2012-2013_Anamar_Final_Environmental_Testing.pdf

FINAL REPORT

CHARLESTON HARBOR NAVIGATION

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (POST 45)

PHYSICAL SEDIMENT TESTING AND ANALYSIS

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

Contract No. W912EP-09-D-0013-DW01

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Charleston Regulatory District, 69-A Hagood Avenue Charleston, South Carolina 29403

Prepared by:

ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc.

2106 NW 67th Place Gainesville, Florida 32653

(ANAMAR Project No. 12-0003)

April 2013

Charleston Harbor Navigation Improvements Project (Post 45) Physical Sediment Testing and Analysis, Charleston, SC ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Area Description

1.2 Description of the Testing Approach

1.2.1 Evaluation of Dredge Material for Disposal

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Project Design and Rationale

2.2 Sample Collection Techniques

2.2.1 Field Effort

2.2.2 Site Positioning

2.2.3 Sediment Sampling with Vibracore

2.2.4 Sample Transport, Processing, and Custody

2.3 Physical Analytical Procedures

2.3.1 Physical Procedures

2.4 Data Reduction

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Sediment Physical Results

4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

4.1 Field Sampling

4.2 Sample Receipt

4.3 Physical Analysis

5 REFERENCES

iii

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1-1. Subcontractors and Responsibilities Associated with This Report

Exhibit 2-1. Relationship between Dredging Units, Navigational Channel Areas, and Sample IDs: ENTRANCE CHANNEL

Exhibit 2-2. Relationship between Dredging Units, Navigational Channel Areas, and Sample IDs: LOWER HARBOR and SHEM CREEK CHANNEL

Exhibit 2-3. Relationship between Dredging Units, Navigational Channel Areas, and Sample IDs: UPPER HARBOR

Exhibit 2-4. Summary of Field Sampling Materials and Methods

Exhibit 2-5. Summary of Laboratory Evaluations

Exhibit 2-6. Field Sampling and Compositing Scheme and Sample Nomenclature: ENTRANCE

CHANNEL1

Exhibit 2-7. Field Sampling and Compositing Scheme and Sample Nomenclature: LOWER

HARBOR AND SHEM CREEK CHANNEL1

Exhibit 2-8. Field Sampling and Compositing Scheme and Sample Nomenclature: UPPER

HARBOR1

Exhibit 2-9. Daily Activities during the October through November 2012 Field Effort iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Vibracore Sample Summary

Table 2 Results of Physical Analyses of Sediment Subsamples

Table 3 Results of Physical Analyses for Sediment Composite Samples

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Entrance Channel 1 Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 2 Entrance Channel 2 Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 3 Mount Pleasant Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 4 Rebellion, Bennis, and Horse Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 5 Hog Island Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 6 Drum Island and Myer’s Bend Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 7 Wando River Lower Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 8 Wando River Upper Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 9 Daniel Island Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 10 Daniel Island Bend/Clouter Creek Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 11 Navy Yard Reach/North Charleston Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 12 Port Terminal, Filbin Creek, & Ordnance Reach Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 13 Ordnance Reach Turning Basin and Widener Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 14 Bennis Reach Widener Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 15 Hog Island Reach Widener Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 16 Wando River Turning Basin Widener Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 17 Daniel Island Reach Widener Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 18 Wando River Lower Reach Widener Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 19 North Charleston Reach Widener Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 20 Anchorage Basin Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

Figure 21 Shem Creek Sampling Locations, Charleston Harbor 103

APPENDICES

NOTE: Appendices are provided in electronic format only and are included on the accompanying disc.

Appendix A SAP/QAPP

Appendix B Field Paperwork

B-1: Core Field Logs B-2: Daily Quality Control Reports

Appendix C Sediment Physical Lab Report

Appendix D Photographs of Sediment Samples v

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

DU dredging unit

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration

GPS global positioning system

MLLW mean lower low water

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

ODMDS ocean dredged material disposal site

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

SAP/QAPP Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan

SCPA South Carolina Ports Authority

SERIM Southeast Regional Implementation Manual

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report details the field sampling, analytical procedures, and physical results of sediment testing and analysis in support of the Charleston Harbor Post-45 Improvement Feasibility Study.

Charleston Harbor is a 14-square-mile tidal estuary located in Berkeley and Charleston counties, South Carolina, and is formed from the junction of the Ashley, Cooper, and Wando rivers. The feasibility study is designed to evaluate and determine the need to improve navigability in the harbor and to accommodate larger vessels.

Areas proposed to be dredged have been divided into 21 project-specific dredging units (DUs).

Between three and six subsampling stations were selected from within each DU and were based on the results of a bathymetric survey conducted during February 2012 by USACE. Sampling stations were positioned to best represent dredge material within each dredging unit. Field sampling took place from October 20 through November 19, 2012. Field personnel consisted of scientists from ANAMAR and Athena Technologies who collected core samples using a vibracore deployed from the R/V Artemis.

All samples were composited at the ANAMAR headquarters in Gainesville, Florida, according to a pre-approved compositing scheme. Subsamples and composited samples were shipped to AMEC in Jacksonville, Florida, for physical analysis of all sediment samples and included grain size, specific gravity, Atterberg limits, and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) category.

ANAMAR performed quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) on sediment physical data and presented the data in summarized form. The results of the analyses are presented within this report.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Area Description

Charleston Harbor is a 14-square-mile tidal estuary located in Berkeley and Charleston counties, South Carolina, and is formed from the junction of the Ashley, Cooper, and Wando rivers (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 2012). Morris Island and Sullivan’s Island form a protective barrier near the entrance at the southeast portion of the harbor, as do two jetties that frame the north and south sides of the inlet. The harbor is part of the Intracoastal Waterway and is bordered to the southeast, west, and north by the Atlantic Ocean, City of Charleston, Town of Mount Pleasant, and James Island. Mean and spring tidal ranges at the entrance channel are

5.1 and 5.9 feet, respectively (USACE 2012).

Charleston Harbor has been a key economic driver in the region for over 300 years, due in part to its deep depths (currently maintained at -45 feet mean lower low water [MLLW]) at the main shipping channel and with a entrance channel that is even deeper (-47 feet MLLW) (South Carolina Ports Authority 2012). The harbor’s location along the U.S. Atlantic coast allows suitable access for European and South American ships (USACE 2012).

Entrance Channel—The entrance channel begins at the 47-foot contour line in the Atlantic Ocean and extends northwest 17 miles to the harbor entrance between Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter. The entire entrance channel, which consists of the Fort Sumter Range, is currently maintained at 800 feet wide by -47 feet MLLW deep. The Mount Pleasant Range is grouped with the entrance channel for the purposes of this report. The Mount Pleasant Range transitions to -45 feet MLLW and has a width of 500 or more feet.

Lower Harbor—The lower harbor begins north of Sullivan’s Island for the purposes of this study.

At the inlet, the channel continues with a depth of -45 feet MLLW and a varying width of between 500 and 900 feet, extending northwest approximately 15.5 miles along the Cooper River to the South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA) North Charleston Terminal (USACE 2012).

The lower harbor portion of the channel includes (from north to south) the Anchorage Basin (labeled as Commercial Anchorage Area A on charts), Rebellion Reach, Bennis Reach, Horse Reach, Hog Island Reach, Drum Island Reach, and Myers Bend. An additional 2.1-mile-long, -45-foot-MLLW, and 400-foot-wide channel extends northeast of the confluence of the Hog Island and Drum Island reaches and along the Wando River to the SCSPA Wando Welch Terminal and is divided into Wando River Lower Reach and Wando River Upper Reach (and the associated Wando River Turning Basin). Proposed channel wideners included in the lower harbor consist of the Bennis Reach Widener, Hog Island Widener, Drum Island Widener, Wando River Lower Reach Widener, and Wando River Turning Basin Widener (USACE 2012, SAP/QAPP).

Shem Creek—The Shem Creek Channel is a small (110 feet wide by -12 feet MLLW deep) channel which extends northeast from Rebellion Reach along Crab Bank and into Shem Creek.

The Shem Creek Channel serves the town of Mount Pleasant and is regularly used by shrimp trawlers and other commercial fishing vessels (USACE 2012).

Upper Harbor—The portion extending into the upper harbor consists of (from north to south) the Daniel Island Reach, Daniel Island Bend, Clouter Creek Reach, Navy Yard Reach, North

Charleston Reach, Filbin Creek Reach, Port Terminal Reach, and Ordnance Reach (and the associated Ordnance Reach Turning Basin). Proposed channel wideners included in the upper harbor consist of the Daniel Island Reach Widener, Clouter Creek Reach Widener, North Charleston Reach Widener, and Ordnance Reach Turning Basin Widener (USACE 2012).

The Naval Weapons Station Channel, north of Ordnance Reach, is not included in the project area. Similarly, the channel extending from Mount Pleasant Range through the Ashley River is not included in the project area.

The Charleston Harbor Post-45 Improvement Feasibility Study is designed to evaluate and determine the need to improve navigability in the harbor (USACE 2012). Preliminary results of this study suggest that there are additional National Economic Development benefits associated with the proposed modifications to the harbor. Objectives of the feasibility study are to investigate and analyze

• Existing vessel sizes using the harbor to determine and identify any impacts to navigation and usage from the current -45-foot-MLLW channel depth.

• Future vessel sizes and drafts as projected over the expected life of the improvement project to forecast channel depth requirements of up to -52 feet MLLW in the lower harbor and up to -48 feet MLLW in the upper harbor.

The feasibility study is expected to investigate several navigation improvement scenarios for the harbor. The following alternatives to the current project configuration and depths will be evaluated for each reach of the Federal Navigation Channel (USACE 2012):

• Channel deepening

• Channel widening

• Channel re-alignments/bend easing

• Turning basin widening and/or lengthening

The process of evaluating various navigation improvement scenarios will include the appropriate level of engineering, economic, and environmental analyses to identify all possible benefits and impacts associated with the improvements (USACE 2012).

Charleston Harbor Navigation Improvements Project (Post 45) Physical Sediment Testing and Analysis, Charleston, SC

Overview of Charleston Harbor Federal Navigation Channel broken up by the entrance channel, lower harbor, and upper harbor reaches (modified from USACE [2012])

The purpose of this report is to assist USACE in determining the suitability of sediment dredged from the harbor for beneficial use. Beneficial use is defined as utilizing dredged sediments as resource materials in productive ways that provide environmental, economic, or social benefit.

Sediment samples from representative sites throughout the project area were collected and evaluated. The samples within the project area were collected from locations and depths coinciding with the dredging prism. These samples were analyzed for physical, chemical, toxicological, and bioaccumulation parameters. This report provides only the results of the sediment physical analyses. The results of the other analyses will be provided in a separate report.

1.2 Description of the Testing Approach

1.2.1 Evaluation of Dredge Material for Disposal

USACE contracted with ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc. to collect sediment samples, conduct physical and chemical analyses, and present the results in a report. The field effort, laboratory methods, and this report are in accordance with the scope of work (USACE 2012) and the Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP).

Deliverables associated with this project include a

Draft SAP/QAPP (combined with the QAPP for the Charleston Harbor Deepening)

Final SAP/QAPP (combined with the QAPP for the Charleston Harbor Deepening)

Health and Safety Plan (combined with the Health and Safety Plan for the Charleston Harbor Deepening)

Daily Quality Control Reports

Preliminary sediment physical, chemical, toxicological, and bioaccumulation data

Laboratory electronic data and reports

Draft sediment analysis report and supporting documentation

Final sediment analysis report and supporting documentation

ANAMAR coordinated and directed operations for this project and worked closely with USACE to develop a sampling and analysis scheme, schedule, and deliverables. ANAMAR also reviewed all data and produced this report summarizing the results of the physical analyses of the sediment collected from the project area. Exhibit 1-1 lists the subcontractors associated with this evaluation and their areas of responsibility.

Exhibit 1-1. Subcontractors and Responsibilities Associated with This Report

Company, Location, Website Area(s) of Responsibility

AMEC

(Jacksonville, Florida) www.amec.com

Laboratory preparation and physical analysis of sediment;

sample holding, and archiving

Athena Technologies, Inc.

(McClellanville, South Carolina) www.athenatechnologies.com

Support for field collection of sediment samples

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Project Design and Rationale

Areas proposed to be dredged have been divided into 21 project-specific dredging units (DUs).

Each DU was expected to have consistent characteristics relative to the project area as a whole (Green Book, SERIM). Three to six subsampling stations were selected from within each DU and were based on the results of a bathymetric survey conducted during February 2012 and provided by USACE. Sampling stations were positioned to best represent dredge material that may be disposed at the Charleston ODMDS. Target sampling depth at each station coincided with the project depth at that location, -54 feet and -52 feet MLLW for the Entrance Channel, - 52 feet MLLW for the Lower Harbor, and -52 feet and -48 feet MLLW for the Upper Harbor, plus allowable overdepth and advanced maintenance. The project depth at each sampling location is presented in Table 1. Exhibits 2-1 through 2-3 show the relationships between dredging units, channel areas, and sample IDs for the entrance channel, lower harbor, and upper harbor, respectively. Exhibit 2-4 summarizes field sampling materials and methods, and Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the laboratory evaluations. Exhibits 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8 present the field sampling and compositing scheme and sample nomenclature for the Entrance Channel, Lower Harbor and Shem Creek Channel, and the Upper Harbor, respectively.

Exhibit 2-1. Relationship between Dredging Units, Navigational Channel Areas, and

Sample IDs: ENTRANCE CHANNEL

Project-Specific Dredging Unit1

Channel Area Represented by Dredging Unit Subsample IDs1

Composite Sample ID1

1 Charleston Entrance Channel (area 1) CHEC12-1A through E CHEC12-1

2 Charleston Entrance Channel (area 2) CHEC12-2A through E CHEC12-2

3 Mount Pleasant Range MTPL12A through E MTPL12 1 Source of project-specific dredging units, subsample and composite sample IDs: Table 10-4 in SAP/QAPP (Appendix A).

Exhibit 2-2. Relationship between Dredging Units, Navigational Channel Areas, and

Sample IDs: LOWER HARBOR and SHEM CREEK CHANNEL

Project-Specific Dredging Unit1

Channel Area(s) Represented by Dredging Unit Subsample IDs1

Composite Sample ID1

4 Rebellion, Bennis, and Horse reaches REHR12A through F REHR12

5 Hog Island Reach HGIS12A through E HGIS12

6 Drum Island Reach, Drum Island Widener, and Meyers Bend DRMY12A through E DRMY12

7 Wando River Lower Reach WLR12A through E WLR12

8 Wando River Upper Reach and Wando River Turning Basin WUTB12A through E WUTB12

14 Bennis Reach Widener BENW12A through F BENW12

15 Hog Island Widener HGIW12A through E HGIW12

16 Wando River Turning Basin Widener WRTB12A through E WRTB12

18 Wando River Lower Reach Widener WLRW12A through E WLRW12

20 Anchorage Basin ABMA12A through E ABMA12

21 Shem Creek Channel SHCR12A through E SHCR12 1 Source of project-specific dredging units: Table 10-4 in SAP/QAPP (Appendix A).

Exhibit 2-3. Relationship between Dredging Units, Navigational Channel Areas, and Sample IDs: UPPER HARBOR

Project-Specific Dredging Unit1

Channel Area(s) Represented by Dredging Unit Subsample IDs1

Composite Sample ID1

9 Daniel Island Reach DANI12A through E DANI12

Daniel Island Bend, Clouter Creek Reach, Clouter Creek Reach Widener CCRK12A through E CCRK12

Navy Yard Reach, North Charleston

Reach NYNC12A through E NYNC12

Port Terminal Reach, Filbin Creek Reach, Ordnance Reach PTFC12A through E PTFC12

13 Ordnance Reach Turning Basin, Ordnance Reach Turning Basin Widener ORDT12A through E ORDT12

17 Daniel Island Reach Widener DANW12A through C DANW12

19 North Charleston Reach Widener and Filbin Creek Reach Widener NCW12A through E NCW12

1 Source of project-specific dredging units: Table 10-4 in SAP/QAPP (Appendix A).

Exhibit 2-4. Summary of Field Sampling Materials and Methods

FIELD SAMPLE COLLECTION:

• 105 project sediment subsamples (3 to 6 subsamples/DU), 2 field split samples (collected from composite samples CHEC12-1 and ORDT12)

SAMPLING GEAR:

• Vibracore

VESSELS:

• R/V Artemis (30-foot SeaArk pontoon vessel)

Exhibit 2-5. Summary of Laboratory Evaluations

SEDIMENT PHYSICAL ANALYSES (all subsamples and composite samples):

• Hydrometer grain size

• Total solids/water content

• Specific gravity

Exhibit 2-6. Field Sampling and Compositing Scheme and Sample Nomenclature: ENTRANCE CHANNEL1

Subsample ID Gear

Lowest Elevation Sampled

(ft, MLLW) Number of Cores or

Grabs Collected Total Volume Collected

(gallons) Composite Sample ID

CHEC12-1A Core -55.6 2 11

CHEC12-1

CHEC12-1B Core -53.7 2 8

CHEC12-1C Core -54.8 2 8

CHEC12-1D Core -56.4 2 2.5

CHEC12-1E Core -54.1 2 <1

CHEC12-2A Core -57.4 2 9.5

CHEC12-2

CHEC12-2B Core -59.1 2 10

CHEC12-2C Core -54.3 2 5

CHEC12-2D Core -54.3 2 9

CHEC12-2E Core -54.4 2 9

MTPL12A Core -53.2 2 3

MTPL12

MTPL12B Core -54.8 2 3.5

MTPL12C Core -54.2 2 5.5

MTPL12D Core -54.8 2 5

MTPL12E Core -54.3 4 14 1 See Tables 1, 2, and 3 for additional information.

Exhibit 2-7. Field Sampling and Compositing Scheme and Sample Nomenclature: LOWER HARBOR AND SHEM CREEK

CHANNEL1

Subsample ID Gear

Lowest Elevation Sampled

(ft, MLLW) Number of Cores

Collected Total Volume Collected

(gallons) Composite Sample ID

REHR12A Core -56.5 1 4

REHR12

REHR12B Core -53.3 1 2

REHR12C Core -54.7 1 6

REHR12D Core -58.9 1 8

REHR12E Core -59.0 1 8

REHR12F Core -59.0 1 5.5

HGIS12A Core -54.6 2 5

HGIS12

HGIS12B Core -54.6 2 4

HGIS12C Core -54.2 2 5

HGIS12D Core -54.7 2 8

HGIS12E Core -59.0 2 7

DRMY12A Core -52.7 2 3

DRMY12

DRMY12B Core -52.3 2 2

DRMY12C Core -52.3 2 8

DRMY12D Core -53.2 2 15

DRMY12E Core -58.9 2 9

WLR12A Core -52.6 3 5

WLR12

WLR12B Core -52.0 3 7

WLR12C Core -52.6 3 6

WLR12D Core -57.5 3 10

WLR12E Core -55.3 3 7

WUTB12A Core -56.2 3 10

WUTB12

WUTB12B Core -53.8 3 5

WUTB12C Core -53.3 3 2

WUTB12D Core -56.5 3 9.5

WUTB12E Core -53.9 3 6

Subsample ID Gear

Lowest Elevation Sampled

(ft, MLLW) Number of Cores

Collected Total Volume Collected

(gallons) Composite Sample ID

BENW12A Core -51.7 3 7

BENW12

BENW12B Core -49.4 2 4

BENW12C Core -48.8 1 3.5

BENW12D Core -59.1 1 6

BENW12E Core -56.3 1 4.5

BENW12F Core -52.0 1 5.5

HGIW12A Core -58.5 1 6

HGIW12

HGIW12B Core -50.6 1 7

HGIW12C Core -47.0 1 8

HGIW12D Core -43.9 1 8

HGIW12E Core -59.0 1 4

WRTB12A Core -41.1 1 7.5

WRTB12

WRTB12B Core -36.4 1 9

WRTB12C Core -42.8 1 9

WRTB12D Core -35.5 1 12

WRTB12E Core -40.5 1 5

WLRW12A Core -48.1 1 3

WLRW12

WLRW12B Core -52.0 1 7

WLRW12C Core -52.5 1 8.5

WLRW12D Core -51.9 1 5

WLRW12E Core -55.1 1 6

ABMA12A Core -42.0 1 7

ABMA12

ABMA12B Core -42.0 1 8

ABMA12C Core -42.0 1 6

ABMA12D Core -42.0 1 3.5

ABMA12E Core -42.0 1 5

Subsample ID Gear

Lowest Elevation Sampled

(ft, MLLW) Number of Cores

Collected Total Volume Collected

(gallons) Composite Sample ID

SHCR12A Core -17.0 2 6.5

SHCR12

SHCR12B Core -17.0 2 7

SHCR12C Core -17.0 2 10

SHCR12D Core -17.0 2 4

SHCR12E Core -17.0 2 8

Exhibit 2-8. Field Sampling and Compositing Scheme and Sample Nomenclature: UPPER HARBOR1

Subsample ID Gear

Lowest Elevation Sampled

(ft, MLLW) Number of Cores

Collected Total Volume

Collected (gallons) Composite Sample ID

DANI12A Core -54.9 3 5

DANI12

DANI12B Core -56.5 3 9

DANI12C Core -59.1 3 13

DANI12D Core -54.3 3 11

DANI12E Core -52.1 3 4.5

CCRK12A Core -47.9 2 9

HGIS12

CCRK12B Core -51.4 2 4

CCRK12C Core -52.2 2 8

CCRK12D Core -54.6 2 5

CCRK12E Core -54.2 2 5

NYNC12A Core -53.1 3 8

NYNC12

NYNC12B Core -54.7 3 9

NYNC12C Core -54.4 3 10

NYNC12D Core -51.0 3 10

NYNC12E Core -50.6 3 (not recorded)

Subsample ID Gear

Lowest Elevation Sampled

(ft, MLLW) Number of Cores

Collected Total Volume

Collected (gallons) Composite Sample ID

PTFC12A Core -54.4 2 9

PTFC12

PTFC12B Core -50.8 2 5

PTFC12C Core -50.5 2 5

PTFC12D Core -52.5 2 6

PTFC12E Core -53.9 2 6

ORDT12A Core -53.1 2 8

ORDT12

ORDT12B Core -37.1 2 10

ORDT12C Core -54.6 2 13

ORDT12D Core -47.3 2 20

ORDT12E Core -42.1 2 24

DANW12A Core -22.0 3 5

DANW12 DANW12B Core -50.6 3 18

DANW12C Core -27.5 3 18

NCW12A Core -50.1 3 4.5

NCW12

NCW12B Core -42.7 3 5

NCW12C Core -38.0 3 12

NCW12D Core -44.4 3 4.5

NCW12E Core -44.5 3 6.5

2.2 Sample Collection Techniques

2.2.1 Field Effort

Field sampling took place from October 20 through November 19, 2012. Field personnel consisted of scientists from ANAMAR and Athena Technologies. The sampling vessel R/V Artemis departed each day from either Daniel Island Marina at 669 Marina Drive, Charleston, or Tolers Cove Marina at 1610 Ben Sawyer Boulevard, Mount Pleasant. All compositing was conducted by ANAMAR at their headquarters in Gainesville, Florida. Exhibit 2-9 summarizes the field sampling effort.

Exhibit 2-9. Daily Activities during the October through November 2012 Field Effort

Date General Activity

19-Oct • Vibracore sampling team arrives at Charleston 20-Oct through 26-Oct

• Collect core samples ORDT12A through E, PTFC12A through E, NYNC12A through E, CCRKA through E, DANW12A through C, and DANI12A

27-Oct • Operations temporarily suspended due to adverse weather from Hurricane Sandy

28-Oct

• Collect core sample DANI12B

• Relief field crew member arrives at Charleston

29-Oct • Core and water samples delivered to ANAMAR headquarters

30-Oct through 4-Nov

• Collect core samples DAN12C through E, NCW12A through E, REHR12A through F, ABMA12A through E, CHEC12-2A through B

• Relief field crew members arrive at Charleston

5-Nov

• Collect core samples MTPL12E, WLRW12A through E

• Second set of core samples delivered to ANAMAR headquarters

6-Nov • Operations temporarily suspended due to adverse weather (strong winds, rain)

7-Nov through 8-Nov

• Collect core samples MTPL12B through D, WRTB12A through E, WUTB12A through B

• Relief crew members arrive at Charleston

9-Nov

• Collect core samples CHEC12-2C through E

• Transfer water samples to hired refrigerated truck for transport to ALS and

NewFields

10-Nov through 13-Nov

• Collect core samples CHEC12-1A through E, MTPL12A and E, WUTB12C through E, WLR12A through E

• Relief field crew member arrives at Charleston

Date General Activity

14-Nov

• Third set of core samples and all reference samples delivered to ANAMAR headquarters

• Collect core samples BENW12B through F, SHCR12A through E

15-Nov • Sampling attempts prove unsuccessful due to adverse weather (rain, strong wind, strong currents)

16-Nov through 17-Nov

• Collect core samples BENW12A, HGIW12A through E, DRMY12C through D

18-Nov • Operations temporarily suspended due to adverse weather (strong winds)

19-Nov • Collect core samples HGIS12A through E; DRMY12A, B, and E

20-Nov • Final set of core samples and a water sample delivered to ANAMAR headquarters

2.2.2 Site Positioning

Sampling station locations were chosen to coincide with the dredging prism and were based on a bathymetric survey conducted in February 2012 and provided by USACE. The bathymetric data were used to identify locations of sediment sampling stations to best represent dredge material proposed for disposal at the Charleston ODMDS. Sampling locations are shown in Figures 1 through 21.

Target station coordinates were uploaded to a Trimble global positioning system (GPS) (sub-meter accurate) on the R/V Artemis and a handheld Garmin GPS. Uploaded coordinates in all GPS units were reviewed and compared with the original coordinates to verify accuracy prior to field sampling. The hand-held Garmin GPS was used as a backup navigation unit to ensure that sampling locations were recorded. The GPS antenna on the Artemis is located over the coring moon pool to ensure accuracy of recorded sample location.

Navigation and positioning of the Artemis was handled by U.S. Coast Guard-certified master captains under direction of the ANAMAR project manager or field team leader. Most samples were taken within 10 meters of the target station and conformed to Section 11.1.3 of the SAP/QAPP. There were only four exceptions. Coring subsample station HGIS12D was repositioned 35 feet east of the target due to difficulty anchoring at the target. Coring subsample station WRTB12B was repositioned 20 feet from the target due to repeated core refusal encountered at the sediment surface at the target location (possibly due to rocks or a buoy anchor). Coring subsample station DANW12A was repositioned 40 feet west of the target due to unsatisfactory penetration at the target location. Coring subsample station DAN12C was repositioned a short distance away from the target to sample an interval between the refusal elevation at station DANI12A and the uppermost sediment elevation at station DANI12B. These corrective actions conform to guidance in Section 10.3 of the QAPP.

During vibracore sampling, a lead line was used to verify fathometer readings, and depths were recorded to the nearest inch. Water depths were used to field-verify that target stations were located over the most appropriate sediment surface elevations, which were calculated in the field using real-time tide height data (in feet, MLLW) from NOAA Station ID 8665530 at Charleston.

Coordinates of each station were recorded using GPS units in the field, and waypoints were recorded on waypoint field logs and sampling field logs. Table 1 contains spatial and temporal data along with field observations taken during sediment core sampling.

2.2.3 Sediment Sampling with Vibracore

Subsurface core sediment samples were obtained using a vibratory core sampler (vibracore).

Vibracore services were performed by Athena Technologies under the guidance of an ANAMAR field team leader who was present on the sampling vessel at all times to direct operations, record field notes, and containerize and label samples. The vibracore samples were collected from the Artemis, a sampling vessel fitted for vibracore sampling. The vessel carried all necessary sediment sampling equipment.

The vessel captain navigated to each target using a helms map displayed on a Panasonic Toughbook® computer. Once on-station, the vessel was immobilized using a three-point anchoring system. Vessel coordinates were compared to station coordinates loaded in a second GPS to confirm location accuracy. Depths were recorded from lead-line readings to the nearest inch. Bottom elevation was calculated in the field using real-time water level in feet MLLW as measured from NOAA Station ID 8665530 at Charleston. Core penetration required to reach project depth was calculated by adding real-time elevation of the substrate surface (as a negative value) to the project depth. Vibracore refusal is defined as the point where the core barrel is advanced to depth and additional downward force applied to the vibracore drill stem does not result in measurable penetration into the sediment. This is often the result of the end of the coring tube encountering rock or consolidated sediment. In the Charleston Harbor area, vibracore refusal is often encountered after penetrating a short distance into Cooper Marl.

Athena's vibracore system was deployed from the deck of the vessel and consisted of a generator with a mechanical vibrator attached via cable. This vibrator was attached directly to a 4-inch-diameter stainless steel casing. The sampler was lowered to the substrate through a moon pool in the deck of the sampling platform by attaching lengths of drill stem. The vibracore apparatus was then activated and the sample barrel allowed to penetrate the sediment until it reached target depth or refusal, whichever came first. The vibracore apparatus was then deactivated and the core retrieved using an electric winch. Once the sample was on-deck, the recovered core length was verified. The core material was then removed from the sampler and placed into a stainless steel bin and characterized. One to four cores were collected at each station to achieve required sample volume. To ensure that the final composite sample from each dredging unit was representative of the material to be dredged from the area, equal numbers of cores were collected from each substation within a single dredging unit. After all cores were collected at the station, the sample material was photographed, transferred to Teflon® bags, labeled, and placed immediately into ice-filled coolers. Suspended fine particulate matter was captured in Teflon® bags, labeled, and placed into ice-filled coolers. All containers were properly labeled and sampling information was recorded on individual project-specific field logs.

Sediment vibracore sampling locations are shown on Figures 1 through 21. A summary of vibracore samples, including dates and times, station coordinates, elevations, effective penetration lengths, and effective percent recovery lengths, are included in Table 1. The effective percent recovery excludes the material that was intentionally discarded or lost during sampling. Copies of sediment core logs are in Appendix B.

Refusal was encountered at many of the cores due to the presence of consolidated clay (especially calcareous clay), limestone, or coarse sand. The core barrel over-penetrated 0.2 to

1.6 feet below target elevation at four stations (REHR12D, REHR12F, HGIS12E, and BENW12D).

At each of these four stations, the material collected below project depth was discarded.

At station WRTB12D, the maximum length of the 20-foot-long core barrel was reached prior to achieving target elevation. At station NCW12A, the first core sampling attempt resulted in reaching refusal at the surface of the sediment, possibly due to the presence of a chain associated with a nearby marker buoy. The material obtained with the first attempt was discarded and the sample was recollected, although refusal was reached after penetrating 3.1 to 3.3 feet below the surface of the sediment. Strong currents sometimes affected the core barrel during sampling by reducing the angle at which the barrel entered the sediment. A tag line was tied to the core barrel and operated from the bow of the vessel to correct for the effects of current. However, strong current while sampling at station REHR12E resulted in the core barrel entering the sediment at less than a 90° angle even though a tag line was used.

The presence of consolidated clay made extracting the sample from the core barrel sometimes difficult and time-consuming. Extraction of consolidated material was made easier by the use of pressurized air applied to the inside of the core barrel via a stainless steel pipe fitting and pressurized hose. The use of air pressure in combination with vibrations was often sufficient to extract the sample material. In some instances, air pressure was not sufficient or was temporarily unavailable. In such cases, a stainless steel soil auger was used to loosen material in the core barrel, facilitating extraction.

The core barrel was pressurized with compressed air to facilitate extraction of consolidated sediment

Percent effective recovery averaged 79% (range = 43% to 100%) among the core samples retained for analysis. At station REHR12C, the bottom 2 feet of coarse sand fell from the core barrel during sampling, resulting in only 57% effective recovery. The lowest percent recovery (43%) was at station CHEC12-1E, which had an effective recovery of only 0.5 feet out of an effective penetration of 1.2 feet due in part to the loss of 0.4 feet of sediment during sample retrieval. In some cases, such as while sampling at station DRMY12D, consistently low percent effective recovery was attributed to compaction of unconsolidated sediment during sampling.

One core sample each was discarded from stations CCRK12C, NYNC12B, ORDT123C, WLR12D, and WUTB12A due to unsatisfactory percent effective recovery. The first two core samples at station PTFC12A were discarded due to unsatisfactory percent effective recovery. The first one or two core samples were discarded while sampling stations NCW12A and WRTB12B, respectively, following encounters with hard material at the sediment surface, such as rocks or hardware associated with nearby marker buoys.

The vibrator head failed to function after collecting the second core sample at station DANI12A and was repaired in the field, facilitating collection of the third and final sample at that station.

The vibracore drive cable failed twice and was repaired in the field while sampling station DANI12B. The vibracore drive cable also failed while sampling at stations BENW12A and WRTB12C, and during both instances was repaired in the field. The cable hoist failed while sampling at station ORDT12C and was replaced in the field with a spare hoist.

Core barrels used while sampling prior to October 30 were constructed of 0.065-inch-thick stainless steel. Cracking and bending was observed on these core barrels during sampling.

New barrels were used beginning October 30 which were constructed of 0.083-inch-thick stainless steel and proved to be stronger and more resistant to cracking and bending.

2.2.4 Sample Transport, Processing, and Custody

2.2.4.1 Transport from Charleston

Samples were transported from Charleston to ANAMAR's headquarters in Gainesville, Florida, by refrigerated truck on October 29, November 5, and November 20, 2012. Samples were kept inside ice-filled coolers within each refrigerated truck at 4°C or less during transport.

2.2.4.2 Compositing

All compositing was conducted at ANAMAR's headquarters in Gainesville, Florida. ANAMAR personnel homogenized each individual subsample using decontaminated stainless steel mixing equipment, which included a stainless steel electric-powered mixer complete with a 40-gallon-capacity hopper. Each subsample was homogenized and a sample was collected for physical analysis. Then the subsamples from each dredging unit were composited and homogenized using the same equipment mentioned above, and a physical sample of the composited sample was collected. The equipment was decontaminated between each composite sample.

Compositing was conducted in accordance with the scheme presented in Section 2.1.

2.3 Physical Analytical Procedures

2.3.1 Physical Procedures

AMEC performed physical analysis of all sediment samples. ANAMAR performed quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) on sediment physical data and presented the data in summarized form.

2.3.1.1 Grain Size Distribution

Gradation tests were performed by AMEC in general accordance with methods ASTM D-422 and ASTM D-1140. Each representative sample was air-dried and dry-prepped in accordance with method ASTM D-421, and results of sieve analysis of material larger than a #10 sieve (2.00-mm mesh size) was determined. The minus #10 sieve material was then soaked in a dispersing agent. Following the soaking period, the sample was placed in a mechanical stirring apparatus and then in a sedimentation cylinder where hydrometer readings were taken over a 24-hour period. After the final hydrometer reading was taken, the sample was washed over a #200 sieve (0.075-mm mesh size), placed in an oven, and dried to a constant weight. After drying, the sample was sieved over a nest of sieves to determine the gradation of the material greater than #200 sieve size. Cumulative frequency percentages were graphed and presented by AMEC on USACE Form 2087 (Appendix C). ANAMAR tabulated and graphed the grain size distribution by subsample and composited sample.

2.3.1.2 Moisture Content

Moisture content was performed by AMEC in general accordance with method ASTM D-2216-80 and Plumb (1981). The sample weight was recorded and the sample was placed in an oven and dried to a constant mass at 110°C (383.2 Kelvin). Once a constant dry mass was obtained, the percent moisture was determined by subtracting the dry mass from the wet mass, then dividing the loss in mass due to drying (the mass of just moisture) by the wet mass. The percent total solids were reported on a 100% wet weight basis. ANAMAR tabulated the results by subsample and composited sample.

2.3.1.3 Specific Gravity

Specific gravity was determined by AMEC in general accordance with method ASTM D-854.

Each sample was placed in a mechanical stirring device and de-ionized water was added to form a slurry. The slurry was then transferred to a pycnometer and was de-aired by applying a vacuum. After vacuuming, the pycnometer with sample was allowed to reach thermal equilibrium. The water level was adjusted to a calibration mark, and the pycnometer with sample was weighed. After the pycnometer with sample weight was recorded, the sample was emptied into a drying container and placed in an oven until a constant dry mass of sediment solids was obtained. ANAMAR tabulated the results by subsample and composited sample.

2.4 Data Reduction

Raw field and laboratory data were summarized and compiled into Tables 1 through 3.

Figures 1 through 21 show the sampling locations.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Sediment Physical Results

Grain size distribution was analyzed in all subsamples and composite samples from 21 dredging units. Complete results of physical testing for percent grain size distributions, percent solids, Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) classes, are presented in Tables 2 and 3, for sediment subsamples and composite samples, respectively. Table 3 also includes specific gravity, Atterberg limits, and hydrometer readings for composite samples. The laboratory report of physical analysis results using USACE Form 2087 is provided in Appendix C.

4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

4.1 Field Sampling

In the Mount Pleasant reach, the field crew started sample collection at substation MTPL12-E on November 11. A total of 7 gallons of sediment was collected in two core samples, so the field crew proceeded to collect two core samples from each of the other four stations. However, the sediment elevations at substations A through C were lower than at substations D and E and, therefore, less sample volume was collected at those stations than was expected and an insufficient volume of material was collected after all stations were sampled. Since both project depth and width of this reach increase at the east end of the reach, a larger volume of dredge material will be excavated from the east end. Therefore, the field team collected two additional cores from substation E to obtain the required volume for the composite sample. Since the additional volume of sample came from the part of the reach that will contain the greatest volume of dredge material, the overall composite sample is still representative of dredge material that will be excavated from this reach.

Also in the Mount Pleasant reach, the project depth transitions from -59 ft in the lower harbor to -61 ft in the entrance channel. The project depths for stations MTPL12-A and MTPL12-B, were recorded incorrectly on the field sheets. The depth at these stations is -59 ft, not -61 ft.

This mistake does not impact data quality because the vibracore hit refusal before reaching the project depth. The correct project depths for these stations are presented in Table 1 with a footnote to indicate the error.

Photos of the sample material were taken in the field as the samples were collected. In some cases, the photos either were not taken or the images were not usable. In photos of ORDT12-A and ORDT12-C, the photo placard was too overexposed due to bright sunlight to be readable; however, the timestamp of when the picture was taken matches the time when these stations were occupied and thus confirms the sample location. Photos are available for all subsamples except the following: DRMY12-C, DRMY12-D, BENW12-E, BENW12-F, HGIW12-E, SHCR12-A, NYNC12-A, NYNC12-B, and ORDT12-B. Composite photos are available for all samples except REHR12, DANI12, PTFC12, ORDT12, DANW12, and NCW12.

4.2 Sample Receipt

Sediment samples for physical analysis were shipped from ANAMAR on November 1, 2012, November 20, 2012, and December 3, 2012, and received at AMEC on November 2, 2012, November 21, 2012, and December 4, 2012, respectively. All samples were received in good condition, and the laboratory performed all requested analyses in accordance with the QAPP.

4.3 Physical Analysis

Two field splits were prepared and analyzed at AMEC. Results from the laboratory show less than 20% relative percent difference between the native sample and its field split for the highest percentage grain size found in the samples. Laboratory QC samples were not required for this project.

5 REFERENCES

Plumb, R.H. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water

Samples. Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

Submitted to EPA and USACE Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material, EPA, Grosse Ile, MI, and U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

South Carolina Ports Authority (SCPA). 2012. Harbor Deepening [website]. Accessed 12/20/12 online at http://www.scspa.com/Cargo/ReadytoGrow/harbordeepening.asp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Scope of Work. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal, Charleston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project (Post 45), Charleston, South Carolina [second revision, 8/30/12]. USACE, Charleston District, Charleston, SC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. Evaluation of

Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal, Testing Manual [Green Book]. EPA 503- 8-91-001. EPA, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and Department of the Army, USACE, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Southeast

Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM), Requirements and Procedures for Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in Southeast U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast Waters. EPA 904-B-08-001. EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA, and USACE South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA.

TA

B

LES

TABLES

TABLE 1

Vibracore Sample Summary

Time Water Depth

(feet)

Water Surface

Elevation2

(feet, MLLW)

Top of Core Elevation3

(feet, MLLW)

Effective Bottom of

Core Elevation

(feet, MLLW)

Effective Penetration Length per

Core (feet)

Effective Recovery

Length per Core4

(%) Notes 8:25 -61 47.8 2.84 -45.0 -55.5 10.5 79

9:00 -61 47.8 2.84 -45.0 -55.6 10.6 80

9:25 -61 48.4 1.54 -46.9 -53.2 6.3 75

9:55 -61 48.4 1.54 -46.9 -53.7 6.8 81

10:30 -61 50.2 1.0 -49.2 -55.3 6.1 81

10:45 -61 50.2 1.0 -49.2 -54.8 5.6 84

11:15 61 55 8 1 1 54 7 56 4 1 7 90

CHEC12-1C 11/10/12 316955.72 2381072.93 2 core samples totaling 8 gallons. Reached refusal each time.

f

CHEC12-1A 11/10/12 319991.88 2376865.88 2 core samples totaling 11 gallons. Reached refusal each time.

CHEC12-1B 11/10/12 318493.27 2378290.33 2 core samples totaling 8 gallons. Reached refusal each time.

Subsample ID Date Northing1

(feet, NAD 83) Easting1

(feet, NAD 83) Target Depth (feet, MLLW)

Metrics Per Core Sample

11:15 -61 55.8 1.1 -54.7 -56.4 1.7 90

11:45 -61 55.8 1.1 -54.7 -56.2 1.5 78

12:25 -61 55.2 2.5 -52.7 -54.1 1.4 47

12:35 -61 55.2 2.5 -52.7 -53.8 1.2 43

8:38 -61 55.3 4.49 -50.8 -57.1 6.3 100

9:01 -61 55.3 4.49 -50.8 -57.4 6.7 96

7:22 -61 54.5 2.93 -51.6 -59.1 7.5 86

7:49 -61 54.5 2.93 -51.6 -59.0 7.4 89

11:45 -61 53.5 3.26 -50.2 -54.2 4.0 92

12:25 -61 53.5 3.26 -50.2 -54.3 4.1 74

13:30 -61 51.5 5.41 -46.1 -54.2 8.1 79

13:55 -61 51.5 5.41 -46.1 -54.3 8.2 80 CHEC12-2D 11/9/12 322831.96 2370372.24 2 core samples totaling 9 gallons. Reached refusal each time.

CHEC12-2B 11/4/12 326712.44 2363290.36 2 core samples totaling 10 gallons. Reached refusal each time.

CHEC12-2C 11/9/12 324722.31 2368195.98 2 core samples totaling 5 gallons. Reached refusal each time.

CHEC12-1E 11/10/12 312469.94 2390201.77

2 core samples totaling <1 gallon. Reached refusal each time due to limestone. 2 to 5 inches lost per sample.

CHEC12-2A 11/4/12 329887.96 2358726.27

2 core samples totaling 9.5 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to consolidated clay.

CHEC12-1D 11/10/12 315082.27 2385703.11

2 core samples totaling 2.5 gallons. Reached refusal each time. 2 to 4 inches lost per sample.

15:30 -61 51.0 6.19 -44.8 -54.3 9.5 71

15:45 -61 51.0 6.19 -44.8 -54.4 9.6 71

12:30 -59 51.8 0.82 -51.0 -53.2 2.2 96

13:15 -59 51.8 0.82 -51.0 -52.3 1.3 88

8:40 -59 53.8 1.7 -52.1 -54.6 2.5 90

9:20 -59 53.8 1.7 -52.1 -54.8 2.7 94

9:30 -61 54.0 3.3 -50.7 -54.2 3.5 81

10:30 -61 54.0 3.3 -50.7 -53.9 3.2 76

7:30 -61 53.3 2.0 -51.3 -54.8 3.5 74

8:35 -61 53.3 2.0 -51.3 -54.8 3.4 73

7:50 -61 49.7 2.83 -46.8 -54.0 7.2 77 11/5/12 331500.33 2354408.09

2 core samples totaling 7 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to Cooper l

MTPL12C 11/7/12 334090.94 2353081.29

2 core samples totaling 5.5 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to

Cooper marl. Used soil auger to remove sample from barrel.

MTPL12D 11/7/12 332649.59 2353543.21

2 core samples totaling 5 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to Cooper marl.

MTPL12A5 11/11/12 337920.91 2348687.71 2 core samples totaling 3 gallons. Reached refusal due to Cooper marl.

MTPL12B5 11/8/12 337371.27 2349227.52

2 core samples totaling 3.5 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to

Cooper marl.

CHEC12-2E 11/9/12 321757.99 2373654.18 2 core samples totaling 9 gallons. Reached refusal each time.

8:05 -61 49.7 2.83 -46.8 -54.0 7.2 73

12:45 -61 47.8 -0.12 -48.0 -54.3 6.3 79

13:05 -61 47.8 -0.12 -48.0 -54.1 6.2 80

MTPL12E

/5/ 33 500 33 35 08 09 marl.

11/12/12 331505.98 2354406.01

2 core samples totaling 7 gallons. Obtained these two additional core samples to achieve adequate volume for analysis. This station was chosen due to a wider channel equating to more dredged material. Reached refusal each time due to Cooper marl.

Charleston Harbor Navigation Improvements Project (Post 45) Physical Sediment Testing and Analysis

TABLE 1 (continued )

Time Water Depth

(feet)

Water Surface

Elevation2

(feet, MLLW)

Top of Core Elevation3

(feet, MLLW)

Effective Bottom of

Core Elevation

(feet, MLLW)

Effective Penetration Length per

Core (feet)

Effective Recovery

Length per Core4

(%) NotesSubsample ID Date Northing1

(feet, NAD 83) Easting1

(feet, NAD 83) Target Depth (feet, MLLW)

Metrics Per Core Sample

REHR12A 11/3/12 11:26 348378.34 2333682.05 -59 57.1 5.86 -51.2 -56.5 5.3 86 1 core sample totaling 4 gallons. Reached refusal due to clay.

REHR12B 11/3/12 10:07 346756.14 2335409.49 -59 55.7 5.53 -50.1 -53.3 3.2 84 1 core sample totaling 2 gallons. Reached refusal due to clay.

REHR12C 11/2/12 13:01 344723.68 2338627.80 -59 50.1 4.84 -45.2 -54.7 9.4 57

1 core sample totaling 6 gallons. Reached refusal due to coarse sand.

Bottom 2 feet of coarse sand fell from barrel.

REHR12D 11/2/12 12:25 343280.66 2342363.36 -59 51.3 5.25 -46.1 -58.9 12.8 95 1 core sample totaling 8 gallons. Overpenetrated 2 inches but lost bottom 4 inches.

REHR12E 11/2/12 9:45 341295.19 2344256.67 -59 52.5 5.47 -47.0 -59.0 12.0 100 1 core sample totaling 8 gallons.

REHR12F 11/2/12 11:21 339294.55 2347911.08 -59 57.8 5.85 -51.9 -59.0 7.1 98

1 core sample totaling 5.5 gallons. Overpenetrated 6 inches and discarded 6 inches from bottom. Lost entire sample on first attempt and discarded second attempt due to poor recovery.

8:20 -59 52.4 3.1 -49.3 -54.6 5.3 79

8:40 -59 52.4 3.1 -49.3 -54.6 5.3 89

14:00 -59 54.5 6.2 -48.3 -54.1 5.8 73

14:15 -59 54.5 6.2 -48.3 -54.6 6.3 87

14:40 -59 54.6 5.4 -49.2 -54.1 4.9 85

14:55 -59 54.6 5.4 -49.2 -54.2 5.0 95

7:30 -59 49.8 2.0 -47.8 -54.7 6.9 93

7:45 -59 49.8 2.0 -47.8 -53.9 6.2 92

6:55 -59 55.7 1.6 -54.1 -59.0 4.9 97

0 9 6 9 0 9 98

HGIS12E 11/19/12 349387.05 2333186.94

2 cores totaling 7 gallons. Discarded bottom 3 inches from both core samples to correct for 3 inches of overpenetration

HGIS12C 11/19/12 353940.75 2333136.21 2 cores totaling 5 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to Cooper marl.

HGIS12D 11/19/12 352051.27 2332627.06

2 cores totaling 8 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to Cooper marl.

Sampling location is about 35 feet east of target station, towards mid-line of channel.

HGIS12A 11/19/12 357624.51 2333948.39 2 cores totaling 5 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to Cooper marl.

HGIS12B 11/19/12 355560.07 2333058.84

2 cores totaling 4 gallons. Reached refusal each time due to Cooper…