Amendment_0001_3_April_2017.docx

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

625157

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

9B. DATE (SEE ITEM 11)

March 20, 2017

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

|X| The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers |_| is extended, |X| 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 0001: I’d like to request the vibracore sampling that was taken for this job (HSCG88-17-B-PQQ104 Base Alameda and Station Golden Gate)

RESPONSE: Please see attached (1) Base Alameda Tier I Evaluation report dated February 2017, 53 pages and

(2) Station Golden Gate Sampling and Analysis Report dated March 2016, 316 pages

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.

JASON DUGAN

(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 HSCG88-17-B-PQQ104 Amendment 0001 April 3, 2107

Base Alameda Tier I Evaluation Report

Station Golden Gate Sampling and Analysis Report

USCG Golden Gate Sampling and Analysis Report

Sampling and Analysis Report for

United States Coast Guard Station Golden Gate Sausalito, California

U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Oakland

March 2016

Sampling and Analysis Report for

Maintenance Dredging at United States Coast Guard Station Golden Gate

Sausalito, California

Contract Number: HSCG83-07-D-3WF170 Delivery Order Number: HSCG88-13-J-PQQ216

Prepared for:

U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Oakland

1301 Clay Street, Suite 700N Oakland, California 94612

Prepared by:

URS GROUP, INC.

Post Montgomery Center

One Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94104

March 2016

USCG Station Golden Gate i March 2016 Maintenance Dredging Sampling and Analysis Report

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Objectives of the Sediment Investigation ...................................................... 1-1

1.2 Organization of this Document ....................................................................... 1-2

Chapter 2 Field Sediment Sample Collection and Processing ............................................ 2-1

2.1 Physical/Chemical Testing .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Field Sample Collection ....................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Sample Processing ................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.3 Shipping of Sediment Samples to the Analytical Laboratory ........ 2-2

2.1.4 Chain-of-Custody Protocol .................................................................. 2-2

2.2 Biological Testing .............................................................................................. 2-4

2.2.1 Field Sample Collection ....................................................................... 2-5

Chapter 3 Results of Physical/Chemical Analyses .............................................................. 3-1

Chapter 4 Results of Biological Testing ................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Benthic Toxicity Testing ................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Sediment Porewater Characterization ............................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Effects of the USCG SGG Sediments on Ampelisca abdita ................ 4-2

4.1.3 Effects of the USCG SGG Sediments on Neanthes arenaceodentata .. 4-3

4.2 Water Column (Sediment Elutriate) Toxicity Testing .................................. 4-4

4.2.1 Toxicity of Sediment Elutriates to Mytilus galloprovincialis ............. 4-5

Chapter 5 Quality Control Review ......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Sediment Conventional and Chemical Analytical QA/QC Summary ...... 5-1

5.1.1 ALS Environmental Report K1503191 ................................................ 5-1

5.2 Biological Testing Quality Lab Control Summary ....................................... 5-2

Chapter 6 Summary .................................................................................................................. 6-1

Chapter 7 References ................................................................................................................ 7-1

Figures Figure 1-1: Location Map: USCG Station Golden Gate, Sausalito, CA ........................... 1-3 Figure 1-2: Hydrographic Survey .......................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 2-1: Sample Locations ................................................................................................. 2-3

USCG Station Golden Gate ii March 2016

Tables Table 2-1 Location of Sampling Stations and Core Depths Achieved ........................ 2-2 Table 3-1 Station Golden Gate Sediment Grain Size, Total Solids (%), and Total

Organic Carbon (%) .......................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2 Station Golden Gate Sediment Metals Concentrations (mg/kg, dry weight) ................................................................................................................ 3-2 Table 3-3 Station Golden Gate Sediment Organotin Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight) ................................................................................................................ 3-3 Table 3-4 Station Golden Gate Sediment PCB Congener Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight) ......................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-5 Station Golden Gate Sediment PAH Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight) ................................................................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-6 Station Golden Gate Sediment Organochlorine Pesticide

Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight) .............................................................. 3-7 Table 4-1 Sediment Porewater Initial Water Ammonia Levels ................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 Ampelisca abdita Survival in the USCG SGG Sediments ............................... 4-2 Table 4-3 Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Ampelisca abdita ................. 4-3 Table 4-4 Neanthes arenaceodentata Survival in the USCG SGG Sediments ................ 4-3 Table 4-5 Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Neanthes arenaceodentata .... 4-4 Table 4-6 Effects of the USCG SGG-Composite Sediment Elutriate on Mytilus galloprovincialis ................................................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-7 Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Mytilus galloprovincialis ..... 4-6

Appendices Appendix A Sampling Field Logs and Data Sheets Appendix B Chemical and Physical Laboratory Analyses: ALS Environmental

Services, Inc.

Appendix C Biological Testing Laboratory Analyses: Pacific EcoRisk Bioassay

Testing

USCG Station Golden Gate iii March 2016

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ALS ALS Environmental Services, Inc.

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials °C degree(s) Celsius COC chain-of-custody CY cubic yard(s) DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DMMO Dredged Material Management Office EC effective concentration ITM Inland Testing Manual KCl potassium chloride LC lethal concentration LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation mg/kg milligram(s) per kilogram μg/kg microgram(s) per kilogram MDL method detection limits MLLW mean lower low water MRL method reporting limit OGI organochlorine PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PER Pacific EcoRisk ppt parts per thousand QA/QC quality assurance/quality control RPD relative percent difference SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SD standard deviation SGG Station Golden Gate SOPs Standard Operating Procedures TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TOC Total organic carbon USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCG United States Coast Guard USEPA/EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USCG Station Golden Gate v March 2016

Distribution List

Mr. Dave Stalters U.S. Coast Guard, CEU Oakland 1301 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 637-5567 Email: David.W.Stalters@uscg.mil

Mr. Robert Lawrence U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1455 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 503-6808 Email: robert.j.lawrence@usace.army.mil

Mr. Brian Ross U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 74 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3919 Phone: (415) 972-3475 Email: ross.brian@epamail.epa.gov

Ms. Brenda Goeden San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission 50 California Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111-6080 Phone: (415) 352-3623 Email: brendag@bcdc.ca.gov

Ms. Elizabeth Christian San Francisco Regional Water Quality

Control Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA 94612-1413 Phone; (510) 622-2335 Email: echristian@waterboards.ca.gov

Mr. Donn Oetzel State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue, #100 Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 Phone: (916) 574-1998 Email: oetzeld@slc.ca.gov

Mr. Arn Aarreberg California Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Marine Region 5355 Skylane Boulevard, Suite B Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Phone: (707) 576-2882 Email: aaarreberg@dfg.ca.gov

Mr. Gary Stern National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, #325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Phone: (707) 575-6060 Email: gary.stern@noaa.gov

USCG Station Golden Gate 1-1 March 2016

Chapter 1 Introduction

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Civil Engineering Unit Oakland is proposing to conduct routine maintenance dredging at Station Golden Gate, located at the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge, approximately 1 mile south of Sausalito, California. Station Golden Gate is on the western end of Fort Baker in Horseshoe Cove (Figure 1-1). Dredging was last conducted in 2005, when approximately 10,000 cubic yards (CY) of sediment were removed and disposed of at SF-11, an in-Bay disposal site next to Alcatraz Island.

The USCG is proposing to conduct routine maintenance dredging of the berths and access channel within the next 2 years. Dredging would occur within previous dredging limits to a depth of -10 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) with a 2-foot overdepth, except for the settling basin, which would be dredged to -12 MLLW plus a 2-foot overdepth. This amounts to approximately 4,600 CY of sediment, (including overdepth and side slopes). Figure 1-2 shows the existing conditions at Station Golden Gate, based on a hydrographic survey conducted on February 14, 2014. To accurately analyze the sediment to be dredged, as well as the Z-layer (exposed sediment following dredging), cores were taken to a minimum depth of 12.5 feet MLLW. Based on the USCG’s 2013 Integrated Alternatives Analysis, the USCG proposes to dispose of the dredged material from Station Golden Gate at SF-11.

This Sampling and Analysis Report was prepared to provide the required characterization of the dredged material, and its suitability for placement at SF-11.

1.1 Objectives of the Sediment Investigation

The purpose of this sampling and testing was to evaluate the proposed dredged material to determine whether it will represent an adverse impact during removal operations and placement at currently permitted disposal sites and/or future alternative disposal sites. The results of the sediment analysis will be used to determine suitability for disposal. Suitability for disposal with respect to sediment analytical chemistry will be determined by comparison to:

San Francisco Bay ambient sediment concentrations (SFRWQCB, 1998);

San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Levels, where applicable, (SFEI, 2014); and

San Francisco Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Thresholds, where applicable

(SFEI, 2014).

Biological testing performed on a standard elutriate sample will be evaluated to confirm that water column toxicity will not exceed applicable standards.

The procedures for sediment sample collection, sample processing and preparation, physical and chemical analyses, biological testing, and data analyses were presented in a previously approved Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), dated September 2014 (URS, 2014). The SAP was

USCG Station Golden Gate 1-2 March 2016 completed using the guidelines, protocols, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures outlined in the following documents:

Public Notice #99-4: Proposed Guidance for Sampling and Analysis Plans (Quality Assurance Project Plans) for Dredging Projects within the United States Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District (USACE, 1999);

Guidelines for Implementing the Inland Testing Manual in the San Francisco Bay Region (USACE, 2001); and

Inland Testing Manual (USEPA and USACE, 1998).

The specific objectives of the SAP scope-of-work were as follows:

Collect six core samples from within the designated sampling area following field protocol detailed in the SAP;

Homogenize and composite individual core samples to obtain representative characterization of total dredged material; and

Conduct chemical and biological analyses of the collected sediments to determine whether they are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal at the Alcatraz disposal site

(SF-11).

1.2 Organization of this Document

Sample collection and handling procedures are discussed in Section 2 of this report. Results of chemical analyses and biological toxicity testing are provided in Sections 3 and 4. Section 5 discusses quality control, and Section 6 presents the conclusions regarding suitability of the material for unconfined aquatic disposal at SF-11.

USCG Station Golden Gate 1-3 March 2016

Figure 1-1: Location Map: USCG Station Golden Gate, Sausalito, CA

USCG Station Golden Gate 1-4 March 2016

USCG Station Golden Gate 1-5 March 2016

Figure 1-2: Hydrographic Survey

USCG Station Golden Gate 1-6 March 2016

USCG Station Golden Gate 2-1 March 2016

Chapter 2 Field Sediment Sample Collection and Processing

2.1 Physical/Chemical Testing

2.1.1 Field Sample Collection

Per the approved SAP (URS, 2014), on March 26, 2015, Dixon Marine Services Inc. (Dixon Marine), a subconsultant to URS Group, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of AECOM), collected six samples, each consisting of two sediment cores drilled to the maximum project depth (i.e., including overdepth) to obtain the required amount of material for analysis. In addition, a “Z-layer” sample was collected at each boring location, representing the top 6 inches of sediment post-dredge/excavation. Each of the sediment cores was individually homogenized.

Proportionate amounts of the homogenized sediment from each of the individual sediment cores were composited and homogenized to form a single sample as described below. In addition, a standard elutriate test was performed, and analyzed for toxicity.

Sediment cores were collected using portable vibracore equipment, which was serviced and cleaned between sampling locations. Samples were logged, then placed in cold storage at or below 4 degrees Celsius (°C), and stored in coolers until delivery to the analytical laboratories.

Table 2-1 lists station identifiers, global positioning system coordinates, mudline elevations, and core-penetration depths for all sample locations. See Figure 2-1 for sample locations. The location of SGG-02 was moved just south of the location identified in the SAP due to the presence of an unmovable vessel at the original sampling location. There were no other unusual circumstances encountered during the fieldwork, and no major deviations from the SAP (URS, 2014). Field log sheets are provided in Appendix A.

2.1.2 Sample Processing

Homogenization and compositing of individual sediment cores was performed in the field by Dixon Marine at the time of the sampling. Each core was divided into maintenance depth sections and Z-layer sections. The maintenance depth sections from each core were individually homogenized in a stainless-steel bowl or high-density polyethylene container. A 500-milliliter subsample of the homogenized sediment from each sediment core was archived to allow for additional chemical analyses, if necessary; archived samples are being stored frozen at -20 ± 10˚C for up to 1 year after sample collection.

Proportionate amounts of the homogenized sediment from each of the Station Golden Gate individual sediment cores were composited and homogenized in a stainless-steel container to form the “SGG-Composite” sediment. A subsample of the SGG-Composite sample was frozen for archival storage as described above. Samples of the composited sediment were submitted for chemical and conventional analyses. The Z-layer sediments were processed and archived in similar fashion.

USCG Station Golden Gate 2-2 March 2016

Table 2-1 Location of Sampling Stations and Core Depths Achieved

Sample

ID

Latitude (decimal-min)a

Longitude (decimal-min)a

Mudline Elevation

(feet MLLW)

Core Penetration Depth (feet) including Z-Layer

Cored Depth (feet MLLW)

SGG-01 37.83259° -122.47764° -8.0 5.5 -8.5

SGG-02 37.83261° -122.47749° -7.4 8.8 -9.5

SGG-03 37.83271° -122.47722° -8.6 7.0 -10

SGG-04 37.87213° -122.45698° -9.8 7.3 -10

SGG-05 37.83291° -122.47719° -10.1 7.5 -10

SGG-06 37.83278° -122.47751° -9.7 8.5 -10.3

Notes:

a State Plane Coordinate System, California Zone 3, NAD 83. Lat/Long measurements of the first core of each sample are recorded.

ID = identification

MLLW = mean lower low water

All sediment was processed following procedures outlined in the SAP (URS, 2014), with no deviations.

2.1.3 Shipping of Sediment Samples to the Analytical Laboratory

Prior to shipping to the analytical laboratory, sample containers were wrapped in bubble wrap and securely packed inside a cooler with ice packs or crushed ice. A temperature blank was included in each cooler. The original signed chain-of-custody (COC) form was placed in a sealed plastic bag and taped to the inside lid of each cooler. Appropriate packaging tape was wrapped completely around each cooler. The sediment samples were shipped by overnight delivery to ALS Environmental Services, Inc. (ALS) in Kelso, Washington. ALS was instructed to archive subsamples, as described above.

2.1.4 Chain-of-Custody Protocol

COC procedures were followed for the sampling event throughout the collection, handling, and analyses activities. The Sampling and Analysis Project Manager was responsible for overseeing all sample tracking and COC procedures. This person was responsible for final sample inventory, maintenance of sample custody documentation, and completion of COC forms. A COC form accompanied the cooler containing the composite sample to ALS. A copy of the COC is included in the analytical results provided in Appendix B.

USCG Station Golden Gate 2-3 March 2016

Figure 2-1: Sample Locations

USCG Station Golden Gate 2-4 March 2016

Sediment physical and chemical characteristics provide information about chemicals of concern present in the sediment and their potential bioavailability, and about non-chemical factors that could affect toxicity. The Station Golden Gate sediments were analyzed by ALS for the conventional and chemical parameters specified in the SAP (URS, 2014).

Conventional parameters included the following analyses, in accordance with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA[EPA]/American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods:

Total organic carbon (TOC) by ASTM D4129-05 Modified;

Total solids by EPA Method 160.3; and

Grain size by ASTM D422.

Chemical analyses included:

Trace metals (Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, and Zinc) by EPA Methods 6020A, 7471B and 7742;

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8082;

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270;

Organochlorine (OCl) pesticides by EPA Method 8081; and

Butyltins (as cations).

The results of the physical and chemical analyses are presented in Section 3 of this Sampling and Analysis Report. The full analysis report submitted by ALS is provided in Appendix B.

2.2 Biological Testing

Benthic (whole sediment) and water-column (sediment elutriate) biological toxicity tests were performed on composite samples. Toxicity tests were conducted in accordance with Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) and Inland Testing Manual (ITM) regional guidance and appropriate test protocol (i.e., EPA/ASTM Methods). Three different biological tests were performed for the site composite sample:

10-day sediment amphipod survival test with Ampelisca abdita;

10-day sediment juvenile polychaete survival test with Neanthes arenaceodentata; and

48-hour standard elutriate bivalve embryo survival and development test with Mytilus galloprovincialis.

The methods used in conducting these tests followed established guidelines:

USCG Station Golden Gate 2-5 March 2016

Method E1367-03 – Standard Guide for Conducting 10-day Static Toxicity Tests with Marine and Estuarine Amphipods (ASTM, 2013);

Method E724-98 – Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests Starting with Embryos of Four Species of Seawater Bivalve Mollusk (ASTM, 2013);

Method E1611-00 – Standard Guide for Conducting Sediment Tests with Marine and Estuarine Polychaetous Annelids (ASTM, 2013);

Testing Manual for the Evaluation of Dredged Material Discharged in Waters of the U.S.

(Inland Testing Manual, USEPA/USACE, 1998);

Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA/821/R-02/012. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460 (USEPA, 2002); and

Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods (USEPA, 1994).

2.2.1 Field Sample Collection

On March 26, 2015, a sediment sample was collected from USCG Station Golden Gate;

additionally, a ‘site water’ sample was collected for use in preparing the sediment elutriate. The sediment sample was delivered to Pacific EcoRisk (PER) testing lab, on ice and under COC, on March 27, 2015. On receipt at the PER testing laboratory, the sediment sample was logged in, and stored at 4°C in the dark until needed. Results for the biological testing are summarized in Section 4, and the full report is provided in Appendix C.

USCG Station Golden Gate 3-1 March 2016

Chapter 3 Results of Physical/Chemical Analyses

All sediment and tissue chemical and conventional analyses were conducted in accordance with USEPA and USACE guidelines (USEPA and USACE, 1991; 1998). All sediment analytical results are presented on a dry-weight basis (e.g., milligram per kilogram [mg/kg] or microgram per kilogram [µg/kg] dry weight). Matrix spikes and sample duplicate analyses were performed on the site samples. All samples were maintained according to the appropriate holding times and temperatures for each analysis. Biological testing results are summarized in Section 4.

Sediment physical and chemical characteristics provide information about chemicals of concern present in the sediment and their potential bioavailability, and about non-chemical factors that could affect toxicity. The analytical results are summarized in Tables 3-1 through 3-6.

The results of the physical and chemical analyses of the sediments were compared to:

SF Bay ambient sediment concentrations (SFRWQCB, 1998);

San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Levels, where applicable; (SFEI, 2014); and San Francisco Bay TMDL Thresholds, where applicable, (SFEI, 2014).

The SGG-Composite site sediment was approximately 43.1 percent total solids, with approximately 33 percent fines (silts and clays). The TOC level was moderate (1.58 percent).

The results of metals analysis indicated that the cadmium concentration and lead concentration were slightly above San Francisco Bay ambient levels (SFRWQCB, 1998). The remaining metal analytes were generally similar to or below San Francisco Bay ambient levels (SFRWQCB, 1998).

Total butyltins were reported at 1.0 µg/kg.

Total dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was measured at 1.3 µg/kg, which is below San Francisco Bay ambient levels, and San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Levels (SFEI, 2014). Neither endosulfan sulfate nor endrin were detected in the composite sample; the remaining OCl pesticides were not detected above their respective method detection limits (MDL). Of the 40 PCB congeners analyzed, 29 had detections above the MDLs, ranging from

0.12 µg/kg to 1.1 µg/kg. The total PCB concentration was 10.59 µg/kg, which is below the San Francisco Bay ambient levels (SFRWQCB, 1998); the San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Level (USACE/USEPA, 2011; SFEI, 2014); and the Total PCB concentration San Francisco Bay TMDL threshold (= 99th percentile for San Francisco Bay [SFEI, 2014]).

The PAH analyte, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, was detected above the San Francisco Bay ambient level; however, Total PAHs were reported at 1,295 µg/kg, which is below the San Francisco Bay ambient levels (SFRWQCB, 1998) and the San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Levels

(USACE/USEPA, 2011; SFEI, 2014).

USCG Station Golden Gate 3-2 March 2016

Table 3-1 Station Golden Gate Sediment Grain Size, Total Solids (%), and Total Organic Carbon (%)

Analytes SGG-Composite

Percent Gravel 38.79 Percent Sand 28.27 Total Percent Fines (silt & clay) 32.94 Total Solids (%) 43.10 Total Organic Carbon (%) 1.58

Table 3-2 Station Golden Gate Sediment Metals Concentrations (mg/kg, dry weight)

Metals SGG-Composite San Francisco Bay Ambient

(<100% Finesa)

Arsenic 8.32 15.3 Cadmium 0.434 0.33 Chromium 72.2 112 Copper 45.5 68.1 Lead 57.4 43.2 Mercury 0.220 0.43 (0.47b) Nickel 69.2 112 Selenium 0.43 0.64 Silver 0.217 0.58 Zinc 113 158 Notes:

a SFRWQCB, 1998 b Mercury concentration San Francisco Bay bioaccumulation threshold (= 99th percentile for San Francisco Bay

[SFEI, 2013]).

Bold indicates result value exceeds the San Francisco Bay ambient level.

USCG Station Golden Gate 3-3 March 2016

Table 3-3 Station Golden Gate Sediment Organotin Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight)

Organotins SGG-Composite

Butyltin < MDL Ui - Dibutyltin 1.0 J - Tributyltin < MDL U - Tetrabutyltin < MDL U - Total Detected Organotins 1.0 J -a SFRWQCB, 1998.

i The Method Reporting Limit/Method Detection Limit (MRL/MDL) or Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)/Limit of Detection (LOD) is elevated due to a chromatographic interference.

J Analyte was detected at a concentration below the MRL and above the MDL, and therefore is an estimate.

U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected non-detect) at or above the MRL/MDL. DOD-QSM 4.2 definition: Analyte was not detected and is reported as less than the LOD, or as defined by the project. The detection limit is adjusted for dilution.

All concentrations reported as being below the laboratory MDL are reported above as < the MDL.

USCG Station Golden Gate 3-4 March 2016

Table 3-4 Station Golden Gate Sediment PCB Congener Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight)

PCBs SGG-Composite

PCB 008 < MDL U -

PCB 018 < MDL U -

PCB 028 < MDL Ui -

PCB 031 < MDL U -

PCB 033 < MDL U -

PCB 044 0.15 J -

PCB 049 0.13 JP -

PCB 052 0.32 J -

PCB 056 0.24 JP -

PCB 060 < MDL Ui -

PCB 066 0.27 JP -

PCB 070 0.30 J -

PCB 074 < MDL Ui - PCB 087 < MDL Ui -

PCB 095 0.53 J -

PCB 097 0.24 J -

PCB 099 0.27 J -

PCB 101 1.0 -

PCB 105 0.23 J -

PCB 110 0.81 -

PCB 118 0.57 J -

PCB 128 0.22 J -

PCB 132 < MDL Ui -

PCB 138 1.1 -

PCB 141 0.13 J -

PCB 149 0.63 -

PCB 151 0.18 JP -

PCB 153 0.94 -

PCB 156 0.12 JP -

PCB 158 0.12 JP -

PCB 170 0.28 JP

PCB 174 0.19 JP -

PCB 177 0.18 J -

PCB 180 0.61 -

USCG Station Golden Gate 3-5 March 2016

Table 3-4 Station Golden Gate Sediment PCB Congener Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight)

(Continued)

PCBs SGG-Composite

PCB 183 0.15 J -

PCB 187 0.40 J -

PCB 194 0.16 JP -

PCB 195 < MDL U -

PCB 201 < MDL U -

PCB 203 0.12 JP -

Total Detected PCBs 10.59 JP 22.7a, 29.6b, 18.0c Notes:

a SFRWQCB 1998 b Total PCB concentration San Francisco Bay TMDL threshold (= 99th percentile for San Francisco Bay [SFEI 2014]).

c San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Level (USACE/USEPA, 2011; SFEI, 2014).

i The Method Reporting Limit/Method Detection Limit (MRL/MDL) or Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)/Limit of

J Analyte was detected at a concentration below the MRL and above the MDL, and therefore is an estimate.

P The GC or HPLC confirmation criteria were exceeded. The relative percent difference is greater than 40 percent between the two analytical results.

U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected (non-detect) at or above the MRL/MDL. DOD-QSM 4.2 definition: Analyte was not detected and is reported as less than the LOD. or as defined by the project. The

All concentrations reported as being below the laboratory MDL are reported above as < MDL.

PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls

USCG Station Golden Gate 3-6 March 2016

Table 3-5 Station Golden Gate Sediment PAH Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight)

PAHs SGG-Composite

(<100% Finesb)

Acenaphthene 6.5 26.6 Acenaphthylene 7.0 31.7 Anthracene 22 88 Benzo(a)anthracene 65 244 Benzo(a)pyrene 120 412 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 150 371 Benzo(e)pyrenea 86 294 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 110 310 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 18 258 Biphenyla 5.7 J 12.9 Chrysene 75 289 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 10 32.7 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalenea 24 12.1 Fluoranthene 150 514 Fluorene 10 25.3 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 93 382 2-Methylnaphthalenea 8.5 19.4 1-Methylnaphthalenea 4.8 J 12.1 1-Methylphenanthrenea < MDL U MDL 31.7 Naphthalene 14 55.8 Perylenea 55 145 Phenanthrene 57 237 Pyrene 190 665 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalenea 7.8 - Dibenzothiophenea 5.4 J - Total Detected PAHs 1294.7 J 3390b, 4500c Notes:

a San Francisco Bay additional Regional Monitoring Plan PAHs (USACE/USEPA, 2011).

b San Francisco Bay ambient level (SFRWQCB, 1998).

c San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Level (USACE/USEPA, 2011; SFEI, 2014).

J Analyte was detected at a concentration below the Method Reporting Limit (MRL) and above the Method Detection Limit (MDL), and therefore is an estimate.

U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected (non-detect) at or above the MRL/MDL. DOD-QSM 4.2 definition: Analyte was not detected and is reported as less than the LOD, or as defined by the project. The

PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

All concentrations reported as being below the laboratory MDL are reported above as < the MDL.

Bold indicates value exceeds the San Francisco Bay ambient level.

USCG Station Golden Gate 3-7 March 2016

Table 3-6 Station Golden Gate Sediment Organochlorine Pesticide Concentrations (µg/kg, dry weight)

Organochlorine Pesticides SGG-Composite

Aldrin < MDL U 1.1 alpha-BHC < MDL U -beta-BHC < MDL U -delta-BHC < MDL U -gamma-BHC (Lindane) < MDL Ui - Chlordane < MDL U 1.1 (37)b Dieldrin < MDL U 0.44 (1.9)b Endosulfan I < MDL Ui - Endosulfan II < MDL Ui - Endosulfan Sulfate < MDL U - Endrin < MDL U 0.78 Endrin Aldehyde < MDL U - Heptachlor < MDL Ui - Heptachlor Epoxide < MDL U - Toxaphene < MDL U - 2,4′-DDD < MDL Ui see total DDT 4,4′-DDD 0.71 J see total DDT 2,4′-DDE < MDL U see total DDT 4,4′-DDE 0.64 J see total DDT 2,4′-DDT < MDL Ui see total DDT 4,4′-DDT < MDL Ui see total DDT Total Detected DDT 1.3 J 7.0a, 50b Notes:

a SFRWQCB, 1998.

b San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Level (USACE/USEPA, 2011; SFEI, 2014).

I The Method Reporting Limit/Method Detection Limit (MRL/MDL) or Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)/Limit of

J The result is an estimated value.

U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected (non-detect) at or above the MRL/MDL. DOD-QSM 4.2 definition: Analyte was not detected and is reported as less than the LOD, or as defined by the project. The detection limit is adjusted for dilution. All concentrations reported as being below the laboratory MDL are reported above as < the MDL.

USCG Station Golden Gate 4-1 March 2016

Chapter 4 Results of Biological Testing

Three different biological tests were performed for each site composite sample:

1. A 10-day amphipod survival test with the amphipod Ampelisca abdita;

2. A 10-day juvenile polychaete survival test with the polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata;

and

3. A 48-hour bivalve embryo survival and development test with the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis.

All tests were performed following appropriate protocols as outlined in the SAP (URS, 2014).

The full analytical report is provided in Appendix C.

4.1 Benthic Toxicity Testing

Solid-phase bioassays were conducted with the amphipod A. abdita and the polychaete N. arenaceodentata. A summary of the measured concentrations of total ammonia and total sulfides in the sediment porewaters, and summary tables of the total ammonia concentrations measured in the test overlying waters, are presented in the full laboratory report in Appendix C.

ITM guidance requires that site sediment results be compared with disposal site and/or reference site sediment results, or a reference site database (if available), to determine the potential impact of whole sediment on benthic organisms at and beyond the boundaries of the disposal site (USEPA/USACE, 1998). As detailed in the ITM, comparative guidelines for acceptance were followed, as listed below:

1. If survival is greater in the proposed dredged sediments than in reference site sediment(s) or the reference site sediment database, the proposed dredged sediments are not acutely toxic to benthic organisms.

2. If the difference between the survival response in the site sediment and in the reference sediment (or the ‘reference site database survival’) is ≤20 percent for amphipods or ≤10 percent for polychaetes, the test sediments are not acutely toxic to benthic organisms.

3. If the difference between the survival response in the site sediment and in the reference sediment (or the ‘reference site database survival’) is >20 percent for amphipods or >10 percent for polychaetes, then the respective survival responses must be statistically compared. If a statistically significant reduction in survival is observed for the site sediment, then the site sediment is considered to be acutely toxic to benthic organisms.

Statistical analyses are not performed when reference site database values are used.

USCG Station Golden Gate 4-2 March 2016

4.1.1 Sediment Porewater Characterization

Prior to the initiation of the sediment tests, the sediments were removed from refrigerated storage, and each sample was re-homogenized in a large, stainless-steel bowl. Aliquots of the re-homogenized composite sediments were centrifuged at 2,500 g for 15 minutes; the resulting supernatant porewaters were carefully collected and analyzed for ammonia analysis (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1 Sediment Porewater Initial Water Ammonia Levels

Sample ID pH

Salinity (parts per thousand)

Total Ammonia (mg/L N)

Total Sulfide (mg/L)

SGG-Composite 7.60 27.5 32.1 0.011

ID = identification mg/L = milligrams per liter

4.1.2 Effects of the USCG SGG Sediments on Ampelisca abdita

The results of this test are summarized in Table 4-2. There was 94 percent survival in the Control treatment, indicating an acceptable survival response by the test organisms. There was no significant reduction in survival in the SGG-Composite sediment relative to the Lab Control. These test results indicate that this sediment is not toxic to amphipods.

Table 4-2 Ampelisca abdita Survival in the USCG SGG Sediments

Sediment Site

Percent Survival in Test Replicates Mean Percent

Survival Rep A Rep B Rep C Rep D Rep E

Lab Control

100 95 95 85 95 94

SGG-

Composite

100 95 100 100 95 98

4.1.2.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Ampelisca abdita

The results of this test are presented in Table 4-3. The lethal concentration, 50 percent (LC50) for this test was consistent with PER’s reference toxicant test database for this species, indicating that these test organisms were responding to toxic stress in a typical fashion.

USCG Station Golden Gate 4-3 March 2016

Table 4-3 Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Ampelisca abdita

KC1 Treatment (g/L) Mean Percent Survival

Lab Control 95

0.25 45a

0.5 65a

1 70a

2 0a

4 0a

LC50 = 0.624 g/L KCl

Typical Response Range (mean ± 2 SD) = 0.226 – 1.70 g/L KCl a The survival response at this treatment was significantly less than the Lab Control response at p < 0.05.

KCl = Potassium Chloride g/L = grams per liter

SD = Standard Deviation

4.1.3 Effects of the USCG SGG Sediments on Neanthes arenaceodentata

The results of this test are summarized in Table 4-4. There was 100 percent survival in the Control treatment, indicating an acceptable survival response by the test organisms. There was 100 percent survival in the site sediment sample. There was no significant reduction in survival in the SGG-Composite sediment relative to the Lab Control. These test results indicate that this sediment is not toxic to polychaetes.

Table 4-4 Neanthes arenaceodentata Survival in the USCG SGG Sediments

Site

Percent Survival in Test Replicates Mean

Survival Rep A Rep B Rep C Rep D Rep E

Lab Control

100 100 100 100 100 100

SGG-

Composite

100 100 100 100 100 100

USCG Station Golden Gate 4-4 March 2016

4.1.3.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Neanthes arenaceodentata

The results of this test are presented in Table 4-5. The LC50 for this test was consistent with PER’s reference toxicant test database for this species, indicating that these test organisms were responding to toxic stress in a typical fashion.

Table 4-5 Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Neanthes arenaceodentata

KCl Treatment (g/L) Mean Percent Survival

Lab Control 100

0.25 100

0.5 100

1 90

2 30a

LC50 = 1.62 g/L KCl

Typical Response Range (mean ± 2 SD) = 1.07 – 2.17 g/L KCl a The survival response at this treatment was significantly less than the Lab Control response at p < 0.05.

KCl = potassium chloride g/L = g/L = grams per liter

LC50 = lethal concentration, 50 percent

4.2 Water Column (Sediment Elutriate) Toxicity Testing

The 48-hour bivalve embryo development toxicity test with M. galloprovincialis was performed on sediment elutriates to assess the effects of dredged material disposal in the water column.

Detailed toxicity test results are presented in Section 4.2.1.

The test results for the sediment composite elutriate were compared with the test organism responses at the negative Lab Control treatment to determine the potential impact of the proposed dredged materials on pelagic organisms at and beyond the boundaries of the disposal site (USEPA/USACE, 1998). The following criteria were used for suitability determinations:

1. If the survival response and/or normal embryo development response in the 100 percent sediment elutriate treatment is greater than or equal to the Control (clean seawater) treatment response(s), the dredged material is not predicted to be acutely toxic to water column organisms.

USCG Station Golden Gate 4-5 March 2016

2. If the reduction in survival response and/or normal embryo development response in the 100 percent sediment elutriate treatment relative to the Control treatment is less than or equal to 10 percent, there is no need for statistical analyses, and no indication of water column toxicity attributable to the test sediments.

3. If the reduction in survival response and/or normal embryo development response in the 100 percent sediment elutriate treatment relative to the Control treatment is greater than 10 percent, then the data must be evaluated statistically to determine the magnitude of toxicity. If there is greater than 50 percent survival or normal embryo development in the 100 percent elutriate treatment, the LC50/effective concentration, 50 percent (EC50) is assumed to be greater than or equal to 100 percent. If there is less than 50 percent survival or normal embryo development in at least one of the elutriate treatments, then an LC50/EC50 should be calculated, and compared with existing acceptability standards.

Detailed toxicity test results are presented in Section 4.2.1.

4.2.1 Toxicity of Sediment Elutriates to Mytilus galloprovincialis

The results of this test are summarized below in Table 4-6. There was 90.7 percent survival and

98.9 percent normal development in the Lab Control treatments, indicating acceptable responses by the test organisms. For the USCG SGG-Composite samples, the survival LC50 was greater than 100 percent elutriate, and the development EC50 value was 69.9 percent elutriate.

Table 4-6 Effects of the USCG SGG-Composite Sediment Elutriate on Mytilus galloprovincialis

Elutriate Treatment Mean Percent Survival Mean Percent Normal

Development

Lab Control 89.7 98.9

1% 91.7 98.8

10% 92.3 99.0

25% 90.0 98.9

50% 86.3 97.4

100% 0a 0.0

Site Water 90.1 99.5

Survival LC50 or Development EC50 =

73.6 percent elutriate 69.9 percent elutriate a The survival response at this treatment was significantly less than the Lab Control response at p < 0.05.

LC50 = lethal concentration, 50 percent

EC50 = effective concentration, 50 percent

USCG Station Golden Gate 4-6 March 2016

4.2.1.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Mytilus galloprovincialis Embryos

The results of this test are presented in Table 4-7. The EC50 for this test was consistent with PER’s reference toxicant test database for this species, indicating that these test organisms were responding to toxic stress in a typical fashion.

Table 4-7 Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Mytilus galloprovincialis

KCl Treatment (g/L) Mean Percent Normal Embryo Development

Lab Control 99.3

0.5 99.0

1 98.9

2 86a

3 0a

EC50 = 2.28 g/L KCl

Typical Response Range (mean ± 2 SD) 1.96 – 2.62 g/L KCl a The survival response at this treatment was significantly less than the Lab Control response at p < 0.05.

KCl = potassium chloride g/L = grams per liter

EC50 = effective concentration, 50 percent

USCG Station Golden Gate 5-1 March 2016

Chapter 5 Quality Control Review

Any analyses that did not comply with the analytical laboratory QA/QC limits are presented below (also, see final analytical reports in Appendix B and Appendix C for full case narratives).

The QA/QC review entailed reviewing the laboratory Data Report(s) for sample integrity, correct methodology, and compliance with all appropriate laboratory QA/QC requirements.

The overall data quality assessment found that all data were usable. Appendix B contains the conventional and chemical analyses reports, which include laboratory QA/QC narratives.

Appendix C provides the biological analyses report, which includes laboratory QA/QC narratives.

5.1 Sediment Conventional and Chemical Analytical QA/QC

Summary

5.1.1 ALS Environmental Report K1503191

5.1.1.1 Total Metals

Matrix Spike Recovery Exceptions: The matrix spike recovery of lead for sample SGG- Composite was outside the ALS control criteria as a result of the heterogeneous character of the sample. The relative percent difference (RPD) for the replicate analysis supported this. The associated QA/QC results (e.g., control sample, calibration standards, etc.) indicated the analysis was in control. No further corrective action was appropriate.

Relative Percent Difference Exceptions: The RPD for the replicate analysis of lead in sample SGG-Composite was outside the normal ALS control limits. The variability in the results was attributed to the heterogeneous character of the sample. Standard mixing techniques were used, but were not sufficient for complete homogenization of this sample. No other anomalies associated with the analysis of this sample were observed.

5.1.1.2 Butyltins (as cation)

Matrix Spike Recovery Exceptions: The matrix spike recovery of n-Butyltin cation for sample was outside control criteria. Recovery in the laboratory control sample was acceptable, which indicated the analytical batch was in control. The matrix spike outlier suggested a potential low bias in this matrix. No further corrective action was appropriate.

Elevated Detection Limits: The detection limit was elevated for n-Butyltin in this field sample.

The chromatogram indicated the presence of non-target background components. The matrix interference prevented adequate resolution of the target compound at the normal limit. The result was flagged to indicate the matrix interference.

USCG Station Golden Gate 5-2 March 2016

5.2 Biological Testing Quality Lab Control Summary

The biological testing of the sediments incorporated standard QA/QC procedures to ensure that the test results were valid. Standard QA/QC procedures included the use of negative Lab Controls, positive Lab Controls, test replicates, and measurements of water quality during testing. Appendix C contains the full biological analysis report, and includes the laboratory QA/QC narratives.

Quality assurance procedures that were used for sediment testing are consistent with methods described in USEPA/USACE (1991) and USEPA/USACE (1998). Sediments for the bioassay testing were stored appropriately at ≤4°C, and were used within the 8-week holding period.

Sediment interstitial water characteristics were within test acceptability limits at the start of the tests. Sediment elutriates were prepared using site water. The toxicity test overlying waters consisted of high-quality natural seawater. All measurements of routine water quality characteristics were performed as described in the PER Lab Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). All biological testing water quality conditions were within the appropriate limits.

Laboratory instruments were calibrated daily according to Lab SOPs, and calibration data were logged and initialed.

Negative Lab Control: The biological responses for all the test organisms at the negative Lab Control treatments were within acceptable limits for the sediment and sediment elutriate tests.

Positive Lab Control: The results of the reference toxicant tests were consistent with the “typical response” ranges established by the respective reference toxicant test databases for these species, indicating that the test organisms were responding to toxic stress in a typical and consistent fashion.

Concentration Response Relationships: The concentration-response relationships for the sediment elutriate tests and reference toxicant tests were evaluated per EPA guidelines (EPA- 821-B-00-004), and were determined to be acceptable.

USCG Station Golden Gate 6-1 March 2016

Chapter 6 Summary

The sediments proposed for dredging at USCG Station Golden Gate were analyzed to determine suitability of the material to be dredged for in-Bay placement at SF-11.

Comparison of the analytical chemistry results to the San Francisco Bay–specific thresholds currently used by the DMMO for in-Bay placement indicated that some analytes were above the San Francisco Bay ambient levels (SFRWQCB, 1998). None of the analytes were above San Francisco Bay TMDL Thresholds or San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Levels

(USACE/USEPA, 2011; SFEI, 2014).

Although the USCG SGG-Composite sediment samples had some analytes with measured concentrations that exceeded San Francisco Bay ambient levels, the benthic toxicity test results indicated that these compounds were not biologically available to cause toxicity in the 10-day sediment tests. The narrative water quality objective was met for the sediment elutriate tests.

Based on these results, the USCG Station Golden Gate sediments are considered suitable for in-Bay placement at SF-11.

USCG Station Golden Gate 7-1 March 2016

Chapter 7 References

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), 2013. Method E1367-99. Standard Guide for conducting 10-day static toxicity tests with marine and estuarine amphipods. ASTM Standards on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and…