, important to rearing juvenile salmonids.
• Maintain degrading structure placement with the excessive amount of structures
within 30 feet of the shore that create canlouflage and cover for predatory species,
and decrease the light transmission through the boathouse and floats.
EFH Conservation Recommendations
The NMFS believes that implementation of one of the following conservation measures are
necessary to avoid, mitigate, or offset the impact of the proposed action on EFH. While NMFS
understands that the COE intends to conduct the proposed action with the included minimization
and mitigation measures described in the Opinion, it does not believe that these measures are
sufficient to address the adverse impacts to EFH described above.
1. Minimize effects on shallow water habitat by avoiding dredging in the nearshore, shallow
water habitat.
2. Minimize effects of the overwater structures by increasing the extent of light transmission
to the lake bottom beneath the boathouse and piers.
13
Statutory Response Requirement
. Federal agencies are required to provide a detailed written response to NMFS' EFH conservation
recommendations within 30 days of receipt of these recommendations (50 CFR 600.9200)(1)).
The response must include a description of measures proposed to avoid, mitigate, or offset the
adverse affects of the activity on EFH. If the response is inconsistent with the EFH conservation
recommendations, the response must explain the reasons for not following the recommendations.
The reasons must include the scientific justification for any disagreements over the anticipated
effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset
such effects.
Supplemental Consultation
The COE must reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially
revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that
affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations [50 CFR 600.920(k)].
DATA QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRE-DISSEMINATION REVIEW
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law
106-554) (Data Quality Act) specifies three components contributing to the quality of a
document. They are utility, integrity, and objectivity. This section of the consultation addresses
these Data Quality Act (DQA) components, documents compliance with DQA, and certifies that
this consultation has undergone pre-dissemination review.
Utility: Utility principally refers to ensuring that the infonnation contained in this consultation
is helpful, serviceable, and beneficial to the intended users. The intended users' of this
consultation include the COE, the applicant, and citizens of King County interested in the effects
ofprojects on Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead.
Integrity: This consultation was completed on a computer system managed by NMFS in
accordance with relevant infonnation technology security policies and standards set out in
Appendix Ill, 'Security of Automated Information Resources,' Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Security
Reform Act.
Objectivity:
Information Product Category: Natural Resource Plan.
Standards: This consultation and supporting documents are clear, concise, complete, and
unbiased; and were developed using commonly accepted scientific research methods. They
adhere to published standards including MSA implementing regulations regarding EFH, 50 CFR
600.920(j).
14
Best Available Information: This consultation and supporting documents use the best
available information, as referenced in the Literature Cited section. The analyses in this Opinion
contain more background on information sources and quality.
Referencing: All supporting materials, information, data, and analyses are properly
referenced, consistent with standard scientific referencing style.
Review Process: This consultation was drafted by NMFS staff with training in MSA
implementation, and reviewed in accordance with Northwest Region quality control and
assurance processes.
15
LITERATURE CITED
Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams. 2005. Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of
West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-
NWFSC-66, 597p.
Hard, J.1., J.M. Myers, M.F. Ford, RG. Kope, G.R. Pess, R.S. Waples, G.A. Winans, B.A.
Berejikian, F.W. Waknitz, P.B. Adams, P.A. Bisson, D.E. Campton, and RR
Reisenbichler. 2007. Status Review ofPuget Sound Steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss).
U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-81, 1 17p.
Little, A.C. 1898. Ninth Annual Report of the State Fish Commissioner to the Governor of the
State of Washington. State of Washington, 70 p.
Martin, D., L. Benda, and D. Shreffler. 2004. Core Areas: a frameword for identifying critical
habitat for salmon. Presented to King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks. Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, W A.
ftp:l/dnr.metrokc.gov/dnr/library/2004/KCRI547/
McElhany, P., M. Ruckleshaus, M.J. Ford, T. Wainwright, and E. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable
Salmon Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U. S.
Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries
Science Center, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. 156 p.
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/trn42/rm42.pdf
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant,
F.W. Waknitz, K. Neeley, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of
Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept.
Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35,443p.
NMFS.2005. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries' Critical Habitat Analytical Review Teams
for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. NOAA
Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-
1274.
Redman. S. Myers, and D., D. Averill. 2005. Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of
Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound (draft, June 28, 2005).
http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/planlindex.htrn
Scott, J.B. and W.T. Gill. 2006. Oncorhynchus mykiss: Assessment of Washington State's
anadromous populations and programs. Draft for Public Review and Comment.
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife.
16
Shared Strategy Development Committee (Shared Strategy). 2007. Puget Sound Salmon
Recovery Plan, Volume I. Plan adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service,
January 19,2007. www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org.
Tabor, R.A., B.A. Footen, K.L. Fresh, M.T. Celedonia, F. Mejia, D.L. Low, and L. Park. 2007.
Smallmouth bass and largemouth bass predation onjuvenile Chinook salmon and other
salmonids in the Lake Washington basin. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 27(4):1174-1188.
Toft, J.D., 1.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. Fish distribution,
abundance, and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 27:465-480.
Waples, R.S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of "species" under the
Endangered Species Act. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Mar. Fish. Rev. 53: II -22.
WDFW (Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife). 2004. Salmonid Stock Inventory
(SaS!). Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, W A.
http://wdfw. wa. gov lfishl sasil
WDFW and PSIT (Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and Puget Sound Indian
Tribes). 2004. Comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound Chinook: harvest
management component. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishlpapers/
ps chinook managementlharvestlps chinook harvest.pdf
17