Richmond Inner Harbor SAR 2021.pdf

RICHMOND INNER HARBOR – 2021 MAINTENANCE

DREDGING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REPORT

April 2021

Prepared for

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 450 Golden Gate Ave, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103-1398

Prepared by

Pacific EcoRisk 2250 Cordelia Road Fairfield, CA 94534

Prepared by

DR Reed and Associates Inc.

4207 SE Woodstock Blvd #484 Portland, Oregon 97206

USACE, San Francisco District Richmond Inner Harbor 2021 Maintenance Dredging Sampling and Analysis Report

Pacific EcoRisk i

Table of Contents Page

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

1.2 Objectives of the Sediment Investigation

1.3 Organization of this Document

2. FIELD SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTION

2.1 Collection of Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Cores

2.1.1 Field Equipment Decontamination Procedure

2.1.2 On-Board Sample Processing and Labeling

2.2 Deviations from the Sampling and Analysis Plan

3. SAMPLE PROCESSING

3.1 Homogenization and Compositing of Sediments

3.2 Shipping of Sediment Samples to the Analytical Laboratories

3.2.1 Chain-of-Custody (COC) Protocol

3.3 Deviations from the Sampling and Analysis Plan

4. RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSES

4.1 Results of Physical/Chemical Analyses of the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediments

4.1.1. Total Solids and Total Organic Carbon

4.1.2. Particle Size Distribution

4.1.3. Metals

4.1.4. Butylins

4.1.5. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

4.1.6. Organochlorine Pesticides

4.1.7. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

4.2 Individual Sediment Core Samples: Results of Physical/Chemical Analyses

4.2.1 RIH-2021-3 Individual Sediment Cores

4.3 Results of Chemical Analyses of Richmond Inner Harbor Modified Elutriate (MET)

4.4 Results of Chemical Analyses of Richmond Inner Harbor mWET

5. Results of Biological Testing

5.1 Benthic (Solid-Phase Sediment) Toxicity Testing

5.1.1 Sediment Porewater Characterization

5.1.2 Purging of Sediment Porewater Ammonia for the Amphipod and Polychaete

Tests

5.1.3 Effects of Richmond Inner Harbor Sediments on Leptocheirus plumulosus

5.1.3.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Leptocheirus plumulosus

5.1.3.2 Ammonia Toxicity to Leptocheirus plumulosus

5.1.4 Effects of the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediments on Neanthes arenaceodentata

5.1.4.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Neanthes arenaceodentata

5.1.4.2. Ammonia Toxicity to Neanthes arenaceodentata

5.2 Water Column (Standard Sediment Elutriate) Toxicity Testing

5.2.1 Toxicity of the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Elutriates to Mytilus galloprovincialis

5.2.1.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Mytilus galloprovincialis Embryos

Pacific EcoRisk ii

5.2.2 Toxicity of the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Elutriates to Americamysis bahia

5.2.2.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Americamysis bahia

5.2.3 Toxicity of the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Elutriates to Menidia beryllina ..44

5.2.3.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Menidia beryllina

5.2.4 Toxicity Testing of Richmond Inner Harbor Modified Elutriates (MET) using

Americamysis bahia

5.2.4.1 Reference Toxicant Toxicity to Americamysis bahia

5.3 Bioaccumulation Testing of the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediments

5.3.1 Sediment Bioaccumulation Test Data for Macoma nasuta

5.3.2 Sediment Bioaccumulation Test Data for Nereis virens

6. CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF BIVALVE AND POLYCHEATE TISSUES

6.1 Bioaccumulation Test Tissue Results

6.2 Comparison of Tissue Concentrations to SF-DODS Reference Site Database

6.3 Comparison of Tissue Concentrations to Tissue Residue Effects Data for

Invertebrates

6.3.1 Development of Toxicity Reference Values Using the USACE ERED

6.3.2 Comparison of Tissue Analyte Concentrations to Toxicity Reference Values

6.4 Comparison of Tissue Analyte Concentrations to USFDA Action Levels

6.5 Potential for Trophic Transfer and Biomagnificaton

6.5.1 Potential for Trophic Transfer and Biomagnification at SF-DODS

6.5.2 Potential for PCB Trophic Transfer and Biomagnification of PCBs to Fish in SF

Bay

6.5.2.1 Comparison of Estimated Fish Tissue Concentrations to Screening Values

7. QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW

7.1 Conventional and Chemical Analytical Quality Control Summary

7.1.1 Sediment Conventional and Chemical Analytical QA/QC Summary

7.1.2 MET Sample Analytical QA/QC Summary

7.1.3 mWET Sample Analytical QA/QC Summary

7.1.4 Tissue Sample Analytical QA/QC Summary

7.2 Biological Testing Quality Lab Control Summary

8. SUMMARY

8.1 Unconfined Aquatic Placement at SF-10 and SF-11

8.2 Unconfined Aquatic Disposal at SF-DODs

8.3 Placement at Upland Beneficial Reuse Sites

9. REFERENCES

Pacific EcoRisk iii

Appendices

Appendix A Sediment Core Collection Forms

Appendix B Eurofins Data Report of the Sediment Composite Analyses

Appendix C Eurofins Data Report of the RIH-2021-3 Individual Core Analyses

Appendix D Eurofins Data Report of Sediment MET Elutriate Analyses Reports

Appendix E Eurofins Data Report of Sediment mWET Analyses

Appendix F Sediment Porewater Water Quality Analyses and Overlying Water Ammonia

Analyses Performed in Support of Bioassay Testing

Appendix G Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Evaluation of the Toxicity of the

Richmond Inner Harbor Sediments to the Amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus

Appendix H Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Reference Toxicant Evaluation of the

Amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus

Appendix I Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Ammonia Toxicity Evaluation of the

Amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus

Appendix J Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Evaluation of the Toxicity of the

Richmond Inner Harbor Sediments to the Polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodentata

Appendix K Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Reference Toxicant Evaluation of the

Polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodentata

Appendix L Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Ammonia Toxicity Evaluation of the

Polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodentata

Appendix M Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Evaluation of the Toxicity of the

Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Elutriates to Bivalve (Mytilus galloprovincialis) Embryos

Appendix N Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Reference Toxicant Evaluation of the

Mytilus galloprovincialis Embryos

Appendix O Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Evaluation of the Toxicity of the

Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Elutriates to Mysids (Americamysis bahia)

Appendix P Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Reference Toxicant Evaluation of the

Mysid, Americamysis bahia

Pacific EcoRisk iv

Appendices (continued)

Appendix Q Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Toxicity Evaluation of the Richmond

Inner Harbor Sediment Elutriates with the Inland Silverside (Menidia beryllina)

Appendix R Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Reference Toxicant Evaluation of the

Inland Silverside, Menidia beryllina

Appendix S Disposal Site Mixing Model Calculations

Appendix T Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Toxicity Evaluation of the Richmond

Inner Harbor Modified Elutriate Test Sediment Elutriates to Americamysis bahia

Appendix U Test Data and Summary of Statistics for the Reference Toxicant Evaluation of the

Mysid, Americamysis bahia

Appendix V Test Data for the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests with the Bivalve, Macoma nasuta

Appendix W Test Data for the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests with the Polychaete, Nereis virens

Appendix X Results of Macoma nasuta and Nereis virens Tissue Analyses: Laboratory Data

Report Submitted by Eurofins

Appendix Y Bioaccumulation Risk Assessment Modeling System (BRAMS) Trophic Trace

Module Input Parameters

Appendix Z Estimation of Fish Tissue Total PCB levels: Results of Trophic Transfer

Modeling Using the Bioaccumulation Risk Assessment Modeling System (BRAMS) Trophic Trace Module

Appendix AA Bioassay Standard Test Conditions

Pacific EcoRisk v

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Location Map: Richmond Inner Harbor, CA Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map: Richmond Outer and Inner Harbor Figure 1-3. Vicinity Map: Richmond Inner Harbor Sample Areas Figure 2-1. Site Map: Richmond Inner Harbor Proposed and Actual Sample Locations Figure 2-2. Site Map: Richmond Inner Harbor DU1 Proposed and Actual Sample Locations Figure 2-3. Site Map: Richmond Inner Harbor DU2 Proposed and Actual Sample Locations Figure 2-4. Site Map: Richmond Inner Harbor DU3 Proposed and Actual Sample Locations Figure 2-5. Site Map: Richmond Inner Harbor DU4 Proposed and Actual Sample Locations Figure 2-6. Site Map: Richmond Inner Harbor DU5 Proposed and Actual Sample Locations Figure 2-7. Site Map: Richmond Inner Harbor DU6 Proposed and Actual Sample Locations

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Proposed Maintenance Dredging for Richmond Inner Harbor Table 2-1. Richmond Inner Harbor Sampling Station Locations and Core Depths Achieved Table 4-1. Results of Chemical Analyses of Richmond Inner Harbor Composited Sediments ... 21 Table 4-2. Organochlorine Pesticide Results of Chemical Analyses of RIH-2021-3 Individual

Cores Table 4-3. Richmond Inner Harbor Modified Elutriate Chemistry Results Table 4-4. Richmond Inner Harbor mWet Chemistry Resluts Table 4-5. Sediment Analytes Measured Above Regional and Federal Regulatory Screening

Levels Table 5-1. Sediment Porewater Initial Water Ammonia Levels Table 5-2. Leptocheirus plumulosus survival in the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediments Table 5-3. Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Leptocheirus plumulosus Table 5-4. Effects of Ammonia on Leptocheirus plumulosus Table 5-5. Neanthes arenaceodentata survival in the Richmond Inner Harbor sediments Table 5-6. Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Neanthes arenaceodentata Table 5-7. Effects of Ammonia on Neanthes arenaceodentata Table 5-8. Results of the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Elutriate Toxicity Tests Table 5-9. Effects of RIH-2021-1 Sediment Elutriate on Mytilus galloprovincialis Table 5-10. Effects of RIH-2021-2 Sediment Elutriate on Mytilus galloprovincialis Table 5-11. Effects of RIH-2021-3 Sediment Elutriate on Mytilus galloprovincialis Table 5-12. Effects of RIH-2021-4 Sediment Elutriate on Mytilus galloprovincialis Table 5-13. Effects of RIH-2021-5 Sediment Elutriate on Mytilus galloprovincialis Table 5-14. Effects of RIH-2021-6 Sediment Elutriate on Mytilus galloprovincialis Table 5-15. Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Mytilus galloprovincialis Table 5-16. Effects of RIH-2021-1 Sediment Elutriate on Americamysis bahia Table 5-17. Effects of RIH-2021-2 Sediment Elutriate on Americamysis bahia Table 5-18. Effects of RIH-2021-3 Sediment Elutriate on Americamysis bahia Table 5-19. Effects of RIH-2021-4 Sediment Elutriate on Americamysis bahia

Pacific EcoRisk vi

Table 5-20. Effects of RIH-2021-5 Sediment Elutriate on Americamysis bahia Table 5-21. Effects of RIH-2021-6 Sediment Elutriate on Americamysis bahia Table 5-22. Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Americamysis bahia Table 5-23. Effects of RIH-2021-1 Sediment Elutriate on Menidia beryllina Table 5-24. Effects of RIH-2021-2 Sediment Elutriate on Menidia beryllina Table 5-25. Effects of RIH-2021-3 Sediment Elutriate on Menidia beryllina Table 5-26. Effects of RIH-2021-4 Sediment Elutriate on Menidia beryllina Table 5-27. Effects of RIH-2021-5 Sediment Elutriate on Menidia beryllina Table 5-28. Effects of RIH-2021-6 Sediment Elutriate on Menidia beryllina Table 5-29. Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Menidia beryllina Table 5-30. Effects of Richmond Inner Harbor MET Elutriate on Americamysis bahia Table 5-31. Reference Toxicant Testing: Effects of KCl on Americamysis bahia Table 5-32. Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Bioaccumulation Test with Macoma nasuta Table 5-33. Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests with Nereis virens Table 6-1. Tissue Analysis Performed to Support Disposal at SF-DODS Table 6-2. Results of the Chemical Analysis of Macoma nasuta Tissues for Richmond Inner

Harbor Samples Table 6-3. Results of the Chemical Analysis of Nereis virens Tissues for Richmond Inner Harbor

Samples Table 6-4. Tissue Analytes whose Concentrations Exceeded SF-DODS Reference Tissue

Database Values Table 6-5. Summary of ERED Tissue ‘Effect’ Concentrations Used to Determine Potential

Benthic Impacts Table 6-6. Comparison of Macoma nasuta 28-day Tissue Concentrations Exceeding the SF-

DODs Reference Database Upper Total DDTs and Dieldrin Bound to USACE ERED Database

Table 6-7. Comparison of Nereis virens 28-day Tissue Concentrations Exceeding the SF-DODs Reference Database Upper Total DDTs and Total PCBs Bound to USACE ERED Database

Table 6-8. Comparison of Tissue Burden Levels to USFDA Action Levels Table 6-8. Comparison of Estimated Shiner Surf Perch Tissue Burden Levels to Fish Tissue

Screening Levels Table 6-9. Comparison of Estimated White Croaker Tissue Burden Levels to Fish Tissue

Screening Levels Table 7-1. Achieved Detection and Reporting Limits for Sediments Table 7-2. Achieved Detection and Reporting Limits for Modified Elutriate and Modified Waste

Extraction Test Analytes Table 7-3. Achieved Detection and Reporting Limits for Tissue Analysis Table 8-1 Dredged Material Disposal Suitablity Recommendations

Pacific EcoRisk vii

List of Acronyms

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials Bay San Francisco Bay Channel RIH Federal Channel COC Chain-of-custody CRRP Cullinan Ranch Restoration Project DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DMMO Dredged Material Management Office ERED Environmental Residue Effects Database Eurofins Eurofins Calscience ft foot g/L grams per liter GPS Global positioning system HDPE high-density polyethylene ITM Inland Testing Manual KLI Kinnetics Laboratories, Inc.

LC lethal concentration (e.g., LC50) MDL method detection limit MET Modified Elutriate Test mg/kg milligram/kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter mL milliliters MLLW Mean lower low water MRL method reporting limits MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate MWRP Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project OCI Organochlorine OTM Ocean Testing Manual PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PER Pacific EcoRisk QA/QC quality assurance/quality control RIH Richmond Inner Harbor RPD Relative Percent Difference

Pacific EcoRisk viii

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SET sediment elutriate test

SF-10

SF-11

San Pablo Bay Disposal Site Alcatraz Disposal Site in San Francisco Bay

SF-DODS Deep Ocean Disposal Site SFRWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board SOP Standard Operating Procedures SPP Suspended Particulate Phase SUAD Suitable for unconfined disposal TMDL Total maximum daily load USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFDA U.S. Food & Drug Administration WAAS Wide Angle Augmentation System WET waste extraction test WQO Water quality objectives yds3 Cubic yards

Pacific EcoRisk 1

1. INTRODUCTION

As part of their Federal Channel Operations and Maintenance Program, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) San Francisco District is planning to conduct regular maintenance dredging episodes of the Richmond Inner Harbor ([RIH] Figures 1-1 through 1-3) in Federal Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023. In order to provide the chemical and biological characterization needed to obtain regulatory approval for this dredging, the USACE has contracted DR Reed and Associates Inc. (DR Reed) and Pacific EcoRisk (PER) to perform sediment characterization of the RIH sediments as per regional and federal guidance. DR Reed and PER conducted sampling and analyses of these sediments in accordance with the Richmond Inner Harbor - Maintenance

Dredging Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Tier III Analysis For 2021-2023 Suitability

Determination, December 2020 (USACE 2020), Inland Testing Manual (ITM [USEPA/USACE 1998]), Ocean Testing Manual (OTM [USEPA/USACE 1991]), beneficial reuse site permit conditions, and San Francisco Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) guidance.

This sampling and analyses covered agency requirements for placement of dredged material in- Bay at the San Pablo disposal site [SF-10]), at the SF-11 aquatic disposal site (SF-11) located west of Alcatraz Island near the entrance into San Francisco Bay (Bay), at the San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site (SF-DODS), and the Cullinan Ranch Restoration Project (CRRP) and Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project (MWRP) wetland beneficial reuse sites.

1.1 Project Description

RIH provides commercial navigation access to marine terminals. RIH is located on the east side of central San Francisco Bay within the boundaries of Contra Costa County. The channel runs southeast from Point Richmond to the focal point at Point Potrero, from which the channel turns north. (Figure 1-3).

The USACE requires dredging of the RIH Channel to the authorized depth of -38.0 ft mean lower low water (MLLW) + 2.0 ft over-dredge; these areas were sampled and tested to a total depth of -40.0 ft MLLW. In addition, a “Z-layer” sample consisting of the top 6 inches of the post-dredged mudline was collected at each sediment core location. Based on the bathymetric survey performed on October 7-8, 2020, the total volume of the material within the RIH Channel requiring dredging is estimated to be approximately 965,182 cubic yards (yds3) consisting of 207,980 yds3 above project depth and 757,202 yds3 of allowable over-depth (cumulatively termed ‘maintenance depth’ or ‘project depth plus over-depth’). Estimated dredge depths and estimated volumes of dredged material to be removed, including over-depth, are summarized in Table 1-1.

Pacific EcoRisk 2

Pacific EcoRisk 3

Pacific EcoRisk 4

Pacific EcoRisk 5

Table 1-1. Proposed Maintenance Dredging for Richmond Inner Harbor.

Sampling Area Total Area

(Acres)

Volume (yds ) of Shoaled Material Total

Estimated

Volume

(yds3)

Channel

Project Depth

(-38’ MLLW)

st ft

Overdepth

(-39’ MLLW)

nd ft

Overdepth

(-40’ MLLW)

Area 1 39.5 34,849 78,706 91,174 204,729 Area 2 39.5 39,433 70,563 74,518 184,514 Area 3 40.5 38,344 70,691 72,039 181,074 Area 4 40.1 44,650 70,772 78,291 193,713 Area 5 38.1 50,074 70,703 79,744 201,151 Area 6 12.0 9,319 32,982 49,581 92,152

Total Volume = 209.8 207,980 361,436 395,766 965,182

MLLW - Mean Lower Low Water yds3 - Cubic Yards

1.2 Objectives of the Sediment Investigation

The objective of the current sampling and testing was to evaluate the proposed dredged material to determine whether any potential adverse impacts may occur during removal operations and/or placement at permitted disposal and beneficial reuse sites. 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 SAP (USACE 2020) and approved Master SAP “Master Sampling and Analysis Plan USACE SF-District O&M Dredging (USACE 2014). The specific objectives of the SAP scope-of-work were as follows:

• Collect core samples from within the designated sampling areas following field protocol detailed in the SAP; and

• Conduct chemical and biological analyses of the collected sediments to determine whether they are suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal (SUAD) at SF-10, SF-11, SF-DODS, or for beneficial reuse at CRRP and MWRP.

1.3 Organization of this Document

Sample collection and handling procedures are discussed in Sections 2 and 3 of this report.

Results of chemical analyses and biological toxicity testing are provided in Sections 4-6. Section 7 discusses quality control (QC) and Section 8 presents the conclusions regarding suitability of the material for placement at SF-10, SF-11, SF-DODS, CRRP, and MWRP.

Pacific EcoRisk 6

2. FIELD SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTION

2.1 Collection of Richmond Inner Harbor Sediment Cores

All sediments (and site water to be used in the preparation of the sediment elutriates) were collected in accordance with guidelines and procedures outlined in the SAP (USACE 2020). All field sampling activities were performed on January 20-31, 2021, under the direction of Mr.

Jeffrey Cotsifas (of PER). Kinnetic Laboratories Inc. (KLI) provided the sampling vessel, on-board positioning system, and sampling equipment. PER provided Field Scientists to assist in sediment core collection and collection of site water. Sediment cores were collected from 30 designated sites (Figures 2-1 through 2-6); Table 2-1 lists station identifiers, GPS coordinates, mudline elevations, and core penetration depths for all stations. Final sample site positions were determined with a global positioning system (GPS) that uses U.S. Government Wide Angle Augmentation System (WAAS) differential correction data to identify each sampling location.

Sediment was also collected from SF-10 for use as a reference sediment in the bioassay testing.

2.1.1 Field Equipment Decontamination Procedure

The deck of the vessel was rinsed clean with site water between stations. All sampling equipment coming in contact with collected sediments was decontaminated between stations using the following procedures:

1. Rinse with site water and wash with scrub brush until free of sediment;

2. Wash with phosphate-free biodegradable soap solution; and

3. Rinse with site water taken from 3 ft. below the surface.

Any sampling equipment that could not be properly cleaned was not used for subsequent sampling activities.

2.1.2 On-Board Sample Processing and Labeling

All sediment cores were collected to the project depth plus over-depth, or until refusal was met, using an appropriate coring device. For each core, an additional 0.5 ft core section was collected from immediately below the ‘project depth plus over-depth’ and was designated the ‘Z-layer’.

The individual sediment cores were extruded on board the sampling vessel and the ‘Z-layer’ section of sediment was removed from each core and stored in a separate container; all core sections were placed into food-grade polyethylene bags. While aboard the vessel, samples were temporarily stored on ice (or frozen “blue ice”) within insulated coolers until transport to the laboratory in Fairfield, CA, by PER staff.

2.2 Deviations from the Sampling and Analysis Plan

There were no unusual circumstances encountered during the fieldwork, and no major deviations from the SAP (USACE 2020). The proposed and actual station locations are presented in Figure 2-1. The Core Collection Forms are presented in Appendix A.

Pacific EcoRisk 7

Table 2-1. Richmond Inner Harbor Sampling Station Locations and Core Depths Achieved.

SAMPLE ID Sample Date Latitude

(decimal-deg minutes)A

Longitude (decimal-deg minutes)A

Mudline Elevation

(ft MLLW)B

Core Penetration Depth Including

Z-Layer (ft)

Total Core Depth

(ft MLLW) RIH-2021-1-1 1/20/21 37.91652o -122.41092o -37.0 3.5 -40.5 RIH-2021-1-2 1/20/21 37.91213o -122.40843o -37.0 3.5 -40.5 RIH-2021-1-3 1/20/21 37.91145o -122.40598o -36.5 4.0 -40.5 RIH-2021-1-4 1/21/21 37.90838o -122.40358o -36.6 3.9 -40.5 RIH-2021-2-1 1/22/21 37.90789o -122.40000o -37.0 3.5 -40.5 RIH-2021-2-2 1/22/21 37.90666o -122.39983o -37.0 3.5 -40.5 RIH-2021-2-3 1/22/21 37.90680o -122.39533o -37.5 3.0 -40.5 RIH-2021-2-4 1/22/21 37.90615o -122.39046o -37.5 3.0 -40.5 RIH-2021-3-1 1/22/21 37.90601o -122.38901o -37.7 2.8 -40.5 RIH-2021-3-2 1/22/21 37.90567o -122.38470o -37.4 3.1 -40.5 RIH-2021-3-3 1/22/21 37.90484o -122.38167o -37.5 3.0 -40.5 RIH-2021-3-4 1/22/21 37.90476o -122.37784o -37.6 2.9 -40.5 RIH-2021-4-1 1/30/21 37.90443o -122.37558o -37.0 3.5 -40.5 RIH-2021-4-2 1/30/21 37.90377o -122.36913o -37.0 3.5 -40.5 RIH-2021-4-3 1/30/21 37.90303o -122.36929o -37.2 3.3 -40.5 RIH-2021-4-4 1/30/21 37.90249o -122.36618o -37.4 3.1 -40.5 RIH-2021-4-5 1/31/21 37.90407o -122.36527o -37.0 3.5 -40.5 RIH-2021-4-6 1/31/21 37.90256o -122.36250o -37.2 3.3 -40.5 RIH-2021-5-1 1/31/21 37.90270o -122.36108o -36.7 3.8 -40.5 RIH-2021-5-2 1/31/21 37.90568o -122.36013o -37.4 3.1 -40.5 RIH-2021-5-3 1/31/21 37.90673o -122.36268o -37.3 3.2 -40.5 RIH-2021-5-4 1/31/21 37.90863o -122.36118o -37.0 3.5 -40.5 RIH-2021-5-5 1/31/21 37.91023o -12236365o -37.5 3.0 -40.5 RIH-2021-5-6 1/31/21 37.91105o -122.36192o -37.1 3.4 -40.5 RIH-2021-6-1 1/31/21 37.91250o -122.36198o -37.2 3.3 -40.5 RIH-2021-6-2 1/31/21 37.91344o -122.36431o -37.3 3.2 -40.5 RIH-2021-6-3 1/31/21 37.91690o -122.36253o -37.4 3.1 -40.5 RIH-2021-6-4 1/31/21 37.91694o -122.36476o -37.7 2.8 -40.5 RIH-2021-6-5 1/31/21 37.91497o -122.36234o -37.9 2.6 -40.5 RIH-2021-6-6 1/31/21 37.91533o -122.36459o -37.9 2.3 -40.2C

NOTES:

A - State Plane Coordinate System, California Zone 3, NAD 83. B - Mudline elevations were determined using a lead-line. C – Refusal at -40.2 ft. Z-Layer was 0.2 ft instead of 0.5 ft.

Pacific EcoRisk 8

Pacific EcoRisk 9

Pacific EcoRisk 10

Pacific EcoRisk 11

Pacific EcoRisk 12

Pacific EcoRisk 13

Pacific EcoRisk 14

Pacific EcoRisk 15

3. SAMPLE PROCESSING

3.1 Homogenization and Compositing of Sediments

Each core was divided into project dredge depth sections (including overdredge) and Z-layer sections while aboard the sampling vessel. Homogenization and compositing of individual sediment core sections was performed at the PER laboratory facility in Fairfield, CA. The project dredge depth section from each individual core was individually homogenized in a stainless-steel bowl or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) container. A 500-mL sub-sample of the resulting homogenized sediment was archived to allow for additional chemical analyses, if necessary;

archived samples are being stored frozen at £-20˚C for up to one [1] year after sample collection.

Proportionate amounts of the homogenized sediment from each of the Area 1 project depth sediment core sections were composited and homogenized to form the “RIH-2021-1” composite sediment. The Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, Area 5, and Area 6 project depth sediment core sections were similarly processed to form the “RIH-2021-2”, “RIH-2021-3”, “RIH-2021-4”, “RIH-2021- 5”, and “RIH-2021-6” composite sediments. Sub-samples of the composited sediments were frozen for archival storage as described above. Samples of the composited project dredge depth sediments for each Area were submitted for chemical and conventional analyses and toxicity testing.

The Z-layer samples were similarly processed, with each individual Z-layer core section being individually homogenized and archived. Representative amounts of the homogenized Z-layer sediment for each individual core for Area 1 were composited to form a homogenized Z-layer composite sample designated “RIH-2021-1 Z-Layer”. The Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, Area 5, and Area 6 Z-layers were similarly processed to form the “RIH-2021-2 Z-Layer”, “RIH-2021-3 Z- Layer”, “RIH-2021-4 Z-Layer”, “RIH-2021-5 Z-Layer”, and “RIH-2021-6 Z-Layer” composite sediments. The homogenized Z-layer composite and individual core samples were frozen for archival storage as described above.

3.2 Shipping of Sediment Samples to the Analytical Laboratories

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) forms were placed inside lid of each cooler and packaging tape was wrapped completely around each cooler. This Side Up arrow labels and a Glass-Handle with Care label were attached on each side and to the top of each cooler, respectively. Each cooler was then sealed with custody seals on both the front and the back lid seams.

Pacific EcoRisk 16

The sediment samples were shipped by overnight delivery. The sub-contracting analytical laboratories have been instructed to not dispose of any samples for this project unless notified by PER in writing.

3.2.1 Chain-of-Custody (COC) Protocol

COC procedures were followed for all samples throughout the collection, handling, and analyses activities. The Sampling and Analysis Project Manager, or a designee, was responsible for all sample tracking and COC procedures. This person was responsible for final sample inventory, maintenance of sample custody documentation, and completion of COC forms prior to transferring samples to the analytical laboratory. A COC form accompanied each cooler of samples to the respective analytical laboratories. Each custodian of the samples signed the COC form; copies of the COC forms are retained in the project file.

3.3 Deviations from the Sampling and Analysis Plan

No deviations from the SAP occurred for sample processing.

Pacific EcoRisk 17

4. RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSES

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 RIH sediments were submitted to Eurofins Calscience (Eurofins, located in Garden Grove, CA) for analysis of all conventional and chemical parameters specified in the SAP (USACE 2020). Chemical analyses included trace metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorine (OCl) pesticides, and butyltins (also referred to as organotins). The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4-1;

the full Data Reports submitted by Eurofins are provided in Appendix B.

Due to the observation of slightly elevated non-DDT OCl pesticides in the RIH-2021-3 composite sample, the individual cores from RIH-2021-3 were submitted to Eurofins Calscience for OCl pesticide analyses as well as TOC, total solids, and grain size. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4-2; the full Data Reports submitted by Eurofins are provided in Appendix C.

Modified Elutriate Test (MET) samples were prepared for the RIH composite samples and analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS) and metals; the results of these MET analyses are presented in Table 4-3. The full Data Report submitted by Eurofins for the MET analyses is provided in Appendix D. The MET elutriates were also evaluated for toxicity; the results of those analyses are presented in Section 5.

A de-ionized water waste extraction test (mWET) was also performed for the RIH samples and the resulting extract was evaluated for metals; the results of these mWET analyses are presented in Table 4-4. The full Data Report submitted by Eurofins for the mWET analyses is provided in Appendix E.

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

• SF-10 results;

• SF Bay ambient sediment concentrations (SFEI 2015);

• SF-DODS reference site database (USEPA 2021);

• SF Bay sediment Bioaccumulation Trigger (BT) Levels (SFEI 2021);

• SF Bay sediment mercury and PCB TMDL Thresholds (SFEI 2021);

• CRRP sediment screening levels (USFWS 2010), where they differ from the SF Bay ambient concentrations); and

• MWRP sediment screening levels (where they differ from the SF Bay ambient concentrations) and sediment elutriate screening levels (SFRWQCB 2012).

Analytes whose reported concentrations exceeded the above screening levels are presented in Table 4-5.

Pacific EcoRisk 18

4.1 Results of Physical/Chemical Analyses of the Richmond Inner Harbor Sediments

Sediment samples were analyzed for the chemical and conventional parameters specified in the SAP. The results of the analyses of the composite sediment cores are presented in Table 4-1 and in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.8.

4.1.1 Total Solids and Total Organic Carbon

The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 4-1. Total solids in all composite samples ranged from 41.6 - 54.8%. The TOC concentrations ranged from 0.98 - 1.2%.

4.1.2 Particle Size Distribution

Particle size distribution in all composite samples ranged from 64.6 - 94.8% fines (silt and clay).

Total sand and gravel ranged from 5.16 –-35.4%.

4.1.3 Metals

• RIH-2021-1: The selenium concentration was measured slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration and above the SF Bay ambient concentration, but below remaining screening criteria. Arsenic was measured above the SF-DODS reference database, but below the SF-10 reference site concentration and the remaining screening criteria. The remaining metal analyte concentrations were below all screening criteria.

• RIH-2021-2: The selenium concentration was measured slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration and above the SF Bay ambient concentration, but below remaining screening criteria. Arsenic was measured above the SF-DODS reference database, and slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration, but below the remaining screening criteria. The remaining metal analyte concentrations were below all screening criteria.

• RIH-2021-3: The selenium concentration was measured slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration and above the SF Bay ambient concentration, but below remaining screening criteria. Arsenic and mercury were measured above the SF-DODS reference database, and slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration, but below the remaining screening criteria. The remaining metal analyte concentrations were below all screening criteria.

• RIH-2021-4: The selenium concentration was measured slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration and above the SF Bay ambient concentration, but below remaining screening criteria. Arsenic and mercury were measured above the SF-DODS reference database, and slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration, but below the remaining screening criteria. All remaining metal analyte concentrations were below all screening criteria.

• RIH-2021-5: The selenium concentration was measured slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration and above the SF Bay ambient concentration, but below remaining screening criteria. Arsenic was measured above the SF-DODS reference database, but below the SF-10 reference site concentration and the remaining screening criteria. Mercury was measured above the SF-DODS reference database, and slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration, but below the remaining screening criteria. All remaining metal analyte concentrations were below all screening criteria.

Pacific EcoRisk 19

• RIH-2021-6: The copper, selenium, and silver concentrations were measured slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration and above the SF Bay ambient concentration, but below remaining screening criteria. The arsenic and mercury concentrations were measured slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration and above the SF-DODS reference database concentration, but below remaining screening criteria. The lead concentration was measured above the SF Bay ambient concentration, the SF-DODS reference database concentration, and slightly above the SF-10 reference site concentration, but below remaining screening criteria.

All remaining metal analyte concentrations were below all screening criteria.

4.1.4 Butyltins

Total butyltins were reported below the method detection limit (MDL) in the RIH-2021-1, RIH- 2021-2, RIH-2021-3, RIH-2021-4, and RIH-2021-5 composite samples. Total butyltins concentration in the RIH-2021-6 composite sample was 1.7 µg/kg, which is above the SF-DODS reference database concentration.

4.1.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Total PCBs ranged from 3.14 - 19.9 µg/kg. Total PCBs were measured above the SF-DODS reference database in all composite samples; additionally, total PCBs were measured above SF Bay ambient concentration and SF Bay bioaccumulation Trigger for the RIH-2021-6 composite sample, but below remaining screening criteria. All sample areas except for RIH-2021-4 and RIH-2021-6 were less than the reference site, SF-10.

4.1.6 Organochlorine (OCl) Pesticides

Total DDT concentrations ranged from 2.7 - 36.9 µg/kg.

• The total DDT concentrations in the RIH-2021-5 and RIH-2021-6 composite samples were measured above SF-10 reference site concentrations.

• The total DDT concentrations in the RIH-2021-4 and RIH-2021-5, and RIH-2021-6 composite samples were above Bay ambient concentrations.

• All samples total DDT concentrations were measured above the SF-DODS reference database concentrations.

• The total DDT concentrations in the RIH-2021-5 and RIH-2021-6 composite samples were measured above CRRP screening criteria, and the MWRP cover screening criteria.

• All samples total DDT concentrations were measured below MWRP foundation screening criteria.

• The alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, and heptachlor concentrations in RIH-2021-3 were measured above the concentration at the SF-10 reference site and the SF-DODS reference database. Total BHCs concentration in RIH-2021-3 was measured above the concentration at the SF-10 reference site, the SF Bay ambient concentration, and the CRRP screening criteria.

The chlordane concentration in RIH-2021-3 was measured above the concentration at the SF- 10 reference site, the SF Bay ambient concentration, the SF-DODS reference database, CRRP screening criteria, and MWRP cover screening criteria, but below remaining screening criteria.

The remaining OCl pesticides were below all screening criteria in the composite samples.

Pacific EcoRisk 20

Based on the observation of elevated alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, heptachlor, and chlordane concentrations, the individual sediment cores that comprised the RIH-2021-3 composite sample were analyzed for OCl pesticides and select physical parameters; these results are presented in Section 4.2.

4.1.7 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

Total Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations ranged from 492 - 1014 μg/kg which exceeded the SF-DODS reference database concentration but were all below all remaining screening criteria and the concentration at the SF-10 reference site.

Pacific EcoRisk 21

Table 4-1. Results of Chemical Analyses of Richmond Inner Harbor Composited Sediments.

Analyte RIH- 2021-1

RIH-

2021-2

RIH-

2021-3

RIH-

2021-4

RIH-

2021-5

RIH-

2021-6

SF-10

Benchmark

Data Bay Background1

(<100% fines)

Bay Bioaccumulation

Trigger2

SF DODs Reference3

CRRP

Screening Criteria4

MWRP Screening Criteria5

Cover Foundation

Grain Size (%, dry wt) Gravel (>2.00 mm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<100% fines

16-60

NA NA NA

Sand (0.0625-2.00 mm) 35.45 22.32 6.57 7.82 7.33 5.16 21.5 - Silt (0.0039-0.0625 mm) 44.45 52.43 64.26 64.42 64.61 62.92 55.14 - 25-62 Clay (< 0.0039 mm) 20.11 25.25 29.17 27.76 28.05 31.92 23.36 - 13-24 Percent fines (Silt+Clay) 64.56 77.68 93.43 92.18 92.66 94.83 78.49 - - % Solids 54.8 48.1 47.8 44.7 41.6 43.2 53.2 - - - - - -

TOC 0.985 1.08 1.03 1.09 1.19 1.14 0.924 - - 0.63-1.45 - - -

Metals (mg/kg, dry wt Antimony <0.506 <0.583 <0.589 <0.640 <0.707 <0.637 0.658 J - - - - - - Arsenic 7.40B 8.50B 8.22B 9.27B 7.72B 9.77B 7.82B 13.9 - 2.2-5.33 15.3 15.3 70 Barium 32.8 37.7 37.2 39.7 33.1 46.2 32.0 - - - - - - Beryllium 0.399 J <0.432 0.452 J 0.542 J <0.524 0.606 J 0.459 J - - - - - - Cadmium 0.218 0.215 0.197 0.204 0.259 0.294 0.177 0.33 - 0.3-0.6 0.7 0.33 9.6 Chromium 45.2 51.6 55.5 56.6 46.9 69.8 48.0 112 - 69.2-283 112 112 370 Cobalt 11.8 12.4 12.0 11.6 10.5 14.1 14.6 - - - - - - Copper 32.5 36.9 37.8 40.1 37.8 56.0A 40.1 53.9 - 18.3-86.3 68.1 68.1 270 Lead 15.0 18.1 19.8 20.9 20.5 30.4A,B 23.3 25.1 - 5.1-26 43.2 43.2 218 Mercury <0.0246 0.193 0.240B 0.264B 0.286B 0.317B 0.137 J 0.33 (0.47a) - 0.1-0.2 0.43 0.43 1.3 Molybdenum <0.559 <0.643 <0.651 <0.706 <0.780 <0.703 <0.607 - - - - - - Nickel 57.3 63.3 64.0 64.1 56.9 78.9 60.1 98.3 - 50.9-238 112 112 200 Selenium 0.397A 0.553A 0.464A 0.428A 0.447A 0.558A 0.250 0.36 - 0.6-2.6 0.64 0.64 1.4 Silver 0.163 0.234 0.250 0.246 0.273 0.337A 0.193 0.32 - 0.2-1.0 0.58 0.58 3.7 Thallium <0.397 <0.457 <0.463 <0.502 <0.555 <0.500 <0.431 - - - - - - Vanadium 39.3 44.6 46.6 46.6 40.6 57.4 46.0 - - - - - - Zinc 78.7 87.7 92.2 97.8 92.3 132 98.6 136 - 60.8-288 158 158 410 Butyltins (µg/kg, dry wt) Dibutyltin <1.3 <1.5 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 1.7 J <1.3 - - - - - - Monobutyltin <2.4 <2.8 <2.8 <3.0 <3.2 <3.2 <2.5 - - - - - - Tetrabutyltin <1.3 <1.5 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 <1.7 <1.4 - - - - - - Tributyltin <2.6 <3.0 <3.0 <3.2 <3.5 <3.4 <2.7 - - - - - - ∑ detected Butylins 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 JB 0 - - nd-1.3 - - -

Notes:

1 - San Francisco Estuary Institute: Updated Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Chemicals in San Francisco Bay Sediments (SFEI 2015).

2 - San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Level (SFEI 2020).

3 - SF–DODS Reference Database (USEPA 2021).

4 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Proposed Cullinan Ranch Restoration Project, Napa and Solano Counties, California (USFWS 2010).

5 - Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R2-2012-0087 (SFRWQCB 2012).

a - Mercury concentration SF Bay TMDL threshold (= 99th percentile for San Francisco Bay [SFEI 2021]).

A - Value exceeds Bay Background (SFEI 2015).

B - Value exceeds SF-DODS Database (USEPA 2021)

Pacific EcoRisk 22

Table 4-1 (continued). Results of Chemical Analyses of Richmond Inner Harbor Composited Sediments.

Analyte RIH- 2021-1

RIH-

2021-2

RIH-

2021-3

RIH-

2021-4

RIH-

2021-5

RIH-

2021-6

SF-10

Benchmark

Data

Bay Background1

(<100% fines)

Bay Bioaccumulation

Trigger2

SF DODs Reference3

CRRP

Screening Criteria4

MWRP Screening Criteria5

Cover Foundation PCBs (µg/kg, dry wt)

PCB 005/008 <0.14 <0.16 <0.16 <0.17 <0.18 <0.18 <0.14 0.14 - - - - -

PCB 018 <0.12 <0.13 <0.14 <0.14 <0.16 <0.15 <0.12 0.07 - - - - -

PCB 028 <0.13 <0.14 <0.14 <0.15 <0.17 <0.16 <0.13 0.28 - - - - -

PCB 031 <0.092 <0.10 <0.11 <0.11 <0.12 <0.12 <0.095 0.13 - - - - -

PCB 033 <0.069 <0.079 <0.080 <0.085 <0.091 <0.088 <0.071 0.08 - - - - -

PCB 044 <0.28 <0.31 <0.32 <0.34 <0.36 <0.35 <0.28 0.33 - - - - -

PCB 049 <0.090 <0.10 <0.10 <0.11 <0.12 <0.11 <0.093 0.25 - - - - -

PCB 052 <0.34 <0.39 <0.40 <0.42 <0.45 0.97 <0.36 0.39 - - - - -

PCB 056 <0.14 <0.16 <0.16 <0.17 <0.18 <0.17 <0.14 0.14 - - - - -

PCB 060 <0.095 <0.11 <0.11 <0.12 <0.13 <0.12 <0.098 0.07 - - - - -

PCB 066 <0.22 <0.25 <0.26 0.90A 0.67A 0.91A <0.23 0.48 - - - - -

PCB 070 <0.13 <0.15 <0.15 0.82A 0.61A 1.3A <0.13 0.59 - - - - -

PCB 074 <0.16 <0.19 <0.19 <0.20 <0.22 <0.21 <0.17 - - - - - -

PCB 087 <0.20 <0.23 <0.23 <0.25 <0.27 <0.26 <0.21 0.46 - - - - -

PCB 095 <0.19 <0.22 <0.22 1.1A <0.26 0.75A <0.20 0.60 - - - - -

PCB 097 <0.084 <0.095 <0.096 <0.10 <0.11 <0.11 <0.086 - - - - - -

PCB 099 <0.086 0.32 J 0.42 0.97A 0.77A 1.0A 1.0A 0.65 - - - - -

PCB 101 <0.080 0.67 0.55 1.3A 0.88 1.4A 1.5A 1.15 - - - - -

PCB 105 <0.097 <0.11 <0.11 <0.12 <0.13 <0.12 <0.10 0.36 - - - - -

PCB 110 <0.061 0.63 0.74 2.0A 1.2A 1.9A <0.063 1.04 - - - - -

PCB 118 <0.063 <0.071 0.64 1.4A 1.1A 1.9A <0.065 0.98 - - - - -

PCB 128 <0.22 <0.25 <0.25 <0.27 <0.29 <0.28 <0.22 0.28 - - - - -

PCB 132/153 0.84 1.1 1.3 2.2A 1.3 2.8A 2.5A 2.11 - - - - -

PCB 138/158 0.86 1.0 1.1 3.0A <0.84 2.5A 2.8A 1.98 - - - - -

PCB 141 <0.089 <0.10 <0.10 <0.11 <0.12 <0.11 <0.092 0.20 - - - - -

PCB 149 0.58 0.73 <0.25 1.6A 1.1 2.2A 1.7A 1.25 - - - - -

PCB 151 <0.16 <0.18 <0.18 <0.19 <0.21 <0.20 <0.16 0.56 - - - - -

PCB 156 <0.14 <0.16 <0.16 <0.17 <0.18 <0.18 <0.14 0.16 - - - - -

PCB 170 <0.20 <0.23 <0.23 <0.25 <0.27 <0.26 0.93A 0.47 - - - - -

PCB 174 <0.076 <0.086 <0.087 <0.093 <0.10 <0.097 <0.078 0.49 - - - - -

PCB 177 <0.21 <0.24 <0.24 <0.26 <0.28 <0.27 <0.22 0.36 - - - - -

PCB 180 0.46 0.48 <0.19 1.1A 0.97 1.5A 1.6A 1.02 - - - - -

PCB 183 <0.17 <0.19 <0.19 <0.21 <0.22 <0.22 0.42A 0.37 - - - - -

PCB 187 0.40 0.51 <0.21 0.71 0.56 0.77 1.2A 0.87 - - - - -

PCB 194 <013 <0.15 <0.15 <0.16 <0.18 <0.17 <0.14 0.33 - - - - -

PCB 195 <0.11 <0.12 <0.13 <0.13 <0.14 <0.14 <0.11 0.11 - - - - -

PCB 201 <0.062 <0.070 <0.071 <0.076 <0.081 <0.078 <0.064 0.05 - - - - -

PCB 203 <0.10 <0.12 <0.12 <0.13 <0.14 <0.13 <0.11 0.17 - - - - -

∑ detected PCBs 3.14B 5.44B 4.75B 17.1B 9.16B 19.9A,B,C 13.65B 18.3, 29.5a 18 <MDL 22.7 22.7 180

Notes:

1 - San Francisco Estuary Institute: Updated Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Chemicals in San Francisco Bay Sediments (SFEI 2015).

2 - San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Level (SFEI 2020).

3 - SF–DODS Reference Database (USEPA 2021).

4 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Proposed Cullinan Ranch Restoration Project, Napa and Solano Counties, California (USFWS 2010).

5 - Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R2-2012-0087 (SFRWQCB 2012).

a - Total PCB concentration SF Bay TMDL threshold (= 99th percentile for San Francisco Bay [SFEI 2021]).

J - Analyte detected below the method reporting limit (MRL) and the reported value is therefore an estimate. All concentrations reported as being below the laboratory MDL are reported above as < the MDL.

A - Value exceeds Bay Background (SFEI 2015) or wetland cover screening value.

B - Value exceeds SF-DODS Database (USEPA 2021).

C - Value exceeds Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger (SFEI 2021).

Pacific EcoRisk 23

Analyte RIH- 2021-1

RIH-

2021-2

RIH-

2021-3

RIH-

2021-4

RIH-

2021-5

RIH-

2021-6

SF-10

Benchmark

Data

Bay Background1

Bay Bioaccumulation

Trigger2

SF DODs Reference3

CRRP

Screening Criteria4

MWRP Screening Criteria5

Cover Foundation Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg, dry wt) Aldrin <0.13 <0.15 <0.15 <0.16 <0.17 <0.17 <0.13 0.03 - nd - - -alpha-BHC <0.15 <0.17 0.57 JB <0.18 <0.19 <0.18 <0.15 - - nd - - -beta-BHC <0.16 <0.19 3.5B <0.20 <0.22 <0.21 <0.17 - - nd - - -delta-BHC <0.12 <0.13 0.36 JB <0.14 <0.15 <0.15 <0.12 - - nd - - -gamma-BHC (lindane) <0.19 <0.22 <0.22 <0.24 <0.25 <0.24 <0.20 - - nd - - - Total BHCs 0 0 4.43A 0 0 0 0 0.78 - - 0.99 - -alpha-Chlordane <0.083 <0.095 <0.096 <0.10 <0.11 <0.11 <0.086 - - - - - -gamma-Chlordane <0.63 <0.72 <0.73 <0.78 <0.84 <0.81 <0.66 - - - - - - Chlordane <0.59 <0.67 2.4 JA,B <0.72 <0.78 <0.75 <0.61 0.34 37 nd 1.1 2.3 4.8 Cis-nonachlor <0.086 <0.097 <0.099 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.088 - - - - - - Trans-nonachlor <0.068 <0.077 <0.078 <0.083 <2.4 <0.086 <0.070 - - - - - - Dieldrin <0.12 <0.14 <0.14 <0.15 <0.16 <0.15 <0.12 0.16 1.9 nd 0.72 0.70 4.3 Endosulfan I <0.088 <0.10 <0.10 <0.11 <0.12 <0.11 <0.091 - - nd - - - Endosulfan II <0.41 <0.47 <0.47 <0.50 <0.54 <0.52 <0.42 - - nd - - - Endosulfan sulfate <0.20 <0.22 <0.23 <0.24 <0.26 <0.25 <0.20 - - nd - - - Endrin <0.16 <0.18 <0.18 <0.19 <0.21 <0.20 <0.16 0.01 - nd - - - Endrin aldehyde <0.88 <1.0 <1.0 <1.1 <1.2 <1.1 <0.91 - - - - - - Endrin ketone <0.35 <0.39 <0.40 <0.43 <0.46 <0.44 <0.36 - - - - - - Heptachlor <0.11 <0.12 0.25 JB <0.13 <0.14 <0.14 <0.11 - - nd - - - Heptachlor epoxide <0.15 <0.18 <0.118 <0.19 <0.20 <0.20 <0.16 - - nd - - - Methoxychlor <0.30 <0.34 <0.34 <0.36 <0.39 <0.38 <0.31 - - - - - - Toxaphene <1.8 <2.1 <2.1 <2.2 <2.4 <2.3 <1.9 - - nd - - -

2,4'-DDD <0.12 <0.13 <0.13 <0.14 <0.15 <0.15 <0.12 0.51 - - - - -

2,4'-DDE <0.18 <0.20 0.20 JA <0.22 <0.23 <0.22 <0.18 0.11 - - - - -

2,4'-DDT <0.17 <0.19 <0.19 <0.20 <0.22 <0.21 <0.17 0.04 - - - - -

4,4'-DDD <0.90 <1.0 1.1 J 2.4A 4.7A 21A 1.7 J 1.98 - - - - -

4,4'-DDE 1.7 JB 1.6 JB 2.1A,B 1.9 JB 1.6 JB 6.5A,B 2.4A,B 1.98 - nd - - -

4,4'-DDT 0.97 JA 1.1 JA 1.2 JA 2.0 JA 2.8A 9.4A 3.0A 0.27 - - - - -

∑ detected DDTs 2.7 JB 2.7 JB 4.6B 6.3A,B 9.1A,B 36.9 A,B 7.1A,B 4.68 50 ≤2.1 7.0 7.0 100

Notes:

1 - San Francisco Estuary Institute: Updated Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Chemicals in San Francisco Bay Sediments (SFEI 2015).

2 - San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Level (SFEI 2020).

3 - SF–DODS Reference Database (USEPA 2021).

4 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Proposed Cullinan Ranch Restoration Project, Napa and Solano Counties, California (USFWS 2010).

5 - Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R2-2012-0087 (SFRWQCB 2012).

J - Analyte detected below the method reporting limit (MRL) and the reported value is therefore an estimate. All concentrations reported as being below the laboratory MDL are reported above as < the MDL.

A - Value exceeds Bay Background (SFEI 2015) or wetland cover screening value.

Pacific EcoRisk 24

Analyte RIH- 2021-1

RIH-

2021-2

RIH-

2021-3

RIH-

2021-4

RIH-

2021-5

RIH-

2021-6

SF-10

Benchmark

Data Bay Background1

Bay Bioaccumulation

Trigger2

SF DODs Reference3

CRRP

Screening Criteria4

MWRP Screening Criteria5

Cover Foundation

PAHs (µg/kg, dry wt) 1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene <3.5 <4.0 <4.1 <4.3 <4.6 5.6 J 7.0 J 7.43 - - - - - 1-Methylnaphthalene 4.5 J 3.4 J 4.5 J 5.3 J 5.0 J 4.3 J 5.7 J 13.4 - - - - - 1-Methylphenanthrene 9.6 J 7.2 J 6.6 J <4.7 7.5 J 8.0 J 7.8 J 37.6 - - - - - 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 7.3 J 7.1 J 8.9 J 28A 11 J 9.1 J 11 J 13 - - - - - 2-Methylnaphthalene 14 J 14 J 17 J 18 J 18 J 19 J 14 J 20.8 - - - - - Acenaphthene 9.4 J 5.5 J 5.8 J 6.7 J 6.3 J 5.9 J 5.4 J 13.5 - - - - - Acenaphthylene <15 <18 <18 <19 <20 <20 <16 32.6 - - - - - Anthracene 34 24 26 38 26 37 28 80.1 - - - - - Benzo(a)anthracene 32 24 19 J 53 39 46 64 212 - - - - - Benzo(a)pyrene 15 J 11 J 8.5 J 35 22 J 28 110 428 - - - - - Benzo(b)fluoranthene 20 15 J 13 J 43 29 43 81 227 - - - - - Benzo(e)pyrene 11 J 8.7 J 5.3 J 23 14 J 22 J 56 244 - - - - - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.3 J <3.0 <3.0 7.0 J <3.5 7.0 J 56 416 - - - - - Benzo(k)fluoranthene 11 J 10 J 5.5 J 27 17 J 26 58 231 - - - - - Biphenyl 4.7 J <3.8 5.6 J 6.5 J 5.1 J 6.0 J <3.5 11.7 - - - - - Chrysene 32 24 19 J 65 43 53 62 252 - - - - - Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <1.9 <2.2 <2.2 <2.4 <2.5 <2.4 15 J 49.9 - - - - - Dibenzothiophene <2.4 <2.8 <2.8 <3.0 <3.2 <3.1 <2.5 - - - - - - Fluoranthene 180 140 120 230 170 150 140 620 - - - - - Fluorene 8.6 J 8.4 J 8.3 J 11 J 11 J 10 J 8.3 J 27.1 - - - - - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2.8 J <2.6 <2.6 7.0 J 5.0 J 6.3 J 45 337 - - - - - Naphthalene 13 J 11 J 13 J 17 J 13 J 14 J 9.0 J 56.4 - - - - - Perylene 4.9 J <4.9 <5.0 14 J 6.8 J 5.6 J 56 216 - - - - - Phenanthrene 110 71 66 100 81 71 73 176 - - - - - Pyrene 220 170 140 280 240 240 200 791 - - - - - ∑ detected PAHs 747B 554B 492B 1,014B 770B 817B 1,112B 4,540 4,500 ≤192 3,390 3,390 44,792

Notes:

1 - San Francisco Estuary Institute: Updated Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Chemicals in San Francisco Bay Sediments (SFEI 2015).

2 - San Francisco Bay Bioaccumulation Trigger Level (SFEI 2020).

3 - SF–DODS Reference Database (USEPA 2021).

4 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Proposed Cullinan Ranch Restoration Project, Napa and Solano Counties, California (USFWS 2010).

5 - Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R2-2012-0087 (SFRWQCB 2012).

J - Analyte detected below the method reporting limit (MRL) and the reported value is therefore an estimate. All concentrations reported as being below the laboratory MDL are reported above as < the MDL.

A - Value exceeds Bay Background (SFEI 2015).

Pacific EcoRisk 25

4.2 Individual Sediment Core Samples: Results of Physical/Chemical Analyses

Based on the observation of elevated alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, heptachlor, and chlordane…