Specs.pdf

Solicitation Number:

W912WJ23B0004

Maintenance Dredging

Scarborough River, Maine

Construction Solicitation and Specifications

APRIL 2023

Scarborough Maintenance Dredging

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 32 00 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 22 00 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00 QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 01 RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE (RMS CM)

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 54 50 DREDGING PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 58 00 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

01 71 23 FIELD ENGINEERING FOR DREDGING

01 71 24 FIELD ENGINEERING FOR BEACH FILL PLACEMENT

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

DIVISION 35 - WATERWAY AND MARINE CONSTRUCTION

35 20 23 DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT

35 20 23.33 NATIONAL DREDGING QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - PIPELINE

HYDRAULIC DREDGE

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

DOCUMENT 00 32 00

GEOTECHNICAL DATA

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SUMMARY

1.2 INTERPRETATION

PART 2 PRODUCTS (Not Applicable)

PART 3 EXECUTION (Not Applicable)

-- End of Section Table of Contents --

DOCUMENT 00 32 00 Page 1

DOCUMENT 00 32 00

GEOTECHNICAL DATA

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SUMMARY

The conditions indicated on the contract drawings and in the specifications are the result of site surveys and samples. Sediment sampling was performed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel on July 2, 2019 using a 0.43 ft2 VanVeen grab sampler. Summaries of the geotechnical probes and locations at the site where investigations were performed are attached at the end of this section.

1.2 INTERPRETATION

Sediment investigation data are provided only for information purposes and for the convenience of the Contractor. The data shown in the attachment is for the specific locations indicated only and no assurance is given that these conditions are representative of conditions between probes or areas adjacent thereto. The responsibility lies with the Contractor to interpret conditions that may affect his work.

PART 2 PRODUCTS (Not Applicable)

Not used.

PART 3 EXECUTION (Not Applicable)

Not used.

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 32 00 Page 2

DATA REPORT

Environmental Sampling and Survey In Support of Project Design FINAL

Scarborough River Federal Navigation Project Maintenance Dredging Scarborough, ME

November 2019

DATA REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING AND SURVEY

IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT DESIGN

SCARBOROUGH RIVER FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT

MAINTENANCE DREDGING

SCARBOROUGH, MAINE

November 2019

Prepared by:

Planning Division Environmental Resources Section

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District

Concord, Massachusetts i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 Materials and Methods

2.1 Sediment Samples for Grain Size and Benthic Community Analysis

2.2 Side Scan Sonar ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Grain Size Analysis

3.2 Benthic Community Analysis

3.3 Seafloor Characterization and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping

TABLES

Table 1: Grain Size and Benthic Analysis Sample Locations Table 2: Video Survey Stations Table 3: Summary of Grain Size Results Table 4: Summary of Macrobenthic Invertebrate Community Data

FIGURES

Figure 1: Scarborough River Dredging Project Overview Figure 2: Sediment Sample Locations Figure 3: Scarborough River Survey Transects and Video Stations Figure 4: Little River Rock Survey Transects and Video Stations Figure 5: Scarborough River Scan Sonar Mosaic Figure 6: Little River Rock Side Scan Sonar Mosaic

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

APPENDIX B: FIELD LOGS

APPENDIX C: VIDEO SCREEN CAPTURES

APPENDIX B: LABORATORY REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Scarborough River is a tidal stream which originates in the town of Scarborough, ME, and flows approximately 2.5 miles before emptying into the northern portion of Saco Bay. The Federal Navigation Project (FNP) in the Scarborough River was adopted in May of 1950 and modified by the Office of the Chief of Engineers in March of 1960. The existing project provides for a channel that is 8 feet deep at mean lower low water (MLLW) and 200 feet wide, extending from deep water in Saco Bay to a point just below the jetty at the tip of pine point, where it becomes 6 feet deep and 100 to 200 feet wide before connecting with a 15 acre anchorage of the same depth in the lower Scarborough River estuary.

The Scarborough River FNP is home to a small commercial fishing fleet and is a popular port for recreational boaters during the summer months. As such, the harbor is of significant economic importance to the surrounding communities and requires periodic maintenance dredging to ensure safe access at all stages of the tide. The FNP was most recently maintained in 2014 when approximately 91,543 cubic yards of sand was hydraulically dredged and pumped directly onto nearby Western Beach for beneficial use. Prior rounds of maintenance dredging took place in 2004, when 82,047 cubic yards of sandy material was hydraulically dredged and pumped directly onto Western Beach, and in 1995, when 95,000 cubic yards of sand was mechanically removed and placed at a nearshore site located off of Camp Ellis beach.

The New England District (NAE) of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently proposing to dredge approximately 78,000 cubic yards of predominantly sandy material from shoaled areas totaling 19.2 acres within the channels and anchorage of the Scarborough River FNP.

These areas will be hydraulically dredged to the authorized project depths plus one foot of allowable overdepth. It is expected that the material will be either pumped directly onto Western Beach or placed at the proposed Little River Rock nearshore site located off of Old Orchard Beach.

An overview of the project features described above as well as the proposed placement alternatives is presented in Figure 1.

This report describes field efforts performed in July of 2019 in order to map the surficial sediment type and seabed features in the vicinity of the proposed dredging and nearshore placement sites;

to document the existing benthic communities and any submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) within the project area; and to gather data to evaluate the suitability of the shoaled material in the FNP for the proposed placement alternatives. Efforts undertaken to meet these objectives include the collection of sediment grab samples, hydroacoustic survey data, and underwater video footage from both the dredge area and the Little River Rock nearshore site. The sections below discuss the field collection and data processing methods employed, site conditions encountered, and the results of analysis in support of the stated project objectives. All sediment sampling and analysis activities performed in support of a dredged material suitability determination were conducted according to the project sampling and analysis plan (SAP) prepared by NAE in April of 2019 (Appendix A).

70°19'0"W

70°19'0"W

70°20'0"W

70°20'0"W

70°21'0"W

70°21'0"W

70°22'0"W

70°22'0"W

°3 3'

0" N

°3

3' 0"

N

°3

2' 0"

N

°3

2' 0"

N

°3

1' 0"

N

°3

1' 0"

N

FIGURE 1:

SCARBOROUGH RIVER FNP

DREDGING PROJECT OVERVIEW

NOAA CHART 13287

0 250 500 750 1,000

Meters

1:24,000

US Army Corps of Engineers New England District

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet

Scarborough

Arundel

Saco

Buxton

Biddeford

Dayton

Cape Elizabeth

South Portland

Old Orchard Beach

GCS NAD 1983

LITTLE RIVER ROCK

NEARSHORE SITE

Legend:

Federal Channel Placement Site Dredge Area

6 FOOT ANCHORAGE

8 FOOT CHANNEL

WESTERN BEACH

PLACEMENT SITE

6 FOOT CHANNEL

SCARBOROUGH

RIVER FNP

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Sediment Samples for Grain Size and Benthic Community Analysis

Sediment sampling activities were performed on 2 July 2019 by staff from the NAE Environmental Resource Section (ERS). Work was carried out onboard the R/V Nomad, a 25 foot SBI Defender outfitted for coastal sampling and survey operations. Vessel positioning was achieved using a Hemisphere Vector VS330™ position and heading system receiving real time differential corrections and interfaced to a computer running Hypack® survey software for navigation. Depth measurements were obtained using an Airmar® P319 transducer operating at a frequency of 200 kHz. Tidal corrections to MLLW were made using data for the Pine Point tide station (8418445).

Sediment collection stations are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2. Sampling logs are presented in Appendix B.

Surficial sediment samples for grain size analysis were collected from eight stations within the proposed dredge area in the Scarborough River FNP and four stations at the proposed Little River Rock nearshore site using a 0.43 ft2 VanVeen grab sampler. Grain size analysis took place at the NAE environmental laboratory located at Fort Devens in Massachusetts. Samples were prepared according to the guidance in ASTM D421-85, Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants, and analyzed according to ASTM D422-63, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils using sieve nos. 4, 10, 40, 100, and 200.

There were no deviations from the established laboratory testing protocols.

Sediment grabs for benthic community analysis were co-located with the grain size samples from four stations in the FNP and two stations at the proposed nearshore placement site. Each sample for benthic community analysis was washed in the field on a 0.5 mm sieve to remove any fine grained sediment before being preserved in 10% formalin with 0.1% rose Bengal stain. Samples were maintained in the formalin solution until processing at the NAE environmental laboratory.

At the time of processing the samples were washed on a 0.5 mm sieve a second time to remove the preservative and any remaining fine grained sediment. The samples were then sorted under a low-power dissecting microscope and all macrobenthic organisms were transferred to jars containing 70% ethanol. After the sorting process all organisms were identified to the lowest taxon possible and enumerated by a benthic taxonomist.

2.2 Seafloor Characterization and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping

Hydroacoustic and video survey activities were conducted during the 2 July 2019 field effort onboard the R/V Nomad. The purpose of these surveys was to collect simultaneous side scan sonar and single beam bathymetric data in order to map the surficial sediment type and seabed features throughout the target areas, and to document the extent, density, and canopy height of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) within the survey area. This data was ground truthed using underwater video footage and the results of grain size analysis performed on the sediment samples as described in the sections above.

The survey plan for each area was developed in Hypack® based on the measured water depths and prevailing currents encountered in the field. Survey transects in the vicinity of the Scarborough River entrance channel (Figure 3) were laid out using a spacing of 50 feet in an orientation parallel to the channel. The primary objective of the survey in this area was to identify SAV corresponding to eelgrass mapped by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (MEDMR) through interpretation of historic aerial imagery (https://www.maine.gov/dmr/science-research/ species/eelgrass/). Survey transects in the vicinity of the Little River Rock nearshore site (Figure

4) were laid out using a spacing of 100 feet in an orientation parallel to the shoreline and covered the entire placement area in order to map any resources that might be impacted by the placement of dredged material.

Side scan sonar data was collected using a Tritech StarFish 452F transducer with a mid-band 450 kHz compressed high intensity radar pulse (CHIRP) signal. Single beam hydroacoustic data was collected using a BioSonics MX echosounder with a 204.8 kHz, 8.7° calibrated transducer operating at a 10Hz ping rate. The transducer array was affixed to an adjustable survey boom mounted along the starboard side of the vessel and adjusted so that the face of each unit was 28 inches below the water surface. The vessel operator navigated all transects at a speed of approximately 5 knots (5.7 mph) while recording data. Transects were run in opposite directions to minimize non-recording time. Transect information including the number, filename, start and stop time, direction, and pertinent observations were recorded in a field log throughout the survey and are provided in Appendix B of this report. Conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) profiles were collected from the survey area using a Sontek Castaway®–CTD in order to correct for speed of sound variations in the water column.

Sonar data was viewed in real time and recorded to the hard drive of a computer running Hypack® for side scan sonar and Biosonics Visual Acquisition software for single beam hydroacoustic data.

The 450 kHz side scan data from each survey transect was imported to Chesapeake Technology (CTI) SonarWiz 7 software for processing and analysis. Processing included digitizing of the first signal return to remove the water column portion of the sonar record, and adjustment of signal amplitude by range and angle using Empirical Gain Normalization (EGN). The processed transects were combined into high resolution mosaics and used to interpret the surficial sediment type, delineate areas of SAV, and identify features of interest within each survey area. The side scan sonar mosaics for the Scarborough River entrance channel and the Little River Rock nearshore site are presented in Figures 5 and 6.

The single beam hydroacoustic data from each survey transect was processed using Biosonics Visual Habitat software. This software uses multiple algorithms augmented by user defined parameters to determine bottom depth, plant canopy height, and plant density for each sonar ping (defined as one transmit and receive cycle of the echosounder). The bottom depth and canopy height outputs for each transect were superimposed on a colorized echogram along with aligned data plots of plant density and reviewed for accuracy. Any erroneous data points (i.e. inaccurate bottom depth or canopy height outputs resulting from acoustic artifacts or noise in the water column) were manually corrected by the reviewer. The finalized outputs were combined into data points representing average percent cover and canopy height for every ten sonar pings and interpolated using inverse distance weighting methodology to produce a gridded raster representing SAV percent cover within the vegetated areas identified from the side scan sonar mosaics.

Underwater video footage for ground truthing and identification of SAV was collected from six stations in the vicinity of the Scarborough River entrance channel and three stations at the Little https://www.maine.gov/dmr/science-research/%20species/eelgrass/ https://www.maine.gov/dmr/science-research/%20species/eelgrass/

River Rock nearshore site. Video footage was collected using a GoPro HERO5 camera outfitted with a remote feed for real time viewing and mounted to an adjustable pole for shallow water deployment. The camera assembly was maintained at a position just above the sea floor for approximately 5 to 10 seconds at each station, observing 5 to 10 linear feet of bottom with typical vessel drift. Depth and orientation adjustments of the camera assembly were made manually by NAE personnel positioned on the deck of the survey vessel. Real time observations of substrate type and vegetation were recorded in the field log. The video survey stations from both areas are presented in Table 2 and depicted in Figures 3 and 4.

Video files were reviewed using CyberLink PowerDirector video editing software. Representative screen captures were created from the footage collected at each video station. In addition, the name of each station, waypoint GPS coordinates, and a brief description of the video content (bottom type as well as presence and type of SAV) were recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and compared to the field notes collected during the video survey. The screen capture database is presented in Appendix C of this report.

Table 1: Grain Size and Benthic Analysis Sample Locations

Station

ID

Latitude

(WGS84)

Longitude

(WGS84)

Time

(EDT)

Water Depth

(FT MLLW)

Sample Type

Grain Size Benthic Analysis

Scarborough River FNP A 43.546736 -70.336469 16:18 2.6 x

B 43.546226 -70.334085 16:25 2.9 x x C 43.545638 -70.329710 16:30 4.4 x

D 43.544495 -70.328662 16:33 6.1 x x E 43.543302 -70.328005 16:37 4.7 x

F 43.533711 -70.324911 16:43 8 x x G 43.532346 -70.324989 16:45 5.9 x H 43.529921 -70.324989 16:48 7.9 x x

Little River Rock Nearshore Site LRR-A 43.518756 -70.362514 16:55 14.4 x x LRR-B 43.517120 -70.364365 17:04 13.9 x LRR-C 43.518685 -70.366106 17:11 8.8 x x LRR-D 43.520568 -70.364458 17:23 8.9 x

Table 2: Video Survey Stations

ID

Latitude

(WGS84)

Longitude

(WGS84)

Scarborough River FNP

SC-V1 43.530559 -70.324185

SC-V2 43.531218 -70.324205

SC-V3 43.533247 -70.324139

SC-V4 43.534186 -70.324334

SC-V5 43.535492 -70.324497

SC-V6 43.541915 -70.327271

Little River Rock Nearshore Site

LRR-V1 43.519891 -70.365023

LRR-V2 43.518039 -70.363434

LRR-V3 43.520033 -70.362687

H

G F

E D

C B

A

LRR-D

LRR-C

LRR-B

LRR-A

70°20'0"W

70°20'0"W

70°21'0"W

70°21'0"W

70°22'0"W

70°22'0"W

70°19'0"W

°3

3' 0"

N

°3

3' 0"

N

°3

2' 0"

N

°3

2' 0"

N

°3

1' 0"

N

°3

1' 0"

N

FIGURE 2:

SCARBOROUGH RIVER FNP

JULY 2019 SAMPLE LOCATIONS

NOAA CHART 13287

0 250 500 750 1,000

Meters

1:24,000

US Army Corps of Engineers New England District

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet

Scarborough

Arundel

Saco

Buxton

Biddeford

Dayton

Cape Elizabeth

South Portland

Old Orchard Beach

GCS NAD 1983

LITTLE RIVER ROCK

NEARSHORE SITE

Legend:

!> Sample Location

Federal Channel Placement Site Dredge Area

SCARBOROUGH

RIVER FNP

8 FOOT CHANNEL

6 FOOT CHANNEL

7 39 5 18 410 6 2

SC-V6

SC-V5

SC-V4

SC-V3

SC-V2

SC-V1

70°19'0"W

70°19'0"W

70°19'30"W

70°19'30"W

70°20'0"W

70°20'0"W

°3 2'

"N

°3

2'

"N

°3

2' 0"

N

°3

2' 0"

N

FIGURE 3:

SARBOROUGH RIVER FNP

JULY 2019 SURVEY TRANSECTS

AND VIDEO STATIONS

NOAA CHART 13287

0 100 200 300 400 500

Meters

1:9,000

US Army Corps of Engineers New England District

0 500 1,000 1,500 Feet

Scarborough

Saco

Buxton

BiddefordArundel

Dayton

Go rha m

Cape Elizabeth

South Portland

Old Orchard Beach

Long Island

GCS NAD 1983

Legend:

!> Video Station

Survey Transect Federal Channel

LRR-V3

LRR-V2

LRR-V1

70°21'30"W

70°21'30"W

70°21'45"W

70°21'45"W

70°22'0"W

70°22'0"W

70°22'15"W

70°22'15"W

°3 1'

"N

°3

1'

"N

°3

1' 0"

N

°3

1' 0"

N

FIGURE 4:

LITTLE RIVER ROCK NEARSHORE SITE

JULY 2019 SURVEY TRANSECTS

AND VIDEO STATIONS

NOAA CHART 13287

0 100 200 300

Meters

1:6,000

US Army Corps of Engineers New England District

0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet

Scarborough

Arundel

Saco

Buxton

Biddeford

Dayton

Cape Elizabeth

South Portland

Old Orchard Beach

GCS NAD 1983

LITTLE RIVER ROCK

NEARSHORE SITE

Legend:

!> Video Station

Survey Transect Placement Site

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Grain Size Analysis

Eight sediment samples from the dredge area in the Scarborough River entrance channel and four samples from the proposed Little River Rock nearshore placement site were analyzed for grain size distribution (Sieve No.s 4, 10, 40, 100, 200) at the NAE environmental laboratory. The sediment samples from the dredge area were predominantly poorly graded medium to fine sands (77.4-100%) with some coarse sand and fine gravel.

The distribution of sand sized particles in the FNP was generally coarser in the entrance channel and became finer moving into the lower estuary. Material from the proposed nearshore site was predominantly fine sand (91.4-95.4%) with trace amounts of medium sand and fine grained material (passing the no. 200 sieve). There was little variation in particle size distribution across the site. The results of analysis are summarized in Table 2.

Complete testing results are provided in the laboratory report presented as Appendix D.

Table 3: Summary of Grain Size Results

Sample ID % Cobble % Gravel % Sand

% Fines Coarse Medium Fine

Scarborough River FNP A 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 97.1 0.0 B 0.0 0.2 0.6 22.7 76.5 0.0 C 0.0 1.7 4.5 58.3 35.5 0.0 D 0.0 5.2 17.4 39.9 37.5 0.0 E 0.0 2.2 3.8 87.7 6.4 0.0 F 0.0 1.4 1.7 92.3 4.7 0.0 G 0.0 1.7 10.6 84.0 3.7 0.0 H 0.0 0.5 3.5 64.2 31.7 0.0

Little River Rock Nearshore Site

LRR-A 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.8 94.3 3.7

LRR-B 0.0 0.1 0.1 6.4 91.4 1.9

LRR-C 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 94.7 3.1

LRR-D 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 95.4 3.9

3.2 Benthic Community Analysis

Four samples from the dredge area within the Scarborough River FNP and two samples from the proposed Little River Rock nearshore placement site were processed at the NAE environmental laboratory to document the existing benthic community structure in each area. The macrobenthic invertebrates in each sample were identified to the lowest taxon possible and enumerated by a benthic taxonomist. Counts of species and individuals by sample are summarized in Table 3. The presence of nematodes was noted at all stations but not included in the species abundance and richness counts because nematodes are considered a part of the meiofaunal community. The benthic community at both sites was typical of a North Atlantic sandy bottom assemblage. Oligochates were the dominant taxa in the majority of the FNP samples. The community in this area was also represented by the digger amphipod Haustorius canadensis, a common subtidal and intertidal crustacean that is adapted to live in shifting sand environments, as well as several polychaete species (Scolelepis squamata and Prionospio steenstrupi) that are typical of sandy subtidal environments. The benthic community at the Little River Rock nearshore site was represented by a mix of annelid, arthropod, and mollusk species. Numerical dominants at the nearshore site inluded the digger amphipod Haustorius Canadensis, and the spionid polychaete Scolelepis squamata. Surf clams (Spisula solidissima) were noted in low numbers in the sample from the offshore portion of the site.

Table 4: Summary of Macrobenthic Invertebrate Communities within the Scarborough River FNP and the Little River Rock Nearshore Placement Site

Species Scarborough River

FNP

Little River Rock

Nearshore Site

B D F H LRR-A LRR-B

Annelida Polychaeta

Capitella sp. - - 1 1 - - Harmothoe imbricata 1 - - - - -

Nephtys incisca 2 - - - - 2 Prionospio steenstrupi - 1 - - 2 1

Scolelepis squamata 3 1 1 3 - 3 Streblospio benedicti - - 1 - - -

Oligochaeta Unidentified Oligochaeta 6 66 33 236 2 1

Arthropoda Crustacea

Ampithoe sp. - - - - - 1 Chiridotea sp. 1 - 1 - 1 -

Haustorius canadensis 14 1 - 4 6 - Echinodermata Echinoidea

Echinarachnius parma - - - 1 - - Mollusca Bivalva

Pitar morrhuana - - - 1 - - Spisula solidissima - - - - 1 -

Gastropoda Nassarius trivitatus - - - - - 2

TOTAL SPECIES 6 4 5 6 5 6

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 27 69 37 246 12 10

Nematoda

Unidentified Nematode 5 122 28 133 4 12 All counts are per 0.023 m2

3.3 Seafloor Characterization and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping

A total of 10 transects covering 9.6 linear miles in the vicinity of the Scarborough River entrance channel and 13 transects covering 5.0 linear miles at the Little River Rock nearshore site were successfully surveyed to produce 9,339 processed Visual Habitat data points. Water depths in the vicinity of the FNP entrance channel were sufficient to generate high quality side scan sonar imagery within a 100 to 150 foot swath (50 to 75 feet per channel) while water depths in the vicinity of the Little River Rock site allowed for a swath of 150 to 200 feet (75 to 100 feet per channel). The combination of swath and transect spacing resulted in 200 percent coverage of the seafloor in each survey area and facilitated a detailed analysis of seabed features by ensonifying them from multiple directions. The position and reflectance properties of seabed features from opposite channels on adjacent transects demonstrated excellent agreement. Direct comparison of side scan sonar imagery, Visual Habitat data, and video survey observations also demonstrated excellent agreement.

Side scan sonar creates an image of the seafloor by measuring the travel time and intensity of reflected acoustic energy, referred to as backscatter. The reflected signal strength is very sensitive to subtle variations in seafloor hardness and texture. Materials such as rock and sand are very efficient at reflecting acoustic energy and have a high backscatter signature while fine sediments such as silt and clay absorb more energy than they reflect and therefore exhibit low backscatter. Because of these characteristics it is possible to interpret changes in backscatter as a proxy for grain size and generate a map of surficial geology. It is also possible to distinguish the size and shape of seafloor features by examining the pattern of their acoustic reflection and shadow.

The seabed in the vicinity of the Scarborough River entrance channel is composed of poorly graded sand and gravel deposited in sand ripples and small scale sand waves. These areas are by characterized by elongate bands of alternating high and low backscatter oriented perpendicular to the predominant flow direction, bisected by an area of more uniform, moderate to high backscatter within the channel profile. This pattern results from a combination of topographic changes affecting the angle of incidence of the side scan sonar and differences in sediment texture commonly present between the crests and troughs of sand waves. Several isolated, elongated areas of higher relief oriented parallel to the predominant flow direction were interpreted as the surficial expression of bedrock outcrops. These outcrops appear to be partially buried by a veneer of coarse sediment, and are present both along the eastern side of the channel and adjacent to the Pine Point breakwater. These areas are characterized by complex patches of high and low backscatter with individual high-backscatter targets. The high backscatter component is produced by rock faces oriented towards the side scan source and the low backscatter component results from the acoustic shadow or topographic depression behind the contact. Individual boulders and rises in these area produce isolated high backscatter targets and corresponding shadows.

The seabed in the vicinity of the Little River Rock nearshore site is composed of poorly graded fine sand deposited in low relief sand ripples. This area is characterized by a faint pattern of alternating low to moderate backscatter oriented parallel to the shoreline. It should be noted that the fine scale and relief of these features makes them imperceptible at the resolution of the side scan mosaic in Figure 6, but they can be viewed in the video screen captures presented in Appendix C. No other features of interest were noted within the site.

A review of the single beam hydroacoustic survey data, side scan sonar mosaics, and video survey footage found both sites to be unvegetated. Isolated sonar returns above the ambient seafloor were noted in the survey transects to the east of the Scarborough River entrance channel, but video survey footage documented these as areas of coarse sediment with sparse macroalgae. Eelgrass was not observed from the surface or in the underwater video footage from either survey area.

8 FOOT CHANNEL

6 FOOT CHANNEL

70°19'0"W

70°19'0"W

70°19'30"W

70°19'30"W

70°20'0"W

70°20'0"W

°3 2'

"N

°3

2'

"N

°3

2' 0"

N

°3

2' 0"

N

FIGURE 5:

SARBOROUGH RIVER FNP

JULY 2019 SIDE SCAN SOANAR MOSAIC

2018 NAIP AERIAL IMAGERY

0 100 200 300 400 500

Meters

1:9,000

US Army Corps of Engineers New England District

0 500 1,000 1,500 Feet

Scarborough

Saco

Buxton

BiddefordArundel

Dayton

Go rha m

Cape Elizabeth

South Portland

Old Orchard Beach

Long Island

GCS NAD 1983

Legend:

Federal Channel

70°21'30"W

70°21'30"W

70°21'45"W

70°21'45"W

70°22'0"W

70°22'0"W

70°22'15"W

70°22'15"W

°3 1'

"N

°3

1'

"N

°3

1' 0"

N

°3

1' 0"

N

FIGURE 6:

LITTLE RIVER ROCK NEARSHORE SITE

JULY 2019 SIDE SCAN SONAR MOSAIC

2018 NAIP AERIAL IMAGERY

0 100 200 300

Meters

1:6,000

US Army Corps of Engineers New England District

0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet

Scarborough

Arundel

Saco

Buxton

Biddeford

Dayton

Cape Elizabeth

South Portland

Old Orchard Beach

GCS NAD 1983

LITTLE RIVER ROCK

NEARSHORE SITE

Legend:

Placement Site

APPENDIX A SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

CENAE–PDE 10 April 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR: Michael Walsh, Project Manager, CENAE-PPC

SUBJECT: Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Scarborough River Federal Navigation Project, Scarborough, Maine.

1. Project Description: The New England District (NAE) of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is proposing to dredge approximately 78,000 cubic yards of predominantly coarse grained material from shoaled areas totaling 19.2 acres within the Scarborough River Federal Navigation Project (FNP) located in Scarborough, Maine. These areas will be hydraulically dredged to the authorized depth plus allowable overdepth. Suitable sandy material will either be pumped directly onto Western Beach or placed at the Little River Rock nearshore site located off of Old Orchard Beach.

The purpose of the sampling and analysis plan described below is to gather information to support a suitability determination for the proposed placement options. This sampling and analysis effort will include the collection of sediment samples from the proposed dredging and disposal areas for grain size analysis and, if necessary, bulk chemical analysis. Based on multiple rounds of testing data it is expected that the material from the FNP will meet the exclusionary criteria established in §230.60(a). All sampling and analysis activities described in this plan shall follow the requirements set forth in the “Regional Implementation Manual for the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters" (RIM) dated May 6, 2004.

2. Conceptual Site Model: NAE reviewed historic testing data, previous environmental assessments, water quality data, adjacent land-use information, and interviewed local officials to develop a conceptual site model (CSM) for the Scarborough River FNP. This CSM was used to characterize the system and to identify potential sources of contamination, site-specific contaminants of concern, exposure pathways, and biological receptors in order to inform this sampling and analysis plan.

The Scarborough River is a tidal stream which originates in the town of Scarborough, ME, and flows approximately 2.5 miles before emptying into the northern portion of Saco Bay. The FNP in the Scarborough River was adopted in May of 1950 and modified by the Office of the Chief of Engineers in March of 1960. The existing project provides for a channel that is 8 feet deep at mean lower low water (MLLW) and 200 feet wide, extending from deep water in Saco Bay to a point just below the jetty at the tip of pine point, where it becomes 6 feet deep and 100 to 200 feet wide before connecting with a 15 acre anchorage of the same depth in the lower Scarborough River estuary.

The Scarborough River FNP is home to a small commercial fishing fleet and is a

CENAE-PDE

SUBJECT: Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Scarborough River Federal Navigation Project, Scarborough, Maine.

popular port for recreational boaters during the summer months. The town landing at Pine Point has a large parking lot, pier, and a fisherman’s Co-op. Land use adjacent to the FNP along Pine Point beach and Prouts Neck is primarily residential. The Prouts Neck Bird Sanctuary, Scarborough Beach State Park, and the Prouts Neck Golf Course are located just east of the FNP. A wastewater treatment facility located 0.5 miles to the northeast of the project on Black Point Road is capable of treating an average of 2.5 million gallons of sewage per day, and discharges treated effluent into Saco Bay at from a point off of Prouts Neck.

Water quality in the Scarborough River is dictated by tidal exchange with Saco Bay and freshwater inputs from multiple tributaries including the Nonesuch and Libby Rivers, and several small unnamed brooks that feed into the estuary. The State of Maine classifies the estuarine and marine waters in the vicinity of the Scarborough River as Class SB (38 MRSA 469). Class SB waters are considered unimpaired and are suitable for recreation, fishing, aquaculture, propagation and harvesting of shellfish, and as habitat for fish and other estuarine and marine life (38 MRSA 465-A).

The Scarborough River was most recently maintained by the Corps of Engineers in 2014 when approximately 91,543 cubic yards of sand was hydraulically dredged and pumped directly onto nearby Western Beach for beneficial use. Prior rounds of maintenance dredging took place in 2004, when 82,047 cubic yards of sandy material was hydraulically dredged and pumped directly onto Western Beach, and in 1995, when 95,000 cubic yards of sand was mechanically removed and placed at a nearshore site located off of Camp Ellis beach. Sampling and testing performed in support of the Environmental Assessment for each of these maintenance cycles found the sediments throughout the project to be predominantly coarse grained sand meeting the exclusionary criteria established in §230.60(a).

Based on a review of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection spill database NAE determined that there were no outfalls or recent spills in the vicinity of the proposed project. Following this tier one review of the site characteristics and the available historical data, the Scarborough River FNP was given a low risk ranking according to the following matrix (adapted from USACE 2014):

Rank Guidelines

Low Few or no sources of contamination. Data available to verify no significant potential for adverse biological effects.

Low-Moderate Few or no sources of contamination but existing data is insufficient to confirm ranking.

Moderate Contamination sources exist within the vicinity of the project with the potential to produce chemical concentrations that may cause adverse biological effects.

High Known sources of contamination within the project area and historical data exists that has previously failed biological testing.

3. Sample Collection: Sediment grab samples shall be collected at the eight locations specified in Table 1 (also see Figure 1). These locations were selected based on information from the CSM described above, the low risk rating for the project, and shoal areas identified in the most recent project conditions survey.

Sufficient material shall be collected from each sample location for grain size and, if the material is not predominantly coarse grained, the bulk chemical analyses described in the sections below. Representative sediment samples shall also be collected from Western Beach and the Little River Rock nearshore site for comparative purposes.

All sediment being held for testing shall be stored in accordance with the requirements in Table 2 (from Table 8-2 in Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal, Testing Manual, 1991).

The latitude and longitude for each sample location shall be reported in the Geographic NAD 83 coordinate system in decimal degree format. The horizontal accuracy of each sample location shall be 3 meters or less. The horizontal accuracy at each sample location shall be reported along with the coordinates.

4. Grain Size and Bulk Chemical Analysis: Each sample from the dredge area shall be individually analyzed for grain size and the results reported to NAE before any further testing is performed. It is expected that all of the material from the Scarborough River FNP will meet the exclusionary criteria established in §230.60(a).

Any material that does not meet the exemption from further testing may be composited based on proximity, sediment type, and physical characteristics and shall undergo bulk chemical analysis. Testing parameters, analytical methods, and reporting limits to be used are outlined in Table 3 (Extracted from Tables 1, 2, and 3 of the RIM). The listed analytical methods are recommended but can be replaced by other methods that will give the required reporting limits. Additional guidance on the physical and chemical analysis of sediments can be found in chapter 5 of the RIM.

All laboratories used for this project must have an approved Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan (LQAP) on file with NAE. Any data produced from a lab without an approved LQAP will not be accepted. The RIM, a list of laboratories with approved LQAPs, and the reporting format and requirements for electronic submission of data are available for download through the NAE website (http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Dredged-Material- Program/).

5. Reporting: All sediment testing data is required to be submitted electronically in the electronic data deliverable (EDD) format available on the http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Dredged-Material-Program/ http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Dredged-Material-Program/

NAE website (http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Disposal-Area- Monitoring-System-DAMOS/Electronic-Data-Deliverables.aspx). Hard copy data submission is also required but may be substituted with a printer friendly, easy-to-read format (e.g., PDF, MS Word). Any analytes not detected shall be reported as the reporting limit and qualified with a “U”. Non-detects shall not be reported as the method detection limit (MDL). RIM quality control summary tables are required to be submitted w

6. Contact Information: Questions about this plan should be directed to Richard Loyd (phone: 978-318-8048 e-mail: Richard.B.Loyd@usace.army.mil).

Prepared by:

RICHARD B. LOYD

Marine Operations Program Manager Environmental Resources Section http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Disposal-Area-Monitoring-System-DAMOS/Electronic-Data-Deliverables.aspx http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Disposal-Area-Monitoring-System-DAMOS/Electronic-Data-Deliverables.aspx

Table 2: Dredge Area Sample Locations

Station Latitude

(WGS84)

Longitude

(WGS84)

A 43.546736 -70.336469 B 43.546226 -70.334085 C 43.545638 -70.329710 D 43.544495 -70.328662 E 43.543302 -70.328005 F 43.533711 -70.324911 G 43.532346 -70.324989 H 43.529921 -70.324989

SUBJECT: Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Scarborough River Federal Navigation Project, Scarborough, Maine.

Table 2: RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND STORAGE

Analyses Collection

Method Sample Volume Container Preservation Technique

Storage Conditions Holding Timed

Sediment Chemical/Physical Analyses

Metals Grab/corer 200 mL Precleaned polyethylene jarc Dry icec ≤ 20° Cc

Hg - 30 days Others - 6 Monthsd

Organic Compounds Grab/corer 475 mL Solvent-rinsed glass jar with Teflon lidc Dry icec ≤ 20° C/darkd 10 daysd

Particle Size Grab/corer 75 mL Whirl-pac bagc Dry icec ≤ 20° Cc Undetermined

Total Organic Carbon Grab/corer 3 L Heat treated glass vial with Teflon lined lidc

Dry ice or freezer storage for extended storages; otherwise refrigerate

≤ 20° Cc Undetermined

Sediment From Which Elutriate is Prepared

Grab/corer Dependant on tests performed

Glass with Teflon lined lid

Completely fill and Refrigerate

≤ 4° C/dark/airtight Undetermined

Biological Tests

Dredged Material Grab/corer 12-15 L per sample

Plastic bag or containere

Completely fill and Refrigerate; sieve

≤ 4° C/dark/airtight 14 daysi

Reference Sediment Grab/corer 45-50 L per test Plastic bag or containere

Completely fill and Refrigerate; sieve

≤ 4° C/dark/airtight 14 daysi

Control Sediment Grab/corer 21-25 L per test

Plastic bag or containere

Completely fill and Refrigerate; sieve

≤ 4° C/dark/airtight 14 daysi

Water and Elutriate Chemical/Physical Analyses

Metals Discrete sampler or pump 1 L

Acid-rinsed polyethylene or glass jar pH <2 with HNO3d 4° C 2° Cd Hg - 28 days Others - 6 Monthsh

SUBJECT: Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Scarborough River Federal Navigation Project, Scarborough, Maine.

Table 2: RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND STORAGE (CONTINUED)

Organics Discrete sampler or pump 4 L Amber glass bottled Airtight seal; refrigerate 4° C 2° Cd 5 daysd

Tissue

Metals Trawl/ Teflon coated grab 30 g Double Ziplocc

Handle with non-metallic forceps; plastic gloves; dry icec

≤ -20° CC

Hg - 14 days Others - 6 monthsi

PCBs and Chlorinated Pesticides

Trawl/ Teflon coated grab 100 g

Hexane-rinsed double aluminum foil and double Ziplocc

Handle with hexane-rinsed stainless steel forceps; dry icec

≤ -20° CC 10 daysi

Volatile Organic Compounds

Trawl/ Teflon coated grab 50 g

Heat cleaned aluminum foil and water tight plastic bagi

Covered ice chestd ≤ -20° Ci 10 daysi

PAHs Trawl/ Teflon coated grab 50 g

Hexane-rinsed double aluminum foil and double Ziplocc

Handle with hexane-rinsed stainless steel forceps; dry icec

≤ -20° Ci 10 daysi

Lipids Trawl/ Teflon coated grab 50 g Hexane-rinsed aluminum foil

Handle with hexane-rinsed stainless steel forceps; quick freeze

20° C Undetermined a This table contains only a summary of collection, preservation, and storage procedures for samples. The cited references should be consulted for a more detailed description of these procedures.

b These holding times are for sediment, water, and tissue based on guidance that is sometimes administrative rather than technical in nature. There are no promulgated, scientifically based holding time criteria for sediments, tissues, or elutriates. References should be consulted if holding times for sample extracts are desired. Holding times are from the time of sample collection.

c NOAA (1989).

d Tetra Tech (1986a) e Polypropylene should be used if phthalate bioaccumulation is of concern.

f Two weeks is recommended; sediments must not be held for longer than 8 weeks prior to biological testing.

g NOAA (1989).

h Plumb (1981).

i Tetra Tech (1986b)

SUBJECT: Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Scarborough River Federal Navigation Project, Scarborough, Maine.

TABLE 3: BULK SEDIMENT TESTING PARAMETERS

Parameter Analytical Reporting Method Limit (ppm) Metals Arsenic 6010B, 6020, 7060, 7061 0.4 Cadmium 6010B, 6020, 7130, 7131 0.07 Chromium 6010B, 6020, 7190, 7191 0.5 Copper 6010B, 6020, 7210 0.5 Lead 6010B, 6020, 7420, 7421 0.5 Mercury 7471 0.02 Nickel 6010B, 6020, 7520 0.5 Zinc 6010B, 6020, 7950 1.0

PCBs (total by NOAA summation of congeners) See next page 8082A 0.001

Pesticides NOAA (1993), 8081B 0.001 Aldrin Heptachlor epoxide cis- & trans-Chlordane Hexachlorobenzene 4,4’-DDT, DDD, DDE Lindane Dieldrin Methoxychlor α & β Endosulfan cis- & trans-Nonachlor Endrin Oxychlordane Heptachlor Toxaphene 0.025

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 8270C-SIM 0.01 (PAHs) Acenaphthene Chrysene Acenaphthylene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Anthracene Fluoranthene Benzo(a)anthracene Fluorene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1, 2, 3-cd)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Naphthalene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Phenanthrene Benzo(g, h, i)perylene Pyrene

Total Organic Carbon Plumb (1981), APHA (1995) 0.1%

Percent Moisture Plumb (1981), EPA (1992), PSEP (1986) 1.0%

Grain Size Wet Sieve (#4, 10, 40, 200)

TABLE 3: BULK SEDIMENT TESTING PARAMETERS (CONTINUED)

PCB CONGENERS

Analytical Method: NOAA (1993), 8082A

Reporting Limit: 1 ppb

Congeners:

8* 2,4’ diCB 18* 2,2’,5 triCB 28* 2,4,4’ triCB 44* 2,2’,3,5’ tetraCB 49 2,2’,4’,5 tetraCB 52* 2,2’,5,5’ tetraCB 66* 2,3’,4,4’ tetraCB 87 2,2’,3,4,5’ pentaCB 101* 2,2’,4,5,5’ pentaCB 105* 2,3,3’,4,4’ pentaCB 118* 2,3’,4,4’,5 pentaCB 128* 2,3,3’,4,4’ hexaCB 138* 2,2’,3,4,4’,5’ hexaCB 153* 2,2’,4,4’,5,5’ hexaCB 170* 2,2’,3,3’,4,4’,5 heptaCB 180* 2,2’,3,4,4’,5,5’ heptaCB 183 2,2’,3,4,4’,5’,6 heptaCB 184 2,2’,3,4,4’,6,6’ heptaCB 187* 2,2’,3,4’,5,5’,6 heptaCB 195* 2,2’,3,3’,4,4’,5,6 octaCB 206* 2,2’,3,3’,4,4’,5,5’,6 nonaCB 209* 2,2’,3,3’,4,4’,5,5’,6,6’ decaCB

* denotes a congener to be used in estimating Total PCB. To calculate Total PCB, sum the concentrations of all eighteen congeners marked with a “*” and multiply by 2.

The specified methods are recommendations only. Other acceptable methodologies capable of meeting the Reporting Limits can be used. Sample preparation methodologies (e.g. extraction and cleanup) and sample size may need to be modified to achieve the required Reporting Limits.

APPENDIX B FIELD LOGS

APPENDIX C VIDEO SCREEN CAPTURES

TABLE 1: SCREEN CAPTURE INDEX

ID

Latitude

(WGS84)

Longitude (WGS84) Comment

Scarborough River FNP SC-V1 43.530559 -70.324185 Sand ripples SC-V2 43.531218 -70.324205 Sand ripples with gravel and shell fragments SC-V3 43.533247 -70.324139 Sand ripples SC-V4 43.534186 -70.324334 Sand, gravel, and shell with scattered macroalgae SC-V5 43.535492 -70.324497 Sand, gravel, cobble and shell with scattered macroalgae SC-V6 43.541915 -70.327271 Sand

Little River Rock Nearshore Site LRR-V1 43.519891 -70.365023 Sand ripples and drift algae LRR-V2 43.518039 -70.363434 Sand ripples and drift algae LRR-V3 43.520033 -70.362687 Sand ripples and drift algae

SC-V1

SC-V2

SC-V3

SC-V4

SC-V5

SC-V6

LRR-V1

LRR-V2

LRR-V3

APPENDIX D LABORATORY REPORT

NAE ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY Date Collected: 07/02/19 Project Name: Scarborough River Date Recieved: 07/02/19 Project Location: Scarborough, ME Date Analyzed: 07/12/19

Received By: RBL Analyzed By: SCT Checked By: RBL

Summary of Results:

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine

A 0.0 0.0 2.9 97.1 0.0 B 0.0 0.6 22.7 76.5 0.0 C 0.0 4.5 58.3 35.5 0.0 D 0.0 17.4 39.9 37.5 0.0 E 0.0 3.8 87.7 6.4 0.0 F 0.0 1.7 92.3 4.7 0.0 G 0.0 10.6 84.0 3.7 0.0 H 0.0 3.5 64.2 31.7 0.0

LRR-A 0.0 0.1 1.8 94.3 3.7

LRR-B 0.0 0.1 6.4 91.4 1.9

LRR-C 0.0 0.0 2.2 94.7 3.1

LRR-D 0.0 0.1 0.7 95.4 3.9

0.1

2.2

0.0

1.7

0.1

1.4

0.0

0.5 Little River Rock Nearshroe Site

Preparation Method: ASTM D421-85 (reapproved 2002)

%Sand%Cobble %Fines%Gravel

Lab SOP: Particle Size Analysis of Sediments - Without Hydrometer

Discussion: Twelve samples were received by the lab upon completion of field activivites. There were no deviations from the established laboratory testing protocols during prepration or analysis.

Analysis Method: ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002) - Sieve Nos. 4, 10, 40, 100, 200

Sample ID

0.0

5.2

0.2 1.7

Scarborough River FNP

Project Name: Scarborough River Date: 07/12/19 Project Location: Scarborough, ME Sample ID: A

Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay

0.0 0.0 2.9 97.1

D10 D15 D30 D50 D60 D85 Cc Cu

0.1672 0.1820 0.2264 0.2856 0.3152 0.3892 8.59 1.89

628.7 -

Sieve Sieve Size (mm)

Sieve Weight (g)

Shaken Weight (g)

Weight Retained

(g)

Percent Retained

Cum.

Percent Retained

Percent Finer

#4 4.750 493.5 493.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 #10 2.000 463.3 463.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 #40 0.425 353.8 372 18.2 2.9 2.9 97.1 #100 0.150 325.5 909.6 584.1 92.9 95.8 4.2 #200 0.075 316.6 342.8 26.2 4.2 100.0 0.0 Pan - 458.6 458.8 0.2 0.0 100.0 -

Original Sample Weight (g) Post Wash Weight (g)

Sample Notes:

%Cobble %Gravel %Sand %Fines

0.0 0.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

Pe rc en t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

Grain Size Millimeters

4 10 40 1003/4"3" 200

Sample ID: B

Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay

0.0 0.6 22.7 76.5

D10 D15 D30 D50 D60 D85 Cc Cu

0.1804 0.1988 0.2539 0.3275 0.3643 1.0143 7.73 2.02

650.5 -

Sieve Sieve Size (mm)

Sieve Weight (g)

Shaken Weight (g)

Weight Retained

(g)

Percent Retained

Cum.

Percent Retained

Percent Finer

#4 4.750 496.7 498.3 1.6 0.2 0.2 99.8 #10 2.000 470.3 473.9 3.6 0.6 0.8 99.2 #40 0.425 356.3 503.9 147.6 22.7 23.5 76.5

#100 0.150 329.2 815.6 486.4 74.8 98.3 1.7 #200 0.075 313.6 324.7 11.1 1.7 100.0 0.0 Pan - 457.7 457.9 0.2 0.0 100.0 -

Original Sample Weight (g) Post Wash Weight (g)

Sample Notes:

%Cobble %Gravel %Sand %Fines

0.2 0.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

Pe rc en t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

Sample ID: C

Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay

0.0 4.5 58.3 35.5

D10 D15 D30 D50 D60 D85 Cc Cu

0.2249 0.2642 0.3820 0.8172 1.0872 1.7622 3.12 4.83

649.2 -

Sieve Sieve Size (mm)

Sieve Weight (g)

Shaken Weight (g)

Weight Retained

(g)

Percent Retained

Cum.

Percent Retained

Percent Finer

#4 4.750 496.8 508.1 11.3 1.7 1.7 98.3 #10 2.000 470.1 499 28.9 4.5 6.2 93.8 #40 0.425 354.7 733.4 378.7 58.3 64.5 35.5

#100 0.150 328.8 556.1 227.3 35.0 99.5 0.5 #200 0.075 313.5 316.5 3.0 0.5 100.0 0.0 Pan - 457.8 457.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 -

Original Sample Weight (g) Post Wash Weight (g)

Sample Notes:

%Cobble %Gravel %Sand %Fines

1.7 0.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

Pe rc en t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

Sample ID: D

Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay

0.0 17.4 39.9 37.5

D10 D15 D30 D50 D60 D85 Cc Cu

0.2208 0.2579 0.3691 0.9173 1.3124 3.2018 2.55 5.94

197.4 -

Sieve Sieve Size (mm)

Sieve Weight (g)

Shaken Weight (g)

Weight Retained

(g)

Percent Retained

Cum.

Percent Retained

Percent Finer

#4 4.750 493.5 503.8 10.3 5.2 5.2 94.8 #10 2.000 463.2 497.5 34.3 17.4 22.6 77.4 #40 0.425 353.1 431.8 78.7 39.9 62.5 37.5

#100 0.150 325.4 398.6 73.2 37.1 99.5 0.5 #200 0.075 316.5 317.4 0.9 0.5 100.0 0.0 Pan - 458.6 458.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 -

Original Sample Weight (g) Post Wash Weight (g)

Sample Notes:

%Cobble %Gravel %Sand %Fines

5.2 0.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

Pe rc en t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

Sample ID: E

Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay

0.0 3.8 87.7 6.4

D10 D15 D30 D50 D60 D85 Cc Cu

0.4903 0.5801 0.8495 1.2088 1.3884 1.8375 2.50 2.83

751.0 -

Sieve Sieve Size (mm)

Sieve Weight (g)

Shaken Weight (g)

Weight Retained

(g)

Percent Retained

Cum.

Percent Retained

Percent Finer

#4 4.750 496.7 513.1 16.4 2.2 2.2 97.8 #10 2.000 470.1 498.4 28.3 3.8 6.0 94.0 #40 0.425 355.6 1014.1 658.5 87.7 93.6 6.4

#100 0.150 329.1 376.4 47.3 6.3 99.9 0.1 #200 0.075 313.6 314.1 0.5 0.1 100.0 0.0 Pan - 457.8 457.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 -

Original Sample Weight (g) Post Wash Weight (g)

Sample Notes:

%Cobble %Gravel %Sand %Fines

2.2 0.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

Pe rc en t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

Sample ID: F

Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002)

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay

0.0 1.7 92.3 4.7

D10 D15 D30 D50 D60 D85 Cc Cu

0.5166 0.6019 0.8579 1.1992 1.3698 1.7965 2.42 2.65

589.0 -

Sieve Sieve Size (mm)

Sieve Weight (g)

Shaken Weight (g)

Weight…