sed & wq rpt text...

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page i

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT STATUS ...................................................... 1

2.1 Site Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Offloading Facility and Sediment Pipeline ......................................................... 3

2.1.2 Sediment Placement Cells .................................................................................. 3

2.1.3 Decant Water Drainage System .......................................................................... 4

2.1.4 Makeup Water Pond and Discharge Pipe ............................................................ 4

2.1.5 Water Supply and Water Management Practices ................................................ 5

2.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring Wells.......................................................................... 6

2.1.7 Rehandling Facility ............................................................................................ 7

2.2 Dredged Sediment Types and Quantities ..................................................................... 7

2.3 Overview of Project Monitoring ................................................................................. 8

2.3.1 Groundwater Background Sampling .................................................................. 9

2.3.2 Reference Site Sampling .................................................................................... 9

2.3.3 Historic Trends in Onsite Monitoring Results..................................................... 9

2.4 Sediment Placement History ..................................................................................... 13

2.5 Project Status ............................................................................................................ 15

2.6 Project Team and Management Structure .................................................................. 15

2.7 Questions to be Answered by the Monitoring Program .............................................. 17

3.0 2010/2011 MONITORING ACTIVITIES .......................................................................... 18

3.1 Sediment Monitoring Program .................................................................................. 18

3.1.1 Confirmation of Incoming Dredged Sediment .................................................. 18

3.1.2 Makeup Water Pond ........................................................................................ 19

3.1.3 Methods for Sediment Sampling ...................................................................... 19

3.2 Surface Water Monitoring Program .......................................................................... 19

3.2.1 Influent Water Supply ...................................................................................... 19

3.2.2 Makeup Water Pond ........................................................................................ 20

3.2.3 Receiving Waters ............................................................................................. 20

Page ii 2010-2011 sed & wq report final:Rev 0

3.2.4 Sediment Placement Cells ................................................................................ 20

3.2.5 Return Water Channel ...................................................................................... 21

3.2.6 Methods for Surface-Water Sampling .............................................................. 22

3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program ............................................................................ 22

3.3.1 Groundwater Monitoring Wells........................................................................ 22

3.3.2 Off-site Supply Wells ...................................................................................... 22

3.3.3 Methods for Groundwater Sampling ................................................................ 23

4 .0 2010/2011 SAMPLING AND MONITORING RESULTS ................................................. 23

4.1 Sediment Sampling Results ....................................................................................... 23

4.2 Surface and Groundwater Sampling Results .............................................................. 24

4.2.1 Inorganics ........................................................................................................ 24

4.2.2 Organics .......................................................................................................... 30

4.2.3 Conventional Parameters ................................................................................. 30

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 31

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 34

TABLES

1 Phase I Cell Acreage

2 Water Criteria 2000 – Nov. 2012

3 Updated Water Criteria (as of Nov. 2012)

4 Sediment Criteria

5 Action Level/Background Exceedance Summary

6 Site Water Management Summary

7a Summary of Inorganics in Sediment

7b Summary of PAHs in Sediment

7d Summary of PCBs in Sediment

7e Summary of Conventional Parameters in Sediment

8a Summary of Inorganics in Surface and Groundwater

8b Inorganics Exceeding Water Quality Criteria in Surface Water

8c Inorganics Exceeding Water Quality Criteria in Groundwater

8d Summary of Pesticides in Surface and Groundwater

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page iii

8e Summary of Conventional Water Quality Parameters in Surface and Groundwater

B-1 Analytical Methods

B-2 Required Quantitation Limits

D-1 Precision and Accuracy Goals

FIGURES

1 Site Vicinity

2 Created Habitat

3 Site Overview

4 Reference Sites

5 Cell Filling Timeline

6 Approximate Sampling Locations, Phase I

7 Approximate Sampling Locations, Operations Area

8 Mean Concentrations of Inorganics in Water from Sediment Placement Cells, 2010 – 2011

9 Inorganics in Cell 1 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2010 – 2011




13 Inorganics in Cell 3/4 (Noncover) Water, 2010 – 2011

14 Inorganics in Cell 3/4 (Completed Noncover) Water, 2006 – 2011

15 Inorganics in Cell 6/7 (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011


17 Nickel in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011

18 Nickel in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water, 2006 – 2011

19 Zinc in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011

20 Zinc in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water, 2006 – 2011



23 Inorganics in Cell 10 (Cover) Water, 2010 – 2011

24 Inorganics in Cell 10 (Cover) Water, 2006 – 2011



Page iv 2010-2011 sed & wq report final:Rev 0

27 Arsenic in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011

28 Chromium in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011

29 Copper in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011

30 Mercury in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011

31 Nickel in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011

32 Selenium in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011

33 Zinc in Phase I Monitoring Wells, 2003 – 2011

34 Salinity in Cell 1 Water, 2004 – 2011


36 Salinity in Cell 3/4 Water, 2004 – 2011



39 Salinity in Cell 8/9 Water, 2005 – 2011



APPENDICES

A Sample Identification Numbers

B Analytical Methods

C Data Management

D Data Validation

E Audits and Corrective Action

F 2010 – 2011 Sediment Data

G 2010 – 2011 Water Data

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On behalf of Montezuma Wetlands LLC (MWLLC), Acta Environmental (Acta) in collaboration with Lipton Environmental Group (LEG) has prepared this Monitoring Report (“the Report”) on sediment and water quality at the Montezuma Wetlands Project site (“Montezuma” or “the project”) during 2010 and 2011. This monitoring effort was based on the project’s Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP; LEG 2003a), Sediment Confirmation Sampling Plan (SCSP; LEG 2003b), and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP; LFR 2000). In accord with the QAPP, SCSP, MMRP, and project permits, concentrations of chemicals of concern (COCs) in sediment, surface water, and groundwater were monitored and compared to relevant criteria to assess project performance and inform adaptive management decisions. Adaptive management options and decisions are reviewed with Montezuma’s Technical Review Team (TRT) that is administered by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Performance criteria and contingency measures for sediment, water, and tissue are described in project permits and the MMRP (see MMRP Table 5, lines 15-18, 36-39, 45, and 54; and MMRP Appendix B).

This report presents monitoring data for 2010 and 2011. A report on project operations for this same time period will be prepared by FarWest Restoration Engineering (FRE), Montezuma’s Chief Engineer.

This report is organized as follows:

Section 1.0 Introduction Section 2.0 Project Description and Current Status Section 3.0 2010/2011 Monitoring Activities Section 4.0 Results of 2010/2011 Monitoring Section 5.0 Conclusions

Appendices A through E describe sample naming conventions, analytical methods, data management, data validation, and audits and corrective action, respectively. Appendices F and G present all analytical data (including quality assurance/quality control [QA/QC] samples) for sediment and water samples collected in 2010 and 2011.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT STATUS

The project site comprises approximately 2,400 acres at the eastern edge of Suisun Marsh near the town of Collinsville, approximately 17 miles southeast of Fairfield, California (see Figure 1). The site predominantly supports seasonal wetlands and ruderal grasslands. Ground elevations at the site have subsided up to 10 feet since its tidal marshlands were diked and drained for agricultural purposes more than 100 years ago. Restoration of wetlands at the site will be accomplished by engineered placement of approximately 17 million cubic yards (cy) of agency-approved dredged sediment to raise the subsided site to elevations appropriate for intertidal marsh. To-date about 3.9 million cy have been successfully placed into Phase I of

Page 2 2010-2011 sed & wq report final:Rev 0

the project. Upon completion the project will restore approximately 1,880 acres of tidal and seasonal wetlands, and approximately 480 acres of upland buffer zone habitats at the site (see Figure 2).

Sediment placed at Montezuma is dredged from ports, marinas, and navigation channels in the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary and brought by barge to the project site. Since December 2003, the site has received sediment predominantly from the Port of Oakland’s 50-foot deepening project (“the 50-foot project”), and smaller amounts from maintenance dredging at the Ports of Oakland and Richmond, the Levin-Richmond Terminal, the Chevron Refinery Long Wharf in Richmond, the Valero Refinery Crude Dock in Benicia, Coast Guard Station San Francisco (Yerba Buena Island) and the City of San Francisco’s West Basin Marina.

Water from a constructed pond in the southern portion of the site (the “makeup water pond”) is mixed with sediment on the barges to form a slurry containing about 15 to 35% sediment. The makeup water pond is supplied by shallow groundwater wells in the sandy subsurface soils adjacent to the Sacramento River/Suisun Bay. The project supplements the groundwater system by direct pumping of water from the River/Bay through a screened intake during limited times of the year in order to protect listed species of fish. Approval for direct river water pumping between August 1 and December 15 of each year was granted by CDFG in July 2009, by USFWS in November 2010, by NMFS in April 2011. The RWQCB added this water pumping provision to the project’s Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) that were renewed in November, 2012.

The slurry is pumped to sediment placement cells in the restoration area. Decant water from these cells is drained back to the makeup water pond through an existing network of ditches (the “return water channel”) and recycled for on-site uses to the maximum extent possible. Once the surface of the placed sediment reaches design elevations, the perimeter levees will be breached at certain locations, allowing the tides to ebb and flow across the site. Depending on the timeframe for phase completion, phases may be subdivided and tides returned in stages to completed portions of the phase as they are completed. Staged breaching plans for Phase I are presented in the Phase I Adaptive Management Restoration Plan (LEG 2007). Placement of dredged sediments at the site, followed by additional natural buildup of sediments from tidal inundation, will raise the subsided land surface to an elevation suitable for the reestablishment of the proposed tidal marsh ecosystem.

The site’s infrastructure and operations are described below in Section 2.1. Dredged sediment types and quantities accepted at the site are described in Section 2.2. An overview of the project’s monitoring program and historic trends in monitoring results is presented below in Section 2.3. The project’s sediment placement history and current status are described in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. Section 2.6 presents the project team and management structure. Section 2.7 outlines the questions to be answered by the monitoring program.


2.1 Site Infrastructure

The site infrastructure includes the offloading facility and sediment placement pipeline, sediment placement cells, the makeup water pond and return water channel, water supply wells, groundwater monitoring wells, and a sediment rehandling facility. These components are described in the following sections and shown on Figure 3.

2.1.1 Offloading Facility and Sediment Pipeline

Dredged sediments are transported to the Site in 3,000 to 7,000 cy barges escorted by tugboats. An offloading facility for dredged materials is located immediately offshore at the southern end of the site (Figure 3). The offloading facility consists of the Liberty (an electric offloader specially designed for pumping from dredge barges), two flat-deck mooring barges that help hold the dredge scows in place during offloading operations, and a small dock to access the Liberty. The Liberty draws water from either the makeup water pond or through agency-approved screens in the river/bay during permitted times to slurry the sediment for offloading and placement (see Section 2.1.5).

Sediments used for on-site wetland restoration are pumped by the Liberty through a 24” diameter pipeline to sediment cells within the restoration area of the site. The first 3,000 feet of the sediment pipeline is made of steel and the remaining 11,000 feet is made of high-density polyurethane. At times when sediment offloading is not occurring, the pipeline is used to supply water to the sediment placement cells via a high-head diesel pump.

2.1.2 Sediment Placement Cells

The site will be prepared and filled in four consecutive and hydrologically independent phases (Phases I through IV), each with its own tidal channel system and separated by phase boundary levees. Within each Phase, sediment placement cells are constructed to act as settling basins for dredged sediment brought to the site. The cells are formed by constructing levees (interior cell levees) from onsite soil and/or rehandled sediment. These interior cell levees also form the banks of constructed tidal channels, thus the size and shape of the cells is determined largely by the tidal channel design.

The sediment cells are designed to handle either cover sediment only, or both cover and noncover sediment (the RWQCB also refers to noncover sediment as “foundation sediment”; these sediment types are described below in Section 2.2). Cells designed to handle both cover and noncover sediment have a second set of levees (noncover separation levees) that form a noncover subcell in the center of the sediment cell. Noncover sediments are placed only within these noncover subcells.

The noncover subcells provide a minimum of 200 lateral feet of separation between noncover sediment and the interior cell levees that define the banks of the constructed channels. At least three vertical feet of cover sediment are placed above these noncover sediments and at last 200 lateral feet of cover sediments are placed between the noncover subcells and the


interior cell levees to ensure that the noncover sediments remain isolated from plants and animals. Until the noncover sediments are fully covered with cover sediments, water is added to these noncover subcells to prevent their drying out (thus preventing oxidation) and to limit the exposure of wildlife to noncover sediments.

Phase I, the only project phase constructed to date, is designed to have eight cells ranging in size from 26 to 83 acres; four of these cells (Cells 1, 2, 3/4, 6/7, 11 and 12) are designed for cover and noncover sediment. Cells 8/9 and 10 are cover-only cells. Figure 3 shows the Phase I cell layout. The approximate acreages of the Phase I cells are shown on Table 1.

Four of the Phase I cells (Cells 3/4, 6/7, 8/9, and 12) each consist of two or three merged cells. These sediment cells were merged and modified in 2004 in order to create larger cells for improving the settlement of fine-grained sediment (see FRE 2005a).

Cell 11, in accordance with approvals for placement of noncover sediment from the Levin Richmond Terminal (LRTC) in 2006 (see Section 2.3.3 below), was constructed slightly differently from the typical noncover cell design in that the noncover sediment was placed at or below -4 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) so that it could be covered by at least 7 feet of cover sediment. Typical noncover design holds noncover below -1 foot NGVD so that it is buried under at least 3 feet of cover sediment. Because of the extra depth at which noncover sediment in Cell 11 was buried, noncover separation levees were not required.

2.1.3 Decant Water Drainage System

The decant water drainage system is designed to remove excess water drawn (decanted) from dredged sediment slurry placed into the cells after the sediment settles, and to transport this decant water into a makeup water pond for recycling or discharge into the deep waters of the adjacent Suisun Bay/Sacramento River. Decant water from noncover subcells passes through geotextile fabric filters on the levee sidewalls to remove suspended sediments before being decanted into the return water channel and transported into the makeup water pond. Decant water from cover sediment passes over weirs and then into the return water channel. Water from the makeup water pond is used to mix with incoming sediment to create a new batch of slurry for transporting sediment into the restoration or rehandling cells. Water from the makeup pond can also be pumped via a mobile unit into the sediment cells in order to keep certain cells (e.g., those containing noncover sediment) ponded.

2.1.4 Makeup Water Pond and Discharge Pipe

The makeup water pond is located adjacent to the offloading facility. It functions as a water storage structure to receive decant water from the cells and groundwater from the supply wells. The water is used by the Liberty for sediment offloading and is pumped to the cells to keep placed sediment inundated prior to tidal breaching. As much decant water as possible from the restoration area is reused onsite; excess water can be periodically discharged from the makeup water pond’s discharge pipe into deep waters of the adjacent Suisun


Bay/Sacramento River after testing in accordance with the WDR, although to date only minimal amounts of water have been discharged from the site.

The makeup water pond is divided into two sections of approximately equal size: MP-1 is the easternmost section, where water from the return water channel enters and from which water is supplied to the Liberty offloader, and MP-2 is the westernmost section, where water from the supply wells enters and from which water can be discharged to the River/Bay. There is a connection between the two sections through a weir that is left open unless separate adjustment of water levels is needed for operational reasons.

Excess water is discharged from MP-2 by gravity flow over a weir that is connected to a 12-inch steel pipe at a depth of approximately 7 feet below mean lower low water. To date, only minimal amounts of water have been discharged from the site. No water has been discharged from the site since April 2004.

Discharge criteria from the RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) and other project water quality criteria are shown on Table 2; monitoring results from the 2010/2011 reporting period were compared to these criteria. Updated water quality criteria from the WDR adopted by the RWQCB on November 14, 2012 are included for reference on Table 3.

2.1.5 Water Supply and Water Management Practices

Fifteen water supply wells supply the makeup water pond with water to facilitate sediment pumping and cell ponding. The location of these wells is shown on Figure 3. Supply wells are typically operated during sediment placement activities. At other times, the wells operate during the dry season to supply water to sediment cells. Limiting factors in supply well operation include lower than expected production rates in the aquifer, power outages, electrical problems, and mandatory well shutdowns for well rehabilitation and pump repair work.

In response to these limitations and to continued water shortages during the dry season, the project requested authorization to supplement the groundwater system by direct pumping of water from the River/Bay through screened intakes. Approval for surface water pumping between August 1 and December 15 of each year was granted by CDFG in July 2009, by USFWS in November 2010, by NMFS in April 2011, and by the RWQCB in November 2012.

Surface water can be pumped from the River/Bay in two ways: through screened intakes on the hull of the Liberty offloader (bypassing the intake from the makeup water pond that is normally used), and via a levee-mounted pump with a screened intake pipe extending into the River/Bay.

The Liberty’s hull intakes were equipped with fish screens when it was in use at the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project in Marin County. The fish screens achieve an approach velocity of 0.2 ft/sec, as required for protection of Delta smelt. The two fish screens are attached directly to each side of the Liberty hull and are situated about 5 feet below the water surface


at all times. Water withdrawn from the river in this manner can be used for sediment offloading or pumped through the sediment pipeline to the cells to maintain ponding.

A 3,000 gpm pump with a screened intake may in future be installed on the perimeter levee in the offloading area. The pump would withdraw water from the River/Bay immediately adjacent to the site through a fish screen designed to avoid impacts to Delta smelt. The water would be pumped into the makeup water pond and used for sediment offloading and to maintain ponding in the cells.

Following sediment placement and initial dewatering, effective water management is important to ensure sufficient water supply and limit evaporative concentration of COCs in cell water. Prior to tidal breaching, water from the makeup water pond is pumped to the cells in the dry season to counteract evaporative loss as necessary. Water management practices focuses on “banking” as much water as possible in the sediment placement cells during late spring and adding smaller amounts of water more frequently to multiple sediment placement cells in an effort to keep ponding levels as high as possible through the dry season. This approach results in less pronounced fluctuations in water levels in the cells and lowers mean salinity by limiting concentration of cell water during the dry season. Successful water management is often affected by the limitations of the supply wells described above.

2.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring Wells

A network of groundwater monitoring wells is maintained to monitor potential migration of COCs from placed sediment into groundwater. Phase I currently has a total of 11 monitoring wells.

Six wells were installed in Phase I during October 2002: three shallow wells (MW-1A through MW-3A) and three deeper monitoring wells (MW-1B through MW-3B). Because of flat groundwater flow gradients in Phase I, the wells were “triangulated” around noncover cells such that wells surround the noncover cells in Phase I. One of the deeper wells (MW-3B) was lost due to levee construction, so a replacement well was drilled late in the third quarter of 2004, along with a new shallow well (MW-4A) and a new deep well (MW-4B) in the vicinity of Cell 3/4.

Five more wells were installed in November 2007 to expand the area characterized by the monitoring wells to include the additional cells constructed and/or filled in 2006 and 2007 (i.e., Cells 6, 7, 8/9, and 11). The new wells consisted of three shallow wells (MW-5A, MW-6A, and MW-7A) and two deeper wells (MW-5B and MW-7B). A deep well was not installed at the MW-6 location because no water-bearing zone was encountered in the target depth interval (30 and 50 feet bgs). The borehole was backfilled with Portland cement. In 2008, the casing of well MW-7B was damaged, possibly due to levee soil movement, and the well could no longer be sampled. In May 2009, MW-7B was destroyed and a deep replacement well, MW-7BR, was installed between MW-7A and MW-7B.


2.1.7 Rehandling Facility

A portion of the sediment brought to the site will be slurried with water from the makeup water pond and placed in the rehandling facility, a group of settling cells in the southeastern portion of the site (Figure 3). The rehandling facility will dewater and rinse salts from sediment to facilitate on-site reuse and off-site sale (e.g., for levee material on site and throughout the Bay/Delta). In accordance with the MMRP and permits, no more than 20% of the volume of sediment brought to the site may be placed at the rehandling facility while filling of the restoration portion of the site is underway. No discharge of decant water from the rehandling facility sediment cells into the makeup water pond or adjacent Bay waters is currently permitted. No rehandling of sediment has occurred at the site, and no rehandling is expected to occur before 2014.

In accordance with the project’s WDR, no decant water from the rehandling facility area will be discharged back into the makeup water pond or River/Bay unless an additional permit authorizing such discharge is obtained. To date no sediment has been placed into the rehandling facility.

2.2 Dredged Sediment Types and Quantities

Total sediment capacity at the project site is approximately 17 mcy. Phase I has a capacity of approximately 5 mcy.

Two types of sediment, classified as “cover” (i.e., suitable for the marsh surface) and “noncover” (i.e., suitable to be buried under cover sediment), are accepted at the site from dredging projects throughout the Bay-Delta region. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) also refers to noncover sediment as “foundation” sediment, since it essentially serves as the foundation of the marsh (RWQCB 2000). Cover and noncover criteria used for this project between 2000 and November 2012 (shown in Table 4) were derived from interim guidelines established by the RWQCB (RWQCB 1992). RWQCB circulated a draft revision of sediment guidelines that is based on ambient conditions in San Francisco Bay fine-grained sediments (RWQCB 2000). These 2000 guidelines serve as the basis for updated criteria for Montezuma in accordance with reauthorized Waste Discharge Requirements adopted by the RWQCB on November 14, 2012. The updated criteria are included for reference on Table 4.

Tests used to classify dredged sediment as cover or noncover include analyses presented in RWQCB (2000) and sediment testing and evaluation procedures established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; USEPA and USACE 1998). An interagency group known as the Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) evaluates the suitability of dredged sediments in the San Francisco Bay Area for in-bay disposal, for ocean disposal, and for beneficial reuse in wetland restoration projects such as Montezuma. The member agencies of the DMMO are the USEPA, USACE, RWQCB, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the State Lands Commission (SLC); commenting agencies include the U.S.


Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).

Phase I was originally permitted to accept up to 400,000 cy of noncover sediment (approximately 10% of its total capacity); in Phases II through IV, noncover sediment can constitute up to 20% of total capacity. The Phase I limit was based on concerns during early permitting stages of the project that noncover sediment would have adverse effects on water quality. Subsequently, the project accumulated over five years of monitoring data that demonstrated no significant differences in the way that cover and noncover sediment affect surface water or groundwater. In fact, as described in past monitoring reports (LEG 2004b, 2005, 2006a and 2009; Acta 2011), water quality in cells containing noncover has often been better than in cells containing cover sediment. Therefore, the project requested authorization to place up to 1,000,000 cy of noncover in Phase I (20% of its 5 mcy capacity). A detailed proposal for this change, including supporting technical information, was submitted to the agencies in 2009-2010.

The Technical Review Team (TRT) for the project reviewed this information and determined that concentrations of COCs in cover-only and completed noncover cells are similar and that increasing the noncover limit in Phase I is unlikely to be associated with exceedances of the project’s permit limits. As a result of the review by the TRT and letters of support from SFRWQCB and USEPA, the project’s Solano County permit was amended in October 2010 to allow 20% noncover in Phase I. This change was authorized by the USFWS in November 2010 and by the RWQCB in November 2012. Permit actions by the BCDC and USACE are expected in 2013.

2.3 Overview of Project Monitoring

The project monitors concentrations of COCs and relevant parameters (e.g., pH, salinity, groundwater elevations) in the following media:

• sediment in incoming barges, sediment placement cells, makeup water pond, and reference marshes. Monitoring of sediment in the rehandling facility and the restored marsh will occur when those project elements are used or are completed

• surface water in sediment placement cells, makeup water pond, return water channel, rehandling facility, receiving waters, restored marsh, and reference marshes

• groundwater beneath the project site and in nearby drinking water wells

• plant and animal tissue in the restored marsh and reference marshes. Because Phase I will not likely be restored and opened to the tides until 2013 or 2014 and plants or animals are not expected to colonize the placed sediment in significant numbers for another year or two, no tissue testing is presented in this report.

COC concentrations are compared to RWQCB action levels, background concentrations, and data from reference sampling locations (Tables 2 and 4). Groundwater background and reference site sampling methods are described below. Historic trends in site monitoring are also summarized below.


2.3.1 Groundwater Background Sampling

Five rounds of groundwater background sampling were conducted at the site between 1990 and 2003. Groundwater samples were collected from six monitoring wells installed in Phase I (MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 shallow and deep wells), from onsite shallow wells (LF-1, LF-2, LF-3, LF-4), and from four off-site drinking-water wells. The background data from Phase I wells (LF-1, LF-2, and MW-1 through MW-3) were used to establish background conditions for Phase I. A summary of the Phase I background water-quality data is presented in Table 2.

2.3.2 Reference Site Sampling

Reference sites are sampled to characterize local background conditions in sediment and plant and animal tissue and the data are used to develop the project’s sediment criteria for dioxins and radiation since no regulatory criteria exist for those COCs. The reference sites were selected to represent relatively undisturbed tidal marshes located away from known sources of contamination (MEC 2003). Sampling at reference sites in Suisun Marsh began in 2001. Montezuma Slough sediments adjacent to Phase I were sampled in November 2001 (MEC 2002). Two tidal wetland sites (Rush Ranch and Hill Slough) were sampled in October 2002; sediment and plant samples (roots and tops) were collected from three locations within each marsh to assess background contaminant conditions within low marsh, high marsh, and in-channel locations.

Additional sampling was conducted at Rush Ranch in January 2004 for sediment and animal tissue (invertebrates and fish) in order to begin assessing background contaminant tissue concentrations in Suisun Marsh (MEC 2004).

Three locations adjacent to the project site were sampled in January 2006 in order to better characterize local background conditions. Sediment and tissue samples were collected from Montezuma Slough near the proposed Phase I breach location. Sediment was also sampled in a small outboard tidal marsh near the proposed breach, and from the Sacramento River/Suisun Bay adjacent to the offloading facility (NewFields 2007). Reference sites are shown on Figure 4.

Reference site monitoring will continue and applicable data from regional monitoring programs will be used to increase the data set available to assess background contaminant conditions in Suisun Marsh. In accordance with recommendations from the TRT, more emphasis will be given to monitoring invertebrate and fish tissue contaminant levels than to sediment or plant contaminant characteristics.

2.3.3 Historic Trends in Onsite Monitoring Results

To date, results of onsite sediment and water monitoring have generally met criteria. Concentrations of COCs in cover sediment brought to the site to date have met cover criteria (with the exception of the Port of Oakland cell 3 through 6 material described below), and in fact most COC concentrations in noncover sediment have also met cover criteria. Sediment


and water quality in the makeup water pond have generally met criteria with the exception of periodically elevated TSS and turbidity due to erosion of makeup water pond levees and resuspension of soil particles in the water column due to wind wave action.

Water quality in the sediment placement cells has been challenged by chronic water shortages during the dry months, resulting in evaporative concentration of COCs. Arsenic and nickel have been consistently detected in cell water, and typically rise above project action levels (1/2 the WDR discharge limits; see Table 2) during the dry months. Copper and zinc have been detected less frequently in cell water; cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver are rarely detected.

Mean concentrations of inorganics in water in completed noncover cells have been similar to concentrations in water in cover-only cells (Figure 8). Variability in water inorganics concentrations appears to be more related to evaporation and water management than to sediment concentrations, since concentrations of inorganics in the sediment of all cells were similar and met cover criteria. Concentrations of inorganics detected in surface and groundwater in current and past monitoring periods are shown on Figures 9 through 33. Cell water salinity and ponding levels observed during current and past monitoring periods is shown on Figures 34 through 41.

Notable deviations from project criteria observed in past monitoring are: 1) water quality issues observed in Cell 6/7, apparently related to acidic peat soils; 2) sediment from the Port of Oakland approved by the DMMO as cover but containing mercury concentrations above the cover criterion; and 3) sediment from Levin-Richmond Terminal that exceeded the noncover criterion for total DDTs but was approved for placement at Montezuma with added engineering controls and monitoring. These exceptions and response measures enacted to address them are described below.

Cell 6/7 Nickel and Zinc Concentrations

Cell 6/7 was constructed in 2005 but was not filled with sediment until 2012. During this time, elevated concentrations of nickel and zinc (up to 19,000 µg/L nickel and 7,800 µg/L zinc) were observed in the water overlying the native peat soils that formed the bottom surface of the cell. Large fluctuations in nickel and zinc concentrations were observed over short periods of time even with no addition of water and only minor evaporative loss. Concentrations of nickel and zinc in water typically remained elevated even when cell water was highly diluted with rainwater during the wet season. Water in this area was characterized by acid conditions; for example, a mean pH of 4.5 was observed there during 2010/2011 and a mean pH of 3.9 was observed there in 2008/2009.

Water and soil/sediment in and around Cell 6/7 were investigated in 2006 and 2007 to determine the source of the elevated nickel and zinc concentrations. These results did not suggest a cause or remedy for the elevated concentrations.

Further investigations were conducted in response to high and increasing concentrations of nickel and zinc in spring/summer 2008. The investigations included analysis of leachate derived from soil/sediment samples collected from the cell (using deionized water as an


extractant). Elevated concentrations of nickel and zinc, comparable to those observed in many of the surface water samples, were detected in leachate. These results suggested that the elevated concentrations of nickel and zinc detected in surface water were the result of mobilization of relatively low levels of nickel and zinc in soil and sediment by the low pH conditions that prevail in the peat soil areas.

Options to raise the pH in Cell 6/7 were evaluated and discussed with the TRT and RWQCB. Addition of sediment to the cell to buffer the underlying peat soils and to increase their anaerobic characteristics emerged as the most promising long-term solution to the water quality problem. Cell 6/7 is the only cell that did not received a significant amount of sediment shortly within a short time after construction; nearby Cells 1, 2, and 3/4 that are also built atop peats have not exhibited the low pH conditions or the elevated concentrations of nickel and zinc that prevailed in Cell 6/7.

Delivery of sediment to the site is beyond the project’s control so implementation of this option was delayed until more sediment came to the site in December 2011. Approximately 200,000 cy of cover sediment was placed into Cell 6/7 between January and November 2012. Neutral pH values and drastically lower concentrations of nickel (in the range of 10 to 20 µg/L) have been observed in the cell since February 2012; zinc has been non-detectable (<20 µg/L) over this period. Placement of sediment into the cell to buffer the underlying acidic peats therefore appears to have successfully resolved the issue.

A detailed description of Cell 6/7 water quality results, source investigations, and evaluation of corrective actions is provided in LEG 2009 and Acta 2011.

Mercury in Port of Oakland Cell 3-6 Sediment

Approximately 500,000 cy of the cover sediment that was placed into Cells 3/4 and 8/9 between December 2004 and February 2005 was dredged from the areas of the Port of Oakland designated as Cells 3 through 6, and contained concentrations of mercury, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) slightly exceeding cover criteria according to pre-dredge testing conducted by the Port. Despite the exceedances of these specific cover criteria, the Cell 3 through 6 material was classified as cover sediment by the DMMO for placement at wetland restoration sites such as Montezuma. The DMMO uses a mercury criterion of 0.43 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for classifying sediment as suitable for use as surface material in wetland restoration projects (e.g. Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project, in accordance with the RWQCB 2000 guidelines. The mercury surface criterion of 0.43 mg/kg is based on the mean San Francisco Bay ambient concentration for mercury observed in fine-grained sediment from areas of the Bay located away from major sources of contamination, and has since been adopted in the reauthorized WDR for Montezuma.

Once the project team was informed that Port Cell 3 through 6 material would be delivered to the site and the USACE and Port provided additional data for that material, LEG prepared a letter report (LEG 2004a) to the County, RWQCB, USACE, and BCDC presenting the additional data and a confirmation testing plan in accordance with Montezuma’s permits. The


essence of the plan was to increase the frequency of monitoring for mercury, DDT, and PCBs, and to place this material into noncover cells if necessary.

The initial Port Cell 3 through 6 material received in mid-December 2004 was placed in the noncover portion of Cell 3/4, although the DMMO agencies approved its use as cover sediment. All but three of the initial samples met cover criteria. With the approval of the RWQCB, the remaining Port 3 through 6 material was placed into the deepest portion of Cell 8/9. Cell 8/9 is a cover cell and therefore has no interior noncover separation levees. However, existing ground elevations in Cell 8/9 prior to the start of sediment placement were approximately -4 to -5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) on average, with some areas as low as -7 feet NGVD. Cell 8/9 is located in the high marsh area where the final target elevation is 4.1 feet NGVD. Therefore, the RWQCB approved placement of the Port Cell 3 through 6 material into the bottom of Cell 8/9 up to an elevation of -1 foot NGVD (the top elevation allowable for noncover placement into Phase I), which allows room for approximately 5 feet of cover over the Port Cell 3 through 6 material.

Monitoring of this sediment during placement into Cell 3/4 and 8/9 detected mercury concentrations between 0.09 and 0.83 mg/kg. PCBs were not detected in most samples; detections ranged between 128 and 153 µg/kg. DDTs were detected in only one sample; the detected concentration was 6.6 µg/kg.

Approximately 272,300 of cover sediment was placed atop this material in 2006. Mercury and PCB concentrations detected during and after cover sediment placement were low or not detectable.

A detailed description of handling and testing of the Port Cell 3 through 6 sediment is provided in LEG 2005 and 2006.

DDTs in Levin-Richmond Terminal (LRTC) Sediment

Approximately 23,400 cy of noncover sediment from the LRTC, located in the Port of Richmond, was placed in Cell 11 in November 2006, in accordance with agency approvals.

The LRTC material was characterized by levels of DDTs up to 439 µg/kg, above the noncover limit of 100 µg/kg; other analytes were detected below cover criteria. LEG submitted a letter report for this material (LEG 2006b) to the County, RWQCB, USACE, and BCDC presenting the predredge testing data and a confirmation testing plan in accordance with Montezuma’s permits.

The report proposed placement of the LRTC sediment into the deepest portion of Cell 11 at elevations at or below -4 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) so that it could be covered by at least 7 feet of cover sediment. Because of the extra depth at which noncover sediment in Cell 11 was buried, an interior set of noncover separation levees was not required in Cell 11. A cross-berm was constructed to create a subcell in the southern half of Cell 11 where existing ground elevations were lowest. Increased monitoring of DDTs was also proposed during and after placement of the LRTC material.


With these additional engineering controls and monitoring, the agencies approved placement of the LRTC sediment at the site, and the LRTC sediment was placed into Cell 11 in November, 2006. No water was discharged from the cell during this time. Approximately 248,700 cy of cover sediment from the 50-foot project was placed over the LRTC sediment in December, 2006.

Increased testing of sediment and water quality was conducted during placement and covering of the LRTC sediment, as described in LEG (2009). Total DDTs were detected in LRTC sediment at concentrations between 98 and 439 µg/kg. DDTs were not detected in sediment during or after covering of the LRTC sediment. One water sample collected during placement of LRTC sediment detected DDTs at 0.04 µg/L. Water monitoring for total and dissolved DDTs has been continued to date in Cell 11 and nearby groundwater monitoring wells in accordance with the LRTC sampling plan; DDTs have not been detected.

A detailed description of handling and testing of the LRTC material is provided in LEG 2009.

2.4 Sediment Placement History

Approximately 3.9 million cy of dredged sediment have been placed at the site to date. All of the sediment has been placed into Montezuma’s Phase I sediment cells. About 300,000 cy of the material received at Montezuma to date was classified by the DMMO as noncover sediment, and therefore was covered by at least 3 feet of cover sediment. Approximately 3 million cy of the sediment received to date came to the site between 2003 and 2006. All of that sediment came from the Port of Oakland’s 50-foot channel deepening project (“the 50-foot project”), except for approximately 30,000 cy from the Levin Richmond Terminal Corporation (LRTC) delivered in November 2006. No sediment was received at the site between January 2007 and November 2011. Approximately 930,000 cy was placed at the site between December 2011 and November 2012. Most of this sediment came from maintenance dredging at the Port of Oakland (approximately 760,000 cy), with smaller amounts coming from the Chevron Refinery Long Wharf in Richmond (approximately 115,000 cy), the Valero Refinery Crude Dock in Benicia (approximately 31,000 cy), Coast Guard Station San Francisco (Yerba Buena Island; approximately 8,000 cy), and the City of San Francisco’s West Basin Marina (approximately 19,000 cy of noncover sediment).

The 2011-2012 sediment quantities cited above and below are estimates from project records and may be adjusted once the project final in-place volumes, based on surveys conducted at the dredging sites, are available. The quantities cited below for the 2003-2006 period are in-place quantities at the dredging sites based on surveys conducted by USACE. Volumes of sediment in the sediment cells at the site are greater because of expansion that occurs after dredging and offloading; expansion ranges from 5% to 30 %, depending mainly on particle sizes of the incoming sediment.

Figure 5 shows the sequence of sediment placement to date.


The first stage of sediment placement took place from December 23, 2003, through April 19, 2004; during that period, approximately 495,300 cy of sediment from the Port’s 50-foot project was placed into two Phase I sediment cells, Cell 1 and Cell 2 (see Figure 3). Approximately 181,800 cy of that material was noncover sediment as determined by the Port’s permits and the interagency DMMO decisions. Of that amount, approximately 154,000 cy was placed in Cell 2 and approximately 27,800 cy was placed in Cell 1. Approximately 230,000 cy of cover sediment was placed in Cell 2 and 83,500 of cover sediment was placed into Cell 1. Cell 2 was completed (i.e., filled with sediment up to the design elevation) on April 14, 2004.

Three more cells (Cells 3/4, 6/7, 8/9, and the western half of Cell 10) were constructed in 2004 to accommodate the second stage of sediment placement, which began on December 12, 2004, and continued through March 10, 2005. Three more sediment cells (Cell 6/7, the eastern half of Cell 10, and Cell 11) were constructed in summer 2005. A third stage of sediment placement began on September 26, 2005 and continued through November 13, 2005. During 2005, approximately 874,700 cy of sediment from the Port’s 50-foot project was placed into Cells 1, 2, 3/4, 8/9, and 10. Approximately 71,800 cy of that material was noncover sediment. Of that amount, approximately 10,200 cy was placed into Cell 1 and 61,600 cy was placed into Cell 3/4. Approximately 802,900 cy of cover material was received in 2005; of that amount, Cell 1 received 48,000, Cell 2 received 27,700 cy, Cell 3/4 received 377,800 cy, Cell 8/9 received 292,600 cy, and Cell 10 received 56,800 cy.

Approximately 27,000 cy of the material received in fall 2005 consisted of sands and therefore could not be used to complete the cover layers of Cells 1 and 3/4. Due to the slightly elevated levels of mercury in the cover sediment placed in Cell 8/9, sands were not placed in that area either. Placement of sands over noncover sediment is precluded by the project’s permits and also by physical constraints; sands settle and mound a short distance from the pipe outlet rather than flowing and distributing over the cells like fine-grained sediments. Physical redistribution of mounded sands using even light equipment is not feasible where the sands are placed over mud since the underlying mud will not support the weight of the equipment. The sand received in late 2005 was placed in the cover area of Cell 3/4, where the mounded material could be redistributed by equipment operated from the levee. Small amounts of coarse-grained, but still flowable, sediment were placed in Cells 1 and 2.

Approximately 1.5 million cy of cover sediment was sent to Montezuma in 2006. About half of that material was either sand or a mixture of mud and shells, neither of which is allowed by the project permits for placement in the final cover layer of the cells or above noncover material. The sand (approximately 489,600 cy) was placed mostly in the northern portion of Cell 8/9 and in Cell 10 atop native soil where it could be worked by equipment. A small amount of sand was also placed in the southern part of Cell 6/7. The mud/shell mixture (approximately 272,300 cy) was placed almost entirely in the southern part of Cell 8/9, where mounding of shells would not exceed the final target elevation and the mud was able to spread and cover the Port Cell 3 through 6 sediment that was placed there in early 2005. Minor amounts of the mud/shell material were also placed in Cells 1 and 3/4, and approximately 20,000 cy of sand was placed east of Cell 1 for future levee construction use.


Approximately 23,400 cy of noncover sediment from the LRTC, located in the Port of Richmond, was placed in Cell 11 in November 2006, in accordance with agency approvals (see Section 2.3.3 and LEG 2006b and 2009).

No sediment was received at the site between December 2006 and December 2011.

Between December 2011 and November 2012, approximately 930,000 cy of sediment was placed in Cells 1, 2, 3/4, 6/7, 8/9, 10, and 11. The vast majority of this material (approximately 910,000 cy) was cover sediment. Cover material was distributed among the cells as follows: 19,000 cy in Cell 1, 93,000 cy in Cell 2, 52,000 cy in Cell 3/4, 1608,000 cy in Cell 6/7, 290,000 cy in Cell 8/9, 46,000 cy in Cell 10, and 250,000 cy in Cell 11. Approximately 19,000 cy of noncover material from the Port of San Francisco West Basin Marina was placed in Cell 6/7. The quantities are estimates from project records and may be adjusted once the project final in-place volumes, based on surveys conducted at the dredging sites, are available.

2.5 Project Status

The sediment delivered between December 2011 and November 2012 was enough to fill Cells 1, 2, 8/9, and 11 to their current capacities. Based on previously estimated cell capacities and preliminary project estimates of sediment quantities received in 2011-2012, approximately 500,000 cy of cover sediment capacity remains in Cells 3/4, 6/7 and 10 and approximately 140,000 cy of noncover sediment capacity remains in Cell 6/7. These capacities may be adjusted once additional elevation surveys are conducted in spring 2013. The remaining Phase I cells (5A, 5B and 12) are planned to be merged into one large cell (Cell 12) that can accommodate both cover and noncover sediment; construction of that cell is planned for 2013. Preliminary design calculations for Cell 12 show a potential total sediment capacity of up to 1 million cy, depending on the design alternatives chosen. Cells 5A and 5B were originally designed to be managed tidal wetland habitat, but were redesigned in accordance with adaptive management modifications to be fully tidal wetlands (see LEG 2007).

Construction in Phase II is not expected to occur before 2014, but one area (Cell 13) in the northwestern part of Phase II is allowed to be constructed in conjunction with Phase I sediment placement activities as needed.

For more details on sediment placement, operations monitoring, and construction, please see the Operations Reports (FRE 2003, 2005b, 2005c, 2007, and 2013 [in preparation]).

2.6 Project Team and Management Structure

Current responsibilities for implementation of project monitoring related to sediment and water quality are as follows.


• Doug Lipton, Ph.D., is the technical director responsible for review of the monitoring program, review of monitoring data and reports, and review of decisions about operational changes and implementation of contingency measures.

• Roger Leventhal, P.E., is the chief engineer responsible for management and monitoring of site design, construction, sediment placement operations and sediment placement contractors, management of the tracking system for sediment placement locations, water management including operation and installation of the groundwater extraction system, management of decant water, and periodic discharge of water to Suisun Bay/Sacramento River.

• Rachel Bonnefil is the project ecologist responsible for management of the monitoring program, preparation of monitoring reports and compliance with the MMRP and permits, and coordination with the TRT, data manager, field supervisor, field technicians, and laboratories.

• Stan Gollinger is the field supervisor responsible for monitoring of onsite construction and operations including levee and associated facilities construction and maintenance, sediment offloading and placement operations, field coordination with construction and engineering contractors, and operation of the site’s supply wells, pumps, and weirs.

• The field monitoring technicians are responsible for implementation of the sediment and water sampling program, maintenance of sampling and operational logs, and routine monitoring of site operations. Onsite field management and field technician duties are performed by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure. NewFields Northwest performs reference site monitoring.

• Dutra has been the site operator during periods of active sediment placement, with responsibility for on-site activities related to sediment offloading, placement and water management including operation of the Liberty offloader and management of decant water.

• The San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) is the data manager responsible for managing the database, entering analytical data provided by the laboratories, reviewing QA/QC reports from the laboratories, and validating data.

• The Technical Review Team (TRT) serves as the technical advisor. The TRT is an independent consortium of experts selected and managed by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). The TRT reviews project reports and makes recommendations on the monitoring program, data compatibility with regional monitoring programs, habitat design objectives and approaches, tidal hydrology, and other aspects of project implementation and monitoring.

• Curtis and Tompkins (C&T) is the project’s primary contract laboratory. C&T is responsible for performing in-house analyses (inorganics, most organics, and


conventional parameters) and overseeing the work of subcontract laboratories performing analyses for dioxins/furans (Eno River Laboratories), radiation (General Engineering Laboratories), grain size (PTS Laboratories), and low-level mercury (Columbia Analytical Services and ACZ Laboratories). Other contract laboratories are used on an as-needed basis for confirmatory testing and specialty analyses (e.g., selenium analyses, fish toxicity tests).

• Test America (formerly STL) is the project’s secondary laboratory and is responsible for analyzing split samples, which are prepared periodically by the field technicians to ensure that consistent results are obtained from separate laboratories for the same sample.

2.7 Questions to be Answered by the Monitoring Program

As presented in the QAPP (LEG 2003a), the monitoring program is designed to answer a set of questions about sediment and water quality at the project site. These questions are summarized below (see the QAPP for more details), along with the general criteria for deciding whether contingency measures (described in project permits and MMRP) should be implemented based on the answers to those questions. Questions involving bioaccumulation and water quality of the restored marsh will be answered in future stages of the project when plants and animals colonize the sediment and tides are returned to a completed phase. Phase I is not expected to be opened to the tides before 2014. Phase I was expected to be sufficiently completed in 2012 such that at least partial breaching could occur in 2013, but the lack of any beneficial reuse from 2012 USACE projects meant that restoration of tides to Phase I was postponed for at least another year

Is incoming sediment meeting acceptance criteria? Project acceptance criteria from the project permits and MMRP are shown in Table 4. Contingency measures will be implemented if the results of confirmation testing indicate that acceptance criteria have been exceeded.

Is water in the sediment placement cells and makeup water pond meeting project criteria and RWQCB permit limits? Project criteria for water are provided in the RWQCB WDR, and are presented in Table 2. Contingency measures will be implemented if COC concentrations in water in the makeup water pond or sediment settling cells exceed one-half of the WDR permit limits.

Are COCs leaching from sediment into groundwater? Background characteristics of groundwater in a restoration phase are assessed prior to sediment placement; background conditions for Phase I are presented in Table 2. Contingency measures will be implemented if COC concentrations in groundwater adjacent to sediment placement cells exceed background conditions.

Is makeup water pond sediment meeting criteria? Project criteria for makeup water pond sediment are the same as for cover sediment (see Table 4). Contingency measures will be


implemented if concentrations of COCs in sediment in the makeup water pond exceed cover criteria.

Are COCs bioaccumulating in plants and invertebrates in excess of background conditions in Suisun Marsh? Once plants and animals colonize the sediment placement cells after tidal restoration of a Phase, concentrations of COCs in tissue will be compared to reference sites within Suisun Marsh. Contingency measures will be implemented if on-site tissue monitoring indicates that COCs are bioaccumulating at concentrations exceeding background conditions.

Does surface water in the restored tidal marsh contain COCs in excess of background conditions? After tides are returned to a completed phase, COCs in the surface waters will be compared with surface waters in Suisun Marsh reference sites. Contingency measures will be implemented if surface-water monitoring in the vicinity of noncover cells indicates that COCs are leaching into surface water in excess of background conditions.

3.0 2010/2011 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

This section describes the sampling objectives and methods for the monitoring program implemented during 2010 and 2011. Analyses were conducted according to accepted state and federal protocols as described in Appendix B. On-site sampling locations are shown on Figures 6 and 7.

3.1 Sediment Monitoring Program

The following sections describe the objectives and methods for sediment monitoring conducted during 2010 and 2011.

3.1.1 Confirmation of Incoming Dredged Sediment

Incoming dredged sediment is sampled to confirm sediment suitability for placement. Sediment subsamples are collected at two to four locations in a sediment placement cell from the soil/sediment surface (approximately the top 6 inches) where new sediment placement is evident. Subsamples are submitted to the laboratory for compositing and analysis as a single sample. In accordance with the MMRP, samples of incoming dredged sediments are normally sampled on a frequency of approximately one sample per 60,000 cy. Sediment samples are collected from each cell being filled. Samples are analyzed for organic and inorganic COCs, dioxins, radiation, percent moisture, pesticides, pH, total organic carbon (TOC), conductivity (EC), pesticides, and sulfides.

Sediment placement during the monitoring period described in this report occurred in one month, December 2011. Therefore, only one confirmation sediment sample was collected from the single active cell, Cell 11. Approximately 47,000 cy of cover sediment were placed into Cell 11 during this period.


3.1.2 Makeup Water Pond

Sampling of sediment in the makeup water pond is conducted during sediment placement to ensure that decant water from sediment placement cells does not bring suspended sediment containing COC concentrations in excess of cover criteria back into the makeup water pond. Three subsamples are collected near the main weir at the southeast corner of each makeup water pond and submitted to the laboratory for compositing and analysis as a single sample. Samples are analyzed for metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, pesticides, pH, and percent water.

One sediment sample from each makeup water pond was collected in December 2011 prior to the initiation of sediment placement. Sampling of sediment in the makeup water pond was completed in accordance with the MMRP.

3.1.3 Methods for Sediment Sampling

Sediment samples from Cell 11 were collected using a stainless steel sampling rod fitted with a stainless steel sampling cup.

Sediments samples from the makeup water ponds were collected using an Eckman Dredge. The dredge was lowered into the ponds to collect grab sediment samples. For each pond, sediment was collected from three locations and composited by the laboratory prior to analysis.

All sediment samples were preserved, handled, and transported to the laboratory as described in the QAPP.

Standard field observations were recorded during sampling, including time, air temperature, and any out-of-the ordinary conditions observed in samples (e.g., the presence of visible organic material or roots). Weather conditions were recorded on sample collection logs. Surface water parameters are collected as described in Section 3.2.4 to correspond with each sediment sample.

3.2 Surface Water Monitoring Program

The following sections describe the objectives and methods for water-quality monitoring conducted during 2010 and 2011.

3.2.1 Influent Water Supply

Water from the supply wells is monitored to evaluate the quality and volume of groundwater which is pumped to the makeup water ponds. Influent water monitoring is performed at a sampling port in the influent pipeline immediately before the water enters the makeup water pond. During supply well operation, water quality parameters (pH, dissolved oxygen (DO),


salinity, temperature, and EC) are monitored on a bi-weekly basis. During sediment placement, samples are collected approximately weekly and analyzed for TSS and turbidity. Dissolved inorganics are measured in influent water as needed.

During 2010/2011, water quality parameters were collected from the influent water supply during operation of the supply wells. Sediment placement began in December 2011, however the influent water supply was not operating during the reporting period and monitoring for TSS and turbidity was suspended in accordance with the MMRP and QAPP.

Influent flow rates have historically been measured but were not measured during 2010/2011 due to corrosion of the site flow meter which occurred in June 2009. To date, a new flow meter has not been replaced due to its high cost and poor resistance to corrosion. Flow rates are currently estimated based on historic flow rates and supply well flow tests which are conducted on an approximately annual basis. Estimated flow rate data will be discussed in the Operations Report for 2006-2011 (FRE 2013 [in preparation]).

3.2.2 Makeup Water Pond

Water quality in the makeup water pond is monitored prior to discharge to receiving waters to ensure that criteria are within discharge limits established by the RWQCB WDR (Table 2). Samples are analyzed for total and dissolved inorganics. TSS and conventional water quality parameters are measured in the field.

Sediment placement during the reporting period occurred in December 2011, however water sampling for inorganics in the makeup water pond was suspended in accordance with the MMRP and QAPP since there was no discharge of water from the makeup water pond to the receiving waters (see Section 3.2.3). Field measurements of surface water pH, EC, DO, salinity, and temperature were collected every two weeks.

3.2.3 Receiving Waters

Receiving waters of the Suisun Bay/Sacramento River are monitored upstream and downstream from the makeup water pond discharge pipe to assess any effects of the discharge on local water quality. Since no discharge from the makeup water pond occurred during the reporting period, monitoring of receiving waters was suspended in accordance with the MMRP and QAPP.

3.2.4 Sediment Placement Cells

Surface water in the cells that contained sediment during the reporting period (Cells 1, 2, 3/4, 6/7, 8/9, 10, and 11) was monitored to assess whether COCs were approaching levels that, upon recycling into the makeup pond, could exceed RWQCB discharge requirements. In accordance with the MMRP, one-half of the discharge requirements for COCs are used as action levels in sediment placement cell surface waters. Although the project is not required to monitor for COCs in cover cell water, monitoring is conducted to inform water


management decisions. Samples are analyzed for dissolved inorganics. Conventional water quality parameters are measured in the field.

Each sediment placement cell surface water sample was a composite comprised of two to four discrete subsamples from locations distributed evenly around the perimeter of the cell. Subsamples are submitted to the laboratory for compositing and analysis as a single sample.

Cell surface waters were monitored throughout the reporting period except for periods during the dry season when water levels were too low to access for sampling. The lack of water in the sediment placement cells resulted from limitations of the water supply system, exacerbated by power outages, electrical problems, and well shutdowns for well rehab and pump repair work. The constraints on the water supply system precluded keeping the sediment placement cells ponded at all times.

Sampling for inorganic COCs in sediment placement cell surface waters was conducted on a monthly basis in accordance with sampling frequency changes detailed in the Report on 1st and 2nd

Sampling for organic COCs in sediment cell surface waters was eliminated as described in LEG (2005), because only two very low (i.e., at or below reporting limits) detections of organic COCs (phenanthrene and DDT) have occurred since the project started receiving sediment in December 2003. The exception to this was sampling of Cell 11 water for DDTs which began following 2006 placement of LRTC sediment in that cell, and was performed on a semi-annual basis during the reporting period in accordance with the LRTC confirmation sampling plan (LEG 2006b; see Section 2.3.3).

Quarter Monitoring (LEG 2004b). This is the prescribed frequency for cover-only sediment placement cells (Cells 6/7, 8/9 and 10) and completed noncover sediment placement cells (Cells 1, 2, 3/4, and 11).

In all cells, field measurements of surface water pH, EC, DO, salinity, and temperature were collected every two weeks.

3.2.5 Return Water Channel

Water sampling in the return water channel is conducted when sediment placement operations are underway to assess suspended sediment transport to the makeup water pond and to measure other parameters such as pH that can influence contaminant mobility and discharge water quality. Sampling and monitoring are performed near the pump station at the south end of the return water channel. Samples are analyzed for total and dissolved inorganics; conventional water quality parameters are measured in the field.

Sediment placement began in the last month of this reporting period (December 2011) so decant water from the sediment cells had not begun to flow back through the return water channel to the makeup water pond during the reporting period. Therefore, sampling for TSS and turbidity in the return water channel was suspended in accordance with the QAPP. However, conventional water quality parameters were measured in the return water channel every two weeks.


3.2.6 Methods for Surface-Water Sampling

Surface-water samples were collected directly into the analytical sample container. Samples submitted for analysis of inorganic COCs were filtered in the laboratory using a 0.45-micron filter to determine dissolved concentrations.

All sediment samples were preserved, handled, and transported to the laboratory as described in the QAPP.

Standard field observations were recorded during water sampling, including time, air temperature, weather conditions, and any out-of-the-ordinary conditions observed in samples (e.g., the presence of visible organic matter). Temperature, pH, DO, EC, and salinity were measured in the field with a hand-held instrument.

3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program

The following sections describe the objectives and methods for groundwater-quality monitoring conducted during 2010 and 2011.

3.3.1 Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Groundwater monitoring wells are sampled to monitor potential migration of COCs from placed sediment into groundwater. Samples are collected from 11 wells representing both shallow and deeper water-bearing zones in areas surrounding sediment placement cells (Figure 6). Samples are analyzed for dissolved inorganics, EC, pH and dissolved low level mercury. Wells near Cell 11 are also sampled for DDTs twice per year (see Section 2.3.3). Conventional water quality parameters are measured in the field.

The monitoring wells were sampled on a quarterly basis throughout 2010 and 2011. For each sampling event, one discrete sample was collected from each well. As described in LEG (2005), sampling for organic COCs, dioxins, and radiation in the wells was discontinued (in consultation with the RWQCB) in late 2004 on the basis of continued nondetects or low detections similar to background levels. However, the wells in the vicinity of Cell 11 (wells MW-5A/B, MW-6A, and MW-7A/BR) were monitored twice yearly during the reporting period for DDTs, in accordance with the LRTC confirmation sampling plan (LEG 2006b; see Section 2.3.3).

3.3.2 Off-site Supply Wells

Groundwater elevations in nearby off-site supply wells were monitored during 2010 and 2011 to confirm that operation of the groundwater extraction system did not affect water levels in the drinking water aquifer. Methods and results of that monitoring will be presented in the Operations Report for 2006-2011 (FRE 2013 [in preparation]).


3.3.3 Methods for Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater sampling was conducted using a submersible pump equipped with

decontaminated tubing. Groundwater monitoring wells were purged of approximately three

casing volumes of water prior to sampling using the same submersible pump. If a well was

pumped dry during purging, samples were collected from the monitoring wells as soon as a

sufficient volume of water had been recovered in the well, and no more than two hours after

purging. A new disposable polyethylene bailer was lowered into the well using a new length

of nylon rope.

Samples submitted for analysis of inorganic COCs were filtered in the laboratory using a

0.45-micron filter to determine dissolved concentrations.

Samples were preserved, handled, and transported to the laboratory as described in the

QAPP.

Standard field observations were recorded during water sampling, including time, air

temperature, weather conditions, and any out-of the ordinary conditions observed in samples

(e.g., the presence of visible organic matter). Temperature, pH, DO, EC, and salinity were

measured in the field with a hand-held instrument during well purging and immediately prior

to collecting samples.

4.0 2010/2011 SAMPLING AND MONITORING RESULTS

The following sections summarize the results of sediment and water sampling conducted in

2010 and 2011. A summary of exceedances is presented in Table 5. Analytical results are

summarized in Tables 7a through 8e. Complete tables of analytical results and QA/QC data

are presented in Appendices F and G. Analytical reports, field logs, and chain-of-custody

forms are available on request.

4.1 Sediment Sampling Results

Sediment samples were collected from Cell 11 and the makeup water pond during sediment

placement in December 2011 and results were evaluated in comparison to the project’s

sediment criteria (Table 4).

There were no exceedances measured in the Cell 11 sediment sample.

Arsenic slightly exceeded the cover criterion in one of the two makeup water pond samples.

The exceedance was confirmed upon reanalysis of the sample. The source of the exceedance

is unclear but it appears to be unrelated to sediment placement. At the time the sample was

collected, no sediment placement, and therefore no recycling of decant water to the makeup

water pond, had occurred for 5 years. Furthermore, elevated arsenic has never been detected

in sediment placed at the site to date.


Sediment analytical results for inorganics, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides and conventional parameters are presented in Tables 7a through 7e. Table 5 summarizes criteria exceedances detected in 2010-2011.

Complete tables of analytical results and QA/QC data are presented in Appendix F.

4.2 Surface and Groundwater Sampling Results

Analytical results from the 2010/2011 water sampling program were compared to the water criteria (Table 2) and used to inform water management decisions. In accordance with the project’s permits and MMRP, the criteria were applied in the following manner:

• The WDR discharge limits are applied to total concentrations in water discharged from the makeup water pond. No water was discharged during 2010/2011.

• Contingency measures are implemented if water concentrations in the makeup pond or sediment placement cells exceeded the project’s operational action level of one-half of the discharge limits (Table 2). In the makeup water pond, the action levels were applied to total concentrations. In the sediment placement cells, the action levels were applied to dissolved inorganics and total organics. Action levels are not regulatory criteria, but used only as operational criteria for water management purposes.

• Dissolved inorganics in the monitoring wells were compared to dissolved inorganics detected in pre-project testing that established background conditions (Table 2).

• No criteria were applied to results from the return water channel, but results were evaluated to assess inputs of inorganic COCs to the makeup water pond.

Samples from the makeup water pond and sediment placement cells that were analyzed for inorganic COCs by ICP/MS were analyzed at up to 20 times dilution to overcome salinity interferences. Dilution was not required for mercury analysis in water, which was performed using EPA Method 7471 (cold vapor/AA).

Detections of inorganics, pesticides, and conventional parameters in water are summarized in Tables 8a through 8e. Criteria or action level exceedances are summarized in Table 5. Graphs of inorganic COC concentrations in cells and monitoring wells are shown on Figures 9 through 33. Complete analytical results and QA/QC data are presented in Appendix G. A discussion of water sampling results is presented in the following sections.

4.2.1 Inorganics

The following section presents the results of water sampling for inorganic COCs performed in the sediment placement cells during 2010 and 2011.


Sediment Placement Cells

Dissolved inorganics concentrations in sediment placement cells were similar to those measured during previous monitoring periods, with the exception of mean nickel concentrations which decreased during 2010 and 2011.

In general, selenium, silver, and zinc were either not detected or were detected at concentrations well below action levels. Arsenic was the most consistently detected inorganic analyte and the one most often exceeding its action level. In general, lower concentrations of arsenic were observed in Cells 10 and 11 than in the other cells. Copper and nickel were detected in about half of the cell water samples but rarely exceeded action levels. Cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and zinc were detected above action levels only in Cell 6/7, whose water quality is different from the other cells as described in Section 2.3.3. There were a comparable number of exceedances in the cells in 2010 and 2011 as in previous monitoring periods (2006/2007 and 2008/2009). Sample reanalysis was requested for analytical results that deviated from historic trends. Action level exceedances by cell are summarized in Table 5. Mean concentrations of inorganics by cell are graphed on Figure 8.

COC concentrations that were elevated in cell water always met cover criteria in the underlying sediment (see LEG 2009). In fact, as shown in Table 8a and Figure 8, mean concentrations of inorganics in water in completed noncover cells were similar to concentrations in water in cover-only cells. Variability in water inorganics concentrations appears to be more related to evaporation and water management than to sediment concentrations, since concentrations of inorganics in the sediment of all cells were similar and met cover criteria. This was also true of water quality results from 2004 (LEG 2004b, 2005), 2005 (LEG 2006a), 2006-2007 (LEG 2009), and 2008-2009 (Acta 2011).

Inorganic COC concentrations were influenced by water management practices via evaporation and/or dilution effects which tend to concentrate or dilute inorganics in the sediment placement cells. Typically, sufficiently ponded water in the cells is associated with inorganic concentrations below action levels.

Although water was pumped to the cells each summer in efforts to increase or maintain ponding in accordance with the site water management practices, supplies were often insufficient to keep up with evaporation rates during the late summer and fall seasons. Exceedances most often occurred during these seasons. Exceedances were typically observed in association with salinities in the 40 to 70 ppt range and when less than 80% of the cell area was ponded. When more water is available to keep the cells ponded, salinities in the 10 to 30 ppt range and ponded areas of 80%-100% are typically observed as shown in Figures 34 through 41.

Site water availability is influenced by supply well downtime due to maintenance and repair work, lower than expected supply well production capacity, and site power outages. Unfortunately for cell water management, well repairs must be done in the dry season when the ground is firm enough to support equipment. All cells except Cell 6/7 (where acidic peat


soils were exposed) received water during the dry seasons of 2010 and 2011. Water management is summarized in Table 6.

Analytical results for individual sediment placement cells are discussed further in the sections below.

Cell 1

Of the twenty-four water samples were collected from Cell 1 during 2010 and 2011, arsenic was detected at concentrations exceeding the action level in 12 samples while copper and mercury were each detected at concentrations exceeding the action level in one sample. The majority of the Cell 1 exceedances occurred in summer and fall seasons, for the reasons described above.

Analytical results and action level exceedances for Cell 1 are summarized in Tables 8a and 8b. Current and historic inorganic results for Cell 1 are presented in Figures 9 and 10, and salinity and ponding data are presented in Figure 34.

Cell 2

Twenty-five water samples were collected from Cell 2 during 2010 and 2011. Arsenic was detected above the action level in eleven samples, copper in two samples, and mercury in one sample. The majority of the Cell 2 exceedances occurred in summer and fall seasons, for the reasons described above.


Cell 3/4

Twenty-five water samples were collected from Cell 3/4 during 2010 and 2011. Arsenic was detected above the action level in eight samples. The majority of the Cell 3/4 exceedances occurred in summer and fall seasons, for the reasons described above.

Analytical results and action level exceedances for Cell 3/4 are summarized in Tables 8a and 8b. Current and historic inorganic results for Cell 3/4 are presented in Figures 13 and 14, and salinity and ponding data are presented in Figure 36.

Cell 6/7

Cells 6 and 7 functioned as separate water bodies in 2010 and 2011 because a narrow channel that originally connected the two portions of the cell was filled in 2006 to prevent movement of water between them. Cell 6 and Cell 7 water sampling results are therefore discussed separately below.


Water was not delivered to Cell 6 or Cell 7 during 2010 and 2011, resulting in large seasonal fluctuation in cell ponding and generally low ponding levels. Evaporative concentration and acidic water due to exposed native peat soils likely contributed to elevated inorganic concentrations, especially nickel, as described in Section 2.3.3.

Twenty-three water samples were collected from Cell 6 during 2010 and 2011. Mercury exceeded the action level in two water samples, nickel in thirteen samples, and zinc in six samples.

Analytical results and action level exceedances for Cell 6 are summarized in Tables 8a and 8b. Current and historic inorganic results for Cell 6 are presented in Figures 15 through 20; salinity and ponding data for Cell 6 are presented in Figure 37.

Thirty-three water samples were collected from Cell 7 during 2010 and 2011. Arsenic exceeded the action level in one water sample, chromium in two water samples, cadmium in four samples, chromium in two samples, copper in five samples, lead in two samples, nickel in thirty-two samples, selenium in four samples, and zinc in twenty one samples. In agreement with historic observations (see LEG 2009 and Acta 2011), when more than one sample was collected from Cell 7, inorganics such as arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were generally detected at higher concentrations in the easterly area of Cell 7 (designated “7A”) than in other portions of the cell because of the more acidic condition of area 7A.

Analytical results and action level exceedances for Cell 7 are summarized in Tables 8a and 8b. Current and historic inorganic results for Cell 7 are presented in Figures 15 through 20; salinity and ponding data for Cell 7 are presented in Figure 38.

Cell 8/9

Twenty-one water samples were collected from Cell 8/9 during 2010 and 2011. Arsenic was detected at above the action level in six samples while a copper exceedance was detected in one sample. The majority of the Cell 8/9 exceedances occurred in summer and fall seasons, for the reasons described above.

Analytical results and action level exceedances for Cell 8/9 are summarized in Tables 8a and 8b. Current and historic inorganic results for Cell 8/9 are presented in Figures 21 and 22, and salinity and ponding data are presented in Figure 39.

Cell 10

Twenty water samples were collected from Cell 10 during 2010 and 2011. Arsenic was detected above the action level in five samples while a copper exceedance was detected in one sample.

Cell 10 generally does not receive water in the dry season since it contains mostly sands that are unlikely to crust and crack under drying conditions and contain very low or non-detectable levels of COCs. Water was added to Cell 10 for approximately one month starting in May 2010 to control the invasive plant Salsola soda.



Cell 11

Twenty-five water samples were collected from Cell 11 during 2010 and 2011. Arsenic was detected above the action level in five of these samples. The Cell 11 exceedances were all observed between July and December 2011 despite atypically high ponding levels (between 75% and 90% ponded area) and relatively low salinities (10 to 35 ppt) during this period. However, these exceedances were of a lower magnitude than those observed most of the other cells during the same period.


Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Analytical results from groundwater monitoring wells were compared to the range of background concentrations detected in pre-project sampling conducted between 1990 and 2002 (Table 2).

During the 2010/2011 reporting period, inorganics were either not detected or were detected at concentrations below background conditions in wells MW-1A, MW-4A, MW-4B, MW-5A, MW-5B, MW-7A, and MW-7BR. Arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc were detected at concentrations above background conditions in one or more of the other wells. Analytical results and background exceedances for the wells are summarized in Tables 5, 8a and 8c. Historic trends in monitoring well results for each inorganic analyte are presented in Figures 27 through 33. A discussion of exceedances is presented below.

Arsenic was detected above the background maximum concentration in only one well (MW-3A). Arsenic was detected above the background maximum in five of the nine samples collected from that well. These results were similar to those of previous monitoring periods. The exceedances likely reflect the site’s variable brackish groundwater conditions rather than impacts from site operations for the following reasons:

• Concentrations in barge and cell sediment samples collected to date have been substantially below cover criteria;

• Arsenic results were within the background ranges for all the other groundwater monitoring wells; and

• Concentrations in MW-3A have fluctuated widely between sampling events, from about a third of the background maximum to two times the background maximum.


Copper was detected above the background maximum in one sample each from MW-2A, MW-2B, MW-3A, and MW-6A out of the eight to ten samples collected from each well. The exceedances ranged from 12% to 75% above the background maximum. Copper analytical results were below the background maximum for all other groundwater samples collected during the reporting period. These results were similar to those of previous monitoring periods.

Lead was detected slightly above the background maximum in only one well (MW-6A) in one of the ten samples collected from that well. Lead analytical results were below the background maximum for all other groundwater samples collected during the reporting period.

Mercury was detected above the background maximum in three of the eight samples collected from MW-1B, and seven of the nine samples collected from MW-3B. Mercury was either not detected or was detected below the background maximum in the corresponding shallow groundwater wells (MW-1A and MW-3A) and in the other wells during the reporting period. Low-level mercury analysis confirmed the elevated mercury detections in most cases, as shown on Table 8c.

High mercury concentrations, interspersed with lower concentrations and non-detects, have been observed in wells MW-1B and MW-3B since 2003. The consistent absence of detectable mercury in the shallower groundwater wells indicates that elevated mercury found at depth does not result from site operations (e.g., leaching from the overlying sediment), and may simply reflect the characteristics of the deeper zone where conditions are more favorable for mercury release from the underlying native soils and peats. Historical inputs of mercury into this part of the Estuary are known to have resulted from extensive upstream hydraulic mining in the 1800s.

Nickel was detected above the background maximum in eight of the ten samples collected from well MW-3A. Nickel was detected below the background maximum in all other monitoring wells during the reporting period. Fluctuations in MW-3A arsenic and nickel concentrations (Figures 27 and 31, respectively) often coincide with each other, suggesting that some common factor may be driving the observed highs and lows in concentration of both analytes. The mean nickel concentration in MW-3A (191 µg/L) was higher than that observed in 2008/2009 (128 µg/L). However, nickel concentrations in MW-3A cycled downward again in 2012 (the mean for the first three quarters of 2012 was 132 µg/L; 4th

The groundwater inorganics data from 2003 through 2011 show that while exceedances of background concentrations have occurred, no effects on groundwater quality from sediment placement are evident. Groundwater sampling will continue in accordance with the QAPP and the data set be used for continued assessment of groundwater quality trends.

quarter 2012 data are not yet available). No trend corresponding to season or tide stage is apparent from the data. Lower pH values were observed in MW-3A during 2010/2011 (see below) which may partly explain the higher concentrations of nickel observed over this period.


4.2.2 Organics

Pesticides were not detected in samples collected from Cell 11 or the monitoring wells during the 2010/2011 monitoring period. Analytical results are summarized in Table 8d. Complete analytical results and QA/QC data are presented in Appendix G.

4.2.3 Conventional Parameters

Conventional parameters were monitored in samples collected from the sediment placement cells and groundwater monitoring wells to provide data on conditions that can affect the mobility and bioavailability of COCs in the water (e.g., pH and salinity). These results are summarized in Table 8e. Salinity levels by cell are presented in Figures 34 through 41. Complete field and laboratory data are presented in Appendix G. Original field logs of water-quality measurements in the sediment placement cells are available on request. Results are discussed further below.

Sediment Placement Cells

During the 2010/2011 reporting period, water pH in the sediment cells was generally neutral to basic. With the exception of Cell 6/7, very few pH measurements were below 7.0 Standard Units (SU). Mean pH values in the cells (with the exception of Cell 6/7) ranged from 8.7 to 9.0.

Cell 6/7 pH values were consistently lower than those observed in the other cells, most likely due to extensive exposed, acidic native peat soils. This is in agreement with past observations as described in Section 2.3.3. Cell 6 pH values ranged from 4.2 to 9.9 with a mean of 7.7. Acid conditions were more pronounced in Cell 7 where pH values ranged from 2.0 to 8.4 with a mean of 4.5. Conditions in Cell 6/7 became slightly less acidic in 2010 and 2011; mean pH values during the previous reporting period (2008-2009) were 4.6 in Cell 6 and 3.9 in Cell 7 (Acta 2011). The higher pH conditions likely contributed to the general decrease in concentrations of nickel and zinc detected during the reporting period relative to historic data.

The absence of acid pH in the other cells indicates that the operations have been successful at minimizing the oxidation of sediments that can generate acid conditions and mobilize heavy metals. However, while alkaline pH values enhance the immobilization of heavy metals, they can also increase the mobility of metalloids such as arsenic and selenium. Consequently, alkaline pH values might have been a contributing factor (in addition to evaporation) for some of the elevated arsenic water concentrations discussed in Section 4.2.1. However, the absence of elevated selenium at high pH makes that factor unlikely to be the sole reason for the elevated arsenic levels.

EC values in the cells ranged from 30 micromhos per centimeter (µmhos/cm) to over 150,000 µmhos/cm (0.02 ppt to over 35 ppt salinity). Mean EC values in the cells ranged from 25,405 to 47,152 µmhos/cm (14 to 31 ppt salinity), reflecting the effects of evaporation and


concentration of salts derived from the water supply system and from sediments dredged from the saline San Francisco Bay.

Annual mean salinity values in most sediment placement cells rose steadily between 2004 and 2007, but have leveled off or declined between 2007 and 2011, as shown in Figures 34 through 41. The reduction in mean salinities in recent years may be due to well system and pipeline improvements completed in 2007 that somewhat increased water availability, and to improved water management practices as described in Section 2.1.5.

The DO in the cells ranged from 0.08 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to 34.6 mg/l. The wide range likely reflects algal blooms, which under some conditions can produce high levels of dissolved oxygen and under other conditions can deplete dissolved oxygen. Mean DO values were similar in the cells, in the 8 to 13 mg/l range, and excursions above or below this range occurred infrequently, which indicates satisfactory levels of DO in the water.

Temperature in the cells ranged from 5.4° Celsius to 28.9° Celsius, reflecting seasonal variations in climate.

Monitoring Wells

Mean pH in the monitoring wells was generally neutral, ranging between 6.3 and 7.5 SU. While the pH of the monitoring wells is typically stable, MW-3A has become more acidic since approximately 2007. The average pH in MW-3A between June 2004 and September 2007 was 6.7 SU; average pH between December 2007 and November 2009 was 6.6 SU; and average pH for the 2010/2011 reporting period was 6.4 SU.

EC values in the monitoring wells showed considerable variation between wells and within each well at different monitoring events. Wells MW-2A/B, and MW-4A/B were the freshest, with mean EC values as low as 5,638 µmhos/cm. Wells MW-3A, MW-5A/B and MW-6A were the most saline, with mean EC values of up to 73,390 µmhos/cm. In general, the wells in peat soils closer to Montezuma Slough had lower salinity and the wells in mineral soils closer to the uplands were more saline. The exception was well MW-3A, which is located in peat soils the middle of Phase I but had EC values comparable to the saltier wells. No seasonal trends in EC values were apparent. The large variations in salinity between wells is likely a reflection of the heterogeneous underlying soils and groundwater found throughout this brackish part of the estuary more than it is a reflection of overlying sediment that has been placed onto the site.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring during 2010 and 2011 was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the MMRP and the QAPP in almost all respects. Minor deviations from the sampling program occurred, as described Sections 3.1 and 3.2 and Appendix D. These deviations primarily consisted of biannual analysis for DDTs in surface water and groundwater in accordance with the Sediment Confirmation Plan for LRTC sediment (LEG 2006b), and extra samples to


support effective site operations. Some sampling frequencies (especially for organic COCs in water that consistently showed non-detects) were reduced from QAPP requirements in late 2004 in consultation with the RWQCB and TRT, as discussed in LEG 2005.

Analytical results received from the laboratories were judged to be of generally good quality; data review was also provided by SFEI data management staff. A few analytical problems were encountered as described in Appendix D, and high salinity in many of the cell samples required analysis at up to 20 times dilution. Overall, there were no significant problems with laboratory performance.

The collected data were sufficient to meet the objectives of the monitoring program. Monitoring objectives are described in Section 2.7. Monitoring objectives relevant to the reporting period are addressed below in light of the 2010/2011 monitoring results.

Is incoming sediment meeting acceptance criteria? Very limited sampling of incoming sediment was conducted during the reporting period since sediment placement occurred only during the last two weeks of the reporting period. Results from the single incoming sediment sample collected during the reporting period met cover criteria.

Is water in the sediment cells and makeup water pond meting project criteria and RWQCB permit limits? Surface water sampling results indicated that concentrations of COCs and conventional water quality parameters were generally in conformance with project criteria and similar to results in prior years. Arsenic was the most consistently detected inorganic analyte and the one most often exceeding its action level. Copper and nickel were detected in about half of the cell water samples but rarely exceeded action levels. Selenium, silver and zinc were either not detected or were detected at concentrations well below action levels. Similar mean concentrations of these COCs were observed in completed noncover cells and cover-only cells (Figure 8).

Cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and zinc were detected above action levels only in Cell 6/7, whose water quality is different from the other cells as described in Section 2.3.3. Cell 6/7 water quality issues appear to have been resolved by the addition of sediment to the cell in late 2011 to buffer acidity in underlying peat soils.

There were a comparable number of action level exceedances in the cells in 2010 and 2011 as in previous monitoring periods (2006/2007 and 2008/2009). Exceedances of action levels in cell water appear to be primarily related to evaporative concentration of COCs when water shortages occur during the dry season. Surface water pumping through approved fish screens is now permitted between August 1 and December 15, which will likely ameliorate water shortfalls.

Makeup water pond water was not sampled during the reporting period, in accordance with the QAPP, since no discharge of water to receiving waters occurred.

Are COCs leaching into groundwater? Similar to past reporting periods, arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel and zinc were detected in at least one Phase I monitoring well sample at concentrations above background conditions. Mean nickel concentrations in well MW-3A


were higher in 2010/2011 than in 2008/2009, although concentrations have trended

downward again in 2012 to levels similar to those seen in the past. Mean pH in well MW-3A

trended downward between 2007 and 2011, which may partly explain the higher nickel

concentrations observed in 2010/2011. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, groundwater results

collected since 2003 show wide variation in concentrations of inorganics with no clear trends

(see Figures 27 through 33). Groundwater samples collected in the Phase I area since the

1990s (prior to sediment placement) also contained elevated levels of inorganic COCs that

exhibited wide ranging fluctuations in concentrations from season to season and year to year.

Therefore, the groundwater monitoring results most likely reflect the site’s variable brackish

groundwater conditions rather than impacts from site operations.

Is makeup water pond sediment meeting criteria? Only two sediment samples were

collected from the makeup water pond during the reporting period (in accordance with the

QAPP, sediment sampling in the makeup water pond is conducted when sediment placement

is occurring). Two sediment samples were collected from the makeup water pond in

December 2011, prior to the resumption of sediment placement after a 5-year hiatus. These

samples showed that makeup water pond sediment met cover criteria with the exception of

arsenic in one of the samples, which slightly exceeded the cover criterion. The source of this

exceedance is unclear but it appears to be unrelated to sediment placement. At the time the

sample was collected, no sediment placement, and therefore no recycling of decant water to

the makeup water pond, had occurred for 5 years. Furthermore, elevated arsenic has never

been detected in sediment placed at the site to date.


6.0 REFERENCES

Acta Environmental, Inc. (Acta). 2011. Report on Sediment and Water-Quality Monitoring – 2008/2009. Montezuma Wetlands Project. Solano County, California. February.

FarWest Restoration Engineering (FRE). 2003 Updated Operations Plan. Montezuma Wetlands Project. October 13.

. 2005a. 2004 Combined Quarterly and Annual Construction Completion Report. Montezuma Wetlands Project. Collinsville, California. July 15.

. 2005b. Quarterly Operations Report, January through June 2004, Montezuma Wetlands Project. March 15.

. 2005c. Quarterly Operations Report, July through December 2004, Montezuma Wetlands Project. December 31.

. 2007. 2005 Operations Report, January through December 2005. Montezuma Wetlands Project. December 3.

. 2013. 2006 - 2010 Operations Report, January 2006 through December 2011. Montezuma Wetlands Project. In preparation.

LFR. 2000. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan, Montezuma Wetlands Project, Solano County, California. June 20. Appendix H revised May 25, 2001. Supplemental information added to Appendix H October 22, 2001.

Lipton Environmental Group (LEG). 2003a. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Montezuma Wetlands Project, Solano County, California. July 11.

. 2003b. Sediment Confirmation Sampling Plan, Montezuma Wetlands Project, Solano County, California. July 31.

. 2004a. Montezuma Wetlands Project, Solano County, California: Submittal of Additional Testing Data for Port of Oakland’s Dredged Sediment. October 12.

. 2004b. Report on Sediment and Water-Quality Monitoring – Quarters 1 and 2, 2004. Montezuma Wetlands Project. Solano County, California. December 30.

. 2005. Report on Sediment and Water-Quality Monitoring – Quarters 3 and 4, 2004. Montezuma Wetlands Project. Solano County, California. December.

. 2006a. Report on Sediment and Water-Quality Monitoring – 2005. Montezuma Wetlands Project. Solano County, California. December.


. 2006b. Montezuma Wetlands Project, Solano County, California: Sediment Confirmation Sampling Plan for Levin Richmond Terminal Corporation (LRTC) Sediment. October 6.

. 2007. Adaptive Management Restoration Plan for Phase I of the Montezuma Wetlands Project. Solano County, California. July.

. 2009. Report on Sediment and Water-Quality Monitoring – 2006/2007. Montezuma Wetlands Project. Solano County, California. June.

MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. (MEC). 2002. Sediment Reference Values for the Montezuma Channel Adjacent to the Montezuma Wetlands Project Area. March.

. 2003. Results of Physical and Chemical Characterization of Two Montezuma Reference Areas: Hill Slough and Rush Ranch. June.

. 2004. Montezuma Wetlands Project Reference Site Monitoring: Results of Sediment, Water, and Tissue Sampling January 2004. August.

NewFields Northwest (NewFields). 2007. Montezuma Wetlands Project Reference Site Monitoring: Evaluation of Sediment and Tissue Concentrations in the Vicinity of Montezuma Wetlands. October.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. (RWQCB).1992. Interim Sediment Screening Criteria and Testing Requirements for Wetland Creation and Upland Beneficial Reuse. December.

. 2000. Draft Staff Report, Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines. May.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USEPA and USACE). 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. – Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). EPA 823-B-98-004. February.

Table 1Phase I Sediment Cell Acreages

Montezuma Wetlands Project 2010-2011

1 2010-2011 Cell Acreage 121130 1 of 1

Cell Number Approximate Size (acres)

1 31.62 57.9

3/4 69.46/7 79.88/9 82.710 26.211 40.412 42.6

Table 2

Water Criteria 2000 - Nov. 2012

Montezuma Wetlands Project

Analyte

Discharge

Limits (24-hr.

avg.)1,2

Discharge

Limits (monthly

avg.)1,3

Discharge

Limits (weekly

avg.)1,4

Discharge

Limits (daily

max.)1,5

Discharge

Limits (instant.

max.)1,6

Receiving

Waters1

Groundwater

Criteria7

Inorganics (µg/L)

Arsenic 69 -- -- -- -- -- 2 - 61Cadmium 43 -- -- -- -- -- --Chromium 50 -- -- -- -- -- ND (<5-50) - 46Copper 49 -- -- -- -- -- ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 56 -- -- -- -- -- ND (<2-30) - 2Mercury 0.25 -- -- -- -- -- ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8Nickel 71 -- -- -- -- -- ND (<5-50) - 99Selenium 50 -- -- -- -- -- ND (<6) - 500Silver 23 -- -- -- -- -- --Zinc 58 -- -- -- -- -- ND (<5-300) - 80Organics (units as noted)

DDT (µg/L) -- -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.1 - 0.2PCBs* (µg/L) -- -- -- -- -- -- ND <1 - 2PAHs* (µg/L) 15 -- -- -- -- -- ND <10Dioxin/furan TEQ-1* (pg/L) -- -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.0Radiation (pCi/L)

Gross alpha -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.28 - 15.87Gross beta -- -- -- -- -- -- ND (+/- 4)Gross gamma -- -- -- -- -- -- ND (+/- 3)Conventional Parameters (units as noted)

Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L) -- 2 3 4 -- -- --Biological Oxygen Demand (mg/L) -- 10 15 20 -- -- --Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) -- -- -- -- -- 5.0/7.08 --Dissolved Sulfide (mg/L) -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 --Nutrients -- -- -- -- -- 9 --pH (standard units) -- 6.5 - 8.5 -- -- -- 10 --Settleable Solids (mg/L/hr) -- 0.1 -- -- 0.2 -- --Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) -- 15 15 20 100 -- --Turbidity (NTU) -- -- -- 20 -- ≤ background

11 --Un-ionized Ammonia (mg/L) -- -- -- -- -- 0.1612 --

Notes:1 Water criteria from RWQCB permit.2 The mean concentration of all samples collected within a 24-hour period must not exceed this criterion.3 The mean concentration of all samples collected within a 30-day period must not exceed this criterion.4 The mean concentration of all samples collected within a one-week period must not exceed this criterion.

Page 1 of 3 12/19/2012

Table 2

Water Criteria 2000 - Nov. 2012


5 The maximum concentration of all samples collected within a 24-hour period must not exceed this criterion.6 The concentration of any sample collected must not exceed this criterion.7 Per MMRP, COCs must not be significantly above background as defined by pre-project sampling of on-site monitoring wells and off-site supply wells.8 5.0 mg/L from June 1 through November 15; 7.0 mg/L at all other times of year.9 Discharge must not promote aquatic growth in receiving waters to an extent that affects beneficial uses.10 pH must not vary by more than 0.5 unit from ambient conditions.11 Permitted incremental increase over background: 5 units if background turbidity is <50, 10 units if background is 50-100, 10% increase if background is >100.12 Annual median must not exceed 0.025 mg/L.COCs - Chemicals of concernDDT - Dichlorodiethyltrichloroethenemg/L - Milligrams per literMMRP - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting PlanND - Not detectedNTU - Nephelometric turbidity unitsPAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsPCBs - Polychlorinated biphenylspCi/L - Picocuries per literpg/L - Picograms per literµg/L - Micrograms per liter* See Table B-2 for a list of specific analytes.

Page 2 of 3 12/19/2012

Table 3

Updated Water Criteria (as of Nov. 2012)


AnalyteDischarge Limits

1,2,3

(daily max.)Receiving Waters

1Groundwater Criteria

4

Inorganics (µg/L)

Arsenic 69 -- 2 - 61Cadmium 3.95 -- --Chromium IV6 16 -- ND (<5-50) - 46Copper 9.4 -- ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 65 -- ND (<2-30) - 2Mercury 2.1 -- ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8Nickel 74 -- ND (<5-50) - 99Selenium 20 -- ND (<6) - 500Silver 1.9 -- --Zinc 90 -- ND (<5-300) - 80Organics (units as noted)

DDT (µg/L) -- -- ND <0.1 - 0.2PCBs* (µg/L) -- -- ND <1 - 2PAHs* (µg/L) 15 -- ND <10Dioxin/furan TEQ-1 (pg/L) -- -- ND <0.0Radiation (pCi/L)

Gross alpha -- -- 3.28 - 15.87Gross beta -- -- ND (+/- 4)Gross gamma -- -- ND (+/- 3)Conventional Parameters (units as noted)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) -- 7.0 --Dissolved Sulfide (mg/L) -- 0.1 --Nutrients -- 7 --pH (standard units) -- 8 --Turbidity (NTU) -- ≤ background

9 --Un-ionized Ammonia (mg/L) -- 0.1610 --

Notes:1 Criteria from RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements adopted November 14, 20122 Criteria are based on the more stringent of the Basin Plan marine and freshwater acute toxicity water quality objectives (1-hr. average for inorganics, 24-hr. average for PAHs)3 Criteria for inorganics apply to dissolved concentrations4 Per MMRP, COCs must not be significantly above background as defined by pre-project sampling of on-site monitoring wells and off-site supply wells.5 Assumes a hardness of 100 mg/L CaCO36 This criterion may be met as total chromium7 Discharge must not promote aquatic growth in receiving waters to an extent that affects beneficial uses.8 pH must not vary by more than 0.5 unit from ambient conditions.9 Permitted incremental increase over background: 5 units if background turbidity is <50, 10 units if background is 50-100, 10% increase if background is >100.10 Annual median must not exceed 0.025 mg/L.* See Table B-2 for a list of specific analytes.

Abbreviations:

DDT - Dichlorodiethyltrichloroethenemg/L - Milligrams per literMMRP - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting PlanNTU - Nephelometric turbidity unitsPAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsPCBs - Polychlorinated biphenylspCi/L - Picocuries per literpg/L - Picograms per literµg/L - Micrograms per liter

2_3 1 of 1

Table 4Sediment Criteria


Page 1 of 1 12/3/2012

Analyte Other Criteria3

Cover4 Noncover4 Cover (Surface) Noncover (Foundation)

Inorganics (mg/kg) Arsenic 33 85 15.35 705 --Cadmium 5 9 0.335 9.65 --Chromium 220 300 1125 3705 --Copper 90 390 68.15 2705 --Lead 50 110 43.25 2185 --Mercury 0.35 1.3 0.434 1.34 --Nickel 140 200 1125 2004 --Selenium 0.7 1.4 0.645 1.44 --Silver 1.0 2.2 0.585 3.75 --Zinc 160 270 1585 4105 --Organics (units as noted)Total DDTs (µg/kg) 3 100 75 1005 --Total Chlordanes 2.35 4.85

Dieldrin 0.705 4.35

Total PCBs (µg/kg) 50 400 22.75,6 1805,6 --Total PAHs (µg/kg) 4,000 35,000 3,3905,7 44,7925,7 --Dioxin/furan TEQ-1 (pg/g) -- -- -- -- 2.708

Dioxin/furan TEQ-2 (pg/g) 3.038

Radiation (pCi/g)Gross alpha -- -- -- -- 13.78

Gross beta -- -- -- -- 13.78

Gross gamma -- -- -- -- 15.18

Conventional Parameters (units as noted)Sands in cover sediment over noncover subcell -- -- -- -- <16Sands in top 1 foot of marsh (%) -- -- -- -- <73pH (standard units) -- -- -- -- >6.09

Notes:1 Criteria from RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements adopted August 7, 20002 Criteria from RWQCB Waste Discharge requirements adopted November 14, 20123 Non-RWQCB criteria from project permits.4 Cover and noncover sediment criteria for wetland beneficial reuse (RWQCB 1992)5 Surface and foundation criteria for wetland beneficial reuse (RWQCB 2000)6 Sum of RMP 40 congeners7 Sum of RMP 25 compounds8 From Solano County permits; sediments should not contain dioxins/furans and/or radiation in excess of background levels in Suisun Marsh and at levels likely to cause adverse human health and/or ecological effects, as determined by the federal and state permitting agencies. 9 This criterion is an operational "red flag" only.DDT - Dichlorodiethyltrichloroethenemg/kg - Milligrams per kilogrampg/g - Picograms per gramPAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsPCBs - Polychlorinated biphenylspCi/g - Picocuries per gramRWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Boardµg/kg - Micrograms per kilogram

Criteria 2000-20121 Updated Criteria2

Table 5Action Level / Background Exceedance Summary


5_6_2010-2011 water mgt exceedance summary_121022 Page 1 of 1

Ars

enic

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Lead

Mer

cury

Nic

kel

Zinc

DD

Ts

PAH

s

PCB

s

# of

sam

ples

co

llect

ed

● ● ● -- -- -- 23● ● ● -- -- -- 25● -- -- -- 25

● ● ● -- -- -- 24● ● ● ● ● ● ● -- -- -- 33● ● -- -- -- 21● ● -- -- -- 20● -- -- 25

-- -- -- 9● -- -- -- 8

● -- -- -- 8● ● -- -- -- 10

● ● ● -- -- -- 9● -- -- -- 9

-- -- -- 8-- -- -- 9

-- -- 9-- -- 8

● ● -- -- 10-- -- 8-- -- 8

● 21

Notes:● 1 exceedance of action level or groundwater background maximum● 2 exceedances of action level or groundwater background maximum● 3+ exceedances of action level or groundwater background maximum

-- Not analyzed

Sediment SamplesMakeup Water PondCell 11

MW-4BMW-5AMW-5BMW-6AMW-7AMW-7BR

MW-1BMW-2AMW-2BMW-3AMW-3BMW-4A

Cell 7Cell 8/9Cell 10Cell 11Groundwater SamplesMW-1A

Sample Location

Surface-Water SamplesCell 1Cell 2Cell 3/4Cell 6

Table 6 Site Water Management


5_6_2010-2011 water mgt exceedance summary_121022 Page 1 of 1

Start Date End Date

Cel

l 1

Cel

l 2

Cel

l 3/4

Cel

l 6

Cel

l 7

Cel

l 8/9

Cel

l 10

Cel

l 11

01/11/10 01/12/10 1 MP-2 ● --01/14/10 01/17/10 3 MP-2 ● ● --01/17/10 03/21/10 0 -- Site saturated by rains.03/22/10 03/26/10 4 MP-2 ● ● --04/24/10 04/30/10 6 MP-2 ● ● ● ● --05/17/10 05/20/10 3 MP-2 ● ● --05/20/10 06/13/10 20 MP-2 ● ● ● ● ● ● --06/20/10 07/14/10 20 MP-2 ● ● ● ● ● Supply wells shut down on 7/1/10 for scheduled power outage.07/19/10 08/14/10 19 MP-2 ● ● ● ● ● Supply wells shut down on 8/17/10 for scheduled power outage.08/21/10 09/17/10 15 MP-2 ● ● ● ● 3 supply wells undergoing repair.09/25/10 10/03/10 8 MP-2 ● ● ● ● ● 3 supply wells undergoing repair.10/22/10 11/05/10 5 MP-2 ● ● ● ● 4 supply wells undergoing repair.11/12/10 11/18/10 6 MP-2 ● ● ● ● --12/11/10 12/24/10 8 MP-2 ● ● ● ● Majority of pumped water going to C8/9.01/24/11 01/30/11 6 MP-2 ● ● ● ● Majority of pumped water going to C8/9.01/31/11 05/22/11 0 -- Site saturated by rains.05/23/11 05/31/11 8 MP-2 ● ● ● ● --

06/12/11 06/20/11 8 MP-2 ● ● ● Supply wells shut down between 6/13/11 - 6/18/11 for scheduled power outage.

06/24/10 07/26/10 21 MP-2 ● ● ● ● --08/01/11 08/25/11 12 MP-2 ● ● ● ● Supply wells powered down for well maintenance work 8/10/11.

09/01/11 09/30/11 11 MP-2 ● ● ● ● Supply wells powered down for well maintenance work 8/31/11- 9/1/11.

10/01/11 10/08/11 8 MP-2 ● ● ● ● Supply wells powered down for well maintenance work 10/3/11.

10/09/11 10/31/11 7 MP-2 ● ● ● ● Supply wells powered down for scheduled power outage 10/19/11-10/21/11.

11/01/11 11/30/11 2 MP-2 ● ● ● ● --12/15/11 12/16/11 1 River ● --

Abbreviations:-- = No water being pumped● = Cell receiving water

Notes:1. Dates include all times when water was pumped to the wetland cells, and the main winter intervals when no water was pumped2. Water is not always pumped continuously during a listed time interval

Water Delivery Location

Notes/CommentsWater Source

Approximate Number of

Days Pumped2

Water DeliveyInterval1

Table 7aSummary of Inorganics in Sediment


7a_2010_2011_Inorganics_SEDIMENT_121023 Page 1 of 1

Analyte Number of Samples

Number of Detections1

Minimum1,2,3

(mg/kg)Maximum1,2,3

(mg/kg)Mean1,2,3

(mg/kg) Cover Criteria3

(mg/kg) Arsenic 1 2 6 8 -- 33

Cadmium 1 0.00 ND <0.4 ND <0.4 -- 5Chromium 1 2 36 39 -- 220

Copper 1 2 26 31 -- 90Lead 1 2 9 10 -- 50

Mercury 1 2 0.05 0.05 -- 0.35Nickel 1 2 50 50 -- 140

Selenium 1 1 ND <0.79 0.088 J -- 0.70Silver 1 1 ND <0.4 0.46 -- 1Zinc 1 2 57 60 -- 160



Minimum1,2,3

(mg/kg)Maximum1,2,3

(mg/kg)Mean1,2,3

(mg/kg) Cover Criteria3

(mg/kg) Arsenic 1 2 40 41 -- 33

Cadmium 1 0 ND <0.92 ND <0.92 -- 5Chromium 1 2 38 42 -- 220

Copper 1 2 52 62 -- 90Lead 1 2 7 9 -- 50

Mercury 1 0 ND <0.076 ND <0.076 -- 0.35Nickel 1 2 52 56 -- 140

Selenium 1 1 ND <1.8 0.29 J -- 0.70Silver 1 0 ND <0.92 ND <0.92 -- 1Zinc 1 2 110 120 -- 160



Minimum1,2,3

(mg/kg)Maximum1,2,3

(mg/kg)Mean1,2,3

(mg/kg)Cover Criteria3

(mg/kg) Arsenic 1 2 9 12 -- 33

Cadmium 1 0 ND <0.8 ND <0.8 -- 5Chromium 1 2 85 86 -- 220

Copper 1 2 46 51 -- 90Lead 1 2 18 20 -- 50

Mercury 1 1 0.21 0.21 -- 0.35Nickel 1 2 85 86 -- 140

Selenium 1 1 ND <1.6 0.51 J -- 0.70Silver 1 1 ND <0.8 0.85 -- 1Zinc 1 2 110 110 -- 160

Notes:1. Multiple analyses for some samples resulted in multiple sample results which were considered separate detections.

Abbreviations:ND= Not detected above the indicated reporting limit.J = Reported concentration is greater than the method detection limit but less than the reporting limit.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram

Cell 11 - Cover

Makeup Water Pond (MP-1)


2. Mercury analyzed by EPA Method 7471A; all other inorganics analyzed by EPA Method 6010B.3. Results and criteria were reported on a dry weight basis.

Table 7bSummary of PAHs in Sediment


7b_2010_2011_SedimentORGANICS__PAH_121023 Page 1 of 1


Number of Detections

Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1

(µg/kg)Cover Criteria1

(µg/kg) Total PAHs 1 -- ND ND -- 4,000Total LPAHs 1 -- ND ND -- --Total HPAHs 1 -- ND ND -- --

Acenaphthene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --Acenaphthylene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --

Anthracene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --Fluorene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --

Naphthalene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --Phenanthrene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --

Benzo(a)anthracene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --Benzo(a)pyrene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --

Chrysene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --

Fluoranthene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --

Pyrene 1 0 ND <8.8 ND <8.8 -- --



Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1


(µg/kg) Total PAHs 1 -- ND ND -- 4,000Total LPAHs 1 -- ND ND -- --Total HPAHs 1 -- ND ND -- --

Acenaphthene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --Acenaphthylene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --

Anthracene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --Fluorene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --

Naphthalene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --Phenanthrene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --

Benzo(a)anthracene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --Benzo(a)pyrene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --

Chrysene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --

Fluoranthene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --

Pyrene 1 0 ND <110 ND <110 -- --



Table 7bSummary of PAHs in Sediment


7b_2010_2011_SedimentORGANICS__PAH_121023 Page 2 of 2



Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1

(µg/kg) Cover Criteria1

(µg/kg) Total PAHs 1 1 834 834 -- 4,000Total LPAHs 1 1 43 43 -- --Total HPAHs 1 1 791 791 -- --

Acenaphthene 1 0 ND <33 ND <33 -- --Acenaphthylene 1 0 ND <33 ND <33 -- --

Anthracene 1 0 ND <33 ND <33 -- --Fluorene 1 0 ND <33 ND <33 -- --

Naphthalene 1 0 ND <33 ND <33 -- --Phenanthrene 1 1 43 43 -- --

Benzo(a)anthracene 1 1 54 54 -- --Benzo(a)pyrene 1 1 110 110 -- --

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 1 140 140 -- --Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 1 47 47 -- --Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 1 41 41 -- --

Chrysene 1 1 65 65 -- --Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1 0 ND <33 ND <33 -- --

Fluoranthene 1 1 120 120 -- --Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 1 44 44 -- --

Pyrene 1 1 170 170 -- --

Notes:1. Results and criteria are reported on a dry weight basis.

Abbreviations:PAHs = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsHPAHs = High molecular weight PAHsLPAHs = Low molecular weight PAHsND = Not detected above the indicated reporting limitµg/kg = Micrograms per kilogram

Cell 11 - Cover

Table 7cSummary of Pesticides in Sediment


7c_2010_2011_SedimentPESTICIDES_121023 Page 1 of 2



Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1

(µg/kg)

Cover Criteria1

(µg/kg)Total DDTs 1 -- ND ND -- 34,4'-DDD 1 0 ND <29 ND <29 -- --4,4'-DDE 1 0 ND <29 ND <29 -- --4,4'-DDT 1 0 ND <29 ND <29 -- --

Aldrin 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --alpha-BHC 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --beta-BHC 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --delta-BHC 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --

gamma-BHC 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --Total Chlordanes 1 -- ND ND -- --alpha-Chlordane 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --

gamma-Chlordane 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --Heptachlor 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --

Heptachlor epoxide 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --Methoxychlor 1 0 ND <150 ND <150 -- --

Dieldrin 1 0 ND <29 ND <29 -- --Endosulfan I 1 0 ND <15 ND <15 -- --Endosulfan II 1 0 ND <29 ND <29 -- --

Endosulfan sulfate 1 0 ND <29 ND <29 -- --Endrin 1 0 ND <29 ND <29 -- --

Endrin aldehyde 1 0 ND <29 ND <29 -- --Toxaphene 1 0 ND <530 ND <530 -- --



Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1

(µg/kg)

Cover Criteria1


Aldrin 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --alpha-BHC 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --beta-BHC 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --delta-BHC 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --

gamma-BHC 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --Total Chlordanes 1 -- ND ND -- --alpha-Chlordane 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --

gamma-Chlordane 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --Heptachlor 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --

Heptachlor epoxide 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --Methoxychlor 1 0 ND <350 ND <350 -- --

Dieldrin 1 0 ND <69 ND <69 -- --Endosulfan I 1 0 ND <35 ND <35 -- --Endosulfan II 1 0 ND <69 ND <69 -- --





Table 7cSummary of Pesticides in Sediment


7c_2010_2011_SedimentPESTICIDES_121023 Page 2 of 2



Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1

(µg/kg)

Cover Criteria1


Aldrin 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --alpha-BHC 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --beta-BHC 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --delta-BHC 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --

gamma-BHC 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --Total Chlordanes 1 -- ND ND -- --alpha-Chlordane 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --

gamma-Chlordane 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --Heptachlor 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --

Heptachlor epoxide 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --Methoxychlor 1 0 ND <55 ND <55 -- --

Dieldrin 1 0 ND <11 ND <11 -- --Endosulfan I 1 0 ND <5.5 ND <5.5 -- --Endosulfan II 1 0 ND <11 ND <11 -- --




Abbreviations:4,4'-DDD = 4,4'-Dichlorodiohenyldichloroethane4,4'-DDE = 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethylene4,4'-DDT = 4,4'-DichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneBHC = Benzene hexachlorideND = Not detected above the indicated reporting limitµg/kg = Micrograms per kilogram

Cell 11 - Cover

Table 7dSummary of PCBs in Sediment


7d_2010_2011_SedimentORGANICS_PCB_121023 Page 1 of 1



Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1


(µg/kg)Total Aroclors 1 -- ND ND ND 400Aroclor-1016 1 0 ND <17 ND <17 ND <17 --Aroclor-1221 1 0 ND <34 ND <34 ND <34 --Aroclor-1232 1 0 ND <17 ND <17 ND <17 --Aroclor-1242 1 0 ND <17 ND <17 ND <17 --Aroclor-1248 1 0 ND <17 ND <17 ND <17 --Aroclor-1254 1 0 ND <17 ND <17 ND <17 --Aroclor-1260 1 0 ND <17b ND <17b NDb <17 --



Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1





Minimum1

(µg/kg)Maximum1

(µg/kg)Mean1

(µg/kg) Cover Criteria1



Abbreviations:PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenylsND = Not detected above the indicated reporting limitµg/kg = Micrograms per kilogramb = Low bias result



Cell 11 - Cover

Table 7eSummary of Conventional Parameters in Sediment


7e_2010_2011_SedimentPARAMETERS_121023 Page 1 of 1

Parameter Number of Samples

Number of Detections Minimum Maximum Mean

pH (SU) 1 1 8.4 8.4 --



pH (SU) 1 1 7.3 7.3 --



pH (SU) 1 1 7.5 7.5 --EC (µmhos/cm) 1 1 2840 2840 --Sulfide1 (mg/kg) 1 1 77 b 77 b --

Total Organic Carbon1 (%) 1 1 1.4 1.4 --

Notes:

Abbreviations:EC = Electrical conductivitymg/kg = Milligrams per kilogramµmhos/cm = Micromhos per centimeterSU = Standard unitsb = Analytical problems were encountered



Cell 11 - Cover

1. Results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Table 8aSummary of Inorganics in Surface Water and Groundwater


8a_2010_2011_Inorganics_WATER_121121 Page 1 of 6



Number of Exceedances

Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 26 24 12 16 85 40 35

Cadmium 23 0 0 ND <2 ND <7.9 -- 22Chromium 23 0 0 ND <10 ND <10 -- 25

Copper 23 3 1 ND <5 43 7 25Lead 23 0 0 ND <3 ND <7.6 -- 28

Mercury 24 1 1 ND <0.2 0.41 -- 0.13Nickel 23 8 0 ND <5 11 6 36

Selenium 23 1 0 ND <5 11 -- 25Silver 23 0 0 ND <2 ND <6.7 -- 12Zinc 23 0 0 ND <20 ND <36 -- 29




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 25 24 11 ND <5 130 37 35



Mercury 26 1 1 ND <0.2 0.21 -- 0.13Nickel 25 10 0 ND <5 17 7 36

Selenium 25 0 0 ND <5 ND <10 -- 25Silver 25 0 0 ND <2 ND <6.7 -- 12Zinc 25 0 0 ND <20 ND <36 -- 29




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 25 25 8 8 68 29 35


Copper 25 0 0 ND <5 ND <8.8 -- 25Lead 25 0 0 ND <3 ND <7.6 -- 28

Mercury 26 0 0 ND <0.2 ND <0.2 -- 0.13Nickel 25 10 0 ND <5 14 7 36





Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 24 11 0 ND <5 34 10 35



Mercury 25 2 2 ND <0.2 0.46 0.22 0.13Nickel 24 21 13 ND <5 210 63 36

Selenium 24 1 0 ND <5 9 -- 25Silver 24 0 0 ND <2 ND <6.7 -- 12Zinc 24 7 6 ND <20 120 32 29

Cell 1 - Completed Noncover - Dissolved Concentrations


Cell 3/4 - Completed Noncover - Dissolved Concentrations

Cell 6 - Cover - Dissolved Concentrations







Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 1 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- 35

Cadmium 1 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- 22Chromium 1 0 0 ND <10 ND <10 -- 25

Copper 1 0 0 ND <6.3 ND <6.3 -- 25Lead 1 0 0 ND <3 ND <3 -- 28

Mercury 1 0 0 ND <0.2 ND <0.2 -- 0.13Nickel 1 1 1 97 97 -- 36

Selenium 1 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- 25Silver 1 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- 12Zinc 1 0 0 ND <36 ND <36 -- 29




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 33 10 1 ND <5 36 8 35

Cadmium 33 15 4 ND <2 86 12 22Chromium 33 7 2 ND <10 61 12 25

Copper 33 16 5 ND <5 54 13 25Lead 33 16 2 ND <3 63 9 28

Mercury 35 0 0 ND <0.2 ND <0.2 -- 0.13Nickel 33 32 31 ND <5 19,000 2,001 36

Selenium 33 4 0 ND <5 14 6 25Silver 33 0 0 ND <2 ND <6.7 -- 12Zinc 33 21 21 ND <20 7,800 933 29




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 23 22 6 7 130 39 35




Selenium 21 1 0 ND <5 8 -- 25Silver 21 0 0 ND <2 ND <6.7 -- 12Zinc 21 0 0 ND <20 ND <36 -- 29




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 20 19 4 ND <7 64 24 35





Cell 8/9 - Cover - Dissolved Concentrations


Cell 6/7 - Cover - Dissolved Concentrations








Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Action Level

(µg/L)Arsenic 25 25 5 7 50 25 35




Selenium 25 1 0 ND <5 7 -- 25Silver 25 0 0 ND <2 ND <6.7 -- 12Zinc 25 1 0 ND <20 20 -- 29




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2

(µg/L)Background Range

(µg/L)

Arsenic 9 9 0 18 25 22 2 - 61Cadmium 9 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- --Chromium 9 0 0 ND <10 ND <10 -- ND (<5-50) - 46

Copper 9 2 0 ND <5 9 6 ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 9 0 0 ND <3 ND <3 -- ND (<2-30) - 2

Mercury 9 8 0 ND <0.2 0.33 0.26 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8Low-Level Mercury 9 9 0 0.11 0.40 0.24 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8

Nickel 9 6 0 ND <5 12 7 ND (<5-50) - 99Selenium 9 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- ND (<6) -500

Silver 9 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- --Zinc 9 0 0 ND <20 ND <36 -- ND (<5-300) - 80




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)

Arsenic 8 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- 2 - 61Cadmium 8 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- --Chromium 8 0 0 ND <10 ND <10 -- ND (<5-50) - 46


Mercury 8 8 3 0.61 0.92 0.72 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8Low-Level Mercury 8 8 3 0.53 1.04 0.72 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8






Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)

Arsenic 8 5 0 ND <5 10 7 2 - 61Cadmium 8 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- --Chromium 8 0 0 ND <10 ND <10 -- ND (<5-50) - 46

Copper 8 2 1 15 18 8 ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 8 0 0 ND <3 ND <3 -- ND (<2-30) - 2

Mercury 8 0 0 ND <0.2 ND <0.2 -- ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8Low-Level Mercury 8 6 0 0.0005 0.0015 0.054 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8

Nickel 8 1 0 ND <5 7 -- ND (<5-50) - 99Selenium 8 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- ND (<6) -500



Monitoring Well 1A - Dissolved Concentrations

Monitoring Well 1B - Dissolved Concentrations








Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)




Nickel 10 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- ND (<5-50) - 99Selenium 10 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- ND (<6) -500

Silver 10 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- --Zinc 10 1 1 ND <20 280 -- ND (<5-300) - 80




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)




Nickel 10 10 8 17 340 191 ND (<5-50) - 99Selenium 9 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- ND (<6) -500

Silver 9 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- --Zinc 9 2 0 ND <20 44 27 ND (<5-300) - 80




Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)


Copper 9 1 0 ND <5 9 -- ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 9 0 0 ND <3 ND <3 -- ND (<2-30) - 2







Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)

Arsenic 8 0 0 ND <5 ND <5 -- 2 - 61Cadmium 8 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- --Chromium 8 0 0 ND <10 ND <10 -- ND (<5-50) - 46


Mercury 8 0 0 ND <0.2 ND <0.2 -- ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8Low-Level Mercury 8 6 0 ND <0.005 0.0025 0.0016 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8













Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)


Copper 9 0 0 ND <5 ND <6.3 -- ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 9 0 0 ND <3 ND <3 -- ND (<2-30) - 2

Mercury 9 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8Low-Level Mercury 9 8 0 0.00045 0.0017 0.0014 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8






Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)



Mercury 9 2 0 ND <0.2 0.21 0.20 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8Low-Level Mercury 9 9 0 0.028 0.11 0.089 ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8






Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)

Arsenic 8 1 0 ND <5 5 -- 2 - 61Cadmium 8 0 0 ND <2 ND <2 -- --Chromium 8 0 0 ND <10 ND <10 -- ND (<5-50) - 46








Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)

Arsenic 10 2 0 ND <5 7 5 2 - 61Cadmium 10 1 0 ND <2 2 -- --Chromium 10 0 0 ND <10 ND <10 -- ND (<5-50) - 46

Copper 10 4 1 ND <5 21 8 ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 10 1 1 ND <3 4 -- ND (<2-30) - 2



Silver 10 4 0 ND <2 3 2 --Zinc 10 0 0 ND <20 ND <36 -- ND (<5-300) - 80











Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)


Copper 8 1 0 ND <5 9 -- ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 8 0 0 ND <3 ND <3 -- ND (<2-30) - 2







Minimum1

(µg/L)Maximum1

(µg/L)Mean1,2


(µg/L)


Copper 8 0 0 ND <5 ND <6.3 -- ND (<10-40) - 16Lead 8 0 0 ND <3 ND <3 -- ND (<2-30) - 2




Notes:

2. Means shown for analytes/sample locations with ≥2 detections. Non-detects included in means (values used = reporting limits)

Abbreviations:J = Reported concentration is greater than the method detection limit but less than the reporting limit.µg/L = Microgram per LiterND= Not detected above the indicated reporting limit.Bold Shaded Values = Exceeds WDR discharge limits or groundwater background maximumsBold Values = Exceedances of surface water action levels (1/2 WDR discharge limits)

1. Mercury analyzed by EPA Method 7470A; all other inorganics analyzed by EPA Method 6020 or 6010B.

Monitoring Well 7BR - Dissolved Concentrations


Table 8bInorganics Exceeding Water Quality in Surface Water


8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 1 of 8

Sample Date Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc

1/28/2010 16 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 6.5 ND <202/25/2010 18 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <203/26/2010 24 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/29/2010 27 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 6.4 ND <205/28/2010 18 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <206/23/2010 23 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <207/22/2010 57 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 7 ND <207/22/20101 55 -- -- -- -- -- -- --8/17/2010 49 ND <2 ND <10 43 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <209/16/2010 46 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2010/28/2010 51 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2011/12/2010 59 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/14/2010 45 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <201/19/2011 33 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <202/21/2011 26 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 10 ND <203/22/2011 20 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/18/2011 33 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <5 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 ND <12 ND <205/19/2011 23 ND <2 ND <10 5.7 ND <3 ND <0.2 7.3 ND <206/15/2011 27 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <367/28/2011 52 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 6.8 ND <368/22/2011 85 ND <2 ND <10 7.5 ND <3 ND <0.2 11 ND <369/22/2011 -- -- -- -- -- 0.41 -- --9/22/20112 -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.2 -- --10/20/2011 71 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <3611/22/2011 49 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/20/2011 53 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.3 ND <36

Action Level 34.5 21.5 25 24.5 28 0.125 35.5 29

Dissolved Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc in Phase I Cells (µg/L)

Cell 1 - Completed Noncover



8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 2 of 8



1/28/2010 9.5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.8 ND <202/25/2010 13 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.8 ND <203/26/2010 14 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/29/2010 22 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 6.3 ND <205/28/2010 16 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <206/23/2010 35 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <206/23/20102 23 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <207/22/2010 16 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <208/17/2010 41 ND <2 ND <10 50 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <209/16/2010 28 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 8.1 ND <2010/28/2010 38 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2011/12/2010 42 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/14/2010 18 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.2 ND <201/19/2011 21 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <202/21/2011 15 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 6 ND <203/22/2011 11 ND <2 ND <10 110 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/18/2011 28 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <8.8 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 ND <12 ND <205/19/2011 65 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 17 ND <206/15/2011 130 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 0.21 16 ND <367/28/2011 55 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.6 ND <368/22/2011 58 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <369/22/2011 -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.2 -- --10/20/2011 88 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <3611/22/20113 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2011/22/20113 56 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/20/2011 45 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.1 ND <36

Action Level 34.5 21.5 25 24.5 28 0.125 35.5 29




8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 3 of 8



1/28/2010 8.4 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 10 ND <202/25/2010 10 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 8.3 ND <203/26/2010 18 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 8.6 ND <204/29/2010 27 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 7.2 ND <204/29/20101 27 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 8.1 ND <205/28/2010 20 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <206/23/2010 37 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <207/22/2010 27 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <208/17/2010 28 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <209/16/2010 29 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2010/28/2010 68 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2010/28/20101 56 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2011/12/2010 19 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/14/2010 29 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <201/19/2011 13 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <202/21/2011 11 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 10 ND <203/22/2011 12 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/18/2011 15 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <8.8 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 ND <12 ND <205/19/2011 13 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 14 ND <206/15/2011 19 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <367/28/2011 46 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 7.9 ND <368/22/2011 39 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 9.3 ND <369/22/2011 -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.2 -- --10/20/2011 45 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <3611/22/2011 50 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/20/2011 48 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 8.8 ND <36

Action Level 34.5 21.5 25 24.5 28 0.125 35.5 29

Cell 3/4 - Completed Noncover



8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 4 of 8



1/28/2010 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 11 ND <3 ND <0.2 13 292/25/2010 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 29 1003/26/2010 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 33 304/29/2010 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 29 ND <205/28/2010 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 18 ND <206/23/2010 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 9.6 ND <207/22/2010 8.5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 33 ND <208/17/2010 11 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 54 ND <209/16/2010 11 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 110 ND <2010/28/2010 16 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 170 2711/12/2010 19 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 120 3711/12/20101 20 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 0.3 71 ND <2012/14/2010 5.3 2.2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 210 1201/19/2011 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 94 ND <202/21/2011 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 91 303/22/2011 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/18/2011 ND <7 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <8.8 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 ND <12 ND <206/15/2011 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 24 ND <367/28/2011 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 39 ND <368/22/2011 10 ND <2 ND <10 13 ND <3 ND <0.2 49 ND <369/22/2011 -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.2 -- --10/20/2011 21 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 0.46 76 ND <3610/20/2011 -- -- -- -- -- NDb <0.2 -- --11/22/2011 28 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 69 ND <2012/20/2011 34 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 150 ND <36

5/19/2011 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 97 ND <36Action Level 34.5 21.5 25 24.5 28 0.125 35.5 29

Cell 6 - Cover

Cell 6/7 - Cover



8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 5 of 8



1/28/20103 ND <5 20 ND <10 34 ND <3 ND <0.2 1,800 7601/28/20103 ND <5 13 10 18 7.1 ND <0.2 2,100 1,1002/25/20103 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 35 502/25/20103 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 200 522/25/20103 ND <5 14 12 18 9.1 ND <0.2 2,100 1,2003/26/20103 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 110 ND <333/26/20103 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 86 ND <333/26/20103 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 84 ND <334/29/20103 ND <5 17 11 19 8.2 ND <0.2 2,700 1,4004/29/20103 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 66 ND <204/29/20103 ND <5 12 ND <10 12 11 ND <0.2 1,300 7205/28/20103 ND <5 16 ND <10 20 8.3 ND <0.2 3,100 1,6005/28/20103 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 59 ND <205/28/20103 ND <5 13 ND <10 14 51 ND <0.2 1,500 8206/23/20103 ND <5 25 15 7 13 ND <0.2 5,400 2,5006/23/20103 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 52 ND <207/22/20103 16 36 27 31 18 ND <0.2 8,500 4,9008/17/2010 36 86 61 54 63 ND <0.2 19,000 7,80012/14/2010 11 26 ND <10 ND <5 27 ND <0.2 4,300 1,9001/19/2011 8.4 19 ND <10 ND <5 7.9 ND <0.2 2,800 1,6002/21/20113 ND <5 11 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 990 5202/21/20113 6.6 18 13 7.2 7.2 ND <0.2 3,100 1,5003/22/20113 ND <5 16 ND <10 16 6.4 ND <0.2 2,600 1,3003/22/20113 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/18/2011 ND <7 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <8.8 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 86 ND <206/15/2011 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 130 ND <367/28/2011 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 160 ND <368/22/20113 ND <5 ND <2 ND <10 13 ND <3 ND <0.2 540 1508/22/20113 7.5 ND <2 ND <10 14 ND <3 ND <0.2 83 ND <369/22/20113 -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.2 -- --9/22/20113 -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.2 -- --10/20/20113 34 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 140 ND <3610/20/20113 8.7 ND <2 ND <10 47 6.6 ND <0.2 970 14011/22/2011 15 ND <2 ND <10 26 7.8 ND <0.2 930 26012/20/2011 14 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 5.6 ND <0.2 1,000 180

Action Level 34.5 21.5 25 24.5 28 0.125 35.5 29

Cell 7 - Cover



8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 6 of 8



1/28/2010 7 ND <2 ND <10 5.6 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <202/25/2010 10 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.5 ND <203/26/2010 24 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.4 ND <204/29/2010 14 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <205/28/2010 20 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <206/23/2010 16 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <207/22/2010 34 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 7.1 ND <208/17/2010 55 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <209/16/2010 130 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 27 ND <209/16/20101 120 -- -- -- -- -- -- --12/14/2010 27 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 8.6 ND <201/19/2011 14 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <202/21/2011 11 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <203/22/2011 11 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/18/2011 10 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <8.8 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 ND <12 ND <205/19/2011 14 ND <2 ND <10 8.4 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <206/15/2011 18 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <367/28/2011 27 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.6 ND <368/22/2011 93 ND <2 ND <10 7.2 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.7 ND <369/22/2011 -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.2 -- --10/20/2011 130 ND <2 ND <10 9.2 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <3611/22/2011 44 ND <2 ND <10 31 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/20/2011 24 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 9.7 ND <36

Action Level 34.5 21.5 25 24.5 28 0.125 35.5 29

Cell 8/9 - Cover



8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 7 of 8



2/25/2010 11 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <203/26/2010 21 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 6.4 ND <334/29/2010 16 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <205/28/2010 25 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <206/23/2010 29 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <207/22/2010 26 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <208/17/2010 21 ND <2 ND <10 39 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <209/16/2010 31 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.4 ND <2010/28/2010 35 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2011/12/2010 37 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/14/2010 29 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <201/19/2011 20 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <202/21/2011 16 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 10 ND <203/22/2011 7.9 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/18/2011 ND <7 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <8.8 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 ND <12 ND <204/18/20112 11 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <8.8 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 ND <12 ND <205/19/2011 13 ND <2 ND <10 6.4 ND <3 ND <0.2 8.9 ND <206/15/2011 9.8 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 10 ND <367/28/2011 48 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 25 ND <367/28/20112 64 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 27 ND <36

Action Level 34.5 21.5 25 24.5 28 0.125 35.5 29

Cell 10 - Cover



8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 8 of 8



1/28/2010 7 ND <2 ND <10 10 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.7 ND <202/25/2010 15 ND <2 ND <10 8.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.8 ND <203/26/2010 18 ND <2 ND <10 6.2 ND <3 ND <0.2 6.8 ND <204/29/2010 18 ND <2 ND <10 7.7 ND <3 ND <0.2 6.5 ND <205/28/2010 17 ND <2 ND <10 5.8 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 206/23/2010 22 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <207/22/2010 31 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <208/17/2010 21 ND <2 ND <10 24 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <208/17/20102 22 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <209/16/2010 25 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2010/28/2010 30 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2011/12/2010 16 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/14/2010 19 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 5.6 ND <201/19/2011 19 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <201/19/20112 18 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <202/21/2011 18 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <203/22/2011 18 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <204/18/2011 22 ND <7.9 ND <10 ND <8.8 ND <7.6 ND <0.2 ND <12 ND <205/19/2011 29 ND <2 ND <10 8.4 ND <3 ND <0.2 8.5 ND <206/15/2011 26 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 6.2 ND <367/28/2011 41 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 6 ND <368/22/2011 48 ND <2 ND <10 9.7 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <369/22/2011 -- -- -- -- -- ND <0.2 -- --10/20/2011 50 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <3611/22/2011 35 ND <2 ND <10 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <2012/20/2011 35 ND <2 ND <10 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <5 ND <36

Action Level 34.5 21.5 25 24.5 28 0.125 35.5 29

Notes:1. Reanalysis2. Field duplicate3. Discrete sampleBold Values = Exceedances of action levels (1/2 WDR discharge limits)

Abbreviations:ND = Not detected above the indicated reporting limit.µg/L = Microgram per liter-- = Analysis was not requested


Table 8cInorganics Exceeding Water Quality Criteria in Groundwater


8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 1 of 2

Sample Date Arsenic Copper Lead Mercury Low-Level Mercury Nickel Zinc

2/18/2010 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 0.8 0.556 27 ND <205/20/2010 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 0.61 0.536 27 ND <208/26/2010 ND <5 10 ND <3 0.81 1.04 19 ND <20

11/18/2010 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 0.67 0.704 ND <5 ND <202/8/2011 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 0.66 0.593 21 ND <206/2/2011 ND <5 ND <6.3 ND <3 0.92 0.82 26 ND <36

8/16/2011 ND <5 11 ND <3 0.62 0.701 23 ND <3611/18/2011 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 0.67 0.80 23 ND <20

2/17/2010 ND <5 15 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.0005 6.6 ND <205/19/2010 7.2 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.001 ND <5 ND <208/25/2010 9 18 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.0013 ND <5 ND <20

11/17/2010 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <0.42 ND <5 ND <202/8/2011 7.7 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00145 ND <5 ND <206/2/2011 8.2 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00089 ND <5 ND <36

8/16/2011 9.7 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00113 ND <5 ND <3611/18/2011 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <.005 ND <5 ND <20

2/17/2010 30 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.0033 ND <5 ND <205/19/2010 37 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00639 ND <5 ND <208/25/2010 35 21 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00173 ND <5 ND <20

11/17/2010 37 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00322 ND <5 ND <202/8/2011 38 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00478 ND <5 ND <206/2/2011 35 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00386 ND <5 ND <366/2/20112 42 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00405 ND <5 2808/16/2011 34 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00448 ND <5 ND <36

11/18/2011 26 13 ND <3 ND <0.2 ND <.005 ND <5 ND <2011/18/20112 43 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.0056 ND <5 ND <20

2/17/2010 30 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00313 17 ND <205/19/2010 47 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00549 79 448/26/2010 130 28 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00712 320 239/16/2010 12 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 120 ND <20

11/18/2010 150 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.0103 290 ND <2011/18/2010 -- -- -- -- -- 310 --

2/9/2011 130 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.00748 130 ND <206/1/2011 110 ND <6.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.0112 150 ND <36

8/15/2011 86 9.3 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.0229 340 ND <3611/17/2011 11 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.015 150 ND <20

2/17/2010 6.2 ND <5 ND <3 1.1 0.89 16 ND <202/17/2010 5.4 ND <5 ND <3 1.1 1.08 16 ND <205/19/2010 7.6 ND <5 ND <3 1.1 0.93 15 ND <208/26/2010 7.9 ND <5 ND <3 0.94 0.38 11 ND <20

11/18/2010 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 1 0.94 ND <5 ND <202/8/2011 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 0.88 0.96 12 ND <206/1/2011 5.8 ND <6.3 ND <3 1.2 0.95 17 ND <36

8/15/2011 6.1 9.4 ND <3 0.71 0.67 18 ND <3611/17/2011 ND <5 ND <6.3 ND <3 0.66 0.89 17 ND <20

Background Range 2 - 61 ND (<10-40) -

16ND (<2-30) -

2ND (<0.2-2) -

0.8ND (<0.2-2) -

0.8ND (<5-50) -

99ND (<5-300) -

80

Dissolved Arsenic, Copper, Lead, Mecury, Low-Level Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc in Phase I Monitoring Wells (µg/L)

Well MW-1B

Well MW-2A

Well MW-2B

Well MW-3A

Well MW-3B

Table 8cInorganics Exceeding Water Quality Criteria in Groundwater


8b 8c 2010_2011_Exceed121023 Page 2 of 2

Sample Date Arsenic Copper Lead Mercury Low-Level Mercury Nickel Zinc

Dissolved Arsenic, Copper, Lead, Mecury, Low-Level Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc in Phase I Monitoring Wells (µg/L)

2/18/2010 ND <5 6.4 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.012 41 ND <205/20/2010 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.012 40 ND <208/25/2010 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.013 42 ND <20

11/18/2010 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.013 24 ND <202/9/2011 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.015 37 ND <202/9/2011 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.013 36 ND <206/2/2011 6.5 21 3.8 ND <0.2 0.016 48 ND <36

8/15/2011 6.5 9.6 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.017 43 ND <368/15/2011 ND <5 12 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.016 37 ND <36

11/18/2011 ND <5 ND <5 ND <3 ND <0.2 0.0083 41 ND <20Background

Range 2 - 61 ND (<10-40) - 16

ND (<2-30) - 2

ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8

ND (<0.2-2) - 0.8

ND (<5-50) - 99

ND (<5-300) - 80

Notes:1. Reanalysis2. Field duplicateBold shaded values = exceeds groundwater background maximums

Abbreviations:ND = Not detected above the indicated reporting limit.µg/L = Microgram per liter-- = Analysis was not requested

Well MW-6A

Table 8dSummary of Pesticides in Surface and Groundwater


8d_2010_2011_Water_Pesticides_121023 Page 1 of 2



Minimum(µg/L)

Maximum(µg/L)

Mean(µg/L)

4,4'-DDD 4 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 --4,4'-DDE 4 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 --4,4'-DDT 4 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 --

total DDTs -- -- -- -- --alpha-BHC 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --beta-BHC 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --delta-BHC 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --

gamma-BHC 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --Total Chlordanes 1 0 ND ND --alpha-Chlordane 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --

gamma-Chlordane 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --Heptachlor 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --

Heptachlor epoxide 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --Methoxychlor 1 0 ND <0.5 ND <0.5 --

Aldrin 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --Dieldrin 1 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 --

Endosulfan I 1 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 --Endosulfan II 1 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 --

Endosulfan sulfate 1 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 --Endrin 1 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 --

Endrin aldehyde 1 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 --Toxaphene 1 0 ND <1 ND <1 --



Minimum(µg/L)

Maximum(µg/L)

Mean(µg/L)

4,4'-DDD 4 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.5 --4,4'-DDE 4 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.5 --4,4'-DDT 4 0 ND <0.1 ND <0.5 --

total DDTs -- -- -- -- --alpha-BHC 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --beta-BHC 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --delta-BHC 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --

gamma-BHC 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --Total Chlordanes 1 0 ND ND --alpha-Chlordane 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --

gamma-Chlordane 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --Heptachlor 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --

Heptachlor epoxide 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --Methoxychlor 1 0 ND <2.5 ND <2.5 --

Aldrin 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --Dieldrin 1 0 ND <0.5 ND <0.5 --

Endosulfan I 1 0 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 --Endosulfan II 1 0 ND <0.5 ND <0.5 --

Endosulfan sulfate 1 0 ND <0.5 ND <0.5 --Endrin 1 0 ND <0.5 ND <0.5 --

Endrin aldehyde 1 0 ND <0.5 ND <0.5 --Toxaphene 1 0 ND <5 ND <5 --


Cell 11 - Completed Noncover - Total Concentrations

Table 8dSummary of Pesticides in Surface and Groundwater


8d_2010_2011_Water_Pesticides_121023 Page 2 of 2



Minimum(µg/L)

Maximum(µg/L)

Mean(µg/L)

Background Range(µg/L)

4,4'-DDD 22 0 ND <0.09 ND <0.1 -- --4,4'-DDE 22 0 ND <0.09 ND <0.1 -- --4,4'-DDT 22 0 ND <0.09 ND <0.1 -- --

total DDTs -- -- -- -- -- ND<0.1 - 0.2alpha-BHC 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --beta-BHC 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --delta-BHC 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --

gamma-BHC 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --Total Chlordanes 5 0 ND ND -- --alpha-Chlordane 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --

gamma-Chlordane 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --Heptachlor 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --

Heptachlor epoxide 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --Methoxychlor 5 0 ND <0.5 ND <0.5 -- --

Aldrin 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --Dieldrin 5 0 ND <0.09 ND <0.1 -- --

Endosulfan I 5 0 ND <0.05 ND <0.05 -- --Endosulfan II 5 0 ND <0.09 ND <0.1 -- --

Endosulfan sulfate 5 0 ND <0.09 ND <0.1 -- --Endrin 5 0 ND <0.09 ND <0.1 -- --

Endrin aldehyde 5 0 ND <0.09 ND <0.1 -- --Toxaphene 5 0 ND <0.9 ND <1 -- --

Abbreviations:µg/L = Micrograms per literND = Not detected above the indicated reporting limit; no DDT detections were reported between the reporting limits shown and the method detection limit of 0.1 µg/L4,4'-DDD = 4,4'-Dichlorodiohenyldichloroethane4,4'-DDE = 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethylene4,4'-DDT = 4,4'-DichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneBHC = Benzene hexachloride

Monitoring Wells 5A/B, 6A, and 7A/BR - Total Concentrations

Table 8e

Summary of Conventional Water Quality Parameters in Surface and Groundwater


Parameter1 Number of

Samples

Number of

DetectionsMinimum Maximum Mean

Temperature (°C) 50 50 5.39 25.09 14.98EC (µmhos/cm) 50 50 30 94,560 34,499

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 50 50 0.21 15.79 8.61pH (SU) 50 50 7.40 10.44 8.87

Salinity (ppt) 50 50 0.02 67.85 22.56


Samples

Number of


Temperature (°C) 50 50 5.48 27.59 16.72EC (µmhos/cm) 50 50 10,350 113,150 47,152


Salinity (ppt) 50 50 5.77 >703 31.03


Samples

Number of




Salinity (ppt) 51 51 4.49 34.83 14.34


Samples

Number of


Temperature (°C) 49 49 6.00 25.81 16.68EC (µmhos/cm) 49 49 2,752 >100,0003 29,628


Salinity (ppt) 49 49 1.92 >703 19.75


Samples

Number of




Salinity (ppt) 47 47 0.89 138.20 30.89


Samples

Number of




Salinity (ppt) 44 44 10.11 >703 22.54



Cell 3/4 - Completed Noncover

Cell 6 - Cover

Cell 7 - Cover

Cell 8/9 - Cover

8e_2010_2011_WaterQualityPARAMETERS121023 Page 1 of 4

Table 8e




Samples

Number of




Salinity (ppt) 39 39 4.55 58.28 19.01


Samples

Number of




Salinity (ppt) 50 50 6.74 59.53 26.16


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 9 9 6.9 7.1 7.0EC (µmhos/cm) 9 9 19,400 20,200 19,833


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 8 8 6.9 7.0 6.9EC (µmhos/cm) 8 8 20,300 21,500 20,738


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 8 8 6.3 9.5 6.8EC (µmhos/cm) 8 8 5,330 5,790 5,638


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 10 10 7.2 7.7 7.4EC (µmhos/cm) 10 10 5,910 6,280 6,135


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 9 9 6.0 6.6 6.4EC (µmhos/cm) 9 9 27,200 32,600 30,311

Cell 10 - Cover


Monitoring Well 1A

Monitoring Well 1B

Monitoring Well 2A

Monitoring Well 2B

Monitoring Well 3A


Table 8e




Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 9 9 6.8 7.0 6.9EC (µmhos/cm) 9 9 16,700 17,600 17,267


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 8 8 6.3 6.8 6.5EC (µmhos/cm) 8 8 4,370 7,750 6,616


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 9 9 6.7 6.9 6.8EC (µmhos/cm) 9 9 13,900 14,500 14,267


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 9 9 6.4 6.8 6.6EC (µmhos/cm) 9 9 32,700 34,600 33,667


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 8 8 6.4 6.8 6.6EC (µmhos/cm) 8 8 34,000 35,800 34,888


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 10 10 6.7 6.9 6.8EC (µmhos/cm) 10 10 70,800 74,900 73,390


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 8 8 7.1 7.4 7.2EC (µmhos/cm) 8 8 13,700 19,000 17,463


Samples

Number of


pH (SU) 8 8 6.8 7.4 6.9EC (µmhos/cm) 8 8 15,900 17,000 16,500

Notes:

1. Parameters were measured in the field with a hand held instrument2. Parameters were measured by an analytical laboratory.3. Maximum detected limit for the hand held field instrument, different instruments provide a range of maximum detection values.

Monitoring Well 6A

Monitoring Well 7A

Monitoring Well 7BR

Monitoring Well 3B

Monitoring Well 4A

Monitoring Well 4B

Monitoring Well 5A

Monitoring Well 5B


Table 8e



Abbreviations:

EC - Electrical conductivitySU - Standard unitsµmhos/cm - Microomhos per centimeter


Figure 1

Site Location Map

23

92

SV

10

2.C

DR

06

18

01

MONTEZUMA WETLANDS PROJECT

Source: Brady and Associates (1994)

Hunting Club

*

*

Day Use Area

Fire Truck Road

Intertidal Channels

Clank Hollow

Low Intertidal Marsh

Intertidal Point Bars

High Intertidal Marsh

Upland Transition and Buffer

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS

Experimental Intertidal Ponds

Loafing and Nesting Islands

Operations and Infrastructure

Managed Fluvial Hollows

Diked Pickleweed Marsh

Seasonally Wet Depressions

1600 FEET8000

-3.8

-2.7

-2.8

-2.7-1.8

-2.3

-2.3

-2.6

-1.9

-1.9

-0.9

-1.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.9

5

5

5

5

5

0

5

5

0

0

0

0

-1.1

3.1

3.2

2.4

-0.1

-0.1

-0.8

-2.4

-0.4

4.5

2.4

6.5

3.7

3.5

2.8

2.6

2.6

2.7

2.4

2.4

2.64.71.8

1.3 3.3

3.7

2.5

-0.9

3.6

5.4

5.3

4.1 3.5

3.1

4.7

3.2

2.8

6.2

-3.5

-3.8

-0.5

-2.2

0

05

5

5

5.35.25.33.94.7

3.12.8

2.92.2

1.8

3.8

-2.2 -2.6

-1.1

-1.7

-1.6

-2.6

-3.4

-3.4-3.1

-2.9

-3.5

-2.5

-2.2

-1.8

-1.8

-1.8

9.3

9.8

9.8

10.4

3.1

3.5

4.2

2.4

2.12.3

0.5

0.8

0.7

3.3

4.3

4.3

3.2

3.2

0.8

5

0

5

0

1.9

1.9

3.8

3.7

0

5

0

0

5

5

2.5

2.5

1.9

2.70.9

0.6

0.8

0.8

0.2

4.3

3.8

3.27

312.6

2.6

2.6

DAM

DRY

3.1

3.4

5

5

0.2

3.8

280

-2.4

-0.8

-0.9

0.4

-0.3

-0.1

-1.2-0.2

-2.1

-0.3-1.8

-0.2

-0.4-0.8

-0.6

-0.2

-0.4

-0.2

-0.6

-1.5

-1.7

-2.3

-2.3

-0.8-1.6 -2.1

-1.9

-1.1

-0.6

-1.9

-0.3

-0.1

-0.8

-0.9

-1.4-1.4

-0.8

-0.4-0.3

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

5

5

5

5

5

0

0

0

5

5

5

5

1.2

2.5

2.2

1.5

1.1

3.8

3.9

3.8

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.6

4.2

3.84.5

4.24.5

4.32.3

2.5

2.6

2.8

4.3

4.24.5

4.64.3

4.5

4.7

4.43.3

3.6

4.3

1.80.1

0.4

0.30.1

0.3

0.7

0.6

0.30.3

1.31.6

1.64.2

0.4

1.3

1.6

1.1

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.10.4

0.6

0.3

0.9

1.21.20.4

0.6

0.7

2.8

4.3

1.4

4.14.3

0.3

5

4.4

ProjectBoundary

DWR S-64

LeveeBreachPhase I

PlantNursery

ApproximateWetlands RestorationBoundary

ProjectBoundary

DWRMontezuma

SalinityControl

Structure

DWR S-71

NOS 941-5205 PhaseBoundaryDWR Day Use Area

Extend Public AccessTrail on Perimeter

Levee to Phase II Breach

Levee BreachPhase II

Existing Marsh toRemain Undisturbed

Public AccessViewing Platform

NOS 941-5176

Existing Marshto RemainUndisturbed

Existing Marshto RemainUndisturbed

DWR C-2

LANDING

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

BIRDS

McD

OU

GA

L C

UT

HOLLOWCLANK

SACRAMENTO RIVER

TANK

MONTEZ

UMA

TANKS

DINKELSPIEL ROAD

BIRDS LANDING ROAD

ROAD

FIRE TRUCK

COLLINSVILLE

CO

LLIN

SV

ILLE

RO

AD

SLO

UG

H

EXPLANATION

Phase Boundary

Roadways

Dredged Sediment PlacementCells and Levees

Project Boundary

NOS/DWR Gauging Station

Preserved Vernal Pools

Avoided Vernal Pools

Created Vernal Pools

MONTEZUMA

SLOUGH

Makeup Water Pond

SedimentRehandlingArea

PHASE IV

PHASE II

PHASE I

PHASE III

PHASE I

PHASE II

PHASE IV

G:\ENVCAD\Emeryville\ACT\EM002393\0099\00001\Bio-Survey\CDR\EM002393-P123-C.cdr

PHASE III

Habitat Design


Figure 2

Figure 3


Site Overview Map

02393\9

9\0

09\P

ote

ntial R

efe

rence S

ite in S

uis

un B

ay.

CD

R

Potential Reference Sitesin Suisun Bay


Acreages of PotentialReference Sites

Tidal Marsh Sites

1. Carquinez Strait

2. Point Edith

3. Seal Island A

4. Seal Island B

5. Middle Point

6. Stake Point

7. Browns Island

8. Point San Joaquin

9. Chain Island

10. Dutton Island

11. Snag Island

12. Freeman Island

13. Ryer Island

14. Roe Island

15. Point Buckler

16. Grizzley Bay

17. Joice Island

18. Rush Ranch

19. Peytonia Slough

20. Hill Slough

21. Nurse Slough

1Acreage

340.0

319.3

18.6

9.8

168.9

443.1

682.4

51.5

63.6

49.5

28.1

91.2

893.4

91.3

42.3

402.2

256.2

1098.6

326.2

410.5

338.7

Diked Marsh Sites

22. All Remaining Wetland Areas in Suisun Marsh

2Acreage

55,600

Diked Marsh Sites

23. Montezuma

3Acreage

2394 total 1822 marsh

Sources:

1. Dedrick 1993

2. ABAG et al. 1991

3. Landsat Thematic Mapper 234

Infrared Image - 25 October 1984

Figure 4

Figure 5

Cell Filling Timeline, 2003 - 2011

Cell 1 C 2/9 2/20 4/17a

4/19

Cell 1 NC 3/17-3/22

Cell 2 C 1/20 2/9 2/20 2/21 3/30* 4/19**Cell 2 NC 12/23 1/19

Notes:a - Cell 1 noncover levee notched*Start of cover sediment placement over noncover (approx.)** At least 3' of cover placed over noncover. Cell 2 filled to design elevation; more sediment added in '05 & '06 to make up for consolidation/subsidence

Cell 1 CCell 1 NC 1/20

Cell 2 CCell 2 NCCell 3/4 C 1/25 2/15 * 3/10**Cell 3/4 NC 12/12 a 12/26 1/14 1/24

Cell 8/9 12/26 1/13 1/26 2/9

Cell 10 2/9 2/15

Notes:a - 1st appearance of raised peat island (12/15/04)* Start of cover sediment placement over noncover (2/23/05)** Approx. 1' of cover sediment placed over noncover

Cell 1 C 9/26* 10/24**Cell 1 NCCell 2 C 10/25 - 10/30

Cell 2 NCCell 3/4 C 10/30 11/13

Cell 3/4 NCCell 8/9Cell 10

Notes: Cover sediment* Start of cover sediment placement over noncover Noncover sediment** Approx 1.5' of cover sediment placed over noncover in Cell 1 Port cell 3-6 cover sediment (placed in noncover portion of Cell 3/4)

3/28 - 4/10 4/18 - 4/24

2/6 - 2/12 2/13 - 2/19

2005

1/9 - 1/1512/19 - 12/2512/12 - 12/18

10/23 - 10/2910/2 - 10/8

12/26 - 1/1

1/4 - 1/10

2004 2005

2003

2/27 - 3/5

3/7 - 3/13

1/16 - 1/22 1/23 - 1/29

2004

1/25 - 1/31 2/1 - 2/71/18 - 1/24 3/14 - 3/20 3/21 - 3/272/22 - 2/282/15 - 2/21

10/9 - 10/15

4/11 - 4/17

3/6 - 3/12

9/25 - 10/1

12/28 - 1/312-21 - 12/27

10/30 - 11/5 11/6 - 11/12

1/11 - 1/17

1/2 - 1/8

10/16 - 10/22

2/29 - 3/6

2/20 - 2/26

2/8 - 2/14

1/30 - 2/5

1 of 4

Figure 5


Cell 1 C 4/6 - 4/7 5/5 5/13**Cell 1 NCCell 2 C 3/9 3/14 3/22 -3/24

Cell 2 NCCell 3/4 C a 3/14 - 3/183/22** 4/7 4/20

Cell 3/4 NCCell 8/9 1/20 3/4 3/18 3/20 3/24 4/10 4/17*** 5/5 5/13

Cell 10

Notes:a March 6 through 9** Approx. 3' of cover placed over noncover sediment*** Approx. 3' of cover placed over Port cell 3-6 mud (~150,000 cy)

Cell 1 C a b** 8/3

Cell 1 NCCell 2 C 6/24 6/25 6/29**

Cell 2 NCCell 3/4 C 5/24 6/1** cCell 3/4 NCCell 5a 7/31

Cell 6 7/12 7/28

Cell 7 d 6/19 6/26

Cell 8/9 5/17 6/9 6/20 6/28

Cell 10 5/19 7/10

Cell 11 C 12/8 12/31

Cell 11 NC 11/3 - 11/10 e

Notes:** Cells filled to ~1' above design elevation. Consolidation/subsidence lowered elevations to below design elevation by Feb '07a May 17 and 18b May 26 through May 28.c July 16 and 17d June 16 and 18e LRTC sedimentCover sedimentNoncover sedimentSandMud/shell

4/23 - 4/29 4/30 - 5/6 5/7 - 5/13

7/9 - 7/15 7/16 - 7/22 12/8 - 12/23 12/24 - 12/31

2/19 - 2/251/22 - 1/28 4/2 - 4/83/12 - 3/18 3/19 - 3/25

6/11 - 6/17

2/12 - 2/18

6/18 - 6/24 6/25 - 7/1

2/26 - 3/41/15 - 1/21 1/29 - 2/4

5/14 - 5/20 5/28 - 6/35/21 - 5/27

2006

7/30 - 8/5 11/5 - 11/11

4/16 - 4/222/5 - 2/11

6/4 - 6/10

3/26 - 4/1

7/23 - 7/29

4/9 - 4/153/5 - 3/11

7/2 - 7/8

2006

2 of 4

Figure 5


Cell 1 CCell 1 NCCell 2 C 2/28 3/7 3/10 3/15 g

Cell 2 NCCell 3/4 C h

Cell 3/4 NCCell 5aCell 6Cell 7 1/17 1/26 a

Cell 8/9 1/12 1/17 1/26 2/6 b 2/18 2/25 3/17 3/21

Cell 10 c d e i

Cell 11 C 12/15 1/12 2/12 2/18 f

Cell 11 NC

Notes:a February 7 through 11b February 11 and 12c February 25 through 28d March 7 through 9e March 12 and 15f March 15 through 17g March 21 and 22h March 24 through 27i April 6 and 7Cover sediment

2011 2012

12/15 - 12/31 1/1 - 1/7 1/8 - 1/14 1/15 - 1/21 3/31 - 4/63/24 - 3/30 4/7 - 4/131/22 - 1/28 1/29 - 2/2 2/3 - 2/9 2/17 - 2/23 2/24 - 3/2 3/10 - 3/16 3/17 - 3/23 4/14 - 4/203/3 - 3/92/10 - 2/16

3 of 4

Figure 5


Cell 1 C 5/19 5/25

Cell 1 NCCell 2 CCell 2 NCCell 3/4 CCell 3/4 NCCell 5aCell 6 8/7 8/22 8/25 9/4

Cell 6 NC c 9/19 9/25 e

Cell 7Cell 8/9 b 9/14 9/30 10/6 f

Cell 10 a

Cell 11 C 9/5 9/8 d 10/16

Cell 11 NC

Notes:a August 22 through 25b September 9, 10 and 12c September 12, 13 and 15d October 7 and 8e October 16, 18 and 20f October 17, 19, 22 and 23Cover sedimentNoncover sediment

Cell 1 CCell 1 NCCell 2 CCell 2 NCCell 3/4 C 11/12 11/19 c

Cell 3/4 NCCell 5aCell 6 Notes:Cell 6 NC 10/24 10/30 a November 9 through 12Cell 7 11/5 11/11 b November 19 through 21Cell 8/9 10/26 10/30 11/5 c November 28 and 29Cell 10 d November 29 and 30Cell 11 C 10/24 a b 11/25 d Cover sedimentCell 11 NC Noncover sediment

9/18 - 9/244/21 - 4/27 4/28 - 5/4 5/5 - 5/11 5/19 - 5/25 8/7 - 8/13 8/21 - 8/278/14 - 8/205/12 - 5/18 9/4 - 9/10 9/25 - 10/1 10/2 - 10/8 10/9 - 10/15 10/16 - 10/22

2012

8/28 - 9/3 9/11 - 9/17

2012

10/23 - 10/29 10/30 - 11/5 11/6 - 11/12 11/13 - 11/19 11/20 - 11/26 11/27 - 12/3 12/4 - 12/10 12/11 - 12/1712/18 - 12/24 12/25 - 12/31

4 of 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr-

11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug-

11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

* Chromium, cadmium, lead silver, and zinc were not detected. Selenium and mercury were detected in one sample each (not shown).

Figure 9 Inorganics* in Cell 1 (Completed Noncover) Water


Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Arsenic Copper Nickel

µg

/L

* Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Se were detected in no more than one sample per cell (not shown). Zn was detected in one sample (not shown). Ag was not detected. Non-detects included in means (value used = reporting limit). Error bars are 95% confidence limits.

Figure 8 Mean Concentrations of Inorganics in Water Collected from Sediment Placement Cells*

2010-2011

cell 1 completed noncover (n=22)


cell 3/4 completed noncover (n=25)

cell 8/9 cover (n=20)

cell 10 cover (n=20)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

May

-06

Aug-

06

Nov

-06

Feb-

07

May

-07

Aug-

07

Nov

-07

Feb-

08

May

-08

Aug-

08

Nov

-08

Feb-

09

May

-09

Aug-

09

Nov

-09

Feb-

10

May

-10

Aug-

10

Nov

-10

Feb-

11

May

-11

Aug-

11

Nov

-11

µg

/L

* Chromium, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium and silver were detected in three samples or less (not shown).



Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

Zinc

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

Zn action level

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr-

11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug-

11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

* Cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver and zinc were not detected. Mercury was detected in one sample (not shown).



Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr-

11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug-

11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

* Cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver and zinc were not detected.

Figure 13 Inorganics* in Cell 3/4 (Completed Noncover) Water


Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan-

06

Apr-

06

Jul-0

6

Oct

-06

Jan-

07

Apr-

07

Jul-0

7

Oct

-07

Jan-

08

Apr-

08

Jul-0

8

Oct

-08

Jan-

09

Apr-

09

Jul-0

9

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr-

10

Jul-1

0

Oct

-10

Jan-

11

Apr-

11

Jul-1

1

Oct

-11

µg

/L

* Silver was not detected. Cadmium, chromium and selenium were detected in three or fewer samples (not shown).



Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

Lead

Zinc

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

Pb action level

Zn action level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

* Cadmium, lead, and silver were not detected. Chromium, mercury, and selenium were detected in two or fewer samples (not shown).

Figure 14 Inorganics* in Cell 3/4 (Completed Noncover) Water


Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

Zinc

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

Zn action level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr-

11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug-

11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

*Silver was not detected. Mercury and selenium were detected in five or fewer samples (not shown). Two or more discreet samples were collected on each sample date. Nickel and zinc results shown below.

Figure 15 Inorganics* in Cell 6/7 (Cover) Water


Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

As action level

Cd action level

Cr action level

Cu action level

Pb action level

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr-

11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug-

11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

Figure 17 Nickel in Cell 6, 7A and 7B (Cover) Water Montezuma Wetlands Project 2010-2011

Nickel Cell 6

Nickel Cell 7A

Nickel Cell 7B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jul-0

6

Oct

-06

Jan-

07

Apr-

07

Jul-0

7

Oct

-07

Jan-

08

Apr-

08

Jul-0

8

Oct

-08

Jan-

09

Apr-

09

Jul-0

9

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr-

10

Jul-1

0

Oct

-10

Jan-

11

Apr-

11

Jul-1

1

Oct

-11

µg

/L

*Mercury, selenium, and silver were detected in five or fewer samples (not shown). Nickel and zinc results shown below.



Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

As action level

Cd action level

Cr action level

Cu action level

Pb action level

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Jan-

10

Mar

-10

May

-10

Jul-1

0

Sep-

10

Nov

-10

Jan-

11

Mar

-11

May

-11

Jul-1

1

Sep-

11

Nov

-11

µg

/L

Figure 19 Zinc in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water Montezuma Wetlands Project 2010-2011

Zinc Cell 6

Zinc Cell 7A

Zinc Cell 7B

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

Jul-0

6

Oct

-06

Jan-

07

Apr-

07

Jul-0

7

Oct

-07

Jan-

08

Apr-

08

Jul-0

8

Oct

-08

Jan-

09

Apr-

09

Jul-0

9

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr-

10

Jul-1

0

Oct

-10

Jan-

11

Apr-

11

Jul-1

1

Oct

-11

µg

/L

Figure 18 Nickel in Cell 6, 7A and 7B (Cover) Water Montezuma Wetlands Project 2006-2011

Nickel Cell 6

Nickel Cell 7A

Nickel Cell 7B

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr-

11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug-

11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

*Chromium, cadmium, lead, mercury, silver and zinc were not detected. Selenium was detected in one sample (not shown).



Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Jul-0

6

Oct

-06

Jan-

07

Apr-

07

Jul-0

7

Oct

-07

Jan-

08

Apr-

08

Jul-0

8

Oct

-08

Jan-

09

Apr-

09

Jul-0

9

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr-

10

Jul-1

0

Oct

-10

Jan-

11

Apr-

11

Jul-1

1

Oct

-11

µg

/L

Figure 20 Zinc in Cell 6, 7A, and 7B (Cover) Water

Montezuma Wetlands Project 2006 - 2011

Zinc Cell 6

Zinc Cell 7A

Zinc Cell 7B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr-

11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug-

11

µg

/L

*Cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc were not detected.

Figure 23 Inorganics* in Cell 10 (Cover) Water


Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan-

06

Apr-

06

Jul-0

6

Oct

-06

Jan-

07

Apr-

07

Jul-0

7

Oct

-07

Jan-

08

Apr-

08

Jul-0

8

Oct

-08

Jan-

09

Apr-

09

Jul-0

9

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr-

10

Jul-1

0

Oct

-10

Jan-

11

Apr-

11

Jul-1

1

Oct

-11

µg

/L

*Silver was not detected. Cadmium, chromium, mercury and selenium were detected in three or fewer samples (not shown).



Arsenic

Copper

Lead

Nickel

Zinc

As action level

Cu action level

Pb action level

Ni action level

Zn action level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jan-

10

Feb-

10

Mar

-10

Apr-

10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-

10

Sep-

10

Oct

-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

Apr-

11

May

-11

Jun-

11

Jul-1

1

Aug-

11

Sep-

11

Oct

-11

Nov

-11

µg

/L

*Cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver were not detected. Selenium and zinc were detected in one sample each (not shown).

Figure 25 Inorganics* in Cell 11 (Noncover) Water Montezuma Wetlands Project 2010-2011

Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan-

06

Apr-

06

Jul-0

6

Oct

-06

Jan-

07

Apr-

07

Jul-0

7

Oct

-07

Jan-

08

Apr-

08

Jul-0

8

Oct

-08

Jan-

09

Apr-

09

Jul-0

9

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr-

10

Jul-1

0

Oct

-10

Jan-

11

Apr-

11

Jul-1

1

µg

/L

*Cadmium and silver were not detected. Chromium, lead, mercury, and selenium were detected in three or fewer samples (not shown).

Figure 24 Inorganics* in Cell 10 (Cover) Water


Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

Zinc

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

Zn action level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Dec

-06

Feb-

07

Apr-

07

Jun-

07

Aug-

07

Oct

-07

Dec

-07

Feb-

08

Apr-

08

Jun-

08

Aug-

08

Oct

-08

Dec

-08

Feb-

09

Apr-

09

Jun-

09

Aug-

09

Oct

-09

Dec

-09

Feb-

10

Apr-

10

Jun-

10

Aug-

10

Oct

-10

Dec

-10

Feb-

11

Apr-

11

Jun-

11

Aug-

11

Oct

-11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

*Cadmium, chromium, lead, and silver were not detected. Mercury, selenium, and zinc were detected in one sample (not shown).



Arsenic

Copper

Nickel

As action level

Cu action level

Ni action level

Zn action level

Zinc

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Dec

-03

Mar

-04

Jun-

04

Sep-

04

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

Wells MW-5A/B, 6A, and 7A/B were first sampled in 4th quarter 2007.

Figure 27 Arsenic in Phase I Monitoring Wells

2003 - 2011

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-7A

MW-7B

background max.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Dec

-03

Mar

-04

Jun-

04

Sep-

04

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

Wells MW-5A/B, 6A, and7A/B were first sampled in 4th quarter 2007.

Figure 28 Chromium in Phase I Monitoring Wells

2003 - 2011

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-7A

MW-7B

background max.

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

Dec

-03

Mar

-04

Jun-

04

Sep-

04

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

Wells not shown (MW-2A, 3A, 4A/B, and 6A) had no mercury detections. Wells MW-5A/B, 6A, and 7A/B were first sampled in 4th quarter 2007.

Figure 30 Mercury in Phase I Monitoring Wells

2003 - 2011

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-2B

MW-3B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-7A

MW-7B

background max

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Dec

-03

Mar

-04

Jun-

04

Sep-

04

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

µg

/L

Wells MW-5A/B, 6A, 7A/B were first sampled in 4th quarter 2007.

Figure 29 Copper in Phase I Monitoring Wells

2003 - 2011

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-7A

MW-7B

background max.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Dec

-03

Mar

-04

Jun-

04

Sep-

04

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

µg

/L


Figure 32 Selenium in Phase I Monitoring Wells

2003 - 2011

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-7A

MW-7B

background max: 500 µg/L

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

Dec

-03

Mar

-04

Jun-

04

Sep-

04

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

µg

/L


Figure 31 Nickel in Phase I Monitoring Wells

2003 - 2011

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-7A

MW-7B

background max

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Dec

-03

Mar

-04

Jun-

04

Sep-

04

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

µg

/L


Figure 33 Zinc in Phase I Monitoring Wells

2003 - 2011

MW-1A

MW-1B

MW-2A

MW-2B

MW-3A

MW-3B

MW-4A

MW-4B

MW-5A

MW-5B

MW-6A

MW-7A

MW-7B

background max

0

20

40

60

80

100

Feb-

04

May

-04

Aug-

04

Nov

-04

Feb-

05

May

-05

Aug-

05

Nov

-05

Feb-

06

May

-06

Aug-

06

Nov

-06

Feb-

07

May

-07

Aug-

07

Nov

-07

Feb-

08

May

-08

Aug-

08

Nov

-08

Feb-

09

May

-09

Aug-

09

Nov

-09

Feb-

10

May

-10

Aug-

10

Nov

-10

Feb-

11

May

-11

Aug-

11

Nov

-11

sali

nit

y (

pp

t)

Note: 70 ppt is the upper measurement limit of the field instrument used to monitor cell salinity; actual maximum salinities may have been higher.

Figure 34 Salinity in Cell 1 Water

2004 - 2011

Cell 1 yearly means Cell 1 Montezuma Sl. Sac. R. ponding %

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan-

04

Apr-

04

Jul-0

4 O

ct-0

4 Ja

n-05

Ap

r-05

Ju

l-05

Oct

-05

Jan-

06

Apr-

06

Jul-0

6 O

ct-0

6 Ja

n-07

Ap

r-07

Ju

l-07

Oct

-07

Jan-

08

Apr-

08

Jul-0

8 O

ct-0

8 Ja

n-09

Ap

r-09

Ju

l-09

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr-

10

Jul-1

0 O

ct-1

0 Ja

n-11

Ap

r-11

Ju

l-11

Oct

-11

Jan-

12

sali

nit

y (

pp

t)



2004 - 2011


0

20

40

60

80

100

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

sali

nit

y (

pp

t)


Figure 36 Salinity in Cell 3/4 Water

2004 - 2011

Cell 3/4 yearly means Cell 3/4 Montezuma Sl. Sac. R. ponding (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Aug-

06

Nov

-06

Feb-

07

May

-07

Aug-

07

Nov

-07

Feb-

08

May

-08

Aug-

08

Nov

-08

Feb-

09

May

-09

Aug-

09

Nov

-09

Feb-

10

May

-10

Aug-

10

Nov

-10

Feb-

11

May

-11

Aug-

11

Nov

-11

sali

nit

y (

pp

t)



2006 - 2011

Cell 6 yearly means Cell 6 Montezuma Sl. Sac. R. ponding (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Dec

-04

Mar

-05

Jun-

05

Sep-

05

Dec

-05

Mar

-06

Jun-

06

Sep-

06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07

Sep-

07

Dec

-07

Mar

-08

Jun-

08

Sep-

08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09

Sep-

09

Dec

-09

Mar

-10

Jun-

10

Sep-

10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

sali

nit

y (

pp

t)


Figure 39 Salinity in Cell 8/9 Water

2005 - 2011

Cell 8/9 yearly means Cell 8/9 Montezuma Sl. Sac. R. % ponding

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Aug-

06

Nov

-06

Feb-

07

May

-07

Aug-

07

Nov

-07

Feb-

08

May

-08

Aug-

08

Nov

-08

Feb-

09

May

-09

Aug-

09

Nov

-09

Feb-

10

May

-10

Aug-

10

Nov

-10

Feb-

11

May

-11

Aug-

11

Nov

-11

sali

nit

y (

pp

t)



2006 - 2011


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb-

05

May

-05

Aug-

05

Nov

-05

Feb-

06

May

-06

Aug-

06

Nov

-06

Feb-

07

May

-07

Aug-

07

Nov

-07

Feb-

08

May

-08

Aug-

08

Nov

-08

Feb-

09

May

-09

Aug-

09

Nov

-09

Feb-

10

May

-10

Aug-

10

Nov

-10

Feb-

11

May

-11

Aug-

11

Nov

-11

sali

nit

y (

pp

t)



2005 - 2011

Cell 10 yearly means

Cell 10

Montezuma Sl.

Sac. R.

% ponding

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nov

-06

Feb-

07

May

-07

Aug-

07

Nov

-07

Feb-

08

May

-08

Aug-

08

Nov

-08

Feb-

09

May

-09

Aug-

09

Nov

-09

Feb-

10

May

-10

Aug-

10

Nov

-10

Feb-

11

May

-11

Aug-

11

Nov

-11

sali

nit

y (

pp

t)



2006 - 2011

Cell 11 yearly means Cell 11 Montezuma Sl. Sac. R. % ponding

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page A-1

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS

All samples were identified and labeled at the time of collection. Sample identification followed a specific format to ensure that all sample numbers were unique. A master sample log was maintained to track sample collection and analysis. The analytical data are organized by sample identification number in the detailed data tables (Appendices F and G). The sample identification format is described below.

All samples have a prefix denoting the sample medium as follows:

• groundwater – GW

• invertebrate tissue – IT

• plant tissue – PT

• sediment – SS

• surface water – SW

The prefix is followed by an abbreviation for the area where the samples were collected, as follows:

• incoming barges – IB

• cover sediment - C

• influent water – IW

• makeup water pond – MP-1 for the east side of the pond and MP-2 for the west side of the pond

• noncover sediment - NC

• off-site supply well – OW

• on-site monitoring wells - MW

• receiving water – RW

• reference site – RS

• rehandling facility cells – RC1, RC2, etc., for Rehandling Facility Cell 1, etc.

• restoration area sediment cells – P1C1, P1C2, etc., for Phase I Cell 1, Phase I Cell 2, etc.

• restored marsh – RM

• return water channel – RC

In the case of subsurface samples, the project area abbreviation is followed by a sample location number denoting where within each project area the sample was collected. For sediment samples, this is followed by a one-digit number corresponding to the top of the

Page A-2 2010-2011 sed & wq report final:Rev 0

sample depth interval, in feet bgs. No subsurface samples were collected during the third and fourth quarters.

The project area abbreviation (and sample depth numbers if applicable) is followed by a six-digit date. For example, a cover sediment sample collected in Phase I Cell 1 on December 31, 2003, would be named SS-PIC1-C-122303.

Field duplicate samples are named as described above, followed by a “-0.” For example: SS-PIC1-C-122303-0.

Field blank samples have the prefix “FB,” followed by a unique number corresponding to a six-digit date. For example: FB-071203.

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page B-1

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL METHODS

The following sections describe analytical methods for inorganics, organics, and miscellaneous parameters. The analytical methods are summarized on Table B-1.

Inorganics

Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc in both sediment and water samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS; EPA Method 6010B or 6020B). Mercury was analyzed in both sediment and water samples by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AA) using the cold-vapor technique (EPA Method 7471 or 7470A).

Organics

Chlorinated pesticides were analyzed by gas chromatography (GC) and electron capture detector (ECD) using EPA Method 8081. A list of all analytes is presented in Table B-2.

Miscellaneous Analyses

Miscellaneous physical and chemical analyses that were conducted as part of the monitoring program include the following:

• percent moisture in sediment

• pH in water

• EC in water

Percent moisture in sediment was determined in accordance with the procedure described in EPA 160.3, in which samples are weighed before and after oven drying to a constant weight at 104 °C. The percent moisture was used to calculate soil results on a dry-weight basis.

The pH level in water was measured in the field using a conventional pH meter with a combination electrode. Monitoring well samples were analyzed for pH using EPA Method 9040B, an electrometric procedure in which sample water pH is measured using an electrode. Sediment pH was measured in the laboratory using EPA Method 9045C, an electrometric procedure in which the sample is mixed with reagent water, and the pH of the resulting aqueous solution is measured with an electrode.

EC in water was measured in the field using a conventional pH-conductivity combination instrument. EC in monitoring well samples and in sediment was measured in the laboratory using EPA Method 120.1, which measures EC at a temperature of 25 °C using a self-contained conductivity meter.

Table B-1Analytical Methods


Page 1 of 2 1/8/2013

MediumExtractionTechnique Technique

Sediment and water Sonication and GPC GC/MS

Sediment, water, and tissue Sonication and GPC GC/ECD

Radioactivity Sediment NA Gamma spectroscopy/gross alpha and beta

Sediment and tissue Soxhlet GC/MS

Sediment and water NA ICP/AES

Sediment and water NAHydride generation/atomic fluorescence spectrometry

Sediment and water NA AA/cold-vapor

Water NA Ion-specific electrode

Biological oxygen demand Water NA Dissolved oxygen depletionChlorophyll a Water NA Spectrophotometric

Sediment NA ElectrometricHardness (as CaCO3) Water NA TitrimetricNitrates Water NA Ion-specific electrode

Sediment NA GravimetricpH Sediment NA ElectrometricRedox potential Sediment NA Electrode Reactive sulfides Sediment SW846 Ch 7 TitrimetricSettleable solids Water NA VolumetricSulfides Water and sediment NA ColorimetricTotal Kjeldahl nitrogen Water NA Ion-specific electrode

EPA 1983b

EPA Method 405.1 EPA 1983b

EPA Method 160.5 EPA 1983b

APHA 10200

EPA 9045C EPA 1983b

EPA 1983b

SW 846

Ammonia nitrogen, un-ionized ammonia

EPA Method 350.2

EPA Method 376.2

Mercury

Electrical conductivity EPA 120.1

SW-846a

SW-846a

Inorganic Analyses

EPA Method 6010B or 6020

EPA Method 7000Selenium APHA 1998d

Standard Method 3114C

Reference

SW-846a

SW-846a

EPA 1980c

Organic AnalysesMethod Number

8270SIM

EPA 901.1M EPA 900.0

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and phenols*

Parameter

EPA 130.2

EPA 160.3

Method 9034APHA 2580

EPA Method 300.0

EPA Method 351.4

EPA Method 8081/8082

Miscellaneous Analyses

Organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls*

Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc

Percent moisture

Dioxins/furans*

APHA 1998d

SW-846aEPA Method 8290

APHA 1998d

EPA 1983b

EPA 1983b

EPA 1983b

EPA 1983b

EPA 1983b

Table B-1Analytical Methods


Page 2 of 2 1/8/2013

MediumExtractionTechnique TechniqueReference

Method NumberParameter

Sediment NA TitrimetricWater EPA Method 415.2 NA Persulfate oxidation

Total phosphates Water Persulfate digestion ColorimetricTotal suspended solids Water NA GravimetricTurbidity Water NA Nephelometric

Notes:a EPA 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Third Edition SW-846. Originally issued in 1986 with promulgated revisions through 1997.b EPA 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. USEPA, EPA 600/4-79-200. Revised 1983.c EPA 1980. EPA 600/4-80-032.d APHA 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Edition. American Public Health Association, Maryland.e Walkley, A., and I. A. Black. 1934. An Examination of Degtjareff Method for Determining Soil Organic Matter and a Proposed Modification of the Chromic Acid Titration Method.

Soil Sci. 37:29-37.GC/MS Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy *AA Atomic absorption spectroscopy NA Not applicableGPC Gel permeation chromatographyCG/ECD Gas chromatography/electron capture detector

Total organic carbonEPA 1983bTotal organic carbon

See Table B-2 for list of specific analytes.

EPA 160.2EPA Method 180.1

EPA Method 365.2

Walkley-Black

EPA 1983b

Walkley and Black 1934

EPA 1983b

EPA 1983b

Table B-2Required Quantitation LimitsMontezuma Wetlands Project

Page 1 of 3 1/8/2013

Water(µg/L)

Sediment and Tissue(mg/kg)

5 0.251 0.25

Chromium 10 0.55 0.53 0.15

0.02 0.045 15 0.25

0.5 0.2520 1

1 0.0345 0.17

Acenaphthylene 10 0.340.5 0.0170.5 0.0171 0.034

0.4 0.0130.2 0.00670.1 0.00330.1 0.00330.2 0.00670.1 0.00330.1 0.00330.2 0.00670.2 0.00670.14 0.0033

10 --2-Chlorophenol 10 --2,4-Dichlorophenol 10 --2,6-Dichlorophenol 10 --2,4-Dimethylphenol 10 --4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 50 --2,4-Dinitrophenol 50 --2-Methylphenol 10 --3,4-Methylphenol 10 --2-Nitrophenol 50 --4-Nitrophenol 50 --Pentachlorophenol 10 --Phenol 10 --2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 50 --2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 10 --2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 10 --

0.5 0.0120.5 0.0121 0.024

0.5 0.012

Copper

Inorganics

Silver

Benzo(a)pyrenePyrene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Analyte

AcenaphtheneNaphthalene

Anthracene

Low Molecular Weight Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

ArsenicCadmium

Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Benzo(k)fluorantheneChryseneBenzo(g,h,i)perylene

Zinc

PhenanthreneFluorene

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

FluorantheneHigh Molecular Weight Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Polychlor inated Biphenyls (as Aroclors) Arochlor-1242

Arochlor-1221Arochlor-1254

Arochlor-1232

LeadMercuryNickelSelenium

Phenols4-Chloro-3-methylphenol


Page 2 of 3 1/8/2013

Water(µg/L)

Sediment and Tissue(mg/kg)

0.5 0.0120.5 0.0120.5 0.012

0.05 0.003Alpha-BHC 0.05 0.003Beta-BHC 0.05 0.003Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.05 0.003

0.5 0.030.1 0.0060.1 0.0060.1 0.0060.1 0.0060.05 0.0030.1 0.0060.1 0.0060.05 0.0030.05 0.003

1 0.061 0.06

0.5 0.03Water(pg/L)

Sediment(pg/g)

10 110 125 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.525 2.550 550 5

Water(units as noted)

Sediment and Tissue(units as noted)

Percent moisture -- 0.10%Total organic carbon 1 mg/L 0.10%pH 0.1 pH units 0.1 pH unitsSulfides 0.1 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kgTotal Kjeldahl nitrogen 1 mg/L 4 mg/kgTotal nitrate 0.01 mg/L --Total phosphate 0.1 mg/L --

EndosulfanEndrinEndrin aldehyde

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD

MirexMethoxychlor

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD

2,3,7,8-TCDF

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF

Arochlor-1248

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF

2,3,7,8-TCDD

DDDDDE

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD

DDT

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF

Pesticides

Arochlor-1016

Conventional ParametersAnalyte

Arochlor-1260

Aldrin

Dieldrin

Chlordane

Polychlor inated Biphenyls (as Aroclors), continuedAnalyte

AnalytePolychlor inated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins/Polychlor inated Dibenzofurans

Toxaphene

HeptachlorHeptachlor epoxide


Page 3 of 3 1/8/2013

Water(units as noted)

Sediment and Tissue(units as noted)

Total suspended solids 5 mg/L --Phenols 10-50 µg/L --Turbidity 0.02 NTU --Hardness (as CaCO3) 3.3 mg/L --

Notes:DDD - DichlorodiphenyldichloroethaneDDE - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethylene DDT - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane HpCDD - Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinHpCDF - HeptachlorodibenzofuranHxCDD - Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinHxCDF - Hexachlorodibenzofuranmg/kg - Milligrams per kilogrammg/L - Milligrams per literpg/g - Picograms per grampg/L - Picograms per literNTU - Nephelometric turbidity unitsOCDD - Octochlorodibenzo-p-dioxinOCDF - OctochlorodibenzofuranPeCDD - Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinPeCDF - PentachlorodibenzofuranTCDD - Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinTCDF - Tetrachlorodibenzofuranµg/L - Micrograms per liter

Analyte

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page C-1

APPENDIX C: DATA MANAGEMENT

Data transfer from the laboratories was performed electronically. This procedure eliminates human transcription errors and streamlines the process for data tracking and validation. The laboratories provided electronic data deliverables according to specific content and format guidelines developed by the data manager. Electronic data deliverables were spot checked against the corresponding hard copy reports for at least 20% of the data received. Data were stored in an MS Access database, and queries were developed to allow extraction of data into compiled review tables. The data tables are presented in Appendices F and G. These data tables were reviewed by the project ecologist prior to presentation in this report. The data tables were spot checked against the corresponding hard copy reports. Any apparent discrepancies were clarified with the analytical laboratories, and any corrections to the database were documented in notes associated with the relevant records. Data were validated after entry in the database. Data validation involves specific procedures for evaluating precision, accuracy, completeness, and other data quality objectives (DQOs). These quality assurance steps are presented in Appendix D.

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page D-1

APPENDIX D: DATA VALIDATION

Data collected during 2010 and 2011 were checked, validated, and reduced before inclusion in this report. Validation of 2010/2011 data did not indicate any significant problems with the field sampling program or laboratory performance. DQOs and data validation procedures and results are summarized below. The results of a detailed assessment of sensitivity, blank contamination, precision, and accuracy conducted by data management staff at SFEI for the 2010/2011 data are also provided below. Laboratory QC sample results are presented in Appendices F and G.

Completeness. Data completeness is evaluated by comparing the number of analyses required by the QAPP (and subsequent revisions adopted with the approval of the RWQCB) with the number of reported analyses, and by assessing the sufficiency of the data reported in fulfilling project objectives. For the former, the target completion rate is 100%, while the latter is qualitatively assessed.

Data completeness was tracked and checked with a sample log. The sample log was filled out using the chain-of-custody forms prepared by the field samplers, and was used to check that all requested analyses were provided by the laboratories. Any sample results reported for samples analyzed past recommended holding times would be considered invalid and would not be used for quantitative purposes other than for duplicate sample comparisons.

The assessment of completeness for 2010 and 2011 determined that sampling met the requirements of the QAPP (and subsequent revisions adopted with the approval of the RWQCB). In some cases, more sampling was conducted than required, for example, additional surface and groundwater sampling for pesticides following placement of the LRTC material in Cell 11. All requested data were received from the analytical laboratory. Collected data were sufficient to fulfill the objectives of the monitoring program (see Section 2.7).

Comparability. To ensure that the data were comparable to both previous and subsequent data, standardized procedures were followed during field sampling activities and laboratory analyses. No comparability problems were encountered with 2010/2011 data. Consistent sampling methods, analytical procedures, and measurement units were used.

Representativeness. Representativeness describes how relevant the data are to the actual environmental conditions being measured. Problems can occur if:

• samples are collected in a location that does not reflect the environment of interest (e.g., if receiving water samples are collected upstream from the discharge point)

• samples are taken under unusual conditions (e.g., if surface-water samples are taken under extremely high rainfall conditions)

Page D-2 2010-2011 sed & wq report final:Rev 0

samples are not analyzed or processed appropriately, causing conditions in the sample

to change (e.g., if conventional water-quality parameters such as temperature and DO

are not taken immediately)

Representativeness was ensured by collecting samples and direct measurements as described

in the QAPP, and by using a state-certified analytical laboratory. Data collected in 2010 and

2011 were adequately representative.

Sensitivity. Sensitivity is the ability of an analytical instrument to detect concentrations of

target chemicals. Required quantitation limits are shown in Table B-2. Sensitivity was

assessed by screening the reporting limits (RLs) reported for all data for possible

unacceptably high limits and consistency from one sampling round to another.

RLs achieved in 2008 and 2009 sampling were often slightly higher than the project’s target

RLs as described below. However, the actual RLs were still below the relevant criteria for all

analytes.

Precision and Accuracy. Precision describes how well repeated measurements agree.

Precision is measured by the analytical laboratory using field duplicates, laboratory

replicates, and matrix spike duplicates. Field duplicates measure the combined random error

(imprecision) due to sampling and analysis as well as the short-range heterogeneity of the

sampled medium between the juxtaposed locations or times. Laboratory replicates and matrix

spike duplicates are used to measure the contribution of the analytical process to the overall

imprecision of data. Goals for precision, measured as relative percent difference (RPD)

between duplicates, vary by analytical method and are shown on Table D-1.

Accuracy describes how close a measurement is to its true value. Accuracy is assessed by

analyzing a sample of known concentration and comparing the measured value against the

known value. Accuracy is measured by the analytical laboratory using matrix spikes, which

are samples prepared using the batch sample matrix (e.g., sediment) and adding a

predetermined quantity of target chemicals. Following analysis, percent recovery of the

“spike” is calculated. Accuracy goals, expressed as percent recovery of spike concentrations,

vary by analytical method and are shown on Table D-1.

Precision and accuracy of 2010 and 2011 data were evaluated using quantitative assessments

of laboratory and field QC sample results. Laboratory QC samples included method blanks,

blank spikes, laboratory control standards, laboratory control standard duplicates, matrix

spikes, and matrix spike duplicates. These samples were analyzed according to the

requirements of each analytical method.

Blanks

Data from blank samples were evaluated along with the data for those samples with which

the blanks are associated. The maximum detectable concentration of each COC in any

associated blank was used in the evaluation of data.


If the blank contained detectable concentrations of chemicals the sample results were only considered positive detections if the sample concentrations exceeded 10 times the maximum amount detected in any blank. The sample results were flagged as “suspect” in the database if they were less than 10 times the blank detections. One detection of low level mercury was measured in a blank sample during 2010 and 2011 as discussed below.

Duplicates and Spikes

Spike results were evaluated for accuracy and expressed as percent recovery for each spike compound. The percent recovery is the difference in concentration between the total concentration in the spike sample and the original concentration in the sample divided by the actual spike concentration added to the sample. The percent recovery was computed on a chemical-by-chemical basis for spiked sample data. The percent recovery must be within the limits shown on Table D-1. For surrogate spikes, the laboratory generates control limits within which the percent recovery must fall, as shown in Table D-1.

Duplicates were evaluated for data precision, using the RPD values. RPD is the difference in concentrations between a sample and its duplicate, divided by their average concentration, expressed as a percentage. The RPD must be within the limits shown on Table D-1.

Percent recovery and RPD values in 2010 and 2011 data were within target limits for most QC samples. The exceptions were inorganics in water, for which 29 matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries (representing 4% of analytical samples) were outside the target range as described below.

Field QC Samples

Field QC checks entailed field collection of control samples to be introduced to the laboratory as blind samples. Field QC samples required by the QAPP include equipment blanks (one per piece of sampling equipment per sampling event), trip blanks (one per week), and field duplicates (one per 20 samples for all analytes except for low level mercury in surface water for which a duplicate sample is collected more frequently). Equipment blanks and field duplicates were collected in accordance with the QAPP. Field blanks are part of the low-level mercury sampling protocol, and were collected and analyzed for low-level mercury as part of quarterly sampling in the monitoring wells. Although not required by the QAPP, split samples for inorganics in water were routinely analyzed by an alternate laboratory at a frequency of approximately 25%. These results generally agreed well with results obtained by the main laboratory; split sample results are available upon request. Trip blanks were not collected since these blanks are only necessary for analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs); no VOC analysis at the site was conducted in 2010/2011.

Equipment blanks for low-level mercury during the reporting period showed detections ranging from 0.00027 to 0.0063 µg/l. Field blanks for low-level mercury also showed detections ranging from 0.00018 to 0.00037 µg/l. These detections were often below


reporting limits (0.0004 to 0.001 µg/l), and are likely the result of uncertainty in quantifying concentrations near detection limits.

Equipment blanks for other inorganic COCs showed four detections of copper and one detection of zinc near the respective RLs.

Field duplicate results agreed well with results of corresponding samples, with the exception of two field duplicates measured for zinc (280 and 41 µg/l), one for arsenic (5.4 µg/l), one for copper (ND <5 µg/l), one for nickel (71 µg/l), and one for pH (7.7; analytical problems were encountered during analysis of this sample).

The project ecologist validated data obtained from field measurements (e.g., direct measurement of pH and temperature) by checking procedures used in the field and comparing current measurements with historical data to check for any unexplained departures from past trends. To allow comparison of data from different sampling episodes, results were reported in consistent units. Few apparent outliers were observed in 2010 and 2011 field measurements. There were isolated instances where values were removed from the data set due to significant difference from historic data and suspected field equipment issues.

Detailed QA/QC Assessment

Sensitivity, blank contamination, precision, and accuracy were reviewed by data managers at SFEI for conformance with the project’s QA/QC targets. Sensitivity was assessed by comparing RLs to the target RLs in Table B-2. Laboratory blank results were reviewed for the presence of contamination. Percent recoveries and RPDs among replicate samples were compared to the project’s precision and accuracy goals (Table D-1). The results of the data managers’ assessment are presented in the following case narratives.

QA/QC Summary of Sediment Inorganics

Sensitivity. One sediment sample from each make-up pond and one sediment sample from Cell 11 were analyzed in 2010 and 2011. Average actual RLs exceeded the project’s target RL for all analytes with the exception of nickel. The average actual RL exceeded the target RL by a factor of 2.83 for arsenic, cadmium, silver and zinc, 1.41 for chromium and copper, 4.71 for lead, 1.21 for mercury, and 5.59 for selenium. The target RLs were 0.25, 0.25, 0.5, 0.5, 0.15, 0.04, 0.25, 0.25, and 1 mg/kg for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc, respectively.

Blank Contamination. All blank sample results in 2010 and 2011 were reported as non-detects. Blanks for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc were reported at or below the project’s target RLs. Lead and selenium had their blank result reported with RLs exceeding the target RLs by factors of 1.67 and 2, respectively.

Accuracy. All of the blank spike percent recoveries were reported within the project’s accuracy goals of 75-125% of target values. Percent recoveries for matrix spikes for all


analytes were also within the target range with the exception of one matrix spike for mercury and its corresponding matrix spike duplicate. Percent recovery in the matrix spike was 28% and percent recovery in the matrix spike duplicate was 141%.

Precision. All matrix spike and blank spike duplicates were reported within the target of <35% RPD for all analytes.

QA/QC Summary of Conventional Sediment Analytes

Sensitivity. The project has required quantitation limits for the following conventional sediment analytes: percent moisture, total organic carbon, pH, sulfide, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. During 2010 and 2011, total organic carbon, pH, sulfide and specific conductance were measured in one sediment sample; pH was measured in an additional two sediment samples.

The actual RL for total organic carbon was lower than the project’s target RL of 0.1%. The results for pH were all reported to at least the nearest 0.1 SU, the same as the target RL of 0.1 SU (pH is not a linear measurement and thus does not have a lower bound RL in the usual sense). The actual RL for sulfide (32 mg/kg) exceeded the target RL of 0.1 mg/kg) However, sulfide was detected at a level more than two times the actual RL. The actual RL for specific conductance was 1 µmhos/cm. There is no target RL for specific conductance.

Blank Contamination. There were no method blanks analyzed in 2010 and 2011.

Accuracy. All total organic carbon spike recoveries were within the project’s target range of 75%-125%. Both sulfide matrix spike samples were outside of the project’s target range of 75%-125%, the lowest being 48%. There were no blank spikes reported in 2010 and 2011.

Precision. All duplicate samples met the project’s precision goals for total organic carbon, sulfide, and pH. The project has no specific target for precision for specific conductance, but all samples were reported with a RPD between results of 1%.

QA/QC Summary of Sediment PAHs

Three sediment samples were analyzed for PAHs during the reporting period.

Sensitivity. All analytes’ actual average RLs exceeded the project’s target RLs, with the exception of napthalene and acenaphthylene. All analytes had an actual average RL of 50.6 µg/kg.

Blank Contamination. A single blank was reported for all analytes. There were no blank detections above an RL of 4.9 µg/kg. This RL exceeds the project’s target RL for chrysene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, but falls below the target RL for all other analytes.


Accuracy. All matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries fell within the project’s target range of 30 to 150%.

Precision. All matrix spike duplicate samples were reported below the project’s target of 40% RPD.

QA/QC Summary of Sediment Pesticides

Three sediment samples were analyzed for pesticides during the reporting period.

Sensitivity. Average actual RLs were above the project’s target RLs for all of the pesticide analytes except alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane. All other analytes average actual RL exceeded the project’s target RLs by factors ranging between 6.1 and 12.1.

Blank Contamination. All blank samples in 2010 and 2011 were reported as non-detects. All RLs for blanks were equal to or lower than the project’s target RLs, with the exception of endosulfan II and endosulfan sulfate. Both of these analytes exceeded the project’s target RL by a factor of 0.1.

Accuracy. All blank spike, matrix spike, and matrix spike duplicate samples in 2010 and 2011 had percent recoveries within the project’s target range of 30% to 150%.

Precision. All matrix spike duplicates were reported with RPDs below the project’s target of 30%. There were no blank spike duplicates analyzed in 2010 or 2011.

QA/QC Summary of Sediment PCBs

Three sediment samples were analyzed for PCBs during the reporting period.

Sensitivity. The average actual RLs for all analytes exceeded each of the project’s target RLs by a factor of 2.44.

Blank Contamination. All blank samples in 2010 and 2011 were reported as non-detects. For all analytes, the average actual RLs were below the project’s target RLs.

Accuracy. Percent recoveries for matrix spikes were within the project’s target range of 30%-150% for one of four samples. The other spike samples had recoveries of 165% and 193% for Arocolor-1016 and 153% for Aroclor-1260. There were no blank spikes in 2010 or 2011.

Precision. RPD values among matrix spike replicate measurements were all met the target of <30% RPD for all PCBs. No lab replicates or blank spike duplicates were performed in 2010 or 2011.


QA/QC Summary of Water Inorganics

Sensitivity. Average actual RLs exceeded the project’s target RLs for all analytes with the exception of nickel. The average actual RL exceeded the target RL by a factor of 1 for arsenic copper and selenium, 2 for cadmium, 19 for mercury, 1.2 for nickel, 4.2 for silver, and 1.4 for zinc. The average actual RL for chromium was equal to the target RL. The target RLs were 5, 1, 10, 5, 0.02, 5, 5, 0.5, and 20 µg/L for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc, respectively. Low level mercury was also measured in 2010 and 2011, with an average actual RL of 14.5 ng/L; there is no target RL for this analyte.

Blank Contamination. All blank samples in 2010 and 2011 were reported as non-detects except for one low-level mercury method blank that detected mercury at 0.028 ng/L. Chromium method blank results were reported at their target RL. All other analytes had at least one blank sample with an RL above the target. Arsenic, lead, nickel, and selenium had one sample each with an RL above the target. For other inorganics, the average RL exceeded the target RL by a factor of 2.03 for cadmium, 1.08 for copper, 10.4 for mercury, 3.82 for silver, and 1.18 for zinc. The target RLs were 1, 5, 0.02, 0.5, 20 µg/L for cadmium, copper, mercury, silver, and zinc, respectively. Low-level mercury results do not have a target RL; the average actual RL for method blanks was 0.54 ng/L.

Accuracy. Recoveries for blank spikes were all within the target range of 75-125%, except for one zinc sample with a recovery of 162%. For matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, 29 recoveries (representing 4% of analytical samples) were outside of this range: 5 for copper, 3 for mercury, 8 for nickel, 2 for silver, and 11 for zinc. These recoveries ranged from 300% to 524%.

Precision. RPD among blank and matrix spike replicate measurements was acceptable and within the target range of <35% RPD, except for four zinc matrix spike duplicates and two copper matrix spike duplicates. These recoveries ranged from 39% to 153%. There were no lab replicate measurements.

QA/QC Summary of Conventional Water Analytes

Sensitivity. The project has required quantitation limits for the following conventional water analytes: total organic carbon, pH, sulfide, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrate, total phosphate, total suspended solids, turbidity, and hardness. In 2010 and 2011, only pH and specific conductance were measured.

The results for pH were all reported to the nearest 0.1 SU which is the target RL; pH is not a linear measurement and thus does not have a lower bound RL in the usual sense. The actual RLs for specific conductance were all 1 µmhos/cm. There is no target RL for specific conductance.


Blank Contamination. Blank results for specific conductance were all below their RL of 1 µmho/cm; however, there is no target RL for specific conductance. Because pH is not a direct concentration measurement, there were no blank results to report for pH.

Accuracy. The project does not have accuracy goals for specific conductance or pH.

Precision. The project has precision goals for total organic carbon, sulfide, and pH. In 2010 and 2011, the RPD among lab replicate measurements achieved the target range of <10% RPD for pH. Although there is no precision goal for specific conductance, replicate measurements were within 10% of one another. No blank spike duplicates were performed in 2010 or 2011.

QA/QC Summary of Water Pesticides

Sensitivity. Average actual RLs were above the project’s target RLs for all of the pesticide analytes except alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane. All other analytes exceeded the project’s target RLs by factors between 1.24 and 3.11.

Blank Contamination. All blank samples in 2010 and 2011 were reported as non-detects. Actual RLs for all method blanks were at or below their target RLs for all pesticide analytes, except for endosulfan II and endosulfan sulfate, which had actual RLs higher than the target RL (0.05 µg/L) by a factor of 2.

Accuracy. Percent recoveries for the blank spikes and matrix spikes were within the project’s target limits (30-150% of target values) for all analytes, except for one aldrin blank spike duplicate which had a percent recovery of 153%. There were also 8 LCS samples with recoveries outside the project’s limits. These LCS recoveries ranged from 13% for 4,4’-DDT to 167% for gamma-BHC.

Precision. RPD values among blank spike and matrix spike replicate measurements achieved the target range of <30% RPD for all pesticides. No lab duplicates were performed for pesticides in 2010 or 2011.

Table D-1Precision and Accuracy GoalsMontezuma Wetlands Project

Page 1 of 1 1/8/2013

% Recovery RPDInorganics 75-125 35

30-150 4030-150 3050-150 50

NA 10 75 - 125 35

Sulfides 75-125 20NA 10

Notes:NA Not applicableRPD Relative percent difference* See Table B-2 for a list of specific analytes.

Total organic carbon

pH

Conventional Parameters

Parameter

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and phenols*Organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls*Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/polychlorinated dibenzofurans*

Organics

Percent moisture

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page E-1

APPENDIX E: AUDITS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

Field personnel participated in periodic internal performance and system audits conducted by the project manager, the project ecologist, and/or other staff chosen by the project manager and project ecologist. Internal audits were also conducted by the data manager, including evaluation of QC data and validation of all data collected throughout the monitoring program. Internal laboratory performance and system audits were conducted according to the specifications of the individual analytical laboratories.

Internal Audits

Field Personnel Performance

The project ecologist and/or senior field staff monitored sampling operations and reviewed documentation of field activities to ascertain adherence to the sampling protocols described in the QAPP. Sampling schedules were regularly reviewed with field staff and discrepancies corrected as needed. Minor deviations from the sampling program defined in the QAPP were observed. These deviations primarily consisted of oversampling, for example, water sampling for inorganics in surface water of cover cells and sampling for DDTs in Cell 11 water and nearby monitoring wells as described in Section 3.2. In some cases, samples were collected slightly ahead of or behind schedule due to rain delays or equipment failures. No procedures or omissions that might compromise the quality of field data were observed.

System Audits

In accordance with the QAPP, annual (or as needed) system audits were performed by the project manager, project ecologist, field staff, and data manager. System audits performed to date made the following evaluations and recommendations:

Appropriateness of the sampling for the project area and the intended monitoring program objectives (see Section 2.7). Review of sampling results from 2010 and 2011 indicates that monitoring is sufficient to assess the sediment and water quality characteristics of the site and operations. The frequency of analysis for organics was reduced in consultation with the RWQCB at the end of 2004 based on the rarity of detections. Discontinuation of dioxin and radiation analysis in sediment was proposed at that time, but that sampling has continued pending discussions with Solano County. The TRT is in the process of conducting an in-depth review of the project’s monitoring plan to evaluate possible updates to the project’s monitoring plan. This effort will involve coordination with existing and proposed regional monitoring programs, including the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP), the Delta RMP, the Bay Area Wetlands RMP for Mercury, and the Statewide Wetlands and Riparian Area Monitoring Program. Changes to the sampling program in light of TRT recommendations may be put forth for agency approval in the future.

Page E-2 2010-2011 sed & wq report final:Rev 0

Effect of sampling protocols on data quality and validity. No problems were encountered

Significance of sample custody and handling methods for sample integrity. The time required to complete some monitoring tasks and the remoteness of the site mean that pH analyses of monitoring well samples is almost always performed outside hold time. The maximum hold time for laboratory pH analysis is 24 hours, and it is not feasible to collect, pack, and transport samples to the laboratory in time for analysis to be performed within 24 hours of collection. Measurements of pH are also made in the field at the time the well samples are collected.

Sample tracking and documentation procedures in data validation, field sampling, and analytical methodologies. No problems were encountered

Appropriateness of analytical methods. Water samples from the makeup water pond and sediment placement cells that were analyzed for inorganics by ICP/MS were typically analyzed at 20 times dilution to overcome salinity interferences as noted in Section 4.2. The laboratory was able to achieve reporting limits well below criteria at these dilutions for analytes except for mercury (see below), so the analytical method is appropriate to meet the monitoring objectives.

Reporting limits for mercury in water are typically below the operational action level for mercury in the makeup water pond and sediment placement cells. This action level (1/2 the WDR discharge limit) is not a permit requirement but rather an action level adopted by the project as an early indicator that COCs are approaching levels that, upon recycling into the makeup pond, could exceed RWQCB discharge requirements. Lower reporting limits for mercury attainable using low-level mercury analysis (EPA Method 1631); this method is used for analysis of monitoring well samples to supplement conventional mercury analysis. Low level mercury analysis has occasionally been conducted on surface water samples at the site; detections were one to two orders of magnitude below the action level. Mercury is very rarely detected in site surface water by normal analytical methods. Routine analysis of cell and makeup water pond samples by Method 1631 does not appear to be warranted given the consistent absence of detections at or near the action level by either analytical method. However, in response to TRT recommendations, low-level mercury analysis of surface water samples will be conducted periodically once sediment placement resumes at the site.

Sufficiency and appropriateness of quality control checks for ensuring data quality. No problems were encountered.

External Audits

Routine laboratory performance review was conducted throughout 2010 and 2011 and consisted of assessment of parameters such as data completeness, sensitivity, precision and accuracy (described in Appendix D); accuracy of data deliverables; and the reproducibility of results as measured by field duplicate samples. Laboratory performance was acceptable during 2010 and 2011. A few analytical problems were encountered as described in Appendix D, and high salinity in most cell samples prompted analysis for inorganic COCs at

2010-2011 sed & wq report final: Rev 0 Page E-3

20 times dilution to overcome interferences. However, the laboratory obtained analytical equipment in 2006 that is able to analyze at those dilutions while still achieving low reporting limits. This new instrument is also better equipped to measure inorganic COCs in samples with high levels of dissolved solids, and the lab has advised that some of the detections observed prior to 2006 may have been false positives due to salinity interferences (LEG 2009). Overall, there were no significant problems with laboratory performance during the reporting period.

Date post:	17-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vucong
View:	234 times
Download:	2 times

sed & wq rpt text...

Documents