Amendment_0002_29_April_2019.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

0002 April 29, 2019 647873

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE Contracting Officer USCG CEU Oakland 1301 Clay Street 7th Floor, Suite 700N Oakland, CA 94612-5203

Same as Block 6

8. NAME AND ADRESS OF CONTRACTOR (no., street, county, State and ZIP Code) √ 9.A AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

ALL PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS

X 70Z08819BPQQ10600

9B. DATE (SEE ITEM 11)

April 11, 2019

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER

NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the Offer submitted: or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT/.ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return 1 copy to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to questions from prospective bidders.

QUESTION 0002: SF1442 indicated the last day for question is May 9th and the IFB Section J has the deadline as May 6th. Can the USCG clarify the last day to submit questions RESPONSE: The last day to submit questions is May 6, 2019

QUESTION 0003: 35 20 23- Dredging 3.02 Conduct of Work, C: Debris Plan indicates the scow grid opening cannot exceed 10”. The USACE permit has a 12” grid requirement. Will the USCG consider changing the 10” grid to the 12” grid opening as required by the referenced permit?

RESPONSE: Yes, the grid can be 12” or smaller.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

JASON DUGAN

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)PREVIOUS

EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA, FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Invitation For Bid Number 70Z08819BPQQ10600 Amendment 0002 29 April 2019

QUESTION 0004: 01 35 43- Environmental Procedures 1.05 Protection of Natural Resources, E: When working in or around water, hydraulic equipment shall be operated with vegetable oil based hydraulic fluids, not petroleum based. Is the commonly used Chevron Clarity Synthetic EA Hydraulic Oil acceptable? If not, can the USCG provide a spec sheet of an acceptable oil?

RESPONSE: The hydraulic equipment shall use environmentally acceptable lubricants, as defined by the EPA in conjunction with OECD 301B and ASTM D-5864. The commonly used Chevron Clarity Synthetic EA Hydraulic Oil is acceptable.

QUESTION 0005: 35 20 23- Dredging: Can the USCG provide the sediment sampling reports? Can the USCG provide a dredge material description?

RESPONSE:

i.The copies of the Sediment Analysis Reports (SAR) for both locations is attached.

ii.The dredge material is characterized as fine-grained depositional material (generally 45% sand and gravel and 55% silt and clay). In general, the sediments exhibited low concentrations of chemical constituents, and several constituents were not detected at all. Sediment chemistry levels were generally below the available trigger levels for bioaccumulation with the exception of mercury, PCBs and PAHs. Toxicity analysis exhibited no acute sediment, standard elutriate, or MET elutriate toxicity for any of the tested organisms. The bioaccumulation tissues indicated that PAHs and PCB congeners did not bioaccumulate at levels that are likely to pose an unacceptable adverse effect.

QUESTION 0006: 01 10 00: For the remainder of the excavated material from Mooring Area A and B designated as “cover,” can it be transported to an upland area site suitable to receive cover material that is not Montezuma?

RESPONSE: No. The sediment from Areas A and B were only approved for disposal at SF-DODS and the Montezuma Wetland Restoration Site. The sediment is not suitable for disposal at other beneficial reuse sites (e.g. Cullinan Ranch Tidal Restoration Project) nor is it approved for an upland landfill.

United States Coast Guard

Civil Engineering Unit Oakland

SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND

ANALYSIS RESULTS REPORT

USCG Sector San Francisco – Cutter Aspen Mooring and Approach

Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California

USACE File No. 2018-00259

Contract Number: HSCG50-14-D-PSL007

Task Order Number: HSCG88-17-J-PQQ179

December 2018

JEDugan Typewritten Text Invitation For Bid Number 70Z08819BPQQ10600

SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS REPORT

USCG Sector San Francisco – Cutter Aspen Mooring and Approach arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR

SEDIMENT SAMPLING

AND ANALYSIS

RESULTS REPORT

USCG Sector San Francisco - Cutter

Aspen Mooring and Approach

Prepared for:

United States Coast Guard

Civil Engineering Unit Oakland

1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N

Oakland, California 94612-2060

Prepared by:

Arcadis U.S., Inc.

2300 Clayton Rd

Suite 400 Concord

California 94520

Tel 925 274 1100

Fax 925 726 0121

Our Ref.:

B0003010.0004

Date:

December 2018

This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited

Josh Gravenmier

Vice President/Certified Project Manager

Robert Moniz

Project Geologist

Everett Rubin

Environmental Scientist arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR i

CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... v

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Overview

1.2 Background

1.3 Approach

1.4 Report Organization

2 Methods

2.1 Sampling Methods

2.1.1 Marine Core Sampling

2.1.2 Sediment Processing

2.2 Physical, Chemical, and Toxicity Analysis of Sediments, Sediment Elutriates, and

Bioaccumulation Tissues

2.2.1 Physical and Chemical Testing of Sediment

2.2.2 Toxicity Testing of Sediment and Standard Sediment Elutriate

2.2.3 Chemical Analysis of Modified Elutriate Test Elutriate

2.2.4 Toxicity Testing of Modified Elutriate Test Elutriate

2.2.5 Chemical Analysis of Bioaccumulation Tissues

2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures

2.3.1 Sample Collection Quality Assurance and Quality Control

2.3.2 Physical, Chemical, and Toxicity Characterization Quality Assurance and Quality Control8

3 Results and Discussions

3.1 Sample Collection

3.2 Physical Characterization

3.3 Chemical Analyses

3.3.1 Total Metals

3.3.2 MET Elutriate Total Metals

3.3.3 Pesticides

3.3.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls as Congeners

3.3.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR ii

3.3.6 Dioxins and Furans

3.3.7 Organotins

3.3.8 Conventional Parameters

3.4 Toxicity Testing

3.4.1 Acute Benthic Toxicity Test (with Ampelisca abdita)

3.4.2 Acute Benthic Toxicity Test (with Neanthes arenaceodentata)

3.4.3 Acute Water Column Toxicity Test (with Mytilus galloprovincialis)

3.4.4 Acute Survival Water Column Toxicity Test (with Menidia beryllina)

3.4.5 Acute Survival Water Column Toxicity Test (with Americamysis bahia)

3.4.6 MET Elutriate Acute Survival Water Column Toxicity Test (with Americamysis bahia)

3.5 Bioaccumulation Exposure Test Survival (with Macoma nasuta and Nereis virens)

3.6 Bioaccumulation Exposure Tissue Analysis

3.6.1 Total PAHs in Tissues

3.6.1.1 Macoma nasuta

3.6.1.1 Nereis virens

3.6.2 PCB Congeners in Tissues

3.6.2.1 Macoma nasuta

3.6.2.2 Nereis virens

3.6.3 Total Lipids in Tissues

3.6.3.1 Macoma nasuta

3.6.3.2 Nereis virens

3.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Review

3.7.1 Sample Collection

3.7.2 Sample Preparation and Shipping

3.7.3 Analytical Preparation and Testing

3.7.3.1 Total Metals

3.7.3.2 Pesticides

3.7.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls as Congeners

3.7.3.4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

3.7.3.5 Dioxins and Furans

3.7.3.6 Organotins

arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR iii

3.7.3.7 Total Solids, Total Organic Carbon, and Grain Size

3.7.3.8 Tissue PCB Congeners and Lipids

3.7.4 Toxicity Testing

3.7.4.1 Negative Lab Control

3.7.4.2 Positive Lab Control

4 Conclusions

4.1 Summary of Findings

4.2 Recommendations

5 References

TABLES

Table 1 USCG San Francisco Bay Projects – Dredging Disposal Volume Percentages

(2016-2020)

Table 2 Dredge Areas, Depths, Estimated Volumes, and Sample Cores

Table 3 Sample Core Details

Table 4 Sampling, Testing, and Archiving Program

Table 5 Composite Sediment Chemistry Testing Results

Table 6 Summary of COMP C Lead Chemistry Higher Resolution Testing Results

Table 7 Summary of Silver Chemistry Testing Results

Table 8 Summary of Solid Phase Toxicity Testing Results

Table 9 Summary of Elutriate Toxicity Testing Results

Table 10 Calculation of the Limiting Permissible Concentration

Table 11 MET Elutriate Chemistry Testing Results

Table 12 MET Elutriate Toxicity Testing Results

Table 13 Bioaccumulation Testing Survival Results

Table 14 Bioaccumulation Testing PCB Congeners, PAHs, and Lipid Composite Tissue Results –

Macoma nasuta

Table 15 Summary of ERED Derived Toxicity Reference Values – Macoma nasuta

Table 16 Bioaccumulation Testing PCB Congeners, PAHs, and Lipid Composite Tissue Results –

Nereis virens

Table 17 Summary of ERED Derived Toxicity Reference Values – Nereis virens arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR iv

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map

Figure 2 Dredge Site Soundings March 2018

Figure 3 Detail of Sampling Locations

APPENDICES

Appendix A Core Logs, Field Notes, Photographs, and Chain of Custody Forms

Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Report (Eurofins Calscience and ALS Environmental)

Appendix C Data Report, Biological Testing of Aspen Sediments (Pacific EcoRisk)

Appendix D Laboratory Analytical Report - Bioaccumulation Tissue Analysis (Eurofins Calscience)

Appendix E Arcadis QA/QC Chemistry Data Review Summary

Appendix F Environmental Residue-Effects Database References Sources arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ALS ALS Environmental Services, Inc.

Arcadis Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Aspen Approach United States Coast Guard Sector San Francisco Cutter Aspen Mooring and Approach

CEU Civil Engineering Unit

Cullinan Ranch Cullinan Ranch Restoration Project cys cubic yards

°C degrees Celsius

DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DMMO San Francisco Bay Dredged Material Management Office

DOP dredge operation plan

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

EC effect concentration

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EFH Agreement Agreement on Programmatic EFH Conservation Measures for

Maintenance Dredging Conducted Under the LTMS Program

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EMPC estimated maximum possible concentration

ER-L effects range-low

ERED Environmental Residue-Effects Database

Eurofins Eurofins Calscience Inc.

GPS global positioning system

IAA Integrated Alternatives Analysis for Disposal of Dredged Materials for

Coast Guard Projects Within San Francisco Bay Region

LC lethal concentration

LD lethal dose

LOAEL lowest observed adverse effect level

LPC limiting permissible concentration

LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy

MET Modified Elutriate Test mg/kg milligram(s) per kilogram arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR vi

MLLW mean lower low water

Montezuma Wetlands Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project

MS matrix spiked

MSD matrix spiked duplicate ng/kg nanogram(s) per kilogram

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAEL no observed adverse effect level

NOEC no observed effect concentration

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PER Pacific EcoRisk

QA/QC quality assurance and quality control

RWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

SAR Sediment Sampling and Analysis Report

Sector SF United States Coast Guard Sector San Francisco

Site United States Coast Guard Sector San Francisco Cutter Aspen Mooring and Approach, Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California

SF-11 Alcatraz aquatic disposal site

SF-DODS San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site

SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute

SIM Selected ion monitoring

SLC California State Lands Commission

SM Standard Method

SUAD suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

TEQ toxic equivalent

Time 0 Time-Zero

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TOC total organic carbon

TRV toxicity reference value

UF uncertainty factor arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR vii µg/kg microgram(s) per kilogram

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 1

1 INTRODUCTION

On behalf of the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) Civil Engineering Unit (CEU) Oakland, Arcadis U.S., Inc.

(Arcadis) is pleased to submit this Sediment Sampling and Analysis Results Report (SAR) to present the results of both Tier II (physical and chemical) and Tier III (biological) testing of sediments planned to be dredged from the USCG Sector San Francisco (Sector SF) Cutter Aspen Mooring and Approach (Aspen

Approach), Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California (Site, Figure 1). The sampling described herein was conducted as a single event (occurring between July 10 and 16, 2018) in accordance with the

San Francisco Bay Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO)-approved (DMMO 2018a) Sampling and Analysis Plan, USCG Sector San Francisco – Cutter Aspen Mooring and Approach, Yerba Buena

Island, San Francisco, California (SAP; Arcadis 2018) and applicable regulatory guidance. The DMMO approval of the SAP included a request for the following additions, which have been incorporated into this report:

• Add an additional sample location (for a total of 5) in Area B composite area.

• Clarify the dredge limit on the figures to differentiate between the permitted dredge area and the side slope to the permitted dredge area.

1.1 Project Overview

As a result of sediment shoaling, the USCG proposes new dredging of up to 200,000 cubic yards (cys) of sediment over a ten-year period from the Aspen Approach dredge areas at the Site to allow USCG to continue safe operations. The initial planned mechanical (clamshell) dredging is scheduled for 2019 and will be Episode 1 under in-progress permits for the Site (the current estimated volume of material in the dredge footprint is approximately 82,580 cys). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has assigned file No. 2018-00259 for the pending permit.

Before the dredging episode can commence, representative sediments from the area to be dredged were evaluated in accordance with the SAP (Arcadis 2018) to determine what potential effects the disposal of the dredge material would have on the chemical, physical and biological components of the environment to which it will be deposited. A disposal suitability determination will then be made based on a weight-of-evidence approach by the DMMO based on the results found in this report. USCG understands that no dredging may occur until final episode approval is obtained from the appropriate regulatory agencies.

As this is new dredging, all of the material will be deposited at either available beneficial reuse sites (e.g., Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project in Collinsville, California [Montezuma Wetlands] or Cullinan

Ranch Restoration Project near Mare Island, California [Cullinan Ranch]) or at the San Francisco Deep

Ocean Disposal Site (SF-DODS). No change will be necessary to the Integrated Alternatives Analysis for

Disposal of Dredged Materials for Coast Guard Projects Within San Francisco Bay Region (IAA; USCG

2016) for the current 2016 to 2020 timeframe. If anticipated conditions change and a need for maintenance dredging occurs at the Aspen Approach in future years, the DMMO will be notified and a revised IAA will be submitted for approval. Table 1 presents the total dredging IAA volumes per USCG disposal site during the 2016 to 2020 timeframe. The dredge site areas and range of current depths are depicted on Figure 2 and are detailed in Table 2.

arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 2

1.2 Background

The Site has been used by the United States government since 1872, when it was established as a base for the United States Lighthouse Service. The waterfront area located along the proposed dredge area is industrialized. Two stormwater outfalls discharge adjacent to the dredged footprint and two additional outfalls are located just north of the footprint, which collect stormwater from various areas of the sector

(Figures 2 and 3). Caltrans has performed bridge replacement and demolition work to the north of the site

(Figure 1).

Shoaling at the Aspen Approach occurs when suspended sediment from San Francisco Bay moves into protected areas, where it slows and settles. Figure 2 shows the most recent hydrographic survey

(performed on October 16, 2017) and indicates that approximately 82,580 cys of material is currently above a design depth of -24 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW) plus the 2-foot overdepth. As summarized in Table 2, up to a total of 100,000 cys of material is anticipated to be dredged from the

Aspen Approach to achieve the various permitted design depths in feet MLLW, plus the permitted 2-foot over-depth, allowing the Aspen Approach to continue safe operations. A new pre-dredge survey will be provided in the Dredge Operation Plan (DOP), which will be provided prior to dredging. Any material that accretes between the sampling and the dredging time frame is expected to be the same in chemical composition.

Previous dredging has not been completed at the Site, and only a portion of the Site (the area around the boat haul-out and wave screen; Figure 2) has been sampled and tested. It was sampled in 1999 down to

-20 feet MLLW (-18 feet plus a 2-foot overdepth) but ultimately USCG chose not to dredge the area.

Historic sediment testing data from this area can be found in Appendix A of the SAP (Arcadis 2018), represented from the four sediment cores composited into the “Site C” sample.

A thorough review of operations at the Aspen Approach since the last dredging episode shows no incidents of oil spilled into the Bay from USCG activities; however, there was a barge which overturned on

April 7, 2017 and spilled up to 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 300 gallons of lube oil to the east of Yerba

Buena Island. In addition to the independent incident cleanup activities, USCG also responded by booming the Site to prevent migration of the materials to the Site during cleanup operations and observed that no visible material impacted the Site through shore monitoring and plane flyovers. No impacts to

Yerba Buena Island were observed. The sampling described in this SAR should provide sufficient coverage to determine if there are any impacts to the sediment from the incident.

1.3 Approach

The Aspen Approach areas sampled in this study consist of three designated composite sample sites:

one for the area just north of the Aspen Mooring (COMP A), one for the shoaling area approximately 250 feet east of the Aspen Mooring (COMP B), and one for the shoaling area approximately 400 feet east of the Aspen Mooring (COMP C), plus a single reference sample at the Alcatraz disposal site, from the

Alcatraz Environs (SF-11) Station D (Alcatraz-COMP). The study was initiated by attempting to sample each proposed location in the Aspen Approach area to the proposed dredge depth, plus a 2-foot over-depth, via a vibracore device. One core was extracted from each location to achieve the desired sample volume required for laboratory analyses. Proposed and actual sample locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3. Actual sample locations were selected in the field based on the deposition shown in the October arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 3

16, 2017 hydrographic survey (Figure 2), field conditions, equipment limitations, and best professional judgment. The individual core samples obtained from each sample site area were composited

(proportional to length) for a total of one composite sample per designated sample site. Vibracore samples were collected from a total of 13 sample locations and processed into three composite samples from the Aspen Approach areas. A total of 10 surface grabs were also collected from SF-11 Station D and composited (Alcatraz-COMP).

As required by the DMMO Agreement on Programmatic [Essential Fish Habitat] EFH Conservation

Measures for Maintenance Dredging Conducted Under the [Long Term Management Strategy] LTMS

Program (EFH Agreement; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency [USEPA] 2011, 2012), a 6-inch Z-layer immediately below the 2-foot over-dredge allowance at each sample location was also collected. This Z- layer sediment was archived for future testing, if required. Additionally, a Z-layer composite sample was made and archived from each composite location.

Additional Z-layer tests are conducted if deemed necessary by the DMMO based on a review of the results of the chemical, physical and biological tests. Based on discussions with the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service during permitting of the project, they requested that

USCG analyze the Z-layer composites to determine the conditions of the new surface material after dredging.

Area A (COMP A)

One composite sample was made from the individual sediment samples collected from Area A. A total of four sediment core samples (designated as COMP A-1, COMP A-2, COMP A-3, and COMP A-4) were collected to the design depths, including the 2-foot over-depth and homogenized into a single composite sample (designated as COMP A; Table 3) for physical, chemical, and biological testing. Core sampling locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3.

Area B (COMP B)

One composite sample was made from the individual sediment samples collected from Area B. A total of five sediment core samples (designated as COMP B-1, COMP B-2, COMP B-3, COMP B-4, and COMP

B-5) were collected to the design depths, including the 2-foot over-depth and homogenized into a single composite sample (designated as COMP B; Table 3) for physical, chemical, and biological testing. Core sampling locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3.

Area C (COMP C)

One composite sample was made from the individual sediment samples collected from Area C. A total of four sediment core samples (designated as COMP C-1, COMP C-2, COMP C-3, and COMP C-4) were collected to the design depth, including the 2-foot over-depth and homogenized into a single composite sample (designated as COMP C; Table 3) for physical, chemical, and biological testing. Core sampling locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3.

All three composite samples (COMP A, COMP B, and COMP C) were submitted for Tier II physical and chemical laboratory analyses and Tier III biological analyses. The reference site location composite sample (Alcatraz-COMP) was also submitted for Tier II physical and chemical analyses, and Tier III biological analysis. The SF-DODS reference area database (USEPA 2018) was used in lieu of collecting a concurrent SF-DODS reference site sample.

arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 4

1.4 Report Organization

This report presents the results of the sampling and analysis conducted at the three designated composite sediment sample sites (COMP A, COMP B, and COMP C) from the Aspen Approach, plus the single reference site composite sample (Alcatraz-COMP). A detailed description of field methods, including sample collection, processing, and handling, is provided in Section 2. Results and discussion of the physical, chemical and biological analyses are presented in Section 3. Section 4 summarizes the conclusions for this study. References cited throughout the text are provided in Section 5. Appendix A contains the sediment collection core logs, field notes, photographic documentation from the sampling event, and the chain of custody documentation related to the collected samples. Appendix B contains the chemistry laboratory analytical report for the bulk sediment samples. Appendix C contains the data report for the biological testing of the Site sediments. Appendix D contains the laboratory analytical report for the bioaccumulation tissue analysis. Appendix E contains the Arcadis quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC) chemistry data review summary. Appendix F contains the Environmental Residue-Effects

Database data utilized.

2 METHODS

The following sections summarize the methods used to conduct the sediment sampling, as well as the physical, chemical, and biological analyses. Sediment sampling and analysis methods followed guidelines set forth by the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. Inland

Testing Manual (USEPA and USACE 1998), DMMO Public Notice 01-01 (Guidelines for Implementing the

Inland Testing Manual in the San Francisco Bay Region; USACE 2001), the EFH Agreement LTMS

Program (USACE and USEPA 2011, 2012), the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean

Disposal guidance (USEPA and USACE 1991), and those specified in the SAP (Arcadis 2018), except where noted.

2.1 Sampling Methods

The Site samples were collected using a vibracore device on board the vessel Sea Dog, which was operated by TEG Oceanographic Services of Santa Cruz, California, under the direct supervision of

Arcadis. Sediment grab sampling of the Alcatraz disposal site (Alcatraz Environs Station D), was conducted by John Brezina and Associates of Dillon Beach, California. All necessary precautions were taken to ensure personnel and equipment safety and to prevent contamination of sediment core samples.

The samples were processed and composited at the Site, and then submitted to Eurofins Calscience Inc.

(Eurofins) or ALS Environmental Services, Inc. (ALS) for Tier II physical and chemical analyses and to

Pacific EcoRisk (PER) for Tier III biological analyses.

2.1.1 Marine Core Sampling

Navigation to the target core locations was achieved using a differential global positioning system (GPS) aboard the sample vessel. Figures 2 and 3 identify the dredging areas, with the proposed and actual sample locations. Water depth was determined with a hydro-acoustic fathometer and confirmed using a weighted tape measure. All depths were converted to MLLW measurements using daily NOAA tide tables nearest to the Site (San Francisco, California; Station ID 9414317). The actual GPS sample coordinates arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 5 and MLLW depths were recorded in the field and are detailed as part of the core log (Table 3 and

Appendix A).

Sediment samples were collected from the Aspen Approach area using a 3.5-inch pneumatic vibracore equipped with a non-contaminating soft poly tubing liner to maintain core integrity and minimize potential contamination. The vibracore device was deployed via an A-frame aboard the Sea Dog. The antenna for the GPS unit was secured to the top of the A-frame; however, the A-frame and GPS unit may not have always been directly over the true sample point as a result of currents, winds, obstacles, or other limitations associated with the sample vessel. Consequently, the actual sample locations shown on

Figures 2 and 3 are a combination of the recorded sample location and best professional judgment. Any deviations (those greater than 25 feet) between the planned and the actual sample locations are detailed in Table 3 and in Section 3.1 below.

Every attempt was made to capture the longest core available to fully characterize the entire vertical extent of the Aspen Approach dredge material. The proposed sampling depths corresponding to the dredge design depth of 24 feet MLLW plus a 2-foot overdredge and the 6-inch “Z” layer immediately below the overdredge allowance were achieved for all of the individual sample locations. Aspen Approach sample locations were within the dredge footprint, and all samples collected are considered representative of each associated dredge area.

Relevant field information for each core sample was recorded in the field notes, core log sheets, and chain of custody forms. Copies of the original core logs and chain of custody forms are provided in

Appendix A. Table 3 details the coordinates and depths and provides any relevant observations for each sampling location.

2.1.2 Sediment Processing

After collection of each sediment core, the intact core within the vibracore liner was placed into a tray on the deck of the sample vessel and visually inspected. The liner was cut open and each core was profiled by color, odor, texture, and grain size. No oil residue, staining, or significant odor was apparent in any of the individual cores. All core data were recorded in the field on core log sheets (Appendix A).

A representative sample of each core within the Aspen Approach sampling areas was combined

(proportional to its length) into one complete composite sample per area. Each composite was thoroughly mixed to a consistent color and texture. The compositing was performed during the sampling activities, and the resulting composite sample designations were COMP A, COMP B, and COMP C. In addition, a Z-layer sample was retained from each of the 13 core locations, and a Z-layer composite was retained from each of the three site composite areas for potential future analysis (COMP A-Z, COMP B-Z, and COMP

C-Z; Table 4). A blind duplicate of the COMP C sample, designated BD-Aspen-071618, the reference site location, Alcatraz-COMP, and the Z-layer composite samples (COMP A-Z, COMP B-Z, and COMP C-Z) were also submitted to the laboratory for analysis.

The composite samples were placed into pre-cleaned glass jars, sealed, placed in coolers, and shipped

(on ice) using appropriate chain of custody protocol to Eurofins in Garden Grove, California, for physical and chemical analysis. In addition, archived subsamples of each of the individual sampling locations, the

Site composite samples, the individual Z-layer samples, and the Z-layer composite samples were placed into food-grade polyethylene bags, sealed, placed in a cooler, and shipped (on ice) using appropriate arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 6 chain of custody protocol to Eurofins. The archives were stored for possible future chemical analysis

(pending the initial testing results). Eurofins is an Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

(ELAP) certified laboratory (ELAP Certificate #2944). Due to an initial abnormal elevated silver result and a significant difference in concentration when the sample was rerun at Eurofins to confirm the initial result, retained sample volumes were repackaged on ice and forwarded to ALS for an independent analysis of silver. ALS is an ELAP-certified laboratory (ELAP Certificate #2795).

The Aspen Approach and reference site composite samples were also placed into food-grade polyethylene bags, sealed, placed in coolers, and shipped (on ice) using appropriate chain of custody protocol to PER in Fairfield, California, for biological testing. PER is an ELAP certified laboratory (ELAP

Certificate #2085).

All samples (i.e., analytical, biological, and archival) were stored in the dark at 4 degrees Celsius (°C) and/or -20°C at all times until used. Proper chain of custody procedures were followed at all times and at all stages of the collection and analysis process.

2.2 Physical, Chemical, and Toxicity Analysis of Sediments, Sediment Elutriates, and Bioaccumulation Tissues

2.2.1 Physical and Chemical Testing of Sediment

Each of the composite samples (COMP A, COMP B, COMP C, COMP A-Z, COMP B-Z, COMP C-Z, BD-

Aspen-071618, and Alcatraz-COMP) were tested for the Tier II physical and chemical parameters as shown in Table 5. Reanalyzed metals data are shown in Tables 6 and 7 (see Section 3.3.1 for additional discussion). The methods and detection limits specified for the analyses correspond to those specified in the SAP (Arcadis 2018).

All bulk sediment chemical analysis results were reported on a dry weight basis, except for total solids, which were reported in wet weight. Grain size was reported on an as-received basis. The laboratory analytical reports for bulk sediment are provided in Appendix B.

2.2.2 Toxicity Testing of Sediment and Standard Sediment Elutriate

Each of the primary composite samples (COMP A, COMP B, COMP C, and Alcatraz-COMP) were tested for the Tier III biological parameters as shown in Tables 8 and 9. The test methods specified for the testing correspond to those specified in the SAP (Arcadis 2018). The laboratory biological testing data report for the sediment and standard sediment elutriate is provided in Appendix C. Table 10 shows the

Limiting Permissible Concentration calculation using data from Tables 5 and 9.

2.2.3 Chemical Analysis of Modified Elutriate Test Elutriate

A Modified Elutriate Test (MET) elutriate was prepared from each of the primary site and reference site composite samples (COMP A, COMP B, COMP C, and Alcatraz-COMP) and was analyzed for the metals parameters shown in Table 11, which corresponds to those specified in the SAP (Arcadis 2018). The laboratory analytical reports for MET elutriate chemical results are provided in Appendix B.

arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 7

2.2.4 Toxicity Testing of Modified Elutriate Test Elutriate

The MET elutriates were also used for the bioassay parameters shown in Table 12, which correspond to those specified in the SAP (Arcadis 2018). The laboratory biological testing data report for MET elutriate bioassay results are provided in Appendix C.

2.2.5 Chemical Analysis of Bioaccumulation Tissues

After 28 days of exposure, the sediment from each bioaccumulation replicate of the polychaete Nereis virens and the bivalve Macoma nasuta were sieved and the surviving polychaetes and bivalves were collected and enumerated (Table 13). The laboratory biological testing data report for bioaccumulation exposures are provided in Appendix C. The organisms were then rinsed with clean seawater and allowed to depurate (empty gut) prior to being frozen and shipped to Eurofins for chemical analysis. Prior to chemical analysis, the tissues were composited, homogenized, and freeze dried appropriate to the desired composite and analysis.

The USCG coordinated with the DMMO (2018b) to determine which chemicals of concern should be analyzed from the bioaccumulation tissues for both Macoma nasuta and Nereis virens. Based on the trigger level exceedances (San Francisco Estuary Institute [SFEI] 2018) of the observed total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs; COMP A and B) and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners (COMP

C) in the sediments, they were selected as the chemicals of concern from the bioaccumulation tissue exposures. Each of the five tissue replicates from each control and site sediment sample were composited into single samples (the three Aspen Approach Site sediment exposures, the Time 0 exposures, the control exposures, and the Alcatraz-COMP exposure) and analyzed by Eurofins. Site samples were analyzed for the observed compounds found (COMP A and COMP B were analyzed for

PAHs and COMP C was analyzed for PCB Congeners). The control tissues (Time 0, CONTROL exposures, and Alcatraz-COMP samples) were analyzed for both PAHs and PCB Congeners.

Percent lipids were analyzed for each of the composite tissue samples. Percent lipids are used to determine partitioning of PCBs between the organic carbon in the sediments and the lipids in the exposed organisms and give a measure of bioavailability. The lipid content of organisms contains the highest levels of hydrophobic compounds such as PAHs and PCB congeners.

2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures

QA/QC procedures were performed by field samplers and the laboratory for each sampling method or analysis, as required by the SAP (Arcadis 2018) or analytical method.

2.3.1 Sample Collection Quality Assurance and Quality Control

QA objectives for sample collection are designed to preserve sample integrity by facilitating proper cleaning, collection, chain of custody, labeling, and shipping techniques. Sampling equipment was either new or cleaned prior to each sampling effort and rinsed between sampling locations to avoid cross-contamination. Logbooks were maintained by field personnel to document local conditions and any deviations from protocol in the sampling effort. Samples were collected into clean plastic bags with no headspace or into glass containers with Teflon®-lined lids. All personnel coming into contact with arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 8 samples wore disposable nitrile gloves and other protective gear to further promote clean conditions in the field. Chain of custody records were maintained in the field and through the shipment of the samples, documenting the sampling date, time, volume, and other pertinent information. Samples were clearly labeled with location identification designations using waterproof pens. Samples were stored on ice in the dark and shipped as soon as possible to the testing laboratories.

2.3.2 Physical, Chemical, and Toxicity Characterization Quality Assurance and

Quality Control

QC objectives for analyses conducted by Eurofins, ALS, and PER are designed to meet the certification, accreditation, and contractual requirements of such agencies or programs as the California Department of

Health Service, USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, USACE, and other state and federal programs.

Standard practices during physical and chemical characterization include the analysis of method blanks, laboratory control samples, matrix spiked (MS) samples, and matrix spiked duplicate (MSD) samples with each analytical batch of samples (20 or fewer) that is processed through the laboratory. Standard QA/QC procedures during toxicity testing include the use of negative controls, positive controls, test replicates and measurements of water quality during testing. Arcadis conducted an independent and thorough data quality review on all analytical results received to determine that the data met the acceptability criteria of the USEPA guidance on organic (USEPA 1999) and inorganic (USEPA 2004) contract laboratory data review. Procedural blank results, reagent blank results, and standard reference materials were reviewed and used to validate contaminant concentrations observed in the sediments. The results of the data validation for the chemical and physical testing reviews are presented in Section 3.7 and Appendix E.

Results of control exposures and reference toxicant tests (positive controls) were also independently reviewed and used to validate the biological responses observed and are presented in Section 3.7.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The following sections present the results of the physical and chemical analyses as well as the toxicity tests conducted in accordance with the SAP (Arcadis 2018). Table 5 summarizes the results of the physical and chemical analyses for the composite samples and include the blind duplicate for reference, however, the blind duplicate results are not included in this discussion. Table 6 summarized the COMP C higher resolution analysis for lead. Table 7 summarizes the additional analysis of silver related to an initial abnormal elevated concentration. The results of the toxicity tests and are shown in Tables 8 and 9. The elutriate suitability concentration comparisons are shown in Table 10. The elutriate chemical results are included in Table 11. Table 12 shows results of the MET toxicity testing. The bioaccumulation survival results are presented in Table 13. The results of the bioaccumulation tissue analysis for PCB congeners and PAHs are presented in Tables 14 for Macoma nasuta and 16 for Nereis virens. A comparative study of PCB congeners and PAHs for Macoma nasuta is included in Table 15 and for Nereis virens in Table

17. All original laboratory reports from Eurofins and PER are presented in Appendices B, C, and D.

3.1 Sample Collection

As described in Section 2, sediment was collected from three Aspen Approach sample areas (COMP A, COMP B, and COMP C) and a single reference site location (Alcatraz-COMP). A total of 13 site sample arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 9 locations and 10 reference site surface grabs were collected during the sampling program (Table 3).

Some Site locations had to be moved from the original planned locations due to either access issues

(COMP 3; approximately 40 feet) or repeated refusal (COMP 2 and COMP 4; approximately 30 feet each). Alternate locations were chosen to maintain planned sediment depths and therefore core thicknesses as best as possible, and as close as possible to planned locations.

A detailed description of each core is provided in the core logs (Appendix A). No stratified layers or evidence of impacts (i.e., staining or odors) were observed that warranted additional testing. The target core length (design depth + 2-foot over-dredge) was achieved at each of the vibracore sampling locations. In addition, a Z-layer sample was retained from each of the 13 individual site sample samples and archived for potential future analysis. The chain of custody documentation for the collected samples is provided in Appendix A.

3.2 Physical Characterization

The Site samples were comprised of fines (ranging from 56.2 to 59.4 percent silt and clay) with lesser amounts of sand and gravel (ranging from 40.2 to 43.3 percent) (Table 5). This is less than the primarily sand makeup of the Alcatraz-COMP value (99.8 percent sand and gravel). The Z-layer samples were similarly comprised of fines (ranging from 54.3 to 56.9 percent silt and clay). The fines content of the

Aspen Approach sediments (the sum of the silt and clay fractions) is consistent with the fine-grained sediments (greater than 40 percent fines and less than 100 percent fines) in the San Francisco Bay ambient dataset (RWQCB 2001; SFEI 2016) for chemical analysis comparison purposes.

3.3 Chemical Analyses

The results of the chemical analyses of the bulk sediment are summarized below for the Site composite samples and are presented in Table 5. Where applicable, the results are compared to the following guideline values:

• Alcatraz-COMP reference area concentrations (SF-11, Station D);

• SF-DODS reference area database values (USEPA 2018);

• Effects range-low (ER-L) screening values (Long et al. 1995);

• Tributyltin screening values (USEPA 1996) developed for bulk sediment;

• Selenium in sediment guideline value (Beckon et al. 2008);

• San Francisco Bay ambient guideline values for sediments with greater than 40 percent fines and less than 100 percent fines (RWQCB 2001; SFEI 2016);

• Montezuma Wetlands disposal site criteria values for dredge material use as cover or fill (San

Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] 2012);

• Cullinan Ranch disposal site criteria values for dredge material use as cover (RWQCB 2010); and

• The most recent bioaccumulation trigger levels developed from the Regional Monitoring Program

(SFEI 2018).

arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 10

Exceedances of a guideline value do not preclude a sample from a suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal (SUAD) determination, as these evaluations are used in a weight-of-evidence approach in determining disposal suitability.

3.3.1 Total Metals

Metals were detected in all of the Site sediment samples analyzed (Table 5).

• Total arsenic concentrations in the sediment samples ranged from 7.99 to 11.1 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The sample concentrations exceeded the Alcatraz-COMP concentration (4.05 mg/kg), the SF-DODS reference area database value (5.33 mg/kg), and the ER-L value (8.2 mg/kg), however all of the Aspen Approach samples were equal to or below the San Francisco Bay ambient and Montezuma Wetlands/Cullinan Ranch use as cover guideline values (13.9 mg/kg and 15.3 mg/kg, respectively). The Z-layer samples had similar total arsenic concentrations (ranging from 8.74 to 10.9 mg/kg).

• Total cadmium concentrations ranged from 0.211 to 0.296 mg/kg. Cadmium was not detected in the

Alcatraz-COMP sample. All of the Aspen Approach samples were below the remaining guideline values. The Z-layer samples had similar total cadmium concentrations (all were non-detect at concentrations less than 0.498 mg/kg).

• Total chromium concentrations ranged from 68.6 to 71.2 mg/kg. Sample concentrations exceeded the

Alcatraz-COMP concentration (27.4 mg/kg); however, all of the Aspen Approach samples were below the remaining guideline values. The Z-layer samples had similar total chromium concentrations

(ranging from 60.5 to 69.7 mg/kg).

• Total copper concentrations ranged from 34.8 to 49.3 mg/kg. All of the Aspen Approach samples exceeded the Alcatraz-COMP concentration (6.98 mg/kg) and the ER-L guideline value (34.0 mg/kg);

however, all of the Aspen Approach samples were below the remaining guideline values. The Z-layer samples had similar total copper concentrations (ranging from 30.8 to 38.5 mg/kg).

• Total lead concentrations ranged from 19.6 to 104 mg/kg. All sample concentrations exceeded the

Alcatraz-COMP concentration (5.08 mg/kg), and the COMP C sample exceeded the San Francisco

Bay ambient guideline value (25.1 mg/kg), SF-DODS reference area database (26 mg/kg), the ER-L guideline value (46.7 mg/kg), and the Montezuma Wetland/Cullinan Ranch use as cover guideline value (43.2 mg/kg). All of the Aspen Approach samples were below the Montezuma Wetland use as fill guideline value (218 mg/kg).

o Due to the elevated lead concentrations observed in COMP C, the original sample was re-analyzed, and the individual core retains making up the COMP C sample (COMP C-1, COMP

C-2, COMP C-3, and COMP C-4) were also analyzed to validate the initial composite result and determine if the lead concentration was observed in all locations (higher resolution testing). These results are summarized in Table 6.

o The rerun of the primary sample (COMP C) had a lead concentration of 174 mg/kg.

o The lead concentration results from the individual cores ranged from 22.5 to 260 mg/kg.

o The COMP C-2 (37.6 mg/kg) and COMP C-4 (22.5 mg/kg) were both below the ER-L and arcadis.com 2018 USCG Aspen Mooring and Approach SAR 11

Montezuma Wetland/Cullinan Ranch use as cover guideline value.

o The COMP C-1 (260 mg/kg) and COMP C-3 (56 mg/kg) were both above the ER-L and

Montezuma Wetland/Cullinan Ranch use as cover guideline value and only COMP C-1 was above the Montezuma Wetland use as fill guideline value.

o The Z-layer samples had lower total lead concentrations (ranging from 10.8 to 29.3 mg/kg).

These were below all the guideline values except the Alcatraz-COMP concentration.

• Total mercury concentrations ranged from 0.263 to 0.421 mg/kg. Mercury was not detected in the

Alcatraz-COMP sample. All sediment samples exceeded the SF-DODS reference area database value (0.2 mg/kg) and the ER-L guideline value (0.15 mg/kg). The COMP B and COMP C samples additionally exceeded the San Francisco Ambient guideline value (0.332 mg/kg) and the trigger level for bioaccumulation (0.33 mg/kg). All of the Aspen Approach samples were below the remaining guideline values as well as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) value of 0.47 mg/kg (SFEI 2018).

The DMMO no longer requires bioaccumulation testing above the trigger level for bioaccumulation

(USACE and USEPA 2012). The Z-layer samples had lower total mercury concentrations (ranging from 0.150 to 0.319 mg/kg). These were below the San Francisco Bay Ambient and Montezuma

Wetland use as fill guideline values, as well as the trigger level for bioaccumulation.

• Total nickel concentrations ranged from 63.4 to 73.3 mg/kg. All of the Aspen Approach samples exceeded the Alcatraz-COMP concentration (23.4 mg/kg) and the ER-L guideline value (20.9 mg/kg);

however, all of the Aspen Approach samples were below the remaining guideline values. The Z-layer samples had similar total nickel concentrations (ranging from 62.5 to 75.2 mg/kg).

• Total selenium concentrations ranged from 0.16 to 0.24 mg/kg. Selenium was not detected in the

Alcatraz-COMP sample. All of the Aspen Approach samples were below the remaining guideline values.