2014_Goat_Canyon_Sediment_Analysis.pdf

Project #: 002693.2201.01RA

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 1

April 9, 2014

United States Environmental Protection Agency TDD: TO2-09-12-10-0002 Emergency Response Section Project: EE-002693-2201 75 Hawthorne Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105

Attention: Michelle Rogow, Federal On-Scene Coordinator

Subject: Letter Report, Border Field Site Removal Assessment Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California Latitude: 32° 32’ 27.26” North, Longitude: 117° 06’ 21.63” West

Introduction

In November 2012, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Emergency Response Section received a request from California’s Border Field State Park in partnership with the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR) to assist with the characterization of sediment removed from retention basins at the Border Field Site (site) located in the City of Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California. U.S. EPA Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) Michelle Rogow tasked Ecology and Environment, Inc.’s (E & E) Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) to develop and implement a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) that would assess chemical concentrations, physical properties, and plastic content of the sediment. This letter report describes sampling activities conducted under this SAP and presents laboratory and analytical results.

Site Description

The site is located within the Border Field State Park in the Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California. It is located approximately 3.5 miles west of Interstate 5 on the south side of Monument Road, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of where the Tijuana River meets the Pacific Ocean, and approximately 900 feet north of the U.S. – Mexico international border. The areas of study are depicted in Figure 1, Attachment A and include (1) the Goat Canyon Retention Basin (GCRB) and associated dredged material stockpiles located immediately downstream of where the Goat Canyon Tributary flows from Mexico into the United States, (2) background areas including a down-gradient area at Border Fields State Park Beach and an up-gradient area on Bunker Hill, and (3) the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC) dredge spoils stockpile on the main channel of the Tijuana River.

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 2

Background

Constructed in 2005, the 11-acre GCRB was designed to reduce sediment loading of downstream wetlands habitat from the large sediment loads of Goat Canyon Creek, a tributary to the Tijuana River. An upper and a lower basin accumulate approximately a combined 40,000 cubic yards (c.y.) of sediment per year, which is periodically excavated and stockpiled on site. Large amounts of plastic debris have been visually noted within the removed sediment. Physical and mechanical screening has been conducted on some stockpiles of excavated basin material in an attempt to remove debris and generate useful products. This screening generally removes oversized material for disposal and then creates three products: (1) either ¼ inch minus or ½ inch minus material, depending on the screen size employed, that is stockpiled at various locations on site, (2) a small gravel sized product (¼ or ½ inch to approximately 3 inch) that is typically transported off site by the State Park’s sediment basin cleanout contractor, and (3) a cobble size product (larger than approximately 3 inches) that is used within the Park. Additional evaluation was requested by State Parks to assess the suitability of the smallest size screen fraction of excavated material for various proposed uses, as well as to assess the overall effectiveness of the screening process. One of the proposed uses for the material was evaluated by the Tijuana Estuary Fate and Transport Project, a cooperative effort between the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California State Coastal Conservancy, the California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup, the TRNERR, and the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association.

The Project conducted a pilot study in 2008 to evaluate the effects of placing certain fractions of the GCRB sediments at the Border Field State Beach. Samples were collected from the stockpiles in March 2008 and from the basins and reference beaches in September 2008 and analyzed for grain size, bulk chemistry, and bacteriological testing. A summary of background details can be found in the Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan, Border Field Site Removal Assessment, September 2013 (SAP) prepared by E & E, which is included as Attachment B to this report.

Additional background details can be found in the following reports:

AMEC Earth & Environment, 2007. Final Report, Goat Canyon Retention Basin, Soil

Particle Size Distribution Study. Prepared for SWIA/Tierra Environmental. April.

AMEC Earth & Environmental, 2008. Goat Canyon Retention Basins, Stockpile Testing.

Prepared for Moffatt & Nichol. May.

Moffatt & Nichol, 2008. Tijuana Estuary Sediment Fate and Transport Study, Goat

Canyon Retention Basins, Sampling and Analysis Plan. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August.

Nautilus Environmental, 2008. Goat Canyon Retention Basins, Phase II and III Source Material Soil Characterization Report, Tijuana Estuary Sediment Fate and Transport Study. Prepared for Moffatt & Nichol. September.

Preplanning/Preliminary Activities In August 2012, U.S. EPA tasked START to conduct a review of scientific literature to identify standard or best methods for the quantification and collection of plastic debris in sediment and its subsequent analysis for persistent bioaccumulative toxins and other persistent organic pollutants.

START presented their findings in a technical memorandum dated August 22, 2013, on the subject of Literature Review and Method Recommendations for Collection and Chemical

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 3

Analysis of Plastic Debris Found in Sediment at Border Field Site. The findings of the literature review were used to craft the SAP.

The primary goal of this study was to inform TRNERR of any potential contaminant issues related to sediments and plastic from Goat Canyon or other areas that they are charged to maintain. Therefore, excavated sediments from the Goat Canyon sedimentation basins were assessed for the presence of hazardous substances at concentrations above ecological or health based benchmarks. Further, concentrations of hazardous substances were assessed to determine if the sediment fraction was significantly different from the plastic fraction and whether different management techniques resulted in a difference in plastic density and in contamination level.

The study findings provide preliminary information regarding the extent of contamination associated with plastics in the sediments. Some of the study findings and limitations are presented below.

U.S. EPA/START Site Activities Site assessment and sampling activities were conducted from September 10 through September 13, 2013 under the authority of FOSC Michelle Rogow. START members Kate Villars, Matthew Diener, and Chris Myers performed assessment sampling of sediment and plastic. Assistance with planning, site access, site reconnaissance, and site history was provided by FOSC Harry Allen and Douglas Liden from the U.S. EPA’s US/Mexico border office, Chris Peregrine, TRNERR Manager for California State Parks and Recreation (State Parks), and Robert Scott, a subcontractor of CalRecycle.

Initial site reconnaissance was performed the morning of September 10, 2013 with a review of recent aerial photography of the region and a walking history of the areas within the GCRB. D.

Linden indicated areas on the map, east of the GCRB, where additional dredging operations had been conducted including the Pilot Channel and the IBWC stockpile on the main channel and San Diego County dredging area on Smuggler’s Gulch as noted in Figure 1, Attachment A.

While this study focused on the GCRB, these other programs face similar challenges with storage, and proper use and/or disposal of dredged material.

The site walk began in the northwestern portion of the site at a staging pad with four stockpiles of material excavated from the basins. Figure 2, Attachment A depicts the layout of site features near the GCRB. The largest approximately 100,000 c.y. stockpile, located at the west end of the staging pad, consisted of old unsorted sediment from several removals from both the upper and lower basins and was assigned the identifier 5C1. In 2012, State Parks hired a contractor to process a portion of this sediment into cobble, gravel, and fines. The fine portion of this sorted sediment was stockpiled on the southeastern side of the staging pad and was assigned the identifier 5B. A less than 1 c.y. pile of the gravel material remained on the pad and was assigned the identifier 5D. No cobble remained on the staging pad. Abutting the north side of 5B was a second pile of unsorted material that was too moist for the contractor to screen during screening operations in 2012. This pile was assigned the identifier 5C2 as it was the second, smaller pile of unscreened material.

Continuing through the site to the southeast, the team observed the lower basin and the upper basin of the GCRB, neither of which contained standing water. The upper and lower basins were

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 4

assigned the identifiers 3A and 3B respectively. When there is stream flow, water moves from the upper basin towards the northeast. The downstream end of the lower basin and the upstream end of the upper basin were constructed with floating trash screens. East of the upper basin, three approximately 2 c.y. test piles of unsorted primarily upper basin material were set aside by the screening contractor at the request of State Parks. These piles were collectively assigned the identifier 4A. Continuing to the southeast of the upper basin, a large pile of sorted fine sediment from the upper basin was encountered. The western portion of this pile consists of ¼ inch minus material and was assigned the identifier 4C. According to C. Peregrin of State Parks, the contractor switched screen sizes in the middle of processing, and the eastern portion of the pile consists of ½ inch minus material and was assigned the identifier 4D. The team also observed the lined concrete area upstream of the upper basin that channels Goat Canyon Creek into the

GCRB.

After completion of reconnaissance, the team confirmed the proposed sampling strategy outlined in the SAP and began sampling. All sampling activities were conducted in accordance with the SAP prepared by START with the following deviations:

The sample nomenclature was modified based on location identifiers developed in the field.

An “off-site” sample location was added at the IBWC stockpile.

Due to the large size of the stockpiles, it was not possible to collect cross sectional cores.

It was determined by the field team that the most representative sample would consist of a composite of material from the top, toe and sides of the pile at various depths, with the number of composite points being somewhat proportional to the size of the stockpile.

A geotechnical sample was not collected at BFS-01-B.

Bisphenol-A (BPA) analytical results are not available for the plastic matrix due to laboratory error.

START data validation was limited to Tier 1 data validation of soil samples submitted for standard methods. Plastic matrix samples and high resolution specialty analysis methods received only laboratory data validation.

Soil samples were collected as either grab or composite samples from 12 locations: three in-situ locations at the GCRB, six stockpile locations near the GCRB, one location at the IBWC stockpile, and two background locations. Plastic samples were collected from a subset of 5 of the soil sample locations. Specific sample locations and associated samples collected during this field event for various analyses are described in Table 1, Attachment C. Sample locations are highlighted on Figures 3 through 5, Attachment A. Photographic documentation collected by START during site activities is presented in Attachment D to this report.

Soil samples were collected as composites with designs specific to the size and shape of the stockpile, basin, or sample area as noted in Table 1, Attachment C. Composite points were collected as equal volume aliquots at various depths using a metal hand trowel or a metal hand auger and transferred into a stainless steel mixing bowl or metal pail for homogenization. Three En CoreTM samples were collected from the surface at one of the composite points and shipped to TestAmerica Laboratory in West Sacramento, California (TestAmerica) for analysis of volatile

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 5

organic compounds (VOCs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gas range organics (TPHgro) by Method 8260B. From the homogenized sample bowl several sample containers were filled:

An 8-ounce glass jar was filled and placed on ice for analysis of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by U.S. EPA Method 8081A/8082, metals by U.S. EPA Method 6010/7471A, total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel range and motor oil range organics (TPHdro&mro) by U.S. EPA Method 8015B and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by U.S. EPA Method 8270C at TestAmerica.

One to three gallon size Ziploc bags were filled with soil and sent for grain size analysis by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D422 at GeoTesting Express in San Francisco, California.

Only at locations where a plastic sample was collected, a 4-ounce glass amber jar was filled and placed on ice for analysis of OCPs by Axys Method MLA-028 Rev 06 (U.S.

EPA Method 1699), PCBs as 209 congeners by Axys Method MLA-010 Rev 11 (U.S.

EPA Method 1668C_2010), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) by Axys Method MLA-033 Rev 06 ( U.S. EPA Method 1614), BPA by Axys Method MLA-082 Rev 1, and surfactants by Axys Method MLA-080 Rev 2 at Axys Analytical Services Ltd in Sidney, BC (Axys Analytical).

The samples were then sealed, labeled, and packaged for shipment to the laboratory.

Plastic samples were collected from the beach background area, the upper retention basin, the sorted and large unsorted stockpiles on the processing pad, and from the IBWC stockpile for a total of five samples. In order to obtain the plastic sample, material from the bulk homogenized metal bucket used to collect the associated soil sample was processed through a series of metal sieves, then metal tweezers were utilized to visually examine and separate plastic fragments into a glass sample container. Specifically, bulk sample material was measured with a 1 cup measuring cup into a stainless steel bowl in batches of approximately 12 cups then weighed using a 400 pound (lb) capacity 0.2lb increment scale prior to processing through the sieve stack.

Depending on the concentration of plastic in the soil, a range of 36 to 68 cups of soil were used to obtain each plastic sample. From the weighed batch, sub-batches of approximately 4 cups of sample material were dry sieved through the sieve stack. The sieve stack consisted of a Number (No.) 4 [4.75 millimeter (mm)], No. 10 (2.00mm), No. 18 (1.00mm), and a pan. Material retained on the No.4 and No.10 sieves was visually examined for plastic debris with the aid of metal tweezers, and fragments judged to be plastic based on color, shape, texture or other identifying features were placed into a glass vial. The collected plastic debris was weighed using an 80 gram (g) capacity 0.1g graduation pocket scale and these data were used to approximate the fraction of the dredged or in-situ material that was plastic.

Plastic content is summarized in Table 2, Attachment C and supporting calculations are included in Attachment E as Table E1. For each sample location, these isolated plastic fragments and remaining sieved products were used to fill the following sample containers:

A 40-milliliter amber glass vial was filled with approximately 1.5g of plastic debris and placed on ice for analysis of OCPs and PCBs by U.S. EPA Method 8081A/8082 at TestAmerica.

A 40-milliliter amber glass vial was filled with approximately 1.5g of plastic debris and placed on ice for analysis of OCPs by Axys Method MLA-028 Rev 06 (U.S. EPA Method 1699), PCBs as 209 congeners by Axys Method MLA-010 Rev 11 (U.S. EPA

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 6

Method 1668C_2010), PBDEs by Axys Method MLA-033 Rev 06 (U.S. EPA Method 1614), BPA by Axys Method MLA-082 Rev 1, and surfactants by Axys Method MLA- 080 Rev 2at Axys Analytical.

Two 500-milliliter amber jars were filled with bulk sediment and plastic from (1) the sieve tray and (2) the material remaining on the No.18 and No. 10 sieves. These aliquots were labeled with the sample ID followed by a suffix denoting the size partition (BFS-##- S-<1mm and BFS-##-S-1mm to 5mm respectively) and sent to EPA Region 9 Laboratory in Richmond, CA for archiving pending potential future microplastic quantification efforts.

Fractions of all samples described above were then sealed, labeled, and packaged for shipment to the various laboratories.

Analytical Results

GeoTesting Express analyzed all submitted soil samples for grain size analysis by ASTM D422.

Selected summary parameters are presented in Table 3, Attachment C. The full laboratory report is included as Attachment F.

Test America analyzed each of the twelve soil samples for OCPs, PCBs, metals, TPHdro&mro, TPHgro, VOCs, and SVOCs by standard methods and each of the five plastic samples for pesticides and PCBs by standard methods. Unvalidated plastic sample results and Tier 1 validated soil results are presented in Table 4, Attachment C. The full laboratory reports are included as Attachment G in electronic versions of this report.

Axys Analytical analyzed each of the five plastic samples and associated five soil samples for OCPs, PCBs, PBDEs, BPA and surfactants by high resolution methods. Unvalidated sample results are presented in Table 5, Attachment C. The full laboratory reports are included as Attachment H in electronic versions of this report.

Limited statistical analysis was performed on collocated plastic and sediment matrix samples in which both matrices had a detectable concentration of a given analyte. The ratio of the analyte concentration in plastic to the analyte concentration in sediment (P/S ratio) was calculated for each of 818 data pairs. These ratios ranged from 2 to 70,013 with a high standard of deviation and a non-normal distribution. The median of all P/S ratios was 22, however this statistic varies across sample pair location and across analyte groups. Summary statistics can be found in Attachment J.

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 7

Data Quality

Limited Tier 1 data validation was performed by a START chemist on the following TestAmerica generated laboratory data: OCPs and PCBs in soil by U.S. EPA Method 8081A/8082, metals in soil by U.S. EPA Method 6010/7471A, TPHdro&mro in soil by U.S. EPA Method 8015B, VOCs and TPHgro by EPA Method 5035/8260B, and SVOCs in soil by U.S.

EPA Method 8270C. The analytical results for these methods were acceptable with qualification as definitive level data. Tier 1 Data Validation Reports are included as Attachment I and provide additional details regarding QA/QC issues.

Additional data validation by START was not included within the scope of the technical directive document (TDD) and therefore was not performed. For unvalidated data, all data qualifiers provided by the laboratory have been included in result summary tables. More detailed explanations can be found in the full laboratory data packages included as an attachment to digital versions of this report. Laboratory sample results are not blank corrected. The results of laboratory control samples, method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates can be found in laboratory data packages.

A field duplicate split sample of BFS-04C-S was collected as sample BFS-104C-S to evaluate homogenization and field sampling procedures at a rate of approximately one duplicate sample for every ten samples. The field duplicate was only submitted for analysis by standard methods at TestAmerica due to high costs associated with the high resolution methods at Axys. Relative percent difference values for all standard methods except OCPs and PCBs by U.S. EPA Method 8081A/8082 were found to be within the control limit of 35 percent.

A total of 4 daily rinse blanks were collected by START to evaluate whether contaminants could have been transferred between samples on decontaminated collection surfaces. The rinse blank was collected by pouring distilled water over the decontaminated sample collection device (auger or trowel) and collecting the water in the specified containers. The rinse blanks were submitted to TestAmerica for analysis of OCPs and PCBs, metals, TPHdro&mro, VOCs and TPHgro, and SVOCs. A trip blank was collected and submitted to TestAmerica for analysis of VOCs and TPH. Analytical results for the rinse blank samples indicated no detections of TPH or VOCs and trace level detections of metals, SVOCs and pesticides. A summary of detections from the rinse and trip blank samples is included as Table 6, Attachment C and validated data have been qualified accordingly. Decontamination procedures for site activities appear to be adequate and are unlikely to have resulted in cross-contamination between samples.

Results for BPA were not quantified for the plastic matrix due to difficulties with the plastic matrix extraction. During extraction of the sample with the methylene chloride solvent, a jelly emulsion formed that required an extra filtration step with glass wool and nylon filters. This filtration appears to have removed the BPA from the surrogate as well as the majority of the samples. This emulsion formation in conjunction with detections of PCB 11, which is a dye component and a congener not present in any Arochlor, indicates that the extraction step may have resulted is some dissolving of the plastic fragments rather than the intended surface extraction.

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 8

Conclusion/Summary

START developed and implemented a SAP designed to assess chemical concentrations, physical properties, and plastic content of sediment within and recently removed through human action from the GCRB and in background locations. Additional sampling was conducted at the IBWC stockpile. As discussed above, the study goal was to inform TRNERR in their Goat Canyon sediment management practices as they relate to hazardous substance contamination and to gain an understanding of COPC concentrations and plastics quantity data to inform future management practices of the excavated (sorted and un-sorted) materials. The goal of the study was not necessarily to ascertain whether the potential exists for reuse of recovered material from Goat Canyon sedimentation basins. Therefore, this study alone did not determine reusability of the excavated sediments. Further, this study alone did not provide adequate information to determine potential human or ecological health risks or watershed impact concerns associated with the placement of this material on nearby beaches or in the offshore environment. Based on the findings of the study, some preliminary conclusions are presented below.

The sample from the stockpile that underwent mechanical screening (5B) had a density of plastic content similar to and slightly higher than the sample from the unsorted pile (5C1). This data suggests that mechanical screening may not be effective for removal of plastics, and may instead break down lighter plastics into smaller pieces. Additional data is needed to confirm this conclusion.

Gross plastic separation that occurs prior to and during the excavation and sediment cleanout phase appears to be effective at removing large plastic from the sediments.

Based on chemical analysis, concentrations of surfactants, OCPs, PCBs and PBDEs are higher in the plastic fraction of samples than in the sediment fraction, suggesting that plastic particles may accumulate these compounds by absorption and adsorption.

The beach background sample contained less than half the density of plastic of either the sorted or unsorted sediment stockpile samples.

From the five pairs of soil samples and plastic samples, each sample was found to exceed at least one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Screening Quick Reference Table Effects Range Low value except for the beach background soil sample.

Further analysis of this data may suggest possible differences between contaminants in plastic in older piles of sediment, that which had weathered and biodegraded, and newer piles where plastic entered the environment more recently. However, that analysis is beyond the scope of this report.

This letter report concludes work performed under this TDD. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office.

Respectfully submitted, Kate Villars START Field Team Leader

TDD #: TO2-09-12-10-0001 9

cc: Electronic Deliverable System 2 START project file

Attachments:

A – Figures

Figure 1- Site Location Map Figure 2- GCRB Area Site Features Figure 3- GCRB Area Samples Figure 4- Border Field State Park Beach Background Samples

Figure 5- IWBC Stockpile Samples B – Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan, Border Field Site Removal Assessment, September

C – Tables

Table 1- Sample Location Descriptions and Ordered Analyses Table 2- Plastic Content Summary Table Table 3- Grain Size Analysis Results Table 4- Soil and Plastic Sampling Analytical Results by Standard Methods Table 5- Soil and Plastic Sampling UNVALIDATED Analytical Results by High

Resolution Methods Table 6- Rinse Blank and Trip Blank Analytical Results Detection Summary by Standard

Methods D – Photographic Documentation E – Table E1 – Plastic Content Calculations F – Grain Size Analysis Results, GeoTesting Express G – Test America Data Packages (electronic copy only) H – Axys Analytical Data Packages (electronic copy only) I – START Tier I Data Validation Reports J – P/S Ratio Calculation and Analysis

Table J1 –P/S Ratio Computation and Comparison Table J2 – P/S Ratio Comparison by Analyte Group Table J3 – P/S Ratio Comparison by Location of Sample Pair

Attachment A:

Figures

Figure 1- Site Location Map Figure 2- GCRB Area Site Features Figure 3- GCRB Area Samples Figure 4- Border Field State Park Beach Background Samples Figure 5- IWBC Stockpile Samples

Figure 1 Site Location Map Border Field Site Border Field State Park

Imperial Beach, CA

Project # 002693.2201.01RA TDD # TO-02-09-12-10-0002 Basemap Sources: ESRI World Street Map, ESRI World Imagery; Streams from San Diego State University Ec olo gy

E nv iro nm en t, I nc

. G

IS

De pa rtm en t P roj ec t: M :\L

BC

\P roj ec ts\

ST

AR

T 3

P roj ec ts\

Bo rde r F iel d S ite

\G

IS\

Pr oje cts \Fi g0 1-s ite _lo ca tio n_ ma p.m xd

D ate

: 1 /15

/20

North Arm

City dredging "pilot channel"

Tijuana River National Estuarine Reserve

Bunker Hill Upstream

Background

Goat Canyon Retention Basin

Beach Background Area

TRNERR Target Salt Marsh

Restoration Site

Yogurt Ca nyon

Goat Canyon

Smugglers Gu lch

Main Channel

County Dredging

IBWC Stockpiles and Treatment Plant

Friendship Park

´ 0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Figure 2 GCRB Area Site Features

Border Field Site Border Field State Park

Imperial Beach, CA

Project # 002693.2201.01RA TDD # TO-02-09-12-10-0002 Basemap Sources: ESRI World Imagery, ESRI World Street Map

Bunker HillBunker Hill

5C15C1

Staging PadStaging Pad

Upper BasinUpper Basin

Lower BasinLower Basin

4C4C

5B5B

Upstream AreaUpstream Area 4D4D

5C25C25D5D

4A4A

0 250 500 Feet

Ec olo gy

E nv iro nm en t, I nc . G

IS

De pa rtm en t

P roj ec t: M

:\L

BC

\P roj ec ts\

ST

AR

T 3 P roj ec ts\ Bo rde r F iel d S ite \G

IS\

Pr oje cts

\Fi g0

2-G

CR

B_ Ar ea _F ea tur es .m xd D ate : 1

/15 /20

Material Stockpile Site Features

LEGEND

Figure 3 GCRB Area Samples

Border Field Site Border Field State Park

Imperial Beach, CA

Project # 002693.2201.01RA TDD # TO-02-09-12-10-0002 Basemap Sources: ESRI World Imagery, ESRI World Street Map

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D D

D D

D

DDBFS-05C1-S/PBFS-05C1-S/P

BFS-05C2-SBFS-05C2-S

BFS-05B-S/PBFS-05B-S/P

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

BFS-03B-SBFS-03B-S

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D DD

DBFS-03A-S/PBFS-03A-S/P BFS-04A-SBFS-04A-S

DBFS-04C-SBFS-04C-S

DBFS-04D-SBFS-04D-S

D D D

BFS-02-S-CBFS-02-S-C

D

BFS-01A-SBFS-01A-S

0 250 500 Feet

Ec olo gy

E nv iro nm en t, I nc . G

IS

De pa rtm en t

P roj ec t: M

:\L

BC

\P roj ec ts\

ST

AR

T 3 P roj ec ts\ Bo rde r F iel d S ite \G

IS\

Pr oje cts

\Fi g0

3-G

CR

B_ Ar ea _S am ple s.m xd

D ate

: 1 /15

/20

D Sample Location Site Features

Figure 4 Border Field State Park

Beach Background Samples Border Field Site Border Field State Park

Imperial Beach, CA

Project # 002693.2201.01RA TDD # TO-02-09-12-10-0002 Basemap Sources: ESRI World Imagery, ESRI World Street Map

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

0 125 250 Feet

Ec olo gy

E nv iro nm en t, I nc . G

IS

De pa rtm en t

P roj ec t: M

:\L

BC

\P roj ec ts\

ST

AR

T 3 P roj ec ts\ Bo rde r F iel d S ite \G

IS\

Pr oje cts

\Fi g0

4-B ea ch Ba ck gro un d.m xd D ate : 1

/15 /20

D Composite sample aliquot locations for BFS-01B-S/P Background Area Perimeter

Figure 5 IBWC Stockpile Samples

Border Field Site Border Field State Park

Imperial Beach, CA

Project # 002693.2201.01RA TDD # TO-02-09-12-10-0002 Basemap Sources: ESRI World Imagery, ESRI World Street Map

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

BFS-08-5BFS-08-5

BFS-08-7BFS-08-7

BFS-08-3BFS-08-3

BFS-08-2BFS-08-2

BFS-08-1BFS-08-1

BFS-08-6BFS-08-6

BFS-08-4BFS-08-4

0 125 250 Feet

Ec olo gy

E nv iro nm en t, I nc . G

IS

De pa rtm en t

P roj ec t: M

:\L

BC

\P roj ec ts\

ST

AR

T 3 P roj ec ts\ Bo rde r F iel d S ite \G

IS\

Pr oje cts

\Fi g0

5-I

BW

CS

toc kp ile s.m xd

D ate

: 1 /15

/20

D Composite sample aliquot locations for BFS-08S/P IBWC Stockpile Perimeter (September 2013)

LEGEND

^ The IBWC (International Boundary and Water Commission) Stockpile contains approximately 120,000 c.y. of sorted sediment from the main channel of the Tijuana River.

NOTES

Attachment B:

Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan

Border Field Site Removal Assessment September 2013

Border Field Site Removal Assessment

Contract No.: EP-S5-08-01 TDD No.: TO2-09-12-10-0002

Job No.: EE-002693-2201

September 2013

Prepared for:

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Region 9

Prepared by:

ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC.

3700 Industry Avenue, Suite 102

Lakewood, California 90712

Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team

Border Field Site Removal Assessment

Contract No.: EP-S5-08-01 TDD No.: TO2-09-12-10-0002

Job No.: EE-002693-2201

September 2013

Approved by:

Howard Edwards, START Quality Assurance Manager Ecology & Environment, Inc.

Approved by:

Robyn Kelly, START Project Manager Ecology & Environment, Inc.

Approved by:

Michelle Rogow, U.S. EPA On-Scene Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 iii able of ContentsT Section Page

1 Introduction ...............................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Organization......................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Distribution List ............................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Statement of the Specific Problem ................................................................... 1-3

2 Background ...............................................................................2-1

2.1 Site Location..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Site Description ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Site History and Previous Investigations.......................................................... 2-2

3 Project Objectives ....................................................................3-1

3.1 Data Use Objectives ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Project Task/Sampling Objectives ................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Site Screening Levels ....................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Data Quality Objectives ................................................................................... 3-3

3.5 Schedule of Sampling Activities ...................................................................... 3-3

3.6 Special Training Requirements/Certifications ................................................. 3-3

4 Sampling Rationale and Design ..............................................4-1

4.1 Sampling Locations and Rationale................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Analytes of Concern ......................................................................................... 4-4

5 Analytical Testing......................................................................5-1

5.1 Laboratory and Field Analysis.......................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Quality Control................................................................................................. 5-2

6 Field Methods and Procedures ................................................6-1

6.1 Field Procedures ............................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Equipment ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1.1 Equipment Used..................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1.2 Equipment Maintenance ........................................................ 6-2

6.1.1.3 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and

Consumables .......................................................................... 6-2

6.1.2 Field Notes ........................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.2.1 Logbooks................................................................................ 6-2

Table of Contents (cont.)

Section Page

002693.2029.01RA iv

6.1.2.2 Photographs............................................................................ 6-3

6.1.2.3 Electronic Sample Logging.................................................... 6-4

6.1.3 Field Mapping ...................................................................................... 6-4

6.2 Sediment and Debris Sampling Procedures ..................................................... 6-5

6.3 Plastic Sampling Procedures ............................................................................ 6-6

6.4 Field Decontamination Procedures .................................................................. 6-7

7 Disposal of Investigation-Derived Waste ................................7-1

8 Sample Identification, Documentation, and Shipment...........8-1

8.1 Sample Nomenclature ...................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.1 Sediment and Plastic Samples.............................................................. 8-1

8.1.3 Blanks 8-1

8.2 Container, Preservation, and Holding Time Requirements.............................. 8-2

8.3 Sample Labeling, Packaging, and Shipping ..................................................... 8-2

8.4 Chain-of-Custody Forms and QA/QC Summary Forms .................................. 8-3

9 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ...................................9-1

9.1 Field Quality Control Samples ......................................................................... 9-1

9.1.1 Blank Samples...................................................................................... 9-1

9.1.2 Assessment of Sample Variability (Field Duplicate) ........................... 9-1

9.1.3 Laboratory Quality Control Samples.................................................... 9-2

9.2 Analytical and Data Package Requirements..................................................... 9-2

9.3 Data Management............................................................................................. 9-3

9.4 Data Validation................................................................................................. 9-4

9.5 Field Variances................................................................................................. 9-5

9.6 Assessment of Project Activities...................................................................... 9-5

9.6.1 Project Status Reports to Management ................................................ 9-5

9.6.2 Reconciliation of Data with DQOs ...................................................... 9-6

10 References...............................................................................10-1

Appendices

A Figures...................................................................................... A-1

B Data Quality Objectives ........................................................... B-1

C Health and Safety Plan............................................................. C-1

D Standard Operating Procedures ............................................. D-1 v ist of TablesL Table

Table 3-1 Site Screening Levels and Data Quality Indicators for Sediment

Table 3-2 Site Screening Levels and Data Quality Indicators for Plastic

Table 5-1 Assessment Sampling and Analysis Summary – Sediment, Plastic and Quality Control Samples

Table 6-1 Sampling Equipment vi ist of FiguresL Figure

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Site Features Map vii ist of Abbreviations and AcronymsL BPA bisphenol A

COPC contaminant of potential concern

DQI data quality indicator

DQO data quality objective

E & E Ecology and Environment, Inc.

ERL Effects Range Low

ERM Effects Range Median

ERS Emergency Response Section

ERT Environmental Response Team

FOSC Federal On-Scene Coordinator

GCRB Goat Canyon Retention Basin

GPS Global Positioning System

IDW investigation-derived waste

LCS laboratory control sample

MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mL milliliters mm millimeters

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OCPs organochlorine pesticides

PBDEs polybrominated diphenyl ethers

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)

viii

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PM Project Manager

PPE personal protective equipment

QA quality assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

SOP standard operating procedure

SQuiRT Screening Quick Reference Tables

START Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team

SVOCs semi-volatile organic compounds

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons

TPH-d/mo TPH as diesel and motor oil

TPH-g TPH as gasoline

TRNERR Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve

TRPH total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VOCs volatile organic compounds

1-1

Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Emergency Response Section (ERS) directed Ecology and Environment, Inc.’s (E & E) Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) to support a U.S. EPA-funded removal assessment at the Border Field Site (site), located in the Border Field State Park in Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California (Figure 1, Appendix A). To support the U.S. EPA’s environmental data collection activities, the START has identified project data quality objectives and developed this Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). This SAP is written to conduct soil sampling, plastics separation and quantification, and sediment and plastic matrix analysis, and combines the basic elements of a Quality Assurance Project Plan and a Field Sampling Plan.

The site encompasses the approximately 11-acre Goat Canyon Retention Basin (GCRB), which is used to trap sediment and associated debris flowing in from the Goat Canyon Tributary of the Tijuana River as part of mitigation activities to prevent the deterioration of wetland habitat due to excessive sedimentation in the Tijuana Estuary. The U.S. EPA has partnered with the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR) of the California State Parks Department in an effort to characterize known plastic contamination for the purpose of providing TRNERR information to be used in determining options for economical and beneficial re-use of the sediments removed from the GCRB. The U.S. EPA has also identified the objective of investigating whether plastic debris at a variety of size ranges within the sediments can be demonstrated to be a matrix for transport of as well as environmental exposure to contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). As part of this removal assessment, it is necessary to conduct sediment sampling within various locations within the Tijuana Estuary area, including the GCRB, followed by chemical analysis of sediments as well as quantification and chemical analysis of plastic debris entrained within the sediments.

This SAP describes the project and data use objectives, data collection rationale, quality assurance goals, and requirements for sampling and analysis activities. It also defines the sampling and data collection methods that will be used for this project. This SAP is intended to accurately reflect the planned data-gathering activities for this support activity; however, site conditions, budget, and additional U.S. EPA direction may warrant modifications. All significant changes will be documented in site records.

1. Introduction

1-2

The format of the SAP has been derived primarily from Sampling and Analysis Plan Guidance and Template, Version 4, General Projects (EPA R9QA/00X, September 2009). The specific field sampling and chemical analysis information in this SAP was prepared in accordance with the following U.S. EPA documents: EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R 5, March 2001, EPA/240/B-01/003);

Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4, February 2006, EPA/240/B-06/001); Guidance on Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection (EPA QA/G-5S, December 2002, EPA/240/R 02/005); and Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems (EPA/505/F-03/001, March 2005).

1.1 Project Organization

The following is a list of project personnel and their responsibilities:

U.S. EPA Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) – The U.S. EPA FOSC is Michelle Rogow. Ms. Rogow is the primary decision-maker and will direct the project, specify tasks, and ensure that the project is proceeding on schedule and within budget. Additional duties include coordination of communication with the START Project Manager, U.S.

EPA Quality Assurance (QA) Office, and U.S. EPA Region 9 Laboratory, if applicable.

START Project Manager (PM) – The START PM is Robyn Kelly. The START PM is responsible for the performance of tasks assigned to the START by the U.S. EPA. The START PM manages the project’s data collection efforts and is responsible for documentation of project objectives; developing and implementing the SAP; coordinating project tasks and field sampling; managing field data; and completing all preliminary and final reporting.

Principal Data Users – Data generated during the implementation of this SAP will be utilized by the FOSC to make decisions regarding potential future actions at the site.

START Quality Assurance (QA) Coordinator – Mr. Howard Edwards is the START QA Coordinator. Mr. Edwards will coordinate with the U.S. EPA’s QA Office as needed.

Analytical Laboratory – START subcontracted laboratories TestAmerica Laboratories in West Sacramento, California, and Axys Analytical Services, Ltd., in British Columbia, Canada, will be used for this assessment.

1.2 Distribution List

Copies of the final SAP will be distributed to the following persons and organizations:

Michelle Rogow, U.S. EPA, Region 9

E & E START Field Team

E & E START project files.

1. Introduction

1-3

1.3 Statement of the Specific Problem

Sediments and associated debris carried by the Tijuana River and its tributaries have led to extensive loss of wetlands habitat in the Tijuana Estuary due to sedimentation. At the mouth of the Goat Canyon Tributary, the largest contributing tributary to the Tijuana River, a retention basin has been constructed to trap the sediment influx, which can be over 40,000 cubic yards a year. Currently, management of the annual sediment load has been by removal to an inland disposal site. The U.S. EPA in partnership with the State of California is interested in collecting sediment data that includes quantification of plastics content as well as chemical analysis of sediments and plastic in order to assist TRNERR in evaluating economical and beneficial re-use alternatives for at least a portion of the sediments.

The data are also intended to support the U.S. EPA in determining how plastic may function as a matrix for transport of COPCs. The presence and fate of plastic debris in marine and aquatic environments, especially regarding their potential to serve as both a source and a sink for toxic chemicals, is a topic of much recent research globally and is of interest to the U.S. EPA Region 9 in regards to the fate of plastic-containing sediment from the Goat Canyon Retention Basin. Plastics can act as a source of toxic chemicals by leaching of phthalates, nonylphenols, brominated flame retardants and other additives and furthermore can act as a temporary sink for persistent bioaccumulative toxin substances such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticdes (OCPs), serving to transfer them from the water column to aquatic species and up the food chain (Engler, 2012). In order to investigate the potential for such a release or accumulation of contaminants, the EPA is proposing to quantify the plastic content of GCRB sediment as well as separate a portion of the plastic matrix from the soil matrix in which it is embedded for separate chemical analysis to determine its concentration of various persistent organic pollutants and plastic additives. Contaminants of concern in both sediment and plastic matrices may include PCBs, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), bisphenol A (BPA), and alyklphenols.

2-1

Background

2.1 Site Location

The site is located within the Border State Field Park in the Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California (Figure 1, Appendix A). The TRNERR office facility is located at 301 Caspian Way, Imperial Beach, California. The GCRB portion of the site is located on Monument Road in San Diego, California. The coordinates of the approximate center of the GCRB are 32° 32’ 27.26” North Latitude, 117° 06’ 21.63” West Longitude (Figure 2, Appendix A).

2.2 Site Description

The GCRB is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of where the Tijuana River meets the Pacific Ocean and approximately 900 feet north of the U.S. – Mexico international border. The GCRB is approximately 14 acres in size with design depths up to approximately 5 to 6 feet below surrounding grade. The spillway and upper portion of the GCRB is concrete-lined (Upper Basin); the remainder is earthen (Lower Basin) and separated from the Upper Basin by an intermediate weir. The GCRB is the downstream termination of the Goat Canyon tributary and receives approximately 40,000 cubic yards of sediment annually.

Currently, a staging pad is located adjacent to the GCRB that contains approximately three years worth (estimated to be over 100,000 cubic yards) of material excavated from the GCRB; this material has not generally been processed for trash removal or grain size sorting. In October and November of 2012, the GCRB material that had accumulated over the previous year was completely excavated under the oversight of TRNERR. The 2012 materials were stockpiled and processed using a screen plant to sort for different grain sizes. Approximately 45 cubic yards of pre-sorted GCRB sediment material excavated from the Upper Basin portion of the GCRB was set aside for reference sampling. An unknown volume of pre-sorted GCRB sediment material excavated from the Lower Basin portion of the GCRB was transported to the staging pad for processing; some of this pre-sorted material was also set aside for reference sampling, although as of August 2013 it is unknown whether any of the pre-sorted materials from 2012 are still isolated from the remainder of the staging pad material. The remaining excavated GCRB material was processed through a screen plant to produce several thousand cubic yards of 1/8-inch minus and ½-inch minus material, which TRNERR is interested in utilizing for beneficial re-use.

2. Background

2-2

2.3 Site History and Previous Investigations

In the last two to three decades, increased development in the Mexican portion of the Tijuana River watershed has resulted in excessive soil erosion in the canyons of the Goat Canyon tributary and infilling of the historical creek channels. The condition of the Tijuana Estuary has also been degrading due to surrounding land uses that include agriculture, military activities, and urban development. The southern portion of the Estuary has been significantly affected by sedimentation and loss of habitat. The Model Marsh Restoration Project, intended to demonstrate the feasibility of restoration in the Estuary, completed its first phase of restoration of the southern portion of the Estuary in 2000 (Moffatt & Nichol, 2008).

Another project, the Goat Canyon Enhancement Project, was implemented to protect existing and future Tijuana Estuary system habitats that have been restored. The GCRB was created as part of this project to control the sediment influx into the southern area of the Tijuana Estuary; it traps fine-grained sediment traveling through the watershed before it can reach the estuarine habitat. Management of this sediment consists of annual excavation, mechanical sorting to remove trash and large debris, and either stockpiling at a staging pad adjacent to the GCRB or trucking off-site to a landfill (Moffatt & Nichol, 2008). A baseline survey of soil particle size was conducted in 2007 to evaluate soil particle size distributions in in-situ sediments in the upper and lower parts of the GCRB as well as in stockpiled GCRB sediments in both stages of pre- and post-processing for trash and debris sorting (AMEC, 2007). The mean grain size for all sources was fine sand.