USCG Noyo River Dredging SAPr_30May2019.pdf

FINAL

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN REPORT

SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION STUDY TO SUPPORT

MAINTENANCE DREDGING AT

COAST GUARD STATION NOYO RIVER

FORT BRAGG, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredged Material Management Office Operations and Readiness Division

San Francisco District 1455 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94103-1398 Attention: Chief Jim Mazza

(415) 503-6775

Submitted by:

United States Coast Guard

CEU Oakland 1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N

Oakland, California 94612

May 31, 2019

Contract HSCG50-14-D-PSL002 Task Order 70Z08818FPQQ11600

FINAL

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN REPORT

SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION STUDY TO SUPPORT

MAINTENANCE DREDGING AT

FORT BRAGG, CALIFORNIA

MAY 31, 2019

Contract HSCG50-14-D-PSL002 Task Order 70Z08818FPQQ11600

REVIEW AND APPROVALS:

Prepared by: May 31, 2019 Kimbrie Gobbi

Wood plc Project Scientist (858-300-4326)

Date

Approved by: May 31, 2019 Erin Hale

Wood plc Project Manager (503-639-4016)

Concurred by: May 31, 2019 Barry Snyder

Wood plc QA/QC Supervisor (858-300-4320)

Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Report Sediment Characterization Study to Support Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Project Summary ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1.1 Purpose and Objectives ......................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2 Proposed and Alternative Placement Options ........................................ 1-2

1.2 Site Description .................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................. 1-2

2.0 SITE HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Dredge Design ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Sample Design ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Sampling Collection Locations ............................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Test Sediment Collection ........................................................................ 3-2

3.2.3 Physical and Chemical Testing .............................................................. 3-9

3.2.4 MET and DI-WET Tests ......................................................................... 3-9

3.2.5 Data Review and Sediment Quality Guidelines .................................... 3-10

4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Physical Testing Results .................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Chemical Testing Results ................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 MET and DI-WET Elutriate Results .................................................................... 4-3

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY ........................................ 5-1

5.1 Bulk Sediment Chemistry Data Quality .............................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Sample Holding Times ........................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Blanks ..................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.3 Surrogates .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.4 Matrix Spikes .......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.5 Certified Reference Material ................................................................... 5-1

6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ 8-1

9.0 UNITS OF MEASURE .................................................................................................... 9-1

Page i

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Key Project Personnel ........................................................................................... 1-9 Table 2-1. Proposed Permitting and Dredging Schedule Station Noyo River ........................ 2-2 Table 3-1. Coast Guard Station Noyo River Proposed Dredging Locations, Design

Depths, and Volumes ............................................................................................ 3-1 Table 3-2. USCG Station Noyo River Vibracore Log Table (February, 2019) ........................ 3-3 Table 3-3. Chemical Analyses of Sediment .......................................................................... 3-11 Table 4-1a. Station Noyo River Sediment Grain Size Results ................................................. 4-1 Table 4-1b. Station Noyo River Sediment Chemistry Results (Dry Weight) ............................. 4-5 Table 4-1c. Station Noyo River Water and Elutriate Chemistry Results (Wet Weight) ............. 4-9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1a. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-1b. Project Location ..................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 1-1c. Temporary Disposal Site Option ........................................................................... 1-7 Figure 2-1. Historical Sampling Locations ............................................................................... 2-3 Figure 3-1. Actual Sediment Collection Locations and Composite Areas – Station Noyo

River ...................................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-2. Noyo River Discharge During Week of Sample Collection .................................... 3-7

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A VIBRACORE FIELD SAMPLING LOGS

APPENDIX B VIBRACORE PHOTOGRAPH LOGS

APPENDIX C ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS

APPENDIX D AGENCY COORESPONDENCE

Page ii

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) proposes to conduct a maintenance dredging project (Project) at its Station Noyo River (SNR) in Fort Bragg, California (Figure 1-1a). A 2017 bathymetric survey of this area indicated that dredging was necessary for this location for safe navigation and berthing of USCG vessels. The Project will involve maintenance dredging over a period of 10-years to maintain a depth of -10 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) plus a 2-foot overdredge (OD) allowance to -12 feet MLLW within the berthing area at SNR. Prior maintenance dredging for this area was performed under the 2002 Nationwide Permit; however, this permit is now expired and new permits will need to be obtained. Consequently, the USCG seeks to obtain a new 10-year permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for maintenance dredging at SNR with the first event scheduled to occur in July 15 to October 15, 2020. The previously 0.762 acre permitted maintenance dredging area that has been periodically dredged by the USCG and the USACE at SNR is shown in Figure 1-1b.

1.1 Project Summary

The proposed Project includes dredging and removal of up to 10,000 cubic yards within in the previously permitted dredge footprint with the initial dredge event anticipated to remove approximately 126 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from a 0.069 acre footprint at SNR. The initial dredge volume is based on a bathymetric survey performed in August 2018 that indicated only a small amount of maintenance dredging was needed at this time (Figure 1-1b) in order to safely berth existing USCG vessels; however, the USCG is requesting a 10-year permit that would cover the entire 0.762 acre area necessary to access the SNR berths. For the initial dredge event/current project, samples of the proposed dredge materials were collected and tested according to protocols outlined for disposal at the North Jetty Upland Placement Site located at the mouth of the SNR River (Figure 1-1c). This area is leased by the Noyo River Harbor District (Harbor District) from the City of Fort Bragg and is considered as a temporary placement site.

The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the dredged material characterization study (Study) was designed following protocols described in the last USACE SAP Report (SAPr) for the navigation channel concurrent with and adjacent to the Project footprint (USACE, 2016).

Dredged materials from the USACE’s last dredging event and this Project will be permanently disposed at another location once a final placement site has been confirmed by the USACE.

1.1.1 Purpose and Objectives

In support of the proposed Project, the USCG conducted a Study to identify and confirm suitable disposal option(s) for the proposed dredged materials. Study results are also intended to support environmental permitting necessary for the Project. This document serves as the SAPr for the current Study. This SAPr outlines federally approved sampling and analysis procedures that were employed to assess the disposal suitability of the proposed dredged materials as well as the results of these analyses.

A Project-specific SAP was submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the USACE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Noyo River Harbor

Page 1-1

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

District for review on December 7, 2018. The Study assessed the physical, chemical, and leaching characteristics of the proposed dredged materials.

1.1.2 Proposed and Alternative Placement Options

Disposal site suitability was assessed under guidance from the USACE and USEPA. Because upland placement is the preferred disposal option, the Study was generally designed using protocols outlined in the Evaluation of Dredged Materials Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the United States, USEPA-823-B-98-004 (Inland Testing Manual [ITM]) (USEPA/USACE, 1998), and Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal at Island, Nearshore, or Upland Confined Disposal Facilities (USACE, 2003).

1.2 Site Description

The Project is maintenance dredging at USCG Station Noyo River in Fort Bragg, California (Figure 1-1b). The Project will potentially include (1) dredging and screening of sediment within the mooring and approach, (2) temporary disposal at the North Jetty Upland Placement Site at the mouth of the Noyo River next to Highway 1 (Figure 1-1c), and (3) permanent disposal at another to-be-determined location, or upland disposal at an appropriately permitted landfill.

The 0.069- acre area to be dredged during the initial episode lies within the Noyo River less than 1 mile upriver from the Noyo Harbor in an industrialized area used primarily for marine vessel maintenance and fishing operations. Noyo Harbor is located in Mendocino County, approximately 130 miles northwest of San Francisco and approximately 145 miles south-southeast of Crescent City. The initial dredge episode involves dredging of sediments to a design depth of -10 feet MLLW with removal of approximately 126 cy of sediment (including a 2-foot OD allowance to -12 feet MLLW) and up to 10,000 cy over the life of the permit. The proposed dredging location, design depth, and estimated dredging volume for the Project is summarized in Section 3.0.

1.3 Roles and Responsibilities

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood) was contracted by the USCG to perform the Study. Key project personnel and their contact information are listed in Table 1-1.

Certain services were provided by the following subcontractors:

• Six Scientific Service (SSS)1 – Vessel operation and station positioning services and vibracore equipment and operation;

• EcoAnalysts Laboratory – Modified Elutriate Testing;

• Physis Laboratories, Inc. (Physis)2 – Physical, sediment chemistry, elutriate chemistry analyses; and

• Merkel & Associates (M&A) – Eelgrass and Caulerpa spp. surveys within each of the proposed dredged footprints.

1 Leviathan Tri-toon CF1428 CN 2 Physis is a laboratory certified by the California Department of Public Health and the U.S. Department of Defense Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOD-ELAP) certification number 2769.

Page 1-2

Path: Q:\3151_AquaticResources\USCG\NoyoRiver\MXD\ReportFigures\SAP_Report\Fig1-1a_ProjectVicinity.mxd, chris.nixon 5/1/2019 1 inch = 5 miles

0 52.5 Miles °

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©

FIGURE 1-1a Project Vicinity

Sampling and Analysis Plan Report Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Fort Bragg, CA

Project Location

Lake County

Mendocino County

Humboldt County

Glenn County

Colusa County

Trinity County Tehama

County

Project Location

Page 1-3

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California

This page intentionally left blank

Page 1-4

FIGURE 1-1b Project Location

Sampling and Analysis Plan Report Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Fort Bragg, CA

Path: \\Sdg1-fs1\gis\3151_AquaticResources\USCG\NoyoRiver\MXD\ReportFigures\SAP_Report\Fig1-1b_ProjectLocation.mxd, chris.nixon 4/25/2019

-10

-5

-6 -10

-15

-6

-5

-13

-11

-13

-11

-11 -7

-4

-15

-6

-15

-14

-5

-5

-5

-5

-7

-3

-13

-10

-9

-10

-12

-12

-5

-5

-1

-14

-14

-2

-12 -5

-4

-8

-15

-2

-8

-6

-3

-12 -15

-14

-8 -11

-3

-13-15

-5

-4 -6

-9

-4

-10

-5

-7

-13

-1

-14

-6

-6

-5

-7

-3

-8 -9

-6

-11

-7

-10

-4

-11

-5 -6

-7

-6

-8

-12

-14

-9

-10

-13

-12

-11

-10

-9

-8 -13

-7

°0 7035 Feet

1 inch = 70 feet

Service Layer Credits: Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency

Proposed Dredge Area

Permitted Maintenance Dredge Area

Docks

Eelgrass

Eelgrass Buffer (5 Feet)

Bathymetry

Page 1-5

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Page 1-6

Path: Q:\3151_AquaticResources\USCG\NoyoRiver\MXD\ReportFigures\SAP_Report\Fig1-1c_Temporary_Disposal_SiteOption.mxd, chris.nixon 5/1/2019 1 inch = 0 miles

0 500250 Feet °

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors

FIGURE 1-1c Temporary Disposal Site Option

Sampling and Analysis Plan Report Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Fort Bragg, CA

Temporary Disposal Site

Permitted Maintenance Dredge Area

Page 1-7

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Page 1-8

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Table 1-1.

Key Project Personnel

Organization Name Title Office Phone Cellular Phone USCG Gilda Barboza Coast Guard Project Manager (510) 637-5512 N/A

USCG BMC Gabriel L. Tait Executive Petty Officer Coast Guard Contact Station Noyo River

N/A (707) 964-6612

Wood Erin Hale Wood Project Manager (503) 639-3400 (805) 403-4802

Wood Barry Snyder Wood QA/QC Supervisor (858) 300-4320 (858) 354-8340

Wood Kimbrie Gobbi Wood

Field Manager/Assistant Project Manager

(858) 300-4326 (858) 869-9410

Wood Tyler Huff Wood Health and Safety Manager (858) 300-4322 (858) 449-2334

Wood Corey Sheredy Wood Field Technician (858) 300-4316 (831) 359-7761

Six Scientific Service Chris Clark Boat Captain and

Vibracore Equipment Operator N/A (760) 908-5753

EcoAnalysts Brian Hester EcoAnalysts

Project Manager and QA/QC Specialist

(360) 297-6045 (360) 461-5784

Merkel & Associates Lawrence Honma M&A Project Manager (858) 560-5465 (858) 229-1444

Physis Environmental

Laboratory Misty Mercier Marine Chemistry Project Manager (714) 602-5320 N/A

Notes:

N/A - not applicable QA/QC - quality assurance/quality control

Page 1-9

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Page 1-10

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

2.0 SITE HISTORY

The Noyo Harbor channel was last dredged by the USACE to a depth of -10 feet MLLW in the 2016 season (July to October). Approximately 10,000 cy of material were dredged and placed in the designated North Jetty Upland Placement Site at the mouth of the Noyo River (Figure 1-1c).

Due to severe wave action in the harbor channel entrance, dredging in this area was not completed, and approximately 5,000 cy remained (USACE, 2018).

Prior to 2016, the Harbor District maintenance dredged 35,206 cy (up to 46,994 cy with the OD allowance) from the Noyo River mooring basin between September and October 2015 using a suction dredge under USACE NWP 35 (USACE, 2015). Sediment from this dredging event was also placed at the North Jetty Upland Placement Site between Highway 1 and the Noyo River (Figure 1-1c). This area is currently leased from the City of Fort Bragg by the Harbor District.

The last USCG dredging project at SNR was evaluated by CDM Federal Programs Corporation in 2005. The 2005 Study evaluated SNR sediments using Green Book and ITM Tier II testing protocol. Prior to the 2005 SAP, a 1998 report was generated that also evaluated SNR sediments for disposal consideration. Both the 2005 SAP and the 1998 report are included in Appendix A of the Study SAP (USCG, 2018).

Station Noyo River has been routinely dredged by the USCG on a renewed multi-year permit.

The current Study will be performed to provide information for applications to renew the next multi-year permit cycle for up to 10 years. Sediment testing results of material collected for regular updates of the permit and for unconfined disposal have found that the material is clean and suitable for near-shore placement and beach replenishment (e.g., the sediments are comprised of ≥80 percent sand). Historical sampling took place in 2015 and 2009 at locations detailed in Figure 2-1.

The last USACE permit number for USCG dredging at SNR was File Number 27299N and Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certificate Order Number 86-51 WDID ID 1B06014WNME. Under the historical permit conditions, the material was approved for placement offshore at Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal Site (HOODS) or a designated upland placement site. In 2006, 20,000 cy were placed at the upland placement site.

Dredging at this site is currently necessary because access to the berthing areas are restricted by sediment accumulated at the east end of and under the pier and floating dock. Additional information regarding placement site planning will be discussed with the USCG, Harbor District, and agencies if the results of this Study indicate that it is feasible to perform dredging and disposal within the expedited USCG dredging timeframe necessary for this Project. Table 2-1 is a schedule for key milestones associated with permitting for dredging and disposal at SNR. The USCG anticipates dredging to occur at SNR in July 15- October 15, 2020.

Page 2-1

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Table 2-1.

Proposed Permitting and Dredging Schedule Station Noyo River

Task Name Duration Start Finish Agency Review of SAP 7 days Monday 12/3/18 Monday 12/10/18 Sediment collection 1 day Thursday 2/28/2019 Thursday 2/28/2019 Final Draft SAR submittal for agency review 7 days Thursday 6/13/2019 Thursday 6/20/2019 Station Noyo River Dredging TBD July 15, 2020 October 15, 2020

Page 2-2

FIGURE 2-1

Historical Sampling Locations

Sampling and Analysis Plan Report Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Fort Bragg, CA

Path: Q:\3151_AquaticResources\USCG\NoyoRiver\MXD\ReportFigures\SAP_Report\Fig2-1_HistoricalLocations.mxd, chris.nixon 5/1/2019

NOYO-2015-1-1

NOYO-2015-1-2

NOYO-2015-1-3

NOYO-2015-1-4

NOYO-2015-2-1

NOYO-2015-2-2

NOYO-2015-2-3

NOYO-2015-2-4

NOYO-2015-2-5

NH-2009-1-1

NH-2009-1-1

NH-2009-1-2

NH-2009-1-2 NH-2009-1-3

NH-2009-1-4

NH-2009-2-1

NH-2009-2-2NH-2009-2-3

NH-2009-2-4

NH-2009-3-1

NH-2009-3-2

NH-2009-3-3

NH-2009-3-4

°0 400200 Feet

1 inch = 400 feet

Service Layer Credits: Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency

Permitted Maintenance Dredge Area

Docks !. Sampling Location (2019)

!. Sampling Location (2015)

!. Sampling Location (2009)

SNR-C3

SNR-C2

SNR-C1

-7 -6

-5

-9

-8

-8

Page 2-3

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 2-4

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

3.0 METHODS

Sampling and analysis procedures for this Study were designed to satisfy the testing requirements outlined in Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual (USEPA, 2001). This section describes the locations and techniques used to collect test sediments at three vibracore sampling locations in one composite area in the dredge footprint at SNR.

3.1 Dredge Design

The center of the SNR dredge footprint is located at 123º48.146’ west, 39º25.417’ north.

Shallow water areas extending from the USCG wharf will be dredged to -10 feet MLLW plus a 2-foot OD allowance to -12 feet MLLW.

The proposed design depth and estimated initial dredging volume for the Project is summarized in Table 3-1. Dredging at this location is necessary due to shoaling that occurs when suspended sediments deposit in a bend in the Noyo River and are then redistributed by propeller wash. The sediments deposited in the areas proposed for maintenance dredging in 2019 accumulate in this location on the USCG mooring because of propeller wash piling bottom sediments during berthing of vessels.

Table 3-1.

Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Proposed Dredging Locations, Design Depths, and Volumes

Dredging Site Design Depth (feet MLLW)

Estimated Dredge Volume to Design

Depth (cy) Estimated

2-foot OD Volume (cy) Estimated Total

Volume (cy)1

Coast Guard Station Noyo River −10 72 54 126

Notes:

Composite areas for this study are defined to provide higher resolution analysis results for the dredged material. For this Study, the composite area volumes are equal to one another and will be tested separately.

1 Includes a 2-foot overdredge allowance cy = cubic yard(s); MLLW = mean lower low water; OD = overdredge

3.2 Sample Design

Sediment collection followed the guidance provided in Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual (USEPA, 2001) and detailed in the approved Project SAP (Wood, 2018). Sample collection was documented using vibracore logs and photography. Vibracore logs are in Appendix A and photographs of cores are in Appendix B.

3.2.1 Sampling Collection Locations

To adequately characterize sediments within the proposed dredge footprint, three vibracore samples, SNR-C1, SNR-C2 and SNR-C3, were collected within one composite area at SNR and combined into the SNR-Composite sample for analysis. The SNR-Z-Composite was created by

Page 3-1

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019 homogenizing the 0.5 foot layer collected below the design depth plus the 2-foot OD allowance at each sampling location. The SNR-Z Composite was comprised of the following samples:

SNR-C1-Z, SNR-C2-Z and SNR-C3-Z. Collection locations, existing mudline elevations, and target core lengths3 for the dredge footprint are listed in Table 3-2. Each coring location was positioned within the footprint as close to quay walls and storm drains as possible to accurately represent landside drainages. In addition, sampling locations were also positioned to include areas with shallow mudline elevations that were free of eelgrass. Collection was completed in one day on February 28, 2019.

A Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) with real-time monitoring of the most recent shape files was used to navigate to the target sampling locations. Once the Leviathan was positioned over a sampling location, the Captain deployed a three-point anchor or double-tied to docks to maintain its position. Once the vessel was secured, Wood scientists recorded its position in the field log, measured the water depth with a weighted fiberglass tape, and then corrected the water depth to MLLW, using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tide tables and bathymetric data.

3.2.2 Test Sediment Collection

All collection locations were sampled as described in the SAP (Wood, 2018). Once the vessel was positioned above a sampling location, SSS personnel deployed the vibracore used for sample collection. The vibracore uses a 4-inch-diameter aluminum tube connected to a stainless steel cutter. The aluminum-encased vibrating unit uses 240-volt, 3-phase, 30-ampere electricity to drive two counter-rotating concentric vibrators. Prior to deployment, the aluminum core barrel was lined with a non-contaminating polyethylene liner to prevent cross contamination between each core attempt. The vibracore and tube were then lowered by a hydraulic winch and vibrated until penetration to project depth was achieved. Core penetration depth was calculated with a tape measure attached to the vibracore head. After the vibracore was turned off, the sediment core is returned to the boat’s deck for processing. Once onboard, core samples were carefully extruded into clean, polyethylene-lined trays, photographed, and inspected for unique strata, color, odors, and other notable characteristics.

Sampling efforts were delayed due to a substantial rain event that resulted in a significant increase of freshwater discharge within the Noyo River (Figure 3-2; USGS, 2019). The rain event commenced on February 24, 2019, peaked two days later and subsided on February 27, 2019. Sample collection efforts began the following morning, on February 28, 2019. Due to the influx of freshwater runoff, the water sample collected (SNR-WS) may exhibit lower salinity and higher turbidity than is typical of the Noyo River at SNR.

3 Target core length is determined by subtracting the existing (pre-dredge) depth at each core collection station from the proposed OD depth.

Page 3-2

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Table 3-2.

USCG Station Noyo River Vibracore Log Table (February, 2019)

Sample Number

Latitude (ddomm.mmm)

Longitude (dddomm.mmm) Date Time Project

Depth1 Mudline

Elevation (ft MLLW)

Target Penetration

(feet)

Actual Penetration

(feet)

Recovered Core

Length (feet)

Additional Notes

SNR-C1

Attempt 1 39°25.418 N 123°48.148 W 2/28/2019 10:30 -12.5 -8.5 4 4.2 4.2

Huge storm event the day of and day prior may have affected water depth slightly. Stream gauge about 15 miles up water shed located at (35°25.42, -123°44.12) is at about

12.5 feet. Using tide for MLLW depths.

SNR-C1

Attempt 2 39°25.418 N 123°48.148 W 2/28/2019 11:20 -12.5 -7.9 4.6 5 4 Core slightly compacted.

SNR-C2

Attempt 1 39°25.415 N 123°48.145 W 2/28/2019 12:15 -12.5 -4.9 7.6 7.6 7.6 Soft, sandy plug with silt.

SNR-C3

Attempt 1 39°25.416 N 123°48.144 W 2/28/2019 14:00 -12.5 -5.8 6.9 6.8 6.8

Debris in plug (storm, leaves).

Refusal at 6.8'. Core relatively homogeneous in lithology with storm deposits every few feet.

Notes: ddd°/dd°mm.mmm' = degrees decimal minutes; ft = feet; MLLW = mean lower low water; OD = overdredge; WGS84 = World Geodetic System; SNR = Station Noyo River; C = core 1 – Includes 2-foot overdredge allowance plus Z-Layer depth.

Page 3-3

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Page 3-4

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Figure 3-1. Actual Sediment Collection Locations and Composite Areas – Station Noyo River

Page 3-5

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Page 3-6

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Figure 3-2. Noyo River Discharge During Week of Sample Collection

Page 3-7

Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Page 3-8

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

3.2.3 Physical and Chemical Testing

Vibracore samples were composited and evaluated for chemical, physical, and potential leaching characteristics. Physis conducted all physical and analytical chemical analyses on sediment, site water, and elutriate samples (according to USEPA- and USACE-approved methods) for the constituents listed in Table 3-3. Sediment chemical and grain-size analyses were performed on the both the SNR-Composite and SNR-Z-Composite samples; however, only the SNR-Composite sample was used for the elutriate analysis. Grain-size analyses were performed at Physis using a laser technique that circulates the particulate matter through the path of a laser light beam to scatter it. The scattered light is converted to electrical signals and calculated using Fraunhofer diffraction and/or Mie scattering to give a percentage. (ASTM D4464). Another method used to calculate grain size is Standard Method (SM) 2560 D. This technique also uses light scattering instruments to analyze a concentration range using angle and intensity of scattering (Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater [SM 2560 D]). This method was used to determine the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water column for this study.

Percent gravel, sand, silt, and clay were reported to 0.1 percent, along with the corresponding millimeter and phi sizes, and a cumulative grain-size distribution diagram. Reporting limits for chemical analyses are reported in Table 3-3.

3.2.4 MET and DI-WET Tests

Physis analyzed the MET samples for total and dissolved metals and for total suspended solids (TSS). The samples were prepared by EcoAnalysts, as detailed in Section 3.2.4.1. Additionally, Physis conducted the modified California Waste Extraction Test analyses using deionized water as the extractant (DI-WET) on the composite sample from the proposed dredge sediments following USEPA- and USACE-approved methods outlined in the UTM and ITM. The two tests were performed only on the SNR-Composite sample and was used to predict the potential leaching of contaminates from the dredge sediments at the disposal site.

3.2.4.1 MET Test Procedure

EcoAnalysts conducted Modified Elutriate Test (MET) sample preparation with sediment and water samples collected by Wood. A full summary of the sample preparation exercise is contained in Appendix C. The MET was performed to estimate the potential impact of dredged material potentially released from the North Jetty Upland Placement Site located at the mouth of the Noyo River (see Figure 1-1c). The MET was prepared by using a 150 grams per liter (g/L) of sediment (as dry weight) to a site water diluent. To determine the sediment dry weight, an aliquot of homogenized sediment was placed in an aluminum weigh boat and dried at 100 degrees Celsius (°C) for approximately 24 hours.

Site water was allowed to settle undisturbed for approximately ten hours prior to use due to presence of suspended solids. Following settlement, the site water supernatant was transferred to a new vessel without disturbing the settled material and used for MET preparation. Sediment from the SNR-Composite was then combined with site water in a 7 liter (L) glass cylinder. The MET sample preparation was initiated on March 6, 2019. The sediment/water mixture was vigorously agitated for 5 minutes with a rotating mixer, roiled with aeration for 1 hour, and then allowed to settle for twenty-four hours at room temperature (20°C). Following the settling period, the supernatant was gently collected by siphon. This supernatant represents the 100 percent

Page 3-9

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

MET. Requested sample volumes for metals (total and dissolved) and TSS analysis were collected and shipped via overnight courier to Physis in Anaheim, California on March 7, 2019.

3.2.5 Data Review and Sediment Quality Guidelines

All analytical laboratory reports for sediment, site water, and elutriate analyses are in Appendix C. In Section 4.0 of this SAPr, the sediment results (see Table 4-1b) for the Study are compared to historical reports (2015 and 2009; USACE, 2016) and other available sediment quality guidelines.

Sediment chemical results were compared to effects range-low (ERLs) and effects range-median (ERMs) to determine the potential for chemical contaminants in the sediment to cause adverse environmental effects (Buchman, 2008) as well as “Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites" (USEPA Region 9, updated 2015).

The ERL values represent the lower-tenth-percentile concentration, and ERM values represent the median concentration, at which statistically significant biological effects were reported.

These benchmark values were developed by NOAA, using a variety of prior guidelines to screen sediment results for evaluating potential effects on sediment-associated biota. The ERL and ERM guideline values were derived by matching chemical and biological data. The values were calculated using a large database of study results, including laboratory- and field-generated data for many endpoints for species and biological effects. Overall, the ERL values are concentrations below which biological effects are rarely expected to occur and ERM values are concentrations above which biological effects are likely expected to occur (Buchman, 2008).

Because of the wide range of site-specific factors that may influence the toxicity and bioavailability of any given compound in the sediment (e.g., grain size, total organic carbon [TOC] content, etc.), these guidelines are intended not as strict criteria for regulatory application, but rather as a general screening gauge.

Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) were developed for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (also known as Superfund)/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs and are a consortium of USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), USEPA Region 3 Risked-Based Concentrations (RBCs) and USEPA Region 6 Human Health Medium – Specific Screening Levels (HHMSSLs). RSLs are risk-based concentrations derived from standardized equations combining exposure information assumptions with USEPA toxicity data. RSLs used for this report are based on a target hazard quotient of 1.

The elutriate results for this study (see Table 4-1c) are compared to criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and criterion continuous concentrations (CCC) thresholds, outlined in the National Recommended Aquatic Life Criteria table (USEPA, 2019).

DI-WET metal concentrations were compared to guideline values in the North Coast Region Basin Plan to determine the potential for mobilization of metals into groundwater or receiving waters (California Code of Regulations, 2019).

Page 3-10

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Table 3-3.

Chemical Analyses of Sediment

Analyte Analysis Methoda Sediment Target Reporting Limitb, c

METd and DI-WETe Target Reporting Limit c

Grain Size SM 2560 D 0.1 % N/A Total Suspended Solids SM 2540 D N/A 2 µg/L

Total Solids SM 2540 B 0.1 % N/A Total Organic Carbon 9060 0.1 % N/A

Aluminum 6020f N/A 10 µg/L Antimony 6020f 0.1 mg/kg N/A Arsenic 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 1 µg/L Barium 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 10 µg/L

Beryllium 6020f 0.1 mg/kg N/A Cadmium 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 0.25 µg/L Chromium 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 1 µg/L

Cobalt 6020f 0.1 mg/kg N/A Copper 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 1 µg/L Lead 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 0.25 µg/L

Mercury USEPA 245.7 0.02 mg/kg 0.005 µg/L Molybdenum 6020f 0.1 mg/kg N/A

Nickel 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 5 µg/L Selenium 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 0.5 µg/L

Silver 6020f 0.1 mg/kg 10 µg/L Thallium 6020f 0.1 mg/kg N/A

Vanadium 6020f 0.1 mg/kg N/A Zinc 6020f 1.0 mg/kg 10 µg/L

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)g 8270 Df 10 µg/kg N/A Chlorinated Pesticidesh 8270 Df 1.0–20 µg/kg N/A

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Congenersi 8270 Df 0.5 µg/kg N/A Dioxinsk USEPA 8290 2.0 pg/g N/A

Butyltins j, l Krone et al., 1989 10 µg/kg N/A Notes:

a Sediment analysis method/MET and DI-WET analysis method b Sediment minimum detection limits are on a dry-weight basis.

c Reporting limits are provided by Physis Environmental Laboratories, Inc.

d Dissolved and total metals e Dissolved metals only f USEPA, 1986–2007 SW-846. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd Edition.

g Includes 1-methylnapthalene, 1-methylphenanthrene, 2,3,5-trimethylnapthalene, 2-methylnapthalene, 2,6-dimethylnapthalene, acenapthene, acenapthylene, anthracene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluorene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluroanthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluroanthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, chrysene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, pyrene, dibenzothiophene, benzo(e)pyrene, perylene, and biphenyl h Includes aldrin, α- benzene hexachloride (BHC), β-BHC (lindane), Δ=BHC, ¥-BHC, chlordane, dieldrin, trans-nonachlor, endosulfan I, endosulfan II, endosulfan sulfate, endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin keytone, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, methoxychlor, toxaphene, alpha chlordane, gamma chlordane, cis-nonachlor, total chlordane, , 2,4- and 4,4-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), 2,4- and 4,4-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), and 2,4- and 4,4-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) i Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (sum of congeners: 005,+008, 018, 028, 031, 033, 044, 049, 052, 056, 060, 066, 070, 074, 087, 095, 099, 101, 105, 110, 118, 128, 132/153, 138/158, 141, 149, 151, 156, 170, 174, 177, 180, 183, 187, 194, 195, 201, and 203.

j Krone, C.A., D.W. Brown, D.G. Burrows, R.G. Bogar, S.L. Chan, and U. Varanasi, 1989. A Method for Analysis of Butyltin Species and Measurement of Butyltins in Sediment and English Sole Liver from Puget Sound. Marine Environmental Research 27: 1–18.

k 2,3,7,8-Tetra CDD, 1,2,3,7,8-Penta CDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexa CDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexa CDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexa CDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hepta CDD, Total Octa CDD, Total Tetra CDD, Total Penta CDD, Total Hexa CDD, Total Hepta CDD, 2,3,7,8-Tetra CDF, 1,2,3,7,8-Penta CDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexa CDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexa CDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexa CDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexa CDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hepta CDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Hepta CDF, Octa CDF, Total Tetra CDF, Total Penta CDF, Total Hexa CDF, Total Hepta CDF, Total

TEQ

l dibutyltin, monobutylin, tetrabutylin, tributyltin % = percent; µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion); USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; GC = gas chromatography; L = liter; (M) = modified;

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; mg/L = milligrams per liter (parts per million); 10 µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; pg/g = picogram per gram; NA = not applicable; ng/L = nanograms per liter; NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; SIM = selective ion monitoring; SM = Standard Method; TOC = total organic carbon

Page 3-11

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Page 3-12

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

4.0 RESULTS

Sediments from the Project footprint were evaluated for this Study using guidelines described in the UTM and ITM (USACE, 2003; USEPA/ USACE, 1998). Sediment testing for the Study was performed using a modified Tier II testing protocol comprised of chemical, physical, and elutriate analysis on the area composite sample, and chemical and physical analysis on the SNR-Z-Composite sample.

Analytical testing results for this Study were evaluated to determine the potential of chemical contaminants in the sediment to cause adverse effects during dredging or disposal. Physical characteristics of the sediment are summarized in Table 4-1a. Sediment chemistry results reported in dry weight are summarized in Table 4-1b and wet weight in Table 4-1c. As described in Section 3.2.5, analytical results were compared to several sediment quality guidelines as well as historical sediment testing results from 2015 and 2009 composite samples collected within proximity to the Study area.

4.1 Physical Testing Results

Grain size analysis was performed on both the SNR-Composite and SNR-Z-Composite sample.

Mean grain size and the percent of clay, silt, sand (including very fine, fine, medium, and coarse grains), and gravel within the samples are detailed in Table 4-1a.

The SNR-Composite and SNR-Z-Composite were very similar in grain size. Both samples analyzed contained the same amount of total gravel and clay (<0.05 and 5 percent, respectively) while the Area Composite had slightly more sand (69 percent) and slightly less silt (27 percent) when compared to the SNR-Z-Composite (67 percent and 28 percent, respectively).

Table 4-1a.

Station Noyo River Sediment Grain Size Results

Location Total Gravel (%) Total Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Total Silt & Clay (%)

SNR-Composite ND (<0.05) 69 27 5 32 SNR-Z-Composite ND (<0.05) 67 28 5 33

Notes: % = percent

Page 4-1

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

4.2 Chemical Testing Results

Sediment chemistry was evaluated for both the SNR-Composite and SNR-Z-Composite. Total solids content was similar in the SNR-Composite and SNR-Z-Composite (68.7 and

70.3 percent, respectively; Table 4-1b). This is also similar to the levels of total solids observed in 2015 and 2009, which averaged 64.2 and 66.7 percent, respectively. The concentration of total organic carbon (TOC) was 1.18 percent in the SNR-Composite sample and 1.22 percent in the SNR-Z-Composite. Similarly, the TOC concentration in the 2015 composites were 0.29 and

2.1 percent for Reaches 1 and 2, respectively, and non-detect (<0.1) in the 2009 composite sample.

In the current Study, several metals including copper, chromium, barium, vanadium, and arsenic, were detected at slightly higher concentrations then previously detected in the 2015 and 2009 data sets; however, none of the metals were detected above ERM guideline values.

Of the metals tested in 2019, ERL exceedances were observed in the SNR-Composite for copper and nickel and in the SNR-Z-Composite for mercury and nickel. Historical data also showed ERL exceedances in the concentrations of nickel in 2015 and 2009 and mercury in 2009 (Table 4-1b). In addition, arsenic was detected above Human RSL in both the 2015 and 2019 sediment samples. However, studies have shown background (naturally occurring) levels of arsenic of up to 12 mg/kg in parts of California (Chernoff et al., 2008).

The 2019 data also reflected some increase in various dioxins when compared to historical data from 2015. There are currently no Human RSLs or other clearly regulatory thresholds for dioxins; however, most states have set cleanup levels greater than 4 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) total toxic equivalency (TEQ) for residential settings. Dioxins with notable increases in concentrations (≥2 times) in 2019 compared to 2015 were 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hepta chlorodibenzo para-dioxin (CDD), Octa CDD, Total Hexa CDD, Total Hepta CDD, Octa chlorodibenzo furans (CDF), 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hepta CDF, Total Hexa CDF, and Total Hepta CDF. Most notably, the most toxic dioxin, 2,3,7,8-Tetra CDD (TCDD), was not detected in any of the samples in 2019 or 2015. Because of this, the total TEQ for all dioxins within project samples was 1.31 ng/kg for the SNR-Composite. 3.25 ng/kg for the SNR-Z-Composite, and 1.85 ng/kg for the SNR-Z-Composite Duplicate. Also noteworthy is that the majority of the dioxins detected are at similar levels to those detected at estimated concentrations (i.e., J-flagged values between the method detection limit and method reporting limit) in 2015.

Historical data for total detectable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) ranged from 245 to 2070 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg). Current data (2019) falls within this range and is well below ERL and ERM guideline values. Chlorinated pesticides were also similar in the current Study when compared to historical data from 2015 and 2009, with a majority of analytes not detected in samples. Total polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners increased from non-detect and an estimated value of 0.26 µg/kg in 2015 to estimated values of 1.3 and 0.71 µg/kg for SNR-Composite and SNR-Z-Composite, respectively, in 2019. All of these concentrations are well below both ERL and ERM in reporting limits. Similarly, total organotins increased from non-detect values in 2015 and 2009 to 72.7 and 22.0 µg/kg in the current Study; however, there are no ERL/ERM or Human RSLs for organotins.

Page 4-2

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River Fort Bragg, California May 31, 2019

Minor exceedances in ERL guideline values were also detected in the historical data (2015 and 2009) for the PAH acenaphthene and the pesticide dieldrin for all samples from all events.

However, it should be noted that for dieldrin, the analytical laboratories used for all of the studies reported these concentrations as non-detect despite the fact that the method detection limit was above the ERL guideline value of 0.2 µg/kg. The concentrations are flagged in Table 4-1b because the reporting limit exceeds the ERL. A similar situation was observed for 2009 data for the chlorinated pesticide 4-4’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) which is highlighted as exceeding the ERL guideline value for both this compound and total DDTs in Table 4-1b, even though the method detection limits were greater than the guideline. No ERM exceedances were found in the current or historical data sets for any analyte.

Current and historical data were also compared to Human RSLs (residential and industrial) in Table 4-1b. Arsenic levels from both the current Study and historical data exceed the industrial RSL and there was a slight increase in these levels in the current Study (Table 4-1b). Historical results also reflect an exceedance in the residential RSL for benzo (a) anthracene, benzo (a) pyrene and dibenz (a,h) anthracene. While the current Study only reflects an exceedance of the residential RSL in benzo (a) pyrene (Table 4-1b).

4.3 MET and DI-WET Elutriate Results

The MET and DI-WET analyses were conducted on the SNR-Composite sample collected from the Project footprint (Table 4-1c). Results for this Study were compared to both available regulatory guidelines and historical data from 2015 and 2009 (USACE, 2016).

The SNR-Composite sample exceeded the CMC threshold for total copper in the MET test and dissolved copper for the DI-WET test. (Table 4-1c). These results are similar to those collected for total and dissolved metals in 2015, which reflected CMC exceedances in total copper for Reach 1 and Reach 2 MET analyses and dissolved copper in Reach 2 for the DI-WET analysis.

Notably, the site water sample used for the MET test contained 95 percent total suspended solids (TSS) due to the recent storm event. It is likely that due to this event there was a temporary increase in chemical compounds found in the water that would not typically be present at these levels.

Results from both current and historical data was also compared with maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) (CCR Article 22, 2019). There were no MCL exceedances recorded in either the historical findings or current Study (Table 4-1c).

Page 4-3

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Page 4-4

Environmental Permitting for Maintenance Dredging at Coast Guard Station Noyo River

Table 4-1b.

Station Noyo River Sediment Chemistry Results (Dry Weight)

Analytical Method Compound Name Type Units

ERL

(dry wt.)

ERM

(dry wt.)

2019 2015 2009 Human RSLs

Composite Z- Composite Reach 1 Reach 2 Composite 2 Residential Industrial

SM 2540 B Solids, Total General Chemistry % . . 68.7 70.3 73.2 55.1 66.7 . .

USEPA 9060 Total Organic Carbon General Chemistry % . . 1.18 1.22 0.29 2.1 ND (<0.1) . .

USEPA 6020 Antimony Metals mg/kg . . 0.19 0.199 ND (<0.053) 0.0780 J ND (<0.0900) 31 470 USEPA 6020 Arsenic Metals mg/kg 8.2 70 5.6 4.99 3.38 3.36 3.65 0.68 3.0 USEPA 6020 Barium Metals mg/kg . . 103 112 36.5 51.9 63.8 15,000 220,000 USEPA 6020 Beryllium Metals mg/kg . . 0.519 0.586 0.198 J 0.280 J 0.465 160 2,300 USEPA 6020 Cadmium Metals mg/kg 1.2 9.6 0.285 0.125 0.15 0.421 0.203 71 980 USEPA 6020 Chromium Metals mg/kg 81 370 40.5 44.2 17 27 25.1 . .

USEPA 6020 Cobalt Metals mg/kg . . 9.56 9.47 5.93 8.71 5.19 23 350 USEPA 6020 Copper Metals mg/kg 34 270 43.6 24 11.1 22 17.9 3,100 47,000 USEPA 6020 Lead Metals mg/kg 46.7 218 6.83 6.48 9.73 7.39 ND (<0.9) 400 800 USEPA 245.7 Mercury Metals mg/kg 0.15 0.71 0.0377 0.156 0.0153 J 0.0404 0.161 9.4 40 USEPA 6020 Molybdenum Metals mg/kg . . 0.95 0.949 0.288 1.36 0.53 39 5,800 USEPA 6020 Nickel Metals mg/kg 20.9 51.6 27.7 27.9 15.9 26.6 24.6 1,500 22,000 USEPA 6020 Selenium Metals mg/kg . . 0.206 0.227 0.10 U 0.10 U ND (<0.3) 390 5,800 USEPA 6020 Silver Metals mg/kg 1.0 3.7 0.0484 0.0369 ND (<0.0428) ND (<0.568) ND (<0.150) 390 5,800 USEPA 6020 Thallium Metals mg/kg . . 0.184 0.194 0.0577 J 0.103 J ND (<0.300) 0.78 12 USEPA 6020 Vanadium Metals mg/kg . . 55.5 56.7 27.1 34 21.8 390 5,800 USEPA 6020 Zinc Metals mg/kg 150 410 64.8 60.8 39.6 67.9 51.2 23,000 350,000

USEPA

1613B/8290 2,3,7,8-Tetra CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . ND (<0.12) ND (<0.13) ND (<0.1) ND (<0.11) . 4.8 22

USEPA

1613B/8290 1,2,3,7,8-Penta CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . ND (<0.12) 0.94 ND (<0.12) ND (<0.11) . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290

1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexa CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . 0.22 1.21 ND (<0.11) 0.15 J . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290

1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexa CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . 1.25 3.44 ND (<0.11) 0.807 J . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexa CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . 1.24 4.75 ND (<0.1) 0.563 J . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Hepta CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . 48.6 71.1 0.82 J+ 22.8 . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290 Octa CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . 432 625 8.46 J 286 . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290 Total Tetra CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . ND (<0.12) 0.39 ND (<0.1) ND (<0.11 U) . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290 Total Penta CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . 0.38 1.9 ND (<0.12) 0.28 J . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290 Total Hexa CDD Dioxin ng/kg . . 15.7 23.2 0.37 J 7.92 . . .

USEPA

1613B/8290 Total Hepta CDD Dioxin ng/kg . .