Appdx_Santa_Barbara_Harbor_SAPR_May2016.pdf

DRAFT FINAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN REPORT

Santa Barbara Harbor Geotechnical and Environmental Investigation

Task Order No. 0009, USACE Contract No. W912PL-11-D-0015

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District

Los Angeles, California

Prepared by:

DiazYourman – GeoPentech – Kinnetic Laboratories/ Joint Venture

1616 E. 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92705

May 2016

GeoPentech i

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Mr. Jeffrey Devine, Technical Manager U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Jeffrey.D.Devine@usace.army.mil

Ms. Kelly Shaw Field Geotechnical Leader Diaz Yourman Kelly Shaw <Kelly@diazyourman.com>

Kirk Brus, Technical Manager U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Kirk.C.Brus@usace.army.mil

Mr. Christopher Diaz Geotechnical Manager Diaz Yourman & Associates chris@diazyourman.com

Mr. Scott John, Project Manager U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Scott.M.John@usace.army.mil

Mr. Allen Yourman Joint Venture Project Manager Diaz Yourman Associates, GeoPentech, and Kinnetic Laboratories Joint Venture Allen@diazyourman.com

Mr. Larry Smith U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District lawrence.J.Smith@usace.army.mil

Mr. Ken Kronschnabl KLI Project Manager Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

kkronsch@kinneticlabs.com

Mr. Peter Von Langen Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board pvonlangen@waterboards.ca.gov

Mr. Spencer Johnson Field Operations Manager Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

sjohnson@kinneticlabs.com

Ms. Melisa Scianni United States Environmental Protection Agency- Region 9 scianni.melissa@epa.gov

Ms. Amy Howk KLI QA/QC Management Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

ahowk@kinneticlabs.net

Mr. Allan Ota United States Environmental Protection Agency- Region 9 ota.allan@epa.gov

Mr. Jon Toal Health and Safety Management Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

jtoal@kinneticlabs.com

Mr. Robert Smith U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division rober.r.smith@usace.army.mil

Carla Hollowell Client Services Director Eurofins Calscience CarlaHollowell@eurofinsUS.com

Mr. Larry Simon Federal Consistency Coordinator Energy, Ocean Resources and Federal California Coastal Commission lsimon@coastal.ca.gov ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ v

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Summary

1.2 Site Location and Description

1.3 Roles and Responsibilities

2.0 HISTORICAL DREDGING AND DATA REVIEW

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Dredge Design

3.2 Study Design

3.2.1 Sediment Collection and Chemical Testing

3.2.2 Beach Reference Samples

3.2.3 Geotechnical Samples and Testing

3.2.4 Summary of Testing and Evaluation Sequence

3.2.5 Evaluation Guidelines

3.3 Field Sampling Protocols

3.3.1 Positioning and Depth Measurements

3.3.2 Vibracore Sampling Methods

3.3.3 Vibracore Decontamination

3.3.4 Core Processing

3.3.5 Beach Transect and Nearshore Area Grab Samples

3.3.6 Detailed Soils Log

3.3.7 Documentation and Sample Custody

3.4 Laboratory Testing Methods

3.4.1 Geotechnical Testing

3.4.2 Bulk Sediment Chemical Analyses

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Sediment Physical Results

4.2 Sediment Chemical Results

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 Sediment Observations

5.2 Sediment Grain Size

5.3 Bulk Sediment Chemistry

6.0 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY

6.1 Field Sampling Quality Management

6.2 Analytical Chemistry QA/QC

7.0 REFERENCES CITED

iii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – PREVIOUS TESTING DATA (Weston, 2010) APPENDIX B – BEACH PHYSICAL COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS (USACE, Los Angeles

District, 2016)

APPENDIX C – CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX D – SOILS LOGS OF SEDIMENT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

APPENDIX E – ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORT

APPENDIX F – FIELD DATA LOGS

APPENDIX G – GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES AND OTHER PHYSICAL DATA

APPENDIX H – ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Santa Barbara Federal Channels Dredging Depths and March 2015 Dredge Volumes. 7 Table 2. Project Team and Responsibilities Table 3. Key Project Contacts Table 4. Santa Barbara Dredging History from 1996 to 2015 Table 5. Actual Sampling Locations, Core Depths, Mudline Elevations, and Sampling

Elevations for Santa Barbara Harbor Table 6. Dates, Times and Sampling Coordinates for Samples Collected from the Beach

Dredged Material Placement Area Table 7. Sediment Analytical Methods and Quantitation Limits Achieved Table 8. 2015 Santa Barbara Harbor Weighted Average Sieve Analysis Data for each

Composite Area Table 9. 2015 Santa Barbara Harbor Sieve Analysis Data for Individual Cores Table 10. Surface Physical Data for Beach Transects East of Santa Barbara Harbor Table 11. 2015 Santa Barbara Harbor Composite Bulk Sediment Chemistry Results Table 12. Quality Control Summary for Field Sediment Sampling Table 13. Counts of QC records per Chemical Category Table 14. Final QC Qualification Applied to Sample Results

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Santa Barbara Harbor Figure 2. Location of the Beach Placement Area and Beach Profile Sampling Transects Figure 3. Dredge Areas, Design Depths and Target Sampling Locations for the Santa

Barbra Harbor Federal Channels Figure 4. Location of Fuel Dock and Storm Drain Outfalls at Santa Barbara Harbor Figure 5. March 2015 Bathymetric Data and Actual Sampling Locations for Composite

Area 1 Figure 6. March 2015 Bathymetric Data and Actual Sampling Locations Identified for

Composite Area 2 Figure 7. March 2015 Bathymetric Data and Actual Sampling Locations for Composite

Areas 3 and 3R Figure 8. March 2015 Bathymetric Data and Actual Sampling Locations for Composite

Area 4 Figure 9. Beach Sampling Transect Locations iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ND Not Detected

BLK Method or Procedural Blank NAD83 North American Datum 1983

BMP Best Management Practice NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

BS Blank Spike OEHHA Office if Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

BSD Blank Spike Duplicate PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon

Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game PDS Post Digestion Spike

CESPD Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division PDSD Post Digestion Spike Duplicate

CHHSL California Human Health screening Level PPB Parts Per Billion

COC Chain of Custody PPM Parts Per Million

CSLC California State Lands Commission PRG Preliminary Remediation Goals

CV Coefficient of Variation PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

CWA Clean Water Act QA Quality Assurance cy Cubic Yards QC Quality Control

DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane QUAL Qualifier

DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene RBC Risk-Based Concentration

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

DGPS Differential Global Positioning Satellite RL Reporting Limit

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control RPD Relative Percent Difference

DUP Laboratory Replicates RSLs Regional Screening Levels for Cleanup of Superfund Sites

ERL NOAA Effects Range Low SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

ERM NOAA Effects Range Medium

SC-

DMMT

Southern California Dredge Material Management Team

WRMq ERM Quotient SOPs Standard Operating Procedures

GPS Global Positioning Satellite STLC Title 22 Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration

HHMSSL

Human Health Medium – Specific Screening Levels

SURR Surrogate Analysis

HDPE High-density Polyethylene SWAMP Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

ITM Inland Testing Manual SWQCB State Water Resources Control Board

LCL Lower Control Limit TOC Total Organic Carbon

LCS Laboratory Control Spike TRPH Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons

LDPE Low-density Polyethylene TTLC Title 22 Total Threshold Limit Concentration

LSD Least Significant Difference TVS Total Volatile Solids

MCBC Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton UCL Upper Control Limit

MDL Method Detection Limit USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

MS Matrix Spike USCS Unified Soil Classification System

MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would like to continue conducting routine maintenance dredging in the federal channels of Santa Barbara Harbor (Figure 1). Santa Barbara Harbor requires semi-annual dredging to keep the Entrance and Approach Channels to the Harbor open. The remaining channels are dredge less frequently. Based on a March 2015 bathymetric survey, up to 202,540 cubic yards (cy) of sediment with a two-foot overdepth allowance are being evaluated for this testing round. The sediments were last evaluated in 2010. Historically, the sediments from the federal channels have been reused for beach replenishment by placing the sediments on or in the nearshore area of the downcoast beach located east of Santa Barbara Harbor and Stearns Wharf (Figure 2). Dredged sediment from the channels helps to mitigate the loss of longshore sand transport interrupted by Santa Barbara Harbor.

Vibracore sampling was carried out from the 38-foot vessel the Bonnie Marietta to collect subsurface sediment samples during the period of November 10 through 12, 2015. A vibracore sampler was used to collect sediment samples at twenty locations throughout five channel areas shown on Figure 3. Subsamples from each location were combined with like subsamples to form five composite samples that represented the five channel areas. These composite samples were analyzed for total and volatile solids, pH, total organic carbon, oil & grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, ammonia, sulfides, metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc), butyltins, pyrethroid pesticides, chlorinated pesticides, PCB congeners, phenols, phthalates, and PAH compounds. In addition, samples for grain size analyses and for archiving were collected from each individual core prior to compositing. These grain size and archive samples represented the entire core length from the top of the core to the two foot overdepth elevations. Additional grain size samples were collected from any distinct vertical grain size strata.

USACE, Los Angeles District used all geotechnical data gathered from this study to do physical beach compatibility analyses between the proposed dredged sediments and the receiving beach.

To assist in evaluating beach suitability, placement beach grain size gradation data were compared with grain size gradation data from Harbor channels to determine if the Harbor sediments are physically compatible with the receiving area. The USACE report (Appendix B) concluded that all of the Santa Barbara Harbor federal channel sediments are physically compatible for placement directly on the beach and/or in the nearshore area of the downcoast beach. This is based on both the weighted average individual and composite sediment grain size curves of each channel area.

Bulk sediment chemistry results were evaluated against National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) toxicity effects-based screening levels and human health objectives.

Based on this evaluation, it appears that the Santa Barbara Harbor federal channel sediments should be environmentally suitable for placement on or offshore of the proposed beach placement area.

vi

This Page was Left Intentionally Blank

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Maintenance dredging is required in the federal channels of Santa Barbara Harbor, California (Figure 1) in order to restore the channels to design depths. Sediments to be dredged require periodic confirmation that they remain suitable for beach nourishment. This project is authorized by 1958 Rivers and Harbors Act (H. DOC. 356, 90TH CONG. 2nd SESS).

This Sampling and Analysis Plan Report (SAPR) has been prepared on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District to detail procedures and results including quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) results from the sampling and testing of sediments of sediments from Santa Barbara Harbor identified for placement at a beach nourishment area. This work is being performed under Task Order No. 0009, USACE Contract No. W912PL-11-D-0015.

All work described in this report was done in accordance to the approved SAP (Diaz-Yourman and Associates, GeoPentech and Kinnetic Laboratories Joint Venture, 2015).

1.1 Project Summary

The purpose of this project was to sample and test sediments from within the federal channels proposed for maintenance dredging to provide sediment quality data for evaluation of dredging and beach nourishment. This report is to fulfill requirements of the Core of Engineers South Pacific Division Regulation No. 1110-1-8 (CESPD, 2000), the Inland Testing Manual (ITM) (USACE and USEPA, 1998), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and Southern California Dredge Material Management Team (SC-DMMT) draft guidelines, and in support of the new six year Environmental Assessment for the Santa Barbara Harbor Federal Maintenance Dredging Project.

The study design for this project was based on a March 2015 hydrographic survey. Based on this survey, the estimated volume of sediments used for the study design is 202,540 cubic yards (cy), which includes the volume for a two-foot overdepth allowance. It is proposed to beneficially reuse all of the dredge material and place the material on and/or parallel to the beach in the nearshore area of the downcoast beach located east of Santa Barbara Harbor and the Stearns Wharf in a zone approximately one half mile to 1.2 miles east of the Wharf as shown on Figure 2. Placement of Santa Barbara Harbor sediments on or in the nearshore area of the beach helps mitigate the loss of longshore sand transport interrupted by the Harbor.

Santa Barbara Harbor was divided into five dredge areas for the purpose of testing based on location and design depths. These areas are identified as the Entrance Channel (Area 1), Approach Channel (Area 2), Turning Area Inside (Area 3), Turning Area Outside (Area 3R), and the Marina Channel (Area 4) as shown on Figure 3. Design depths for these areas, as listed on Figure 3 and in Table 1, are -15 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) for Area 4, -20 feet MLLW for Area 3, - 28 feet MLLW for Area 3R, -35 feet MLLW for Area 2, and -20 feet MLLW for Area 1.

Figure 1. Location of Santa Barbara Harbor

Figure 2. Location of the Beach Placement Area and Beach Profile Sampling Transects.

Figure 3. Dredge Areas, Design Depths and Target Sampling Locations for the Santa Barbra Harbor Federal Channels.

R

Figure 4. Location of Fuel Dock and Storm Drain Outfalls at Santa Barbara Harbor (Diaz-Yourman, GeoPentech and Kinnetic Laboratories Joint Venture, 2015).

P

P

P

Table 1. Santa Barbara Federal Channels Dredging Depths and March 2015 Dredge Volumes.

Dredge/ Composite

Area Location

Physical Area

(Acres)

Design Depth

(ft., MLLW)

Design Depth + Overdredge (ft., MLLW)

Design Depth Volume

(Cubic Yards)

Allowable Overdepth

Volume (Cubic Yards)

Dredge Volume with

Allowable Overdredge

(Cubic Yards) 1 Entrance Channel 6.26 -20 -22 29,980 20,199 50,179 2 Approach Channel 3.26 -35 -37 55,646 10,519 66,165

3 Turning Area Inside 1.38 -28 -30 53,235 4,453 57,688

3R Turning Area Outside 2.61 -20 -22 15,574 8,422 23,996

4 Marina Channel 6.8 -15 -17 0 4,512 4,512

Totals: 20.3 154,436 48,104 202,540

1.2 Site Location and Description

Santa Barbara Harbor is located in Santa Barbara County, California (Figure 1). Geographic coordinates (NAD 83) for the Entrance to Santa Barbara Harbor are 34 24.4' N and 119 41.1' W.

Geographic coordinates of the approximate center of the historical beach placement area are 34 24.9' N and 119 40.4' W.

Santa Barbara Harbor is located at the base of the Santa Ynez Mountains in Santa Barbara County, California (Figure 1) immediately to the west of Stearns Wharf. Stearns Wharf was constructed in 1872. Construction of the Harbor began in 1925 with construction of the breakwater completed in 1929. At first this L-shaped breakwater was not connected to shore at the west side of the Harbor allowing the longshore flow of sand to rapidly fill the Harbor. To correct this, a seawall was added to the Harbor connecting the breakwater to shore. This stopped the flow of sand causing a wide beach to form the west of the breakwater and in front of the seawall. Once this beach was fully created, sand flowed along the east/west oriented breakwater and deposited itself along the section of the breakwater north of Point Castillo creating a large sand spit. Without periodic dredging of the federal channel, this sand spit would eventually grow and seal off the mouth of the Harbor between the breakwater and Stearns Wharf. As indicated in Table 4, an average of about 321,000 cy of sand is dredged annually under the 1958 Rivers and Harbors Act to keep the Harbor open.

Santa Barbra Harbor contains approximately 1,150 small boat slips. Pleasure craft as well as commercial fishing vessels inhabit the slips. The Harbor and Stearns Wharf offer a variety of services and recreational activities. There is a commercial pier at the west end of the Harbor that functions as an offloading facility for commercial fishing boats. At the end of the commercial pier is a fuel dock and a sanitary pump out facility (Figure 4). There are three other sanitary pump out facilities which are located at the launch ramp area and both ends of the main walkway for the eastern side of the marina. There are several restaurants and small businesses adjacent to the Harbor but there are no industrial facilities in the area other than a boatyard located at the southeast end of the Harbor. There are no major storm drains that enter the Harbor. The Harbor only receives localized runoff from areas immediately surrounding the Harbor. There is one outfall that discharges runoff from the boat yard. Stormwater discharge points to the Harbor are shown on Figure 4, which was originally incorporated into the project SAP (Diaz-Yourman, GeoPentech and Kinnetic Laboratories Joint Venture, 2015).

1.3 Roles and Responsibilities

Project responsibilities and key contacts for this sediment characterization program are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Kinnetic Laboratories Inc. provided the sampling and reporting services. Diaz Yourman and Associates was responsible for core logging and geotechnical testing. Analytical chemical testing of sediments for this project was primarily carried out by Eurofins Calscience (NELAP No. 03220CA; Cal-ELAP No. 2944).

Table 2. Project Team and Responsibilities

Responsibility Name Affiliation

Project Planning and Coordination

Jeffrey Devine Scott John Kirk Brus

Christopher Diaz Ken Kronschnabl

USACE

USACE

USACE

Diaz-Yourman Kinnetic Laboratories

Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Preparation Ken Kronschnabl Christopher Diaz

Kinnetic Laboratories Diaz-Yourman

Field Sample Collection and Transport Spencer Johnson

Dale Parent Kinnetic Laboratories Kinnetic Laboratories

Geotechnical Investigation Chris Diaz Kelly Shaw

Diaz-Yourman Diaz-Yourman

Health and Safety Officer and Site Safety Plan Jon Toal Kinnetic Laboratories

Laboratory Chemical Analyses Carla Hollowell

Katie Scott Eurofins

Kinnetic Laboratories

QA/QC Management Analytical Laboratory QA/QC

Marty Stevenson Amy Howk

Carla Hollowell

Kinnetic Laboratories Kinnetic Laboratories

Eurofins

Technical Review

Pat Kinney Jeffrey Devine

Christopher Diaz Kirk Brus

Lawrence Smith Joe Ryan

Kinnetic Laboratories

USACE

Diaz-Yourman

USACE

USACE

USACE

Final Report Ken Kronschnabl Christopher Diaz

Kinnetic Laboratories Diaz-Yourman

Agency Coordination Jeffrey Devine

Kirk Brus Lawrence Smith

USACE

USACE

USCAE

USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers

Table 3. Key Project Contacts Scott John USACE Project Manager PPMD Navigation and Coastal Projects Branch U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles

District 915 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, Ca. 90017 Tel. (213) 452-3388.

Scott.M.John@usace.army.mil

Jeffrey Devine USACE Project Technical Manager Geology and Investigations Section U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, Ca. 90017 Tel. (213) 452-3579 Jeffrey.D.Devine@usace.army.mil

Kirk Brus USACE Project Technical Manager U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, Ca. 90017 Tel. (213) 452-3876 Kirk.C.Brus@usace.army.mil

James Farley USACE’s Contracting Officer representative U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Blvd.

Los Angeles, Ca. 90017 Tel. (213) 452-3575 James.A.Farley@usace.army.mil

Chris Diaz Project Manager - Geotechnical Investigations Diaz.Yourman & Associates 1616 East 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92705-8509 Tel. (714) 245-2920 chris@diazyourman.com

Ken Kronschnabl Project Manager - Sampling/Testing Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. (KLI) 307 Washington St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tel. (831) 457-3950 kkronsch@kinneticlabs.com

Spencer Johnson Field Operations Mgr.

Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. (KLI) 307 Washington St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tel. (831) 457-3950 sjohnson@kinneticlabs.com

Michele Castro Buisiness development Manager Eurofins Calscience, Inc.

7440 Lincoln Way Garden Grove, CA 92841-1427 Tel.: (949) 870-8766 MicheleCastro@eurofinsUS.com

Amy Howk KLI QA/QC Management Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

307 Washington Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tel. (831) 457-3950 ahowk@kinneticlabs.com

Allen Yourman Joint Venture Project Manager Diaz Yourman Associates, Geopentech, and Kinnetic Laboratories Joint Venture 1616 East 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92705-8509 Tel. (714) 245-2920 Allen@diazyourman.com

2.0 HISTORICAL DREDGING AND DATA REVIEW

USACE maintains the federal channels of Santa Barbara Harbor to their design depths. Portions of the channels have been dredged twice a year since 1995. Table 4 summarizes the dredging history from 1995 to the present. The Entrance Channel, Approach Channel and Turning Area are dredged most often while the Marina Channel only occasionally needs to be dredged.

Physical and chemical sampling and testing of the Santa Barbara federal channels most recently occurred in 2009. A total of 11 core samples were collected to project depths plus two feet (or refusal) and analyzed for grain size distribution. Data from these analyses were compared to the grain size distribution of sediments from the receiving beach collected at seven (7) locations along a single transect. In addition, representative portions of the 11 cores were combined into five (5) composite samples for bulk sediment chemical analyses to determine if the Harbor sediments were environmentally suitable for beach nourishment. Results of this study are summarized in a report by Weston Solutions (2010). Summary sampling and testing data from this 2010 study are provided in Appendix A.

The Santa Barbara Harbor sediments back in 2009 consisted primarily of sand and only low levels of contaminants were evident. The fines content of the sediments ranged from five (5) to 18 percent. Most organic contaminants were not detected above reporting limits in any samples. The only detectable organic concentrations were low levels of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and a few PAH compounds, which were way below NOAA lower effects based screening levels (ERL values from Long et. al., 1995). Additionally, all metal concentrations were below ERL values. The low levels of chemical constituents found in the Santa Barbara Harbor composite samples were similar to levels found in a composite sample of beach reference sediments. Based on the high sand content and low levels of contaminants found, these sediments were determined to be acceptable for beach replenishment.

A study conducted in 2010 (Kinnetic Laboratories, Fugro and Penfield and Smith, 2010) also showed that Santa Barbara Harbor sediments to the north of the Turning Area were coarse grained and generally clean and this study also resulted in a positive suitability determination. The dredged material was discharged to Goleta Beach.

According to the Weston (2010) report, sampling and testing conducted in 2004 by the USACE, Los Angeles District determined that the federal channel sediments were coarse enough and uncontaminated enough to be placed on the downcoast beach east of Stearns Wharf (East Beach) or parallel to the beach in the nearshore. The 2004 study analyzed two composite samples. These samples contained less than 5% fine grained material and concentrations of metals and organic contaminants were low or at levels below the detection limit.

Table 4. Santa Barbara Dredging History from 1996 to 2015.

Start End Volume

(cubic yards)1 Contractor Cycle

Dec-95 Jan-96 144,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 1st Year - first cycle Feb-96 Apr-96 270,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 1st Year - 2nd cycle Nov-96 Dec-96 235,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 2nd Year - third cycle Mar-97 Apr-97 144,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 2nd Year - fourth cycle Nov-97 Jan-98 330,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 3rd Year - fifth cycle Feb-98 Apr-98 262,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 3rd Year - sixth cycle

Nov-98 Jan-99 185,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 1st Year - first cycle Mar-99 Apr-99 197,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 1st Year - 2nd cycle Oct-99 Dec-99 197,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 2nd Year - third cycle Feb-00 May-00 179,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 2nd Year - fourth cycle Oct-00 Nov-00 72,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 3rd Year - fifth cycle Mar-01 May-01 190,000 J.R. Filanc Construction 3rd Year - sixth cycle

Nov-01 Dec-01 186,000 Nova Dredging 1st Year - first cycle Mar-02 Apr-02 150,000 Nova Dredging 1st Year - 2nd cycle Nov-02 Dec-02 166,000 Nova Dredging 2nd Year - third cycle Feb-03 Mar-03 252,000 Nova Dredging 2nd Year - fourth cycle Oct-03 Dec-03 114,000 Nova Dredging 3rd Year - fifth cycle Mar-04 Apr-04 192,000 Nova Dredging 3rd Year - sixth cycle

Nov-04 Dec-04 135,000 AIS Construction 1st Year - first cycle Mar-05 Apr-05 158,000 AIS Construction 1st Year - 2nd cycle Dec-05 Jan-06 148,000 AIS Construction 2nd Year - third cycle Mar-06 Mar-06 170,000 AIS Construction 2nd Year - fourth cycle Nov-06 Dec-06 111,000 AIS Construction 3rd Year - fifth cycle Feb-07 Mar-07 161,000 AIS Construction 3rd Year - sixth cycle

Nov-07 Dec-07 150,000 AIS Construction 1st Year - first cycle Feb-08 Apr-08 251,000 AIS Construction 1st Year - 2nd cycle Nov-08 Nov-08 68,000 AIS Construction 2nd Year - third cycle Mar-09 Apr-09 103,000 AIS Construction 2nd Year - fourth cycle Dec-09 Jan-10 94,000 AIS Construction 3rd Year - fifth cycle Feb-10 Apr-10 218,000 AIS Construction 3rd Year - sixth cycle

Nov-10 Dec-10 109,000 AIS Construction 1st Year - first cycle Mar-11 Apr-11 90,000 AIS Construction 1st Year - 2nd cycle Nov-11 Dec-11 110,000 AIS Construction 2nd Year - third cycle Mar-12 Apr-12 136,000 AIS Construction 2nd Year - fourth cycle Dec-12 Jan-13 154,000 AIS Construction 3rd Year - fifth cycle Mar-13 Apr-13 101,000 AIS Construction 3rd Year - sixth cycle

Mar-14 Apr-14 249,500 AIS Construction 1st Year - first cycle Dec-14 Dec-14 120,000 AIS Construction 1st Year - 2nd cycle Mar-15 Mar-15 120,700 AIS Construction 2nd Year - third cycle Dec-15 Dec-15 TBD AIS Construction 2nd Year - fourth cycle

Mar-16 Mar-16 TBD AIS Construction 3rd Year - fifth cycle

Totals 6,422,200 20 years 321,000 cy / year 1All dredge material was placed on the downcoast beach east of Stearns Wharf or parallel to the beach in the nearshore.

TBD = to be determined.

3.0 METHODS

This section describes the dredging design, study design and field and analytical methods for this testing program.

3.1 Dredge Design

Bathymetric data from March 2015 in relationship to target sampling locations are shown on Figures 5 through 8. Design depths and dredge volumes, based on the March 2015 survey, for each area identified for dredging are provided in Table 1.

3.2 Study Design

The study design for this project covers data collection tasks for Santa Barbara Harbor sediment collection and testing and receiving beach sampling and geotechnical testing. Evaluation guidelines are also discussed.

The main approach was to sample dredge sediments to dredge depth plus allowable overdepth, composite them by area, and subject the composite samples to chemical testing to determine if they are suitable for beach nourishment. The approach was also to determine the physical properties of the sediments at each location and at different depths. Testing followed requirements and procedures detailed in the ITM (USEPA/USACE, 1998) with further guidance from Los Angeles District USACE guidelines (CESPL, undated) and from SC-DMMT draft guidelines.

Acceptability guidelines published in these documents were used to evaluate the suitability of Santa Barbara Harbor maintenance-dredged sediments for beach nourishment.

3.2.1 Sediment Collection and Chemical Testing

Vibracore sampling, as described in Section 3.3.2 (Vibracore Sampling Methods), was carried out to collect subsurface sediment data at five (5) locations within Area 1 (Entrance Channel), five (5) locations within Area 2 (Approach Channel), three (3) locations within Area 3 (Turning Area Inside), four (4) locations within Area 3R (Turning Area Outside), and three (3) locations within Area 4 (Marina Channel). In total, there were 20 separate vibracore sampling locations for the Santa Barbara Harbor federal channel areas. The prefix for all locations used was “SBHVC15-#- ##.” Final sampling locations are shown on Figure 3 and Figures 5 through 8. No core rejection above the overdepth elevations was encountered that was not mitigated by an additional attempt.

All cores were advanced past the design elevation plus two feet for overdepth allowance. Final coordinates, seafloor elevations, and sample elevations for the sample locations are listed in Table

5. Note that several core locations between Areas 2, 3 and 3R had to be moved since a Hopper dredge was staging in the area, due to initial core rejection, and for vessel safety. Also note that mudline elevations in the Marina Channel (Area 4) were below design depth in most of the area.

Therefore the sediment collected from Locations M4-1 and M4-2 only represents the material between the design depth and the overdepth.

Figure 5. March 2015 Bathymetric Data and Actual Sampling Locations for Composite Area 1.

Figure 6. March 2015 Bathymetric Data and Actual Sampling Locations Identified for Composite Area 2.

Figure 7. March 2015 Bathymetric Data and Actual Sampling Locations for Composite Areas 3 and 3R.

R

Figure 8. March 2015 Bathymetric Data and Actual Sampling Locations for Composite Area 4.

Table 5. Actual Sampling Locations, Core Depths, Mudline Elevations, and Sampling Elevations for Santa Barbara Harbor.

Fed.

Chan./ Area

Core Designation Date

Sampled Time

Sampled

California Lambert Zone 5 (NAD 83)

Geographic Coordinates (NAD 83) Mudline

Elevation (ft., MLLW)

Design Depth + Overdepth (ft., MLLW)

Core Recovery

(ft.)

Core Interval Sampled

(ft., MLLW) Northing (feet)

Easting (feet)

Latitude North

Longitude West

E ntrance

(A rea 1)

SBHVC15-E1-15 11/10/15 11:00 6053287.9 1975123.6 34° 24.480' 119° 41.133' -16.9 -22 11.1 -16.9 to -22

SBHVC15-E1-16 11/10/15 10:25 6053199.3 1974943.1 34° 24.450' 119° 41.150' -17.6 -22 8.0 -17.6 to -22

SBHVC15-E1-17 11/10/15 16:40 6053021.0 1974800.5 34° 24.426' 119° 41.185' -17.3 -22 7.9 -17.3 to -22

SBHVC15-E1-18 11/10/15 09:30 6053033.1 1974624.4 34° 24.397' 119° 41.182' -18.8 -22 11.0 -18.8 to -22

SBHVC15-E1-19 11/10/15 08:15 6052987.9 1974327.9 34° 24.348' 119° 41.190' -16.8 -22 8.5 -16.8 to -22

A pproach

(A rea 2)

SBHVC15-A2-10 11/11/15 13:30 6052823.4 1975307.3 34° 24.509' 119° 41.226' -30.3 -37 13.2 -30.3 to -37

SBHVC15-A2-11 11/11/15 14:55 6052950.6 1975396.2 34° 24.524' 119° 41.201' -31.9 -37 7.8 -31.9 to -37

SBHVC15-A2-12 11/11/15 15:45 6053109.9 1975308.6 34° 24.510' 119° 41.169' -31.5 -37 11.0 -31.5 to -37

SBHVC15-A2-13 11/11/15 13:00 6052912.6 1975233.0 34° 24.497' 119° 41.208' -30.4 -37 11.3 -31.5 to -37

SBHVC15-A2-14 11/11/15 11:40 6052945.2 1975074.7 34° 24.471' 119° 41.201' -30.0 -37 8.0 -30 to -37

T urning Inside

(A rea 3)

SBHVC15-T3-05 11/11/15 08:55 6052394.4 1975211.4 34° 24.492' 119° 41.311' -20.3 -30 11.6 -20.3 to -30

SBHVC15-T3-08 11/11/15 10:35 6052648.2 1975352.7 34° 24.516' 119° 41.261' -21.0 -30 12.2 -21.0 to -30

SBHVC15-T3-20 11/11/15 08:05 6052337.4 1975109.2 34° 24.475' 119° 41.322' -20.0 -30 12.4 -20 to -30

T urning

O utside

(A rea 3R

SBHVC15-T3R-04 11/11/15 10:00 6052531.8 1975312.2 34° 24.509' 119° 41.284' -18.0 -22 12.5 -18.0 to -22

SBHVC15-T3R-06 11/10/15 14:35 6052340.9 1975321.5 34° 24.510' 119° 41.322' -19.3 -22 6.8 -19.3 to -22

SBHVC15-T3R-07 11/10/15 13:55 6052539.0 1975439.5 34° 24.530' 119° 41.283' -19.8 -22 5.7 -19.8 to -22

SBHVC15-T3R-09 11/10/15 12:20 6052710.9 1975497.2 34° 24.540' 119° 41.249' -19.1 -22 6.5 -19.1 to -22

M arina

(A rea 4)

SBHVC15-M4-01 11/10/15 16:05 6051707.6 1974434.3 34° 24.362' 119° 41.445' -15.1 -17 7.4 -15.1 to -17

SBHVC15-M4-02 11/10/15 15:35 6051819.2 1974790.2 34° 24.421' 119° 41.424' -14.8 -17 4.3 -14.8 to -17

SBHVC15-M4-03 11/10/15 15:05 6052228.8 1974929.1 34° 24.445' 119° 41.343' -16.3 -17 5.1 -16.3 to -17

A total of five (5) area composite samples were created from the five (5) channel areas shown on Figures 3 and analyzed for bulk sediment chemistry. Continuous samples from the mudline to project depths plus two feet for overdepth testing were collected from all locations. These primary core intervals were homogenized and then combined with primary core intervals from all locations within a composite area to form the composite samples. Often sediments were collected below the overdepth elevation for USACE informational purposes but were not included in the sediment composite samples. In addition, one archive for each composite sample was formed along with one archive sample from each individual core collected that represented the entire primary core interval (mudline to overdepth elevations). All archive samples are being stored frozen at Kinnetic Laboratories’ Santa Cruz facility for at least six months unless directed otherwise by the USACE Technical Manager.

Core subsamples for geotechnical testing were taken from the 20 primary core intervals and from any geo-physically different layer of material not already being analyzed for grain size distribution as described later in Section 3.2.3.

3.2.2 Physical Sampling (Beach Profile Sampling)

A series of surface grabs were collected along three (3) transects (A, B and C) perpendicular to the shore at the downcoast receiving beach on November 12, 2015. The beach placement area is shown on Figure 2. The beach transect sampling consisted of collecting surface grab samples at eight elevations (+12, +6, 0, -6, -12, -18, -24 and -30 feet MLLW) along the three perpendicular transects. Locations of the three transects are shown in Figure 2 and final sampling locations are shown on Figure 9. Table 6 provides a list of the final locations for the beach transect samples along with the date and time of collection. Geotechnical grain size testing was performed for all grain size grab samples collected from the transect locations.

3.2.3 Geotechnical Samples and Testing

A sufficient quantity of sediment was collected from each location within Santa Barbara Harbor so that a representative amount of sediment was included in each geotechnical sample. At least one primary grain size sample was formed and analyzed from each core. At a minimum, these samples represent the material from the mudline to the project overdepths, though often several intervals were collected within the primary core interval (Table 5). Grain size analyses were also run on each sampling location along the three (3) beach transects for a total of 24 additional samples.

USACE, Los Angeles District requested that one (1) additional sample from each core that represents the three feet of material below the overdepth elevations be collected and tested for grain size. Data from these samples are for informational and internal purposes and were not used for beach suitability purposes and were not included in this report.

All mechanical grain size tests were run according to ASTM D 422 (1963). In addition to the mechanical grain size samples, four (4) hydrometer tests were run according to ASTM D 422 and five (5) Atterberg Limits tests were run according to ASTM D 4318 (2005). The hydrometer and Atterberg tests were conducted on samples with the highest proportions of fine grained material.

All geotechnical data gathered were used to do physical beach compatibility analyses between the dredged sediments and the receiving beach. This task was accomplished by USACE-Los Angeles District and is included as Appendix B to this report.

Table 6. Dates, Times and Sampling Coordinates for Samples Collected from the Beach

Dredged Material Placement Area.

Area Site

Designations Date Time

Sampling Elevations

(feet, MLLW)

Latitude North

Longitude West

Beach Transect A

(EBGS15-A)

A+12 (A1) 11/12/15 11:35 +12 34° 24.89' 119° 40.82' A+6 (A2) 11/12/15 11:15 +6 34° 24.87' 119° 40.81' A0 (A3) 11/12/15 12:45 0 34° 24.86' 119° 40.80' A-6 (A4) 11/12/15 11:37 -6 34° 24.845 119° 40.799 A-12 (A5) 11/12/15 12:01 -12 34° 24.799 119° 40.783 A-18 (A6) 11/12/15 11:54 -18 34° 24.681 119° 40.722 A-24 (A7) 11/12/15 11:48 -24 34° 24.603 119° 40.691 A-30 (A8) 11/12/15 11:40 -30 34° 24.525 119° 40.669

Beach Transect B

(EBGS15-B)

B+12 (B1) 11/12/15 11:55 +12 34° 24.95' 119° 40.50' B+6 (B2) 11/12/15 11:50 +6 34° 24.93' 119° 40.50' B0 (B3) 11/12/15 12:35 0 34° 24.91' 119° 40.49' B-6 (B4) 11/12/15 11:48 -6 34° 24.896 119° 40.491

B-12 (B5) 11/12/15 12:42 -12 34° 24.840' 119° 40.509' B-18 (B6) 11/12/15 12:24 -18 34° 24.773' 119° 40.449' B-24 (B7) 11/12/15 12:20 -24 34° 24.693' 119° 40.434' B-30 (B8) 11/12/15 12:10 -30 34° 24.621' 119° 40.430'

Beach Transect C

(EBGS15-C)

C+12 (C1) 11/12/15 12:10 +12 34° 24.99' 119° 40.25' C+6 (C2) 11/12/15 12:05 +6 34° 24.97' 119° 40.24' C0 (C3) 11/12/15 12:15 0 34° 24.96' 119° 40.24' C-6 (C4) 11/12/15 11:55 -6 34° 24.938 119° 40.321

C-12 (C5) 11/12/15 13:07 -12 34° 24.902' 119° 40.212' C-18 (C6) 11/12/15 13:03 -18 34° 24.838' 119° 40.190' C-24 (C7) 11/12/15 12:58 -24 34° 24.749' 119° 40.185' C-30 (C8) 11/12/15 12:54 -30 34° 24.697' 119° 40.167'

A (-30) A (-24)

A (-18)

A (-12)

A (-6)

A (0) A (+12)

A (+6)

B (-30) B (-24)

B (-18)

B (-12) B (-6)

B (0)

B (+6)

B (+12)

C (-30)

C (-24)

C (-18)

C (-12)

C (-6)

C (0)

C (+12)

C (+6)

Figure 9. Beach Sampling Transect Locations.

3.2.4 Summary of Testing and Evaluation Sequence

The testing and evaluation sequence for the Santa Barbara Harbor composite samples is described in detail in the next subsection and is outlined as follows:

1) Bulk sediment chemical analyses were conducted on each composite sample.

2) Grain size physical compatibility analyses was conducted by the Los Angeles District U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Geotechnical Branch.

3) Analytical results were evaluated using the sediment quality guidelines consisting of

Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Medium (ERM) values developed by Long, et al. (1995) that correlate concentrations of selected contaminants with likelihood of adverse biological effects. The sediment chemistry summary tables in Section 4 (Results) lists available ERL and ERM values. Please note that ERLs and ERMs have not been developed for all analytes.

4) Analytical results were also evaluated using the USEPA Region 9’s (2015) RSLs (Regional Screening Levels) and the State of California’s CHHSLs (California Human Health Screening Levels) for potential effects to humans (Cal/EPA, updated 2010). The sediment summary table if Section 4 (Results) lists the available RSL and CHHSL values.

If grain size characteristics are compatible with the receiving beach and contaminant levels are low compared to lower effects based screening levels and human health screening levels, then the sediments should be suitable for beach nourishment and no further testing would be required. If the agencies determined that elevated concentrations of contaminants exist, then further testing may be required by the Southern California Dredged Material Management Team.

3.2.5 Evaluation Guidelines

As mentioned above, to aid in the evaluation of sediment test data, chemical concentrations of contaminants found within the sediments were compared to sediment quality guidelines (Long et.

al., 1995) developed by NOAA. These guidelines can be used to screen sediments for contaminant concentrations that might cause biological effects and to identify sediments for further toxicity testing. For any given contaminant, ERL guidelines represent the 10th percentile concentration value in the NOAA database that might be expected to cause adverse biological effects and ERM guidelines reflect the 50th percentile value in the database. Note that ERLs and ERMs will only used as a screening tool. They will not be used to determine suitability. The suitability determination will be made by the USACE in consultation with the SC-DMMT based on the results reported in this SAPR.

As an additional measure of potential toxicity, the mean ERM quotients (ERMq) for the composite samples were calculated according to Long et al. (1998a) and Hyland et al. (1999). ERMq is calculated by dividing each contaminant concentration by its respective ERM value and then summing the results and dividing through by the number of contaminants as shown in the following equation:

ERM

entrationSampleConc

1tERMQuotien

In cases where concentrations of measured contaminants are below the method detection limit (MDL), a value of ½ the MDL was used for the ERMq calculations. For a general overall indication of toxicity, a quotient less than 0.1 is indicative of a low probability (<12%) of a highly toxic response to marine amphipods (Long and MacDonald, 1998b). If there are no ERL exceedances in a sample, there is less than a 10% probability of a highly toxic response to marine amphipods. The probability of a highly toxic response increases to 71% for quotients greater than 1.0.

If there are particularly elevated concentrations of chemical contaminants, then the dredge material may be assessed to whether or not it is suitable for human contact. To do so, the chemical results were compared to “Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites" (USEPA Region 9, updated 2015), formerly known as Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs).

These screening levels (RSLs) were developed for Superfund/RCRA programs and are a consortium of USEPA Region 9 PRGs, USEPA Region 3 RBCs and EPA Region 6 HHMSSLs.

RSLs are risk-based concentrations derived from standardized equations combining exposure information assumptions with EPA toxicity data. RSLs used for this report are based on a target hazard quotient of 1.

RSLs are considered by the USEPA to be protective for humans (including sensitive groups) over a lifetime. However, RSLs are not always applicable to a particular site and do not address non-human health endpoints, such as ecological impacts. The RSLs in the sediment chemistry summary table were calculated without site-specific information. They are used for site "screening" and as initial cleanup goals. RSLs are not cleanup standards and were not applied as such. The RSL's primary role in site "screening" is to help identify areas, contaminants, and conditions that require further federal attention at a particular site, and they are also useful in determining risks to human exposure at non-superfund sites. RSLs may be lower than the California Title 22 Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) values, but often are much higher. Material with excessive RSL exceedances should be re-used as buried fill instead of topsoil provided it can be shown that the material will not leach contaminants at detrimental concentrations into groundwater and receiving waters.

Human health risks were also evaluated using CHHSLs. CHHSLs (Cal/EPA, updated 2010) are concentrations of 54 hazardous chemicals in soil or soil gas that are considered to be protective of human health. The CHHSLs were developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) on behalf of Cal/EPA. CHHSLs were developed using standard exposure assumptions and chemical toxicity values published by the USEPA and Cal/EPA. CHHSLs listed in the sediment chemistry summary table (Section 4) were developed separately for industrial/commercial settings and for residential settings.

3.3 Field Sampling Protocols

Vibracore sampling, decontamination, sample processing and documentation procedures are discussed in this section.

3.3.1 Positioning and Depth Measurements

Positioning at sampling locations was accomplished using a differential GPS (DGPS) navigation system with positioning accuracies of 3 to 10 feet. The locations were recorded in both Geographic coordinates (NAD 83) and then converted to State Plane Coordinates (CA Zone V, NAD 83).

Water depths were measured with a graduated lead line and corrected to mean lower low water (MLLW). Tidal stage was determined using NOAA predicted tide tables within the DGPS unit.

These tables were used to calculate the seafloor elevation/mudline for each site.

All sampling sites were located within Federal Channel limits and close to the target coordinates with the exception of three locations that were moved due to the presence of a hopper dredge, core rejection, and for safety reasons. Actual locations are listed in Table 5.

3.3.2 Vibracore Sampling Methods

All Santa Barbara Harbor dredge footprint sediment samples were collected using an electric vibracore. The cores were advanced beyond the target sampling elevation (project elevation plus two feet for overdepth allowance plus three feet for geotechnical purposes). At the conclusion of a successful vibracore, the core liner was removed and split open for inspection and sampling.

Extrusion of the cores was not allowed. Processing took place on the vessel.

Vibracore sampling was conducted from the 38-foot vessel Bonnie Marietta. This vessel was fully equipped with all necessary navigation, safety, and lifesaving devices per Coast Guard requirements and was capable of three point anchoring. A 17-foot Boston whaler was used to assist in anchoring.

Kinnetic Laboratories’ vibracore consists of a 4-inch diameter aluminum coring tube, a stainless steel cutting tip, and a stainless-steel core catcher. Inserted into the core tubes were food-grade clean polyethylene liners. The vibrating unit has two counter-rotating motors encased in waterproof aluminum housing. A three-phase, 240-volt generator powered the motors. The vibracore head and tube were lowered overboard with a davit. The unit was then vibrated until it reached below the target sampling elevation or until the depth of refusal was reached.

When penetration of the vibracore was complete, power was shut off to the vibra-head and the vibracore was extracted from the sediment and brought aboard the vessel. A check valve located on top of the core tube reduced or prevented sediment loss during pull-out. The core tube was then detached from the vibra-head, and the core cutting tip and catcher were removed. Afterwards, the core liners were removed and sealed on both ends until processed.

3.3.3 Vibracore Decontamination

All sample contact surfaces were stainless steel or polyethylene. Compositing tools were stainless steel or Teflon® coated stainless steel. Except for the core liners, all contact surfaces of the sampling devices and the coring tubes were cleaned for each sampling location. The cleaning protocol consisted of a site water rinse, a Micro-90 laboratory soap wash, and then finished with deionized water rinses. The polyethylene core liners were new and of food grade quality. All rinseate was collected in containers and disposed of properly.

3.3.4 Core Processing

Whole cores were processed aboard the Bonnie Marietta. Cores were placed in a PVC core rack that was cleaned and covered in clean plastic between cores. After placement in the core rack, core liners were split lengthwise to expose the recovered sediment. Once exposed, sediment that came in contact with the core liner was removed by scraping with a pre-cleaned stainless steel spoon. Each core was photographed, measured, and lithologically logged in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as outlined in ASTM Standards D-2488 (2006) and D- 2487 (2006). Additional sediment characteristics including likely sediment origin and other observations were also recorded. A geologist from Diaz-Yourman and Associates did the lithologic logging along with collection of sample splits for geotechnical testing.

Photographs were taken of each core (each photograph covers a maximum two-foot interval).

These pictures are included as Appendix C of this report with captions describing the subject and date.

Following logging, vertical composite subsamples were then formed from each core and samples for grain size analyses were formed. The primary vertical composite subsamples were from the mudline to project depth plus two feet below project depth or depth of refusal. Primary vertical composite subsamples were used to form the area composite samples for chemical testing. An archived sample was formed from each primary vertical composite subsample. Since there were no distinct geologic stratification greater than two feet nor layers of suspected contamination in the cores, no additional archive samples were collected. Distinct geologic strata greater than eight inches in length were analyzed or archived for grain size.

Vertical composite subsamples were formed by combining and homogenizing a representative sample from each primary core interval, as described above, in a pre-cleaned stainless steel or Teflon®-coated tray. A 0.5-liter portion of each primary vertical composite subsample was placed in a pre-cleaned and certified glass jar with a Teflon®-lined lid for archived material (Ziploc bags for grain size samples). The remaining portion of each primary vertical composite subsample within each sampling interval identified for composite sample formation was placed in another pre-cleaned tray for area compositing with all other cores from the same channel/composite area.

All samples for grain size analyses were transferred to pre-labeled sample containers (sealed plastic bags) and stored appropriately and ultimately transferred to Diaz-Yourman and Associates for analysis.

Except for archival material for chemical analyses, containers were completely filled to minimize air…