DOCUMENT 01100

ATTACHMENT A SPECIAL PROVISIONS – REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

• Notice of Intent for the Proposed Dredging of Docks 16 through 18. Port of Stockton – West Complex. Rough and Ready Island, Stockton, California. Environmental Risk Services Corporation. October 2013.

• John F. Baldwin and Stockton Ship Channels 20 April – 06 May 2015 Condition Survey

• Dillon and Murphy, Port of Stockton Robert’s Island I Topographic Survey August 1997

• Dillon and Murphy, Port of Stockton Robert’s Island I Topographic Survey August 2005

• Dillon and Murphy, Port of Stockton Robert’s Island I Topographic Survey February 2013

• Dillon and Murphy, Port of Stockton Robert’s Island I Proposed Levee Plan for Dredge Material Placement Site September 2014

Port of Stockton Dock 16 Through 18 Cover Sheet Maintenance Dredging NNOOTTIICCEE OOFF IINNTTEENNTT ffoorr tthhee PPRROOPPOOSSEEDD DDRREEDDGGIINNGG ooff DDOOCCKKSS 1166 tthhrroouugghh 1188

PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX ROUGH AND READY ISLAND STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA October 2013

Environmental Risk Services Corporation

NOTICE OF INTENT for the PROPOSED DREDGING of DOCKS 16 through 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX ROUGH AND READY ISLAND STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

October 2013

Submitted by: Port of Stockton Stockton, California

Prepared by: Environmental Risk Services Corporation Walnut Creek, California

______Mark J. O’Brien Leslie Shields Project Manager Project Scientist

______Peter Weiler, Ph.D. Senior Hydrogeophysicist

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Historical Dredged Depth...... 1 1.2 Summary Description of Project...... 2 1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the Project...... 2 1.4 Economic Development ...... 3 1.5 Regulatory Setting...... 3 1.5.1 General Order R5‐2009‐0085...... 3 1.5.2 General Project Applicability ...... 4 1.5.3 CEQA Compliance...... 5 1.6 Benefits of Dredging...... 6 1.7 Structure of this NOI ...... 6

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 6 2.1 Dredge Sediment Removal...... 7 2.2 Dredge Sediment Placement ...... 7 2.3 Dredge and Placement Site Monitoring...... 8 2.4 Reuse of Dredge Sediment ...... 9

3. CHARACTERIZATION OF SEDIMENT AND RIVER WATER ...... 10 3.1 Field Methods...... 10 3.2 Whole Sediment Bioassays ...... 11 3.2.1 Amphipod Survival and Growth (Hyallela Azteca) ...... 12 3.2.2 Midge Survival and Growth (Chironimus dilutus) ...... 12 3.3 Standard Elutriate Test (SET) Preparation ...... 12 3.3.1 Acute and Chronic SET Biotoxicity of Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas) ... 13 3.3.2 SET Analytical Chemistry...... 13 3.4 Pre‐Dredge Sediment Total Chemistry Results...... 13 3.4.1 Evaluation of Total Dredge Sediment Chemistry...... 14 3.5 Pre‐Dredge Sediment Leachate Results (DIWET)...... 14 3.5.1 Evaluation of Potential Threat to Ground Water ...... 15 3.6 Modified Elutriate Test ...... 16 3.7 River Water Chemistry...... 16

October 2013 i Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

4. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM UPLAND PLACEMENT OF SEDIMENTS...... 16 4.1 Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Ground Water Quality...... 17 4.2 Mitigation Of Potential Impacts to Surface Water Quality...... 17 4.3 Mitigation of Potential Capacity and Infiltration Limitations At RN1 ...... 17

5. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM DREDGING...... 18 5.1 Removal of sediment from the riverbed...... 18 5.2 Turbidity...... 19 5.2.1 Mitigation of Potential Turbidity from Sediment Suspended During Dredging ...... 19 5.2.2 Mitigation of Potential Turbidity in Water Returned to DWSC from RN1 ...... 19 5.3 Toxicity ...... 20 5.3.1 Mitigation of Potential Toxicity from Sediment Suspended During Dredging ...... 20 5.3.2 Sediment Suspended in Returned Water...... 20 5.4 Dissolved Oxygen ‐ Hydraulic Dredging and Returned Water ...... 20 5.4.1 Short‐Term Near‐Field Effects...... 21 5.4.2 Long‐Term Far‐Field Effects...... 22

6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 22 6.1 Summary of Dock 16 Through 18 Data ...... 22 6.2 Summary of Dredging and Placement Mitigation Measures...... 23

REFERENCES...... 25

REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST ...... 29

October 2013 ii Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Total Sediment Chemistry Results Table 2. DIWET Sediment Chemistry Results Table 3. Standard Elutriate Test (SET) Chemistry Results Table 4. Total Dioxin and Furan Sediment Chemistry Results Table 5. Calculation of Attenuation Capacity in Native Soil at Roberts Island Table 6. San Joaquin River Chemistry Results

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Port of Stockton Rough and Ready Island Location Map Figure 2. Port of Stockton West Complex Sediment Sampling Locations Figure 3. Roberts No. 1 Dredge Sediment Placement Facility Figure 4. Dredge Sediment Sampling Schematic

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1 Total Sediment Metal Concentrations, Dock 16 through 18, RN1, and USACE Stockton DWSC

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Bathymetric Data for West Complex Docks 16 through 20 (Sea Surveyor, 2013) Appendix B. RN1 dredge placement area capacity survey (Dillon and Murphy, 2013) Appendix C. Operations Plan for the Dredging and Placement of Dock 16 through 18 Sediment at the RN1 Placement Facility Appendix D. Pacific Ecorisk Data Report: Biological Testing of the Sediment Samples Collected from the West Complex Appendix E. Evaluation of Near and Far Field Turbidity Appendix F. Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Analytical Reports

October 2013 iii Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

1. INTRODUCTION

Environmental Risk Services Corporation (ERS) has prepared this Notice of Intent (NOI) on behalf of the Port of Stockton (Port) for the proposed maintenance dredging of sediments at Docks 16 through 18 at the Port’s West Complex facility on Rough and Ready Island (Figure 1). This NOI has been prepared in consideration of the requirements in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, Fourth Edition (Basin Plan), the California Water Code, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley (Board) General Order No. R5‐2009‐0085 Waste Discharge Requirements for Maintenance Dredging Operations.

The seven docks at the West Complex, numbered Docks 14 through 20, extend approximately 6,300 feet along the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel (DWSC). Currently, there are large areas of shallow draft at Docks 16 through 18 that are not adequate for most modern ships.

Docks 14 and 15 at the Port’s West Complex were dredged to ‐35 feet Mean Low Low Water (MLLW) in 2006 and 2007 under the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order number R5‐2006‐0078. The maintenance dredge depth at the Port’s adjacent East Complex is ‐35 feet MLLW. Maintenance dredging proposed at the West Complex docks 16‐18 is needed to maintain the safe navigation of ships and will be consistent with the draft that already exists at the East Complex, the West Complex Docks 14 and 15, and in the adjacent Stockton DWSC maintained by the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE).

The West Complex Development Plan (Port, 2002) and subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR; Port, 2004) anticipated dredging to ‐35 feet at all seven West Complex docks to allow the Port to remain viable and competitive in the marketplace. The dredging proposed in this NOI is consistent with the development plans for the Port and the historical depths of Docks 16 through 20. This report presents data collected in November 2012 characterizing dredge sediments at Docks 16‐18.

1.1 HISTORICAL DREDGED DEPTH

Previous maintenance dredging performed by the Port of Stockton at the West Complex has been done to a depth of approximately ‐32 feet MLLW. West Complex Docks 14 and 15 were dredged under a permit that considered dredging beneath ‐30 feet MLLW to be deepening relative to the historical dredge depth. New data (ERS, 2013) indicates that these docks were historically dredged to a depth of at least ‐35 feet MLLW, and can therefore be dredged under the General Order for maintenance dredging No. R5‐2009‐0085.

October 2013 1 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

1.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

Hydraulic dredging methods employed by the Port and USACE are proposed to deliver a slurry consisting of approximately 10 percent solids (sediment) and 90 percent water to dredge sediment placement facilities at the Roberts No.1 dredge sediment placement facility (RN1). This NOI proposes to hydraulically dredge Docks 16 through 18 to the historical depth of ‐35 feet MLLW, plus 2 foot of over‐dredge to accommodate the typical accuracy limitations of dredging equipment. A more detailed description of dredging and placement operations is included in the Operations Plan (Appendix C). The Project consists of the following elements:

1. Hydraulic dredging will be employed to remove sediment to a depth of approximately 35 feet below MLLW plus overdredge between Docks 16 and 18 at the southern margin of the Stockton DWSC. 2. The slurry of approximately 10% solids and 90% river water will be placed at Roberts No. 1 (RN1), a specially designed, managed, and permitted dredge sediment placement facility on the adjacent Roberts Island. 3. River water quality will be monitored during dredging, and ponded water retained at the placement site will be monitored daily during dredging and after placement. Water retained at the placement site will not be discharged to the San Joaquin River without analyzing a sample of the effluent in accordance with the WDR. 4. Annual ground water monitoring of the placement site will be performed in accordance with the amended WDR R5‐2006‐0078. The monitoring will be designed to generate data characterizing near term and longer term chemical characteristics of the sediment and water. 5. Following placement, dewatering and settlement, the sediment is planned for reuse in accordance with the upland reuse specifications provided by the Board. A NOI will be submitted to the Board prior to the reuse of sediment, summarizing the project, reuse site and dredge sediment chemistry.

1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The purpose of the proposed Project is to maintain a draft of ‐35 feet MLLW adjacent to West Complex Docks 16 through 18, and to monitor sediment and water during dredging activities. The information and data collected from the Project will be interpreted along with the data generated by the ongoing monitoring of dredge sediments and ground water at RN1, including the placement of sediment conventionally dredged from the Stockton DWSC by USACE.

October 2013 2 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

1.4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

A majority of the commercial shipping fleet requires a minimum ‐35 feet of draft to safely navigate and berth. USACE annually maintains ‐35 feet of draft within the Stockton DWSC to safely accommodate ship navigation to the Port of Stockton’s East Complex and Docks 14 and 15. The acquisition of the West Complex by the Port from the Navy in 2001 requires the Port to operate Rough and Ready Island as a maritime port. In addition, reestablishing the ‐35 foot draft at Docks 16 through 18 will help maintain the economic viability of the Port and of the region.

1.5 REGULATORY SETTING

Under the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act, applicants must obtain a permit from the appropriate Regional Board before undertaking an activity that could result in a discharge to surface water and/or ground water resources of the State of California. This NOI provides the basis for the Regional Board to consider approval of the proposed Project under General Order R5‐2009‐0085.

1.5.1 General Order R5‐2009‐0085

In August 2009, the Board approved the General Order R5‐2009‐0085 (General Order) for specific types of maintenance dredging within the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta. The requirements and applicability of this project to the General Order are provided in the matrix in Table 1 below.

Table 1: General Order Requirements

Is the requirement Requirement How is the requirement addressed? met in the RWD? Cover letter requesting coverage under The coverage under WDR R5‐2009‐0085 yes the general order is requested in Section 1 The project applicability to the Justification of applicability to yes requirements in the WDR are described maintenance dredging criteria in Section 1.5.2 A description of the dredge site and A complete description of the dredging yes operations is provided in Section 2 as operation and site well as the Site operations plan

October 2013 3 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

The project description of the placement A complete description of the placement yes site facility operations is provided in operation and site Section 2

A description of proposed best BMPs for dredging operations are management practices (BMPs) for yes included in the Operations Plan in dredging and placement and/or reuse Appendix E

The permit fee will be submitted by the Permit fee pending Applicant prior to dredging operation Analytical results for the pre‐dredge Results of the technical analysis of pre sediments from the West Complex are yes dredge sediments discussed in Section 5 and presented in Tables 2 through 6 Monitoring plan outlining steps for Required compliance monitoring is yes compliance with the MRP specified in the General Order Projects in compliance with the Documentation and compliance with maintenance dredging of less than yes CEQA 100,000 cubic yards are categorically exempt from the CEQA process. Copies of the applications for dredging, Applications for additional permits will or permits from applicable states and pending be submitted prior to dredging agencies The dredge and placement operations Operations plan yes plans are included in Appendix C

Erosion control plan no Not applicable to project

Traffic management plan no Not applicable to project

1.5.2 General Project Applicability

Section 16 of the General Order excludes projects that meet one or more of the seven criteria listed below. The following provides the rationale for this projects applicability to the General Order. “a. Are within the Sacramento and Stockton Deep Water Ship Channels;”

October 2013 4 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

• Dredging activities at the West Complex Docks will not occur within the Stockton DWSC. Dredging of the DWSC is performed under separate permit and managed by the USACE. “b. Involve more than 100,000 cubic yards (yd3) of dredging material;” • Based on the most recent bathymetric survey, the estimated volume of sediments above the ‐35 foot MLLW proposed dredge depth is approximately 70,000 yd3 of sediment. This volume does not exceed the 100,000 yd3 limit. “c. Involve undisturbed sediments;” • The proposed dredging will be a maintenance effort to re‐establish the historical dredge depth of at least ‐35 feet MLLW and will not disturb native sediments. “d. Involve more than 1 million gallons per day (MGD) return flow rates;” • Water generated during dredging and placed in the sediment ponds at Roberts No. 1 will not be directly discharged back into the river. The sediment typically dries during the dry season due to evaporation and percolation of the ponded water. “e Discharge to lands listed as hazardous materials sites;” • Roberts No. 1, the proposed placement site, contains geologic materials with concentrations well below hazardous waste criteria. “f. Could significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the discharge site;” • Areas B and C, the Roberts No. 1 proposed placement facility, received dredged sediments for more than 50 years. Currently the placement facility contains a series of dikes and weirs to create static settlement ponds to allow the separation of dredge material from water. Since the drainage at the site is designed for placement, impacts to the current drainage pattern will not be affected. “g. Negatively impact wetlands;”

• The Roberts No. 1 facility is the only placement site where dredge material from Docks 16 through 18 will be placed and is not classified as a jurisdictional wetland.

1.5.3 CEQA Compliance

According to the General Order, maintenance dredging does not require CEQA documentation for “placement at existing authorized placement sites where the Discharger documents there will be negligible or no expansion of use.” The Roberts No. 1 facility is an approved dredge sediment placement site and the proposed dredging placement will not require expansion of this facility. Maintenance dredging operations of this nature are categorically exempt from the CEQA process in accordance with Title 14, CCR Chapter 3 Section 15304.

October 2013 5 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

1.6 BENEFITS OF DREDGING

The Port recognizes that dredging activities pose concerns regarding potential impacts to the environment. In response, the Port has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of dredging and has modified the Project to minimize, if not eliminate, these potential impacts through a variety of mitigation measures. In addition, it is important to recognize the potential benefits associated with dredging. Some of these benefits include:

Significantly increasing the surface water carrying capacity of the San Joaquin River, which serves as a potent flood control measure.

Generating low cost fill materials for use in a variety of construction projects and levee maintenance projects. The presence of low cost fill materials within the Delta serves to minimize long distance trucking and associated air pollution.

Improving safe navigation in the DWSC, which serves to enhance the economy of Stockton and California’s Central Valley.

1.7 STRUCTURE OF THIS NOI

This NOI consists of the following sections: Section 1. Introduction and Project Background Section 2. Project Description Section 3. Characterization of Sediment and River Water Section 4. Mitigation Of Potential Impacts From Upland Placement Of Sediments Section 5. Mitigation Of Potential Impacts From Dredging Section 6. Conclusions

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Port’s West Complex is located on Rough and Ready Island in the City of Stockton. The West Complex includes approximately 1,500 acres and the seven current Docks 14 through 20. The Port is responsible for maintaining the draft between the dock edge and the southern margin of the DWSC. The Port proposes a project to dredge sediments adjacent to Docks 16 through 18 at the West Complex (Figure 2). The approximate latitude and longitude of the four corners of the area proposed to be dredged are:

October 2013 6 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Southeast corner = 37.955750° N and ‐121.353056° W

Northeast corner = 37.956194° N and ‐121.352840° W

Southwest corner = 37.958765° N and ‐121.360697° W

Northwest corner = 37.959294° N and ‐121.335998° W

The amount of dredged material removed from each dock face varies depending on the depth of existing sediment in the area. Based on recent bathymetric data (Appendix A), the volume of sediments to be removed from Docks 16 through 18 is estimated at approximately 70,000 cubic yards (yd3) of sediment.

2.1 DREDGE SEDIMENT REMOVAL

Accumulated sediment and debris will be removed in the area adjacent to Docks 16 through 18 to the DWSC (Figure 2) to a depth of ‐35 feet below the mean lower low water datum (MLLW) plus two feet of overdredge typical of hydraulic dredging operations. Dredging to ‐35 feet MLLW, plus over‐dredge, is consistent with the historical depth of Docks 16 through 20, the depth of the adjacent DWSC, the depth of Docks 14 and 15, the depth of the Port’s East Complex, and the minimum draft requirements of most modern freight and bulk commodity ships.

Typical hydraulic dredging operations produce a slurry with an approximate volume ratio of 8 parts water to 1 part solids. Based on recent bathymetric survey data (Appendix A), there is approximately 135,000 yd3 of saturated sediment above the historical dredge depth. In situ, the sediment is composed of approximately 50 percent water and 50 percent solids. Accordingly, the slurry of sediment and water produced while dredging Docks 16 through 18 will generate approximately 67,500 yd3 of solids, and 600,000 yd3 of water, or roughly 420 acre‐feet of sediment and water during dredging.

2.2 DREDGE SEDIMENT PLACEMENT

Dredge sediment will be placed at the Robert’s No.1 (RN1) dredge sediment placement facility (Figure 3). Roberts Island No. 1 (RN1) is a federally approved dredge sediment placement site surrounded by levees on the northern margin of Roberts Island. The facility is owned and operated by the Port. RN1 extends approximately 7,400 feet along the south side of the San Joaquin River, west of the proposed dredge site, and is approximately 1,700 feet wide at its widest point.

October 2013 7 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

A survey was conducted at the RN1 facility by Dillon and Murphy in 2013 to estimate available capacity of the site to receive sediment and water from the proposed dredging of Docks 16 through 18 and annual maintenance dredging of the Port’s East Complex and Stockton DWSC (Appendix B). Based on the survey results, there is an estimated capacity of at least 675,000 yd3 in the proposed placement area, assuming a minimum 2‐feet of freeboard in the surrounding dikes and levees.

USACE has placed dredged sediment at RN1 on a nearly annual basis since 1982. The most recent USACE placement took place in December 2012 and delivered sediment and water to RN1. The slurry will be placed in a manner and rate that ensures at least 2 feet of freeboard. A sampling technician will be at RN1 to monitor conditions during dredging operations. The dredge operator and the personnel located at RN1 will coordinate to control the amount of water and sediment that is dredged and delivered to maintain adequate freeboard. A more detailed description of the placement operations is included in the Operations Plan provided in Appendix C.

2.3 DREDGE AND PLACEMENT SITE MONITORING

This Project includes monitoring to generate additional data characterizing the chemistry and fate of the dredge sediment and associated water. The resulting data, coupled with results from similar monitoring of sediments dredged from the DWSC by USACE and the ongoing ground water monitoring at RN1 by the Port will expand upon the current set of information characterizing dredge sediment. Both the water and sediment (following natural dewatering) placed at RN1 as part of this Project will be monitored in accordance with General Order WDR R5‐2009‐0085.

Dredge Monitoring

In situ water quality monitoring stations will be set up not exceeding 300 feet upgradient and down gradient from the cutterhead at locations R1 and R2 as described in the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) of the General Order. Measurements for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and turbidity will be analyzed twice daily no less than eight hour intervals. In accordance with the receiving water limitations in the WDR Section F(3), if a 20% increase in turbidity is observed at the downcurrent dredge monitoring station (R2) relative to the turbidity observed at the upcurrent (R1) location, dredging operations will be suspended. The Board will be notified immediately following the observed exceedance. A sample will be collected at the downgradient sampling location and measured for aquatic toxicity using an acute toxicity test and the results will be presented to the Board. Dredging will resume when the turbidity levels return to levels that are compliant with the specifications in the MRP.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) will be monitored and reported as required in the MRP. Dredging operations will cease when DO concentrations measured in the downgradient sampling

October 2013 8 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

location (R2) are below DO concentrations measured in the upgradient sampling location (R1) and the DWR (RRI) monitoring station.

Sediment Monitoring

Total and deionized water Waste Extraction Test (DIWET) sediment data are presented in Tables 1 and 2. These data will be used to determine potential reuse options for dredge sediment. Dock 16‐18 sediment was analyzed prior to dredging for the following constituents:

• Total, DIWET and Standard Elutriate Test (SET) metals (Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cu, Cr, Cr6+, Hg, MeHg, Pb, Ni, Se, Ag and Zn by EPA Methods 6020/7000),

• Conventional parameters [grain size by ASTM D422, SET ammonia by EPA Method 350.1, biological and chemical oxygen demand (BOD‐5, COD) by Methods 405.1 and 410.4, sulfide by EPA Method 9030B, total organic carbon (TOC) by EPA Method 9060M,

• Total organic contaminants (VOCs by EPA Method 8260B, SVOCs by EPA Method 8270C, PAHs by EPA Method 8310, PCBs by EPA Method 8082, organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides (OCP and OPP) by EPA Method 8081A and 8141A, and dioxins/furans by EPA Method 8290). Water Monitoring

Ponded river water delivered as part of the sediment slurry will be sampled and analyzed in accordance with the MRP and prior to effluent discharge, if necessary.

Analysis of ground water underlying and downgradient from RN1 is periodically sampled and analyzed based on the amended WDR R5‐2006‐0078.

2.4 REUSE OF DREDGE SEDIMENT

Placement and reuse of dredge sediment will occur with Regional Board approval for a Notice of Intent (NOI) to place dredge sediment. The NOI will, at a minimum, include the following information:

Proposed location(s) for sediment reuse,

Elevation of the top and bottom of the sediment reuse location,

Volume of sediment reused at the location(s),

Engineering specifications for import fill

October 2013 9 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

An assessment of hydrologic conditions at the placement site

Attenuation capacity calculations for foundation soils at the reuse site based on the pre‐ dredge sediment chemistry.

3. CHARACTERIZATION OF SEDIMENT AND RIVER WATER

Sample collection was implemented in accordance with a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) approved by the Board (ERS, 2012). Two fixed core locations (F1 and F2) were located along each dock and the third location (R) was randomly located within the dock area based on a grid‐based delineation of the dock area to be dredged and a random number generator. Sample locations are shown in Figure 2. Samples were composited to represent the following horizons, which are shown schematically in Figure 4:

• NEW: New horizon sediment samples were collected from ‐35 to ‐37 feet MLLW. These samples represent the interval of sediment that will be exposed after the dredging occurs.

• COMP: Composite samples were collected from the middle section of each core to represent sediment to dredged. The composite consists of sediment from the sediment surface to approximately ‐35 feet MLLW.

• REF: Background samples were collected at two locations east and west of Docks 16‐18 as shown in Figure 1. A low clearance bridge prevented access to background reference sample locations Ref‐2 and Ref‐3 that were proposed in the SAP. Because the San Joaquin River in the Stockton area is influenced by tidal fluctuations, the reference sample locations can be either upgradient or downgradient of Docks 16‐18 depending on the time of day.

3.1 FIELD METHODS

Sediment samples were collected using vibracore equipment deployed from a barge to the target dredge depth. TEG Oceanographic Services collected all sediment samples under supervision of ERS personnel on November 14 and 15, 2012. A global positioning system (GPS) receiver was used to ensure that samples were collected at the proposed locations. Some of the proposed locations were revised in the field due to access issues associated with vessels being stationed at some of the Docks.

October 2013 10 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

A local tide chart published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) was used to determine the height of the water above mean sea level. The sampling barge was equipped with a depth sounder to determine the height above the river bottom, which was verified prior to each core collected using a weighted tape measuring wheel. The height above MLLW was added to the difference between the target dredge depth and the measured depth to bottom to determine the core length (Figure 4). The core barrel was checked with a tape measuring wheel to assure the accuracy of the core length.

All samples were composited and homogenized in the field and placed into dedicated ice chests with adequate quantities of containerized ice until samples were delivered to analytical laboratories. A centrifugal pump was used to collect the water volumes needed to prepare sediment elutriates from the D16R location. River water samples were collected approximately 10 feet below the river surface. All sampling equipment was thoroughly decontaminated prior to use. All analytical chemistry samples were analyzed by McCampbell Analytical, with methyl‐mercury analyses subcontracted to Brooks Rand, which are both NELAP certified analytical laboratories. Grain size analyses were conducted by Cooper Testing Labs.

3.2 WHOLE SEDIMENT BIOASSAYS

Sediment samples collected from the NEW, COMP and REF locations were subjected to bioassay tests to assess potential toxicity. Whole sediment toxicity associated with the NEW horizon is an estimate of potential toxicity in sediment that would be exposed following dredging operations. Whole sediment toxicity in the COMP horizon is not relevant to assessing potential toxicity prior to or following dredging operations because this sample represents sediment to be dredged and placed at RN1.

Biotoxicity of the sediment was assessed by Pacific Ecorisk using a series of EPA approved test methods on the NEW, COMP and REF sediment and standard elutriate. Biotoxicity results are compared with background reference sample and a control sample prepared by the laboratory and organism survival rates specified for effluent discharge in General Order R5‐2004‐0061.

The sediment bioassays were evaluated for growth and survival as the endpoint for Hyalella azteca, a 0.25‐inch long amphipod common in aquatic systems and Chironomus dilutus, a non‐ biting midge. NEW and REF samples were analyzed for chronic biotoxicity with 10 day survival and growth as endpoints for midge (Chironimus dilutus) and amphipods (Hyalella azteca) based on EPA method 1000.1 and 100.1/100.2. Chronic sediment toxicity was analyzed on new horizon sediments because this is the material that would be exposed after dredging occurs. No chronic sediment toxicity was analyzed on the COMP sediments. The results from the biotoxicity testing are provided in Appendix D.

October 2013 11 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

3.2.1 Amphipod Survival and Growth (Hyallela Azteca)

Mean survival rates for the amphipod Hyallela azteca ranged from 96.3 to 98.8%. The laboratory control sample had a mean survival percentage of 93.8% and the background sample SJ‐Ref had a survival rate of 98.8%. Amphipod survival rates in all docks were above the 80% discharge applicability for sediment elutriate from the Order of Waste Discharge Requirements R5‐2004‐ 0061, under which USACE dredges in the adjacent Stockton DWSC.

Growth rates for Hyallela azteca were all within a statistically acceptable difference from the laboratory control sample with the exception of D17‐NEW. While D17‐NEW exhibited a 98.8% survival, the mean dry weight (MDW) of the organisms was 0.20mg and is considered statistically significantly less than the weight of the control sample (0.23mg). However, growth is not a required evaluation endpoint for Hyallala azteca according to the Inland Testing Manual (ITM; USACE, 1998). Growth, as measured by MDW, in the D17‐NEW sample was 87% of the laboratory control sample and 91% of the REF sample. The statistical significance can be attributed to the small standard deviation of the data set.

3.2.2 Midge Survival and Growth (Chironimus dilutus)

Mean survival rates for the midge Chironimus dilutus ranged from 61.3 to 93.8%. The laboratory control sample had a mean survival percentage of 81.3% and the background sample SJ‐Ref had a survival rate of 88.8%. Midge survival rates in all docks were above the 80% discharge applicability for sediment elutriate from the Order R5‐2004‐0061 with the exception of D18‐ NEW. Despite the 61.3% survival rate, midge growth was more than 2.7 times the control sample MDW of the control sample. The survival rate from the D18‐NEW is greater than 75% when compared to the laboratory control sample. All of the NEW and REF samples showed a growth rate above the laboratory control sample.

3.3 STANDARD ELUTRIATE TEST (SET) PREPARATION

The standard elutriate test (SET; USACE, 1998) estimates water quality resulting from open water dispersal of sediments. Because the SET is an estimate of potential in‐water toxicity associated with sediments to be dredged, the results are appropriate for the sediment samples. With respect to dredging methods, these results most closely simulate conditions in the water column adjacent to typical clamshell dredging operations. While the proposed project does not involve open water disposal, there is some minor “loss” of sediment to the water column during hydraulic dredging, which is explained in detail in Appendix E.

Elutriate toxicity was assessed using an acute, 96‐hour survival test for the COMP and REF sediments, and a chronic survival test was used for the NEW and REF sediments. The tests were conducted using the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) based on USEPA Test Methods

October 2013 12 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

1000.0 and 2000.0. The SET was prepared using the methods specified in the ITM (USACE, 1998) and diluted at 4 parts river water to one part elutriate prior to biotoxicity assessment.

The four‐part dilution is based on calculations from sediment resuspension studies, average resuspension rates from hydraulic cutterhead dredge operations is typically 0.77% (Anchor, 2003). Assuming a 1% sediment resuspension rate from hydraulic dredging operations, the SET overestimates sediment resuspension in a hydraulic dredge operation by a factor of 100. Even with a four part dilution, the sediment resuspension is overestimated by a factor of 25.

3.3.1 Acute and Chronic SET Biotoxicity of Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas)

Acute SET survival rates measured in all of the COMP sediment samples were 100%. Chronic SET survival rates measured in all dock COMP sediment samples ranged from 97.5‐100%. The MDW growth endpoint for chronic SET toxicity ranged from 0.64 to 0.69 mg and were all measured at or above the laboratory control MDW.

3.3.2 SET Analytical Chemistry

All COMP, NEW and REF samples were analyzed for dissolved metals, anions, and other water quality parameters in the SET. The analytical SET chemistry was analyzed at 100% elutriate concentration. The results are compared to ambient aquatic fresh water toxicity screening criteria (USEPA, 2012) and effluent discharge screening criteria from the Order of Waste Discharge Requirements R5‐2004‐0061, which is presented in Table 3.

With the exception of ammonia, none of the SET chemistry samples contained concentrations of metals above the continuous (chronic) fresh water toxicity goals. Ammonia concentrations are not above the maximum (acute) fresh water toxicity goal. Average ammonia concentration in the river would not be expected to increase for a prolonged period, but only during actual dredging activity. More importantly, the SET grossly overestimates actual sediment resuspension during a hydraulic dredging operation as described in detail in Appendix E. Actual sediment resuspension rates are expected to be less than 1% of what is represented in the analyses of the standard elutriate.

3.4 PRE‐DREDGE SEDIMENT TOTAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS

Total pre‐dredge sediment from Docks 16 through 18 were analyzed for the constituents and parameters listed in Section 2.3 and presented in Table 1. Dioxin data are tabulated and summarized in Table 4. Laboratory Analytical Reports are provided in Appendix F. Total sediments are compared to the following screening criteria and background data from the Stockton DWSC and RN1/RN2 placement sites:

October 2013 13 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

• Stockton DWSC Sediment: USACE collected dredge sediment characterization samples for the annual maintenance dredging of the DWSC (USACE, 2012). All of the NEW and COMP sediment samples were below the maximum concentrations of dredge sediment that were dredged and placed at the RN1 during the most recent USACE placement with the exception of mercury and copper.

• RN1/RN2 Dredge Sediment Results: Nine samples collected from RN1 and RN2 dredge sediment placement sites in 2008 were averaged and compared to pre‐dredge sediment data. Based on these data, concentrations of the COMP and NEW sediments are within the same range as existing sediments at RN1.

• Industrial RSLs: Region 9 EPA screening criteria were selected to compare dredge sediment data to human health exposure risks under an industrial use scenario. Because there are no RSLs listed for diesel and motor oil, Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) were selected for comparison (SF Bay RWQCB, 2013). There were no concentrations of any constituent that exceeded industrial RSLs with the exception of arsenic. Arsenic has been shown to be naturally elevated in the Delta region and arsenic concentrations are within the range of the background concentrations as defined above.

• Sediment Reuse: Dredge sediment reuse limitations are defined in General Order R5‐ 2004‐0061 for the placement of Stockton DWSC sediment at RN1. There were no concentrations in the NEW and COMP sediments measured above the sediment reuse limitations with the exception of copper and mercury, each in one occurrence.

3.4.1 Evaluation of Total Dredge Sediment Chemistry

Chart 1 shows the range of total metals concentrations analyzed at Docks 16‐18, the Stockton DWSC and RN1 sediments. As shown on Chart 1, concentrations of arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc in Dock 16‐18 sediments are either lower or within the same range as the Stockton DWSC sediment that was recently placed at RN1 and post‐dredge sediment samples collected from RN1 and RN2. Based on these data, the sediment at Docks 16 and 18 pose no greater risk to human health and the environment than that posed by existing sediment at RN1.

3.5 PRE‐DREDGE SEDIMENT LEACHATE RESULTS (DIWET)

California waste extraction tests using deionized water (DIWET) were performed on the sediment samples to estimate the quality of sediment leachate after placement. Although NEW dredge sediment horizon DIWET results are reported, only COMP samples are appropriately compared with standards intended to assess leachate since only these are proposed for sediment placement. Laboratory Analytical Reports are provided in Appendix F. The pre‐

October 2013 14 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

dredge sediment results from Docks 16‐18 are compared with the following criteria and background data in Table 2:

• Drinking Water Quality: DIWET arsenic and lead exceeded USEPA primary MCLs in one occurrence each.

• Agricultural Water Quality: None of the pre‐dredge samples exceeded agricultural ground water quality goals (Ayers and Wescot, 1989).

• Dredge sediment reuse: Dredge sediment reuse limitations defined in General Order R5‐2004‐0061 for placement of Stockton DWSC sediment at RN1. Copper was detected above the dredge material reuse limitations in the COMP sediments and REF samples. Lead was detected above the reuse limitation goal on one occasion in COMP sediment.

• Background Sediment: Previous sediment samples collected from RN1 and RN2 in 2008 were analyzed for DIWET metals and average concentrations are calculated. Arsenic, barium, copper, lead and zinc in the COMP and REF sediment samples were generally detected at concentrations exceeding existing sediment at RN1.

• Background Ground Water: Six background ground water wells have been monitored at the RN1 placement site since 2006. Arsenic and Barium were consistently well below ground water concentrations in DIWET results. DIWET copper and lead were consistently detected above average background ground water concentrations in the COMP sediments and REF samples.

3.5.1 Evaluation of Potential Threat to Ground Water

Previous studies have quantified the natural cation exchange capacity (CEC) of dredge sediments and native peat and clay at Roberts Island (ERS 2011, 2012). CEC is a measure of the ability of geologic materials to naturally attenuate dissolved constituents. These data consistently show that the cation exchange capacity of native soils is at least 5 times to 10 times more than required to fully attenuate all metals extracted from the dredge sediments even when using the significantly more aggressive citrate WET (ERS, 2005a, 2005b).

Table 5, presented in detail in previous studies (ERS, 2001, 2012), shows the attenuation capacity of foundation soil underlying the RN1 facility using DIWET metals concentrations measured in the COMP samples, and indicates that 1 cm (0.4 in) of foundation soil of average CEC is required to fully attenuate each meter (3.28 ft) of overlying dredge sediment. This calculation excludes attenuation capacity intrinsic to the dredge sediment itself. Following the calculations (ERS, 2005b) and given a dredge sediment fill thickness of 10 feet, the cation exchange attenuation capacity within less than 2 inches of native clay and peat would be sufficient to attenuate soluble metals. Since the minimum depth to water‐bearing materials beneath the

October 2013 15 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

foundation at RN1 is approximately 5 feet, the calculated attenuation capacity is at least 30 times greater than required to attenuate dissolved solids generated by dredged sediments.

Other significant attenuation mechanisms not accounted for in the measurement of CEC include sorption to or co‐precipitation with iron and manganese oxides (up to 15 times more attenuation than CEC), and chelation by soil organic matter (up to 4 times more attenuation than CEC; Wasay et al., 2001). Further, there are no drinking water or agricultural supply ground water wells within the upper 150 feet and within 5,000 feet of RN1 (DWR Well Survey). Therefore, there is no complete exposure route to humans from local shallow ground water. Finally, the lack of significant impacts to ground water resources downgradient from RN1 is consistent with both the attenuation capacity and lack of significant threat posed to ground water resources by the proposed dredge sediments.

3.6 MODIFIED ELUTRIATE TEST

The modified elutriate test (MET) estimates water quality that would be discharged as effluent from a holding pond by incorporating a 24‐hour settling period prior to analysis. Based on the results, the quality of dredged water following at least 24 hours of quiescent settling is anticipated to be consistent with water quality goals. However, no such discharge is anticipated in this project. Because the ponded water will be analyzed prior to discharge, MET chemistry was not analyzed for the dredging at Dock 16 through 18.

3.7 RIVER WATER CHEMISTRY

A sample was collected from the San Joaquin River and analyzed for the chemical constituents shown in Table 6. The river water sample was collected from the same water that was used for preparation of the SET. River water chemistry was analyzed to assess dissolved minerals and general chemistry for the SET analytical and biotoxicity analyses.

4. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM UPLAND PLACEMENT OF SEDIMENTS

The Port is proposing a project to dredge sediment from West Complex Docks 16 through 18. This section identifies potential impacts to water resources due to upland placement of the slurry of sediment and water and recommends appropriate mitigation measures. As with prior dredging efforts, the main potential environmental impacts associated with the upland

October 2013 16 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

placement of dredged sediments are a decrease in ground water quality and surface water quality. Many of the efforts proposed in the preceding sections serve as appropriate mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts to water resources.

4.1 MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO GROUND WATER QUALITY

Potential impacts to ground water quality have been evaluated using the analytical data describing the soluble constituents in the sediment and the natural attenuation capacity of the native soils at the site. Based on these data, the sediment does not pose a significant threat to ground water resources. Nonetheless, ground water quality monitoring performed annually at the site serves as the relevant mitigation measure. Current ground water quality data (ERS, 2012) indicates no significant impact to ground water resources from dredged sediments. If an impact is revealed during monitoring, then additional measures can be implemented to reduce the impact, including efforts to expedite reuse.

4.2 MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATER QUALITY

Potential impacts to surface water from the upland dredge sediments have been evaluated using the analytical data characterizing the soluble constituents in the sediment and the natural attenuation capacity of the native soils. Based on these data, the sediment does not pose a significant threat to surface water resources. Nonetheless, to mitigate concerns regarding potential threats to surface water quality, water placed at RN1 as part of this proposed project will not be discharged to the San Joaquin River without testing and approval by the Board.

4.3 MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL CAPACITY AND INFILTRATION LIMITATIONS AT RN1

The current configuration of RN1 does not pose a capacity constraint based on the anticipated volumes of sediment and water to be generated by the project based on the 2013 RN1 capacity survey (Appendix B). Therefore, mitigation measures are not required to address the capacity of RN1.

A water balance has been prepared for the project and is included in the Operations Plan in Appendix C. The water balance indicates that this project is not expected to exceed approximately 50% of the dredge sediment placement site’s total capacity. Because the rate of infiltration exceeds the rate of water delivery, the conditions at RN1 do not appear to restrict the anticipated dredging operations. However, it is possible that some areas within RN1 will potentially and locally limit the rate of water infiltration due to fine‐grained sediments and/or

October 2013 17 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

saturated conditions. If this occurs, then the condition will be mitigated by stopping the dredging until a minimum 2 feet of freeboard is assured.

5. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM DREDGING

In addition to minimizing potential impacts associated with upland placement of sediment, it is equally important to implement the project in a manner that avoids, or at least substantially minimizes, potentially significant environmental impacts associated with dredging operations. This section assesses potential impacts associated with in‐water dredging activities and proposes specific mitigation measures, as appropriate.

As with prior dredging efforts, the main potential environmental impacts associated with the dredging activities are:

Potential increases in turbidity, which may result from suspended sediment during dredging and/or return of water to the DWSC.

Potential increases in toxicity, which may result from suspended sediment during dredging and/or return of water to the DWSC.

Potential decreases in dissolved oxygen, which may result from sediment suspended during dredging, return of water to the DWSC, and/or the change in channel volume.

These potential impacts to surface water quality attributable to the dredging activity have been evaluated in terms of duration and distance from the dredging project. Potential short‐term effects occur only during the dredging activity, whereas potential long‐term effects may persist following the dredging activity. Potential near‐field effects occur in the immediate vicinity of the project, whereas potential far‐field effects may extend beyond the project boundary.

5.1 REMOVAL OF SEDIMENT FROM THE RIVERBED

Conventional non‐hydraulic dredging technologies typically consist of clamshell operations. These types of operations can suspend relatively large amounts of sediment in the water column with the potential to increase turbidity, toxicity, and to decrease dissolved oxygen. Because of these potential impacts, the Port proposes to mitigate the effects of clamshell dredging by employing hydraulic dredging for this project. Hydraulic dredging technologies are currently one of the most environmentally favorable technologies available. Based on

October 2013 18 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

environmental monitoring during the hydraulic dredging of the DWSC and Docks 14 and 15, this method is not expected to generate significant adverse environmental conditions.

The hydraulic dredging technology employs negative pressure at the cutterhead to remove both loosened sediment and the immediately adjacent water column. Compared with conventional dredging methods, hydraulic dredging significantly reduces turbidity within the water column and generation of elutriate during dredging operations. Therefore, hydraulic dredging is the most significant mitigation measure proposed in this project.

5.2 TURBIDITY

Hydraulic dredging creates a suction that removes loosened sediment and adjacent water. Nonetheless, hydraulic dredging has the potential to temporarily suspend sediment in the water column, which could increase turbidity. The Basin Plan specifies that turbidity shall not be increased more than 20 percent where natural turbidity ranges between 5 and 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Ambient turbidity in the DWSC near Rough and Ready Island ranges between 15 and 30 NTU.

5.2.1 Mitigation of Potential Turbidity from Sediment Suspended During Dredging

Previous hydraulic dredging activities by the Port and USACE have generated turbidity monitoring data indicating compliance with the Basin Plan. Consistent with the prior field data, the calculations in Appendix E indicate the proposed project will generate no significant increase in turbidity, toxicity, or release of elutriate into the water column during dredging operations.

Nonetheless, the potential to increase turbidity during dredging will be mitigated by monitoring. Routine monitoring of turbidity in the water‐column in the vicinity of the dredging operations is proposed to assure compliance with the basin plan. If the monitoring data indicate that the hydraulic dredging operations are causing significantly raised turbidity, then dredging operations will (1) cease until the turbidity impact diminishes to ambient conditions, (2) the rate and operation of the hydraulic dredging equipment will be altered to reduce the generation of turbidity, and (3) the Board will be notified.

5.2.2 Mitigation of Potential Turbidity in Water Returned to DWSC from RN1

The Project proposes to deliver a slurry of water and sediment to RN1. During dredging, the rate of slurry delivery to RN1 will be reduced to maintain adequate capacity, 2 feet of freeboard, and avoid return of water to the DWSC. As evaluated above, the conditions at RN1 coupled

October 2013 19 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

with management of the rate of slurry delivery to RN1 provides substantially more capacity than is required to accept the slurry generated by the Project. Post dredging, these potential effects will be mitigated by analysis and by getting concurrence from the Board prior to any effluent discharge to the DWSC.

5.3 TOXICITY

Potential toxicological responses are associated with sediment suspended in water during dredging and sediments suspended in water returned to the DWSC. Each of these potential responses has been investigated and appropriate mitigation measures are proposed below.

5.3.1 Mitigation of Potential Toxicity from Sediment Suspended During Dredging

The potential toxicological effects of sediments suspended in the water column were evaluated by analyzing elutriate generated by the SET. The SET estimates the quality of water resulting from open water disposal of sediments, such as those resulting from clamshell dredging operations. The SET samples that were analyzed for biotoxicity did not reveal any significant chronic or acute mortality in the NEW and COMP sediments. Analytical chemistry performed on the SET did not indicate any significant potential for toxicity.

5.3.2 Sediment Suspended in Returned Water

The potential water quality impacts for discharge water to the DWSC from the dredge sediment placement ponds will be mitigated by analyzing the effluent water prior to discharge. Effluent water will only be discharged if it meets effluent water quality standards and discharge specifications established by the Board.

5.4 DISSOLVED OXYGEN ‐ HYDRAULIC DREDGING AND RETURNED WATER

The San Joaquin River in the region of the DWSC is currently listed as an impaired water body with respect to dissolved oxygen (DO) under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The lower San Joaquin River regularly experiences episodes of lower DO in the area between Stockton and the Turner Cut. This area extends beyond and includes that portion of the DWSC adjacent to the West Complex and the proposed dredging project.

Episodes of DO depletion are more common during the fall season. Several factors are generally considered to contribute to DO depletion in the DWSC, including upstream sources that continuously load substances with a chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological

October 2013 20 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

oxygen demand (BOD), natural sediments with inherent COD, and algae and decaying organic matter with BOD. Seasonal water quality variations and tidal influences also contribute to DO depletion. Historical hydrologic changes associated with the dewatering of the Delta Islands, straightening and deepening of channels, and altering the system from a brackish to fresh water flow regime increase the residence time of substances with BOD and COD.

Increased hydraulic residence time is also a direct result of the relatively deeper DWSC. Upstream of the DWSC, the nominal depth of the San Joaquin River ranges from approximately ‐10 to ‐20 feet MLLW. In contrast, USACE has maintained the nominal depth of the DWSC at approximately –35 feet MLLW. The increase in river volume within the DWSC results in a relative increase in hydraulic residence time, allowing oxygen‐depleting substances and processes more time to remove DO from the water.

Dissolved oxygen is also naturally produced by biological activity on the riverbed. However, light to the riverbed can be attenuated due to the increased depth of the DWSC and increased turbidity. As nutrient‐rich water from upstream sources enters the deeper channel, algal growth at the surface increases while DO at greater depth decreases. While the effects of associated with increased depth are a potentially persistent condition, an increase in turbidity from dredging activities is ephemeral.

The following discusses potential near‐field and far‐field effects of the proposed dredging Project on DO in both the short and long term, and proposes appropriate mitigation measures.

5.4.1 Short‐Term Near‐Field Effects

The analytical results revealed no constituents at concentrations high enough to significantly affect DO in the water column. Moreover, no exceedances of the DO objective were recorded during the 2001 dredging of Docks 19 and 20 or the 2006 and 2007 dredging of Docks 14 and 15 using the same hydraulic dredging technology. Nonetheless, a potential local DO depletion may occur if enough sediment is suspended in the water column.

The Port currently operates aerators located at Docks 13 and 20 at the Port’s East and West Complexes. Because the dredging will occur in the vicinity of Dock 20, this aerator will be in operation during dredging operations of Docks 16 through 18 at the maintenance level of 500 lbs of oxygen per day. The aerator located at the Dock 20 is capable of up to 10,000 lbs of oxygen per day as needed. If DO directly downstream of dredging drops below the water quality objectives during dredging operations, the Board will be notified and aeration will be increased to mitigate potential effects.

October 2013 21 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

5.4.2 Long‐Term Far‐Field Effects

Modeling predicts that the maintenance dredge of the Docks at the West Complex may induce a relatively small reduction of DO by slightly increasing the residence time of water in the channel. In response, the Port in 2004 took ownership and operational responsibility for the aeration device formerly operated by the USACE under an agreement with the Regional Board. The aerator is now operated at full capacity whenever DO concentrations are below the 5 mg/l threshold, and turned off when DO concentrations return to the threshold level. Currently the Port submits quarterly aeration monitoring reports summarizing aeration activities and DO concentrations at the Port and in the San Joaquin River.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data summary and mitigation measures outlined below:

Dredge sediment and water from Dock 16 through 18 is not expected to have any significant environmental impacts at the placement site.

Dredging operations are not expected to have a significant environmental impact in water during dredging.

The historical dredge horizon at Docks 16 through 18 is not expected to have a significant environmental impact after dredging is completed.

6.1 SUMMARY OF DOCK 16 THROUGH 18 DATA

The following conclusions are based on a comparison of the Docks 16 through 18 pre‐dredge sampling data:

Whole Sediment Biotoxiciy: The data indicates that potential toxicity exhibited by the REF and laboratory control samples are similar to those exhibited by dock sediments. Based on the data, dredging at Docks 16 through 18 will result in the removal of sediments exhibiting a minimal potential for midge, amphipod and fathead minnow toxicity.

SET Biotoxicity: Acute fathead minnow tests measured show survival rates in the COMP sediments at 100%. The chronic survival rates for fathead minnows in the COMP sediments ranged from 97.5‐100%.

October 2013 22 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Total Sediment Chemistry: Based on a comparison to dredge reuse, human health screening goals and available background concentrations, sediments to be dredged at Docks 16 through 18 are suitable for placement at the RN1 placement site. Sediment that will be exposed at the new horizon do not show significant potential for toxicity.

Sediment DIWET Chemistry: DIWET chemistry is compared to water quality goals, background ground water and sediment, and reuse limitations from the DWSC. These criteria do not account for attenuation capacity of soils at the RN1 placement site. Calculation of attenuation capacity and historical ground water monitoring at RN1 clearly demonstrate that the sediment does not pose a significant threat to ground water quality at the RN1 placement site. Reuse of dredge sediment is approved by the Board through the process of a reuse NOI, and not limited by the DWSC limitations under General Order R5‐2004‐0061.

SET Chemistry: Based on a comparison to water quality goals, the SET chemistry samples do not show a significant potential to generate significant toxicity. Even though ammonia was measured above USEPA Ambient Freshwater Toxicity Criterion Continuous Concentration (chronic), the 100% SET used for these constituents overestimates concentrations generated by hydraulic dredging by as much as 100 times, as detailed in Appendix E.

6.2 SUMMARY OF DREDGING AND PLACEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

The Port of Stockton has developed this proposed Project for dredging Docks 16 through 18 to avoid and/or mitigate all potentially significant water quality impacts. Implementation of this Project is expected to be consistent with all water quality goals.

Potentially significant impacts to water quality have been identified and mitigations have been proposed as discussed above.

Potential toxicity due to increased ammonia or DO at the dredge site is mitigated through use of hydraulic dredge technologies and localized aeration during the dredging operation.

Potential toxicity associated with returned water will be mitigated by testing effluent water prior to discharge.

Potential long‐term reduction in dissolved oxygen due to the change in channel morphology is mitigated by the Port’s local aeration during dredging and the long term aeration program.

Potential impacts to ground water quality from dredge sediments are avoided because the data indicate that dredged sediments do not pose a significant threat to ground water quality.

October 2013 23 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Potential environmental impacts posed by ponded water discharge will be mitigated by testing the water prior to discharge and reporting results to Board staff.

October 2013 24 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

REFERENCES

Ankley, G. T., D. A. Benoit, J. C. Balogh, T. B. Reynoldson, K. E. Day, and R. A. Hoke. 1994. Evaluation Of Potential Confounding Factors In Sediment Toxicity Tests With Three Freshwater Benthic Invertebrates. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13:627–35. Block Environmental Services. 2001. Sediment Toxicity Testing Results For Evaluation Of Proposed Dredged Material—A Three Species Bioassay. Prepared by Block Environmental Services. March. Pleasant Hill, CA. Bridges, T. S., R. B. Wright, B. R. Gray, A. B. Gibson, and R. M. Dillon. 1996. Chronic Toxicity Of Great Lakes Sediments To Daphnia Magna: Elutriate Effects Of Survival, Reproduction And Population Growth. Ecotoxicology 5:83–102. Burton, G. A. 1991. Assessing The Toxicity Of Freshwater Sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1585– 1627. California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region. 1998. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, Fourth Edition, revised September 2004. California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region. 2004. Order No. R5‐2004‐0137 Waste Discharge Requirements for Port of Stockton, West Complex Dock Dredging Project, San Joaquin County. California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region. 2005. Waste Discharge Requirement Order No. R5‐2004‐0136 NPDES Permit No. CAS0084077, Waste Discharge Requirements for Stockton Port District Facility‐Wide Water Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and Non‐Storm Water Discharges from the Port of Stockton, San Joaquin County. .Chandini, T. 1989. Survival, Growth And Reproduction Of Daphnia Carinata Exposed To Chronic Cadmium Stress At Different Food Levels. Environ. Pollut. 60:29–45. Dillon, T. M. 1993. Developing Chronic Sublethal Sediment Bioassays: A Challenge To The Scientific Community. In Gorsuch, J.W., et al., eds. Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment: 2nd volume, pp. 623–639. American Society of Testing and Materials. Philadelphia. Dillon, T. M., D.W. Moore, and A.B. Gibson. 1993. Development Of A Chronic Sublethal Bioassay For Evaluating Contaminated Sediment With The Marine Polychaete Worm N. Arenaceodentata. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:589–605. Dillon & Murphy. 2006. Surveyed Capacity of Roberts No. 1. March. Emerson, K., R. Russo, E. Lund, and R. V. Thurston. 1975. Aqueous Ammonia Equilibrium Calculations: Effect Of Ph And Temperature. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 32:239–2383. Enserink, L., M. de la Hay, and H. Maas. 1993. Reproductive Strategy of d. Magna: Implications For Chronic Toxicity Tests. Aquatic Toxicol. 25:111–124. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2005a. Characterization of Sediments at Neugebauer Road, Roberts Island, Port of Stockton, Stockton, California.

October 2013 25 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2005b. Notice of Intent: Reuse S4 Dredge Sediments at Daggett Road, Roberts Island and Rough and Ready Island, Port of Stockton, Stockton, California. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2005d. Roberts No. 1 Ground Water Quality Investigation and Monitoring, Roberts Island, Port of Stockton, Stockton, California. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2005e. Ground Water Investigation Work Plan. January. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2005f. Addendum to Ground Water Investigaiton Work Plan. April. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2005g. Work Plan ‐ Monitoring Water Quality Associated with Placement of Deep Water Ship Channel Sediments, November. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2005h. Ground Water Monitor Well Installation and Monitoring Work Plan. September. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2006. Roberts No. 1 Ground Water Quality Monitoring Report‐ Third Quarter 2005 – Third Quarter 2005, Roberts Island, Port of Stockton, California. January. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2011. Notice of Intent Reuse of RN1/RN2 Dredge Sediments for BNSF Grade Separation Project, June 2011. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2012. Notice of Intent, Reuse of RN1/RN2 Dredge Sediments for Lower Roberts island Levee Improvements. July 2012. Environmental Risk Services, Corporation. 2013. Technical Memorandum, Historical Dredge Depth Study, West Complex, Port of Stockton, California. August 2013. ESA, Port of Stockton West Complex Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report, May 2004 Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 2001. Summary of Soil and Groundwater Investigation Activities, Roberts Island No. 1 – Dredge Placement Site, Port of Stockton. April. Geomatrix Consultants. 2003. Additional Assessment of the Suitability of Roberts Island No. 1 for Dredge Material Placement from Docks 14 – 20, West Complex, Port of Stockton, Stockton, California. June 2003. Hall, W. S., K. L. Dickson, F. Y. Saleh, and J. H. Rodgers. 1986. Effects Of Suspended Solids On The Bioavailability Of Chlordane To Daphnia Magna. Arch. Environ. Toxicol. 15: 529–534. Hayes, D. and P. Wu. 2001. Simple Approach to TSS Source Strength Estimates, Proceedings, 21st Annual Meeting of the Western Dredging Association (WEDA XXI) and 33rd Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, Houston, TX. Hayes, D.F. and Chung‐Hwan Je. 2000. Dredge Module User’s Guide—Draft. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Utah. July. Salt Lake City, UT. Jones & Stokes. 1998. Potential Solutions For Achieving The San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen Objectives. Prepared for De Cuire & Somach and City of Stockton Department of Municipal Utilities. Prepared by Jones & Stokes. June. Sacramento, CA. Jones & Stokes. 2000. Initial Review Checklist/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration For Maintenance Dredging Of Docks K, J, L. September. Stockton, CA. Jones & Stokes. 2000. Sampling And Analysis Plan For Docks I, J, And K, West Complex, Port Of Stockton. July 2000.

October 2013 26 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Jones & Stokes. 2000. Submission Of Stockton Regional Water Control Facility Data Collected Fall Of 1999— San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load. January 10, 2000. Sacramento, CA. Jones & Stokes. 2001. Evaluation Of San Joaquin River Flows At Stockton. Prepared for the City of Stockton, Department of Municipal Utilities. April. Sacramento, CA. Jones & Stokes. 2001b. Amended Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Port Of Stockton, Berths I, J, And K. June 2001. Jones & Stokes. 2003. Report of Waste Discharge – Docks 14 – 20 at West Complex, Port of Stockton, Stockton, California. Kleinfelder. 2005. Comments on Settlement, Roberts Island No. 1 Dredge Material Confinement Area, Roberts Island, San Joaquin, California. January. Kuo, A.Y., C.S. Welch, and R.K. Lukens. 1985. Dredge induced turbidity plume model. J. Waterway, Port., Coast. and Ocean Eng. 111:476‐494. MacDonald, D.D., and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development And Evaluation Of Consensus‐Based Sediment Quality Guidelines For Freshwater Ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39: 20 – 31. Nakai, O. 1978. Turbidity generated by dredging Projects, management of bottom sediments containing toxic substances. Proceedings of the third United States‐Japan experts meeting, 1‐47. Nebeker, A. V., S. T. Onjukka, and M. A. Cairns. 1988. Chronic Effects Of Contaminated Sediment On Daphnia Magna And Chironomus Dilutus. Bull Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 41: 574–581. Palermo, M. R. 1985a‐d. Interim Guidance for Predicting Quality of Effluent Discharged from Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas. EEDP‐04‐01 through 04‐4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. Palermo, M. R., and Schroeder, P. R. 1991. Documentation of the EFQUAL Module for ADDAMS: Comparison of Predicted Effluent Quality with Standards. Technical Note EEDP‐06‐13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Palermo, M. R., and Thackston, E. L. 1988. Test For Dredged Material Effluent Quality. Journal of Environmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers 114(6). Port of Stockton. 2001a. Revised Sampling And Analysis Plan For Docks I, J, And K, West Complex, Port Of Stockton. February 2001. Port of Stockton. 2004. West Complex Development Plan ‐ Environmental Impact Report Port of Stockton. 2005. Port of Stockton Storm Water Management Plan. December. Santiago, S., et al. 1993. Comparative Ecotoxicity Of Suspended Sediment In The Lower Rhone River Using Algal Fractionation, Microtox®, And Daphnia Magna Bioassay. Hydrobiologia 252:21–244. Schroeder, P. R., and Palermo, M. R. 2000. The Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Management System (ADDAMS). Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP‐06‐12 (Revision of 1990), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Schroeder, P. R., Palermo, M. R., and Olin‐Estes, T. J. Screening Evaluations for Confined Disposal Facility Effluent Quality. Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP (in preparation), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

October 2013 27 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Schuytema, G. S., et al. 1984. Toxicity Of Cadmium In Water And Sediment Slurries To Daphnia Magna. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3: 293–308. Thackston, E. L., and Palermo, M. R. 2000. Improved Methods for Correlating Turbidity and Suspended Solids for Monitoring. DOER Technical Notes Collection, ERDC TN‐DOER‐E8, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. USEPA, 2012. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Aquatic Life Criteria Table. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for discharge in waters of the U.S. – testing manual. EPA 823‐B‐004. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement (–50 Foot) Project, Final EIS/EIR, Volume II, Sch No. 97072051. Prepared by U.S Army Corps of Engineers and Port of Oakland. May. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Jet Aeration Of A Ship Channel. Prepared by, Sacramento District. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. ‐ Testing Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal at Island, Nearshore, or Upland Confined Disposal Facilities — Testing Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Notice of Intent to Conduct Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel 2012 Maitenance Dredging Project. USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria— Correction. EPA 822‐Z‐99‐001. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. April 1999. Washington, DC. USEPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the California San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2000. Draft Long‐Term Management Strategy—Management Plan. Appendix I, dredging “best management practices.” USEPA. 1999b. 1999 Update Of Ambient Water Quality Criteria For Ammonia. EPA 822‐R‐99‐014. Prepared by United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. December. Washington, DC. VERTEX Engineering Services, Inc.. 2002. Marine Magnetometer Survey Port of Stockton – West Complex, Stockton, California. June.

October 2013 28 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST

Dr. Phillip Giovannini Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Board 11020 Sun Center Dr, #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Port of Stockton 2201 West Washington Street Stockton California 95201

October 2013 29 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

TABLES

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

FIGURES

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Appendix A

Bathymetric Data for West Complex Docks 16 through 18 (Sea Surveyor, 2013)

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Appendix B

RN1 dredge placement area capacity survey (Dillon and Murphy, 2013)

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Appendix C

Operations Plan for the Dredging and Placement of Dock 16 through 18 Sediment at the RN1 Placement Facility

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Appendix D

Pacific Ecorisk Data Report: Biological Testing of the Sediment Samples Collected from the West Complex

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Appendix E

Evaluation of Near and Far Field Turbidity

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED DREDGING OF DOCKS 16 THROUGH 18 PORT OF STOCKTON - WEST COMPLEX, ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, CALIFORNIA

Appendix F

Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Analytical Reports

October 2013 Environmental Risk Services Corporation CORPS OF ENGINEERS OF CORPS

6,737,000 1,756,000 6,738,000 1,757,000 6,739,000 ³ VICINITY MAP VICINITY 6,737,000 1,757,000 10 8 6 4 2 0 Miles 6,740,000 Cable Overhead Cable Submarine Cable Line Center Navigation Federal Channel Navigation Federal Contour Line Contour 6,738,000 0 1,756,000 400 ç è ¾ LEGEND Feet Obstruction Point Obstruction Area Anchorage Wrecks-Submerged Area Placement Area Cable 6,741,000 800 1,753,000 X X ( ! ( ( 1,200 Green Navigation Buoy Navigation Green Red Navigation Buoy Navigation Red General Beacon, Sounding** Shoalest Area Shoaling 6,739,000 1,755,000

: 6,742,000 NOTES: ** Shoalest Sounding per Quarter per Reach. per Quarter per Sounding Shoalest ** 18521. No. Chart Navigation N.O.A.A. is Reference Center Agencies. Service U.S.D.A., source: data Photography 2009 Aerial Guard. Coast U.S. the by provided and on base are aids navigation of location The time. that at existing condition general the represent to considered be only can and indicated date the on conducted survey a of results the represents map this on depicted information The 1972. July Commission, Basins River Northwest Pacific Committee, Hydraulics and Hydrology the of Index Mile River the to conforms mileage River MLLWbelow Datum. depths indicate and feet in shown are Soundings Vertical Datum: Feet. Survey U.S. in units Distance CA (0402). Zone2 (SPCS), System Coordinate Plane State the to projected (NAD83), 1983 of Datum North American System: Coordinate Horizontal 1,752,000 6,740,000 1,754,000 post-processed using public GPS reference stations in the area. the in stations reference GPS public using post-processed were MLLW and elevations positions horizontal All METADATA: 8 2014 USACE April, by set Nail MLLWft 10.0 @ Nail GAUGE: TIDE PID) (No POWS1 BENCHMARK: NOOASTATION: 9416131 SACRAMENTO WEST OF LOCATION: PORT 2014 METADATA:March, 31 USACE by set Nail MLLW ft 8.2 @ Nail GAUGE: TIDE PID) (No 1996 B 5316 BENCHMARK: NOOA STATION: 9415316 VISTA LOCATION: RIO CONTROLS: statement Equipment Tidegage -35’ Depth Project navigation. for used be to not Drawing Information: Project 6,743,000 1,751,000

6,741,000 1,751,000 6,742,000 1,752,000 6,743,000 1,753,000

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF Surveyed By: Chart Date: District: CESPN District:

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA DISCLAIMER Distribution Liability: The data represents the results of data US Corps Army

Jun 08, 2015 Access Constraints: The United States Government furnishes collection/processing for a specific US Army Corps of Engineers of Reference Reference JOHN C. MORROW 35 of 39 35of these data and the recipient accepts and uses them with the express Engineers activity and indicates the general existing conditions. U.S. U.S. ARMY Number JOHN F. BALDWIN LT. COLONEL, C.E., DISTRICT ENGINEER understanding that the US Government makes no warranties, As such, it is only valid for its intended use, content, time and Sheet Plotted By: Designed by: expressed, or implied concerning the accuracy, completeness, accuracy specifications. The user is responsible for the results AND Submitted: readability, usability or suitability for any particular purpose of the of any of the application of the data for other than its intended purpose. Hydro Survey Team Leader PDT information and the data furnished. The United States shall be under no liability whatsoever to any person by reason of any use STOCKTON SHIP CHANNELS Recommended: made thereof. These data belong to the Government. Therefore the Chief, Hydro Survey Section Checked By: Drawn by: recipient fully agrees not to represent these data to anyone as other 20 APRIL - 06 MAY 2015 than Government provided data. The recipient may not transfer CONDITION SURVEY Approved: PDT PDT these data to others without also transferring this Disclaimer. Chief, Construction Branch CORPS OF ENGINEERS OF CORPS

6,741,000 1,752,000 6,742,000 1,753,000 6,743,000 ³ VICINITY MAP VICINITY 1,751,000 1,753,000 6,741,000 10 8 6 4 2 0 Miles 6,744,000 Cable Overhead Cable Submarine Cable Line Center Navigation Federal Channel Navigation Federal Contour Line Contour 1,750,000 0 1,752,000 6,742,000 400 ç è ¾ LEGEND Feet Obstruction Point Obstruction Area Anchorage Wrecks-Submerged Area Placement Area Cable 800 6,745,000 1,749,000 X X ( ! ( ( 1,200 Green Navigation Buoy Navigation Green Red Navigation Buoy Navigation Red General Beacon, Sounding** Shoalest Area Shoaling 1,751,000 6,743,000

: NOTES: ** Shoalest Sounding per Quarter per Reach. per Quarter per Sounding Shoalest ** 18521. No. Chart Navigation N.O.A.A. is Reference Center Agencies. Service U.S.D.A., source: data Photography 2009 Aerial Guard. Coast U.S. the by provided and on base are aids navigation of location The time. that at existing condition general the represent to considered be only can and indicated date the on conducted survey a of results the represents map this on depicted information The 1972. July Commission, Basins River Northwest Pacific Committee, Hydraulics and Hydrology the of Index Mile River the to conforms mileage River MLLWbelow Datum. depths indicate and feet in shown are Soundings Vertical Datum: Feet. Survey U.S. in units Distance CA (0402). Zone2 (SPCS), System Coordinate Plane State the to projected (NAD83), 1983 of Datum North American System: Coordinate Horizontal 1,748,000 6,746,000 1,750,000 6,744,000 post-processed using public GPS reference stations in the area. the in stations reference GPS public using post-processed were MLLW and elevations positions horizontal All METADATA: 8 2014 USACE April, by set Nail MLLWft 10.0 @ Nail GAUGE: TIDE PID) (No POWS1 BENCHMARK: NOOASTATION: 9416131 SACRAMENTO WEST OF LOCATION: PORT 2014 METADATA:March, 31 USACE by set Nail MLLW ft 8.2 @ Nail GAUGE: TIDE PID) (No 1996 B 5316 BENCHMARK: NOOA STATION: 9415316 VISTA LOCATION: RIO CONTROLS: statement Equipment Tidegage -35’ Depth Project navigation. for used be to not Drawing Information: Project 1,747,000 6,747,000

1,747,000 6,745,000 6,746,000 6,747,000

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF Surveyed By: Chart Date: District: CESPN District:

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA DISCLAIMER Distribution Liability: The data represents the results of data US Corps Army

Jun 08, 2015 Access Constraints: The United States Government furnishes collection/processing for a specific US Army Corps of Engineers of Reference Reference JOHN C. MORROW 36 of 39 36of these data and the recipient accepts and uses them with the express Engineers activity and indicates the general existing conditions. U.S. U.S. ARMY Number JOHN F. BALDWIN LT. COLONEL, C.E., DISTRICT ENGINEER understanding that the US Government makes no warranties, As such, it is only valid for its intended use, content, time and Sheet Plotted By: Designed by: expressed, or implied concerning the accuracy, completeness, accuracy specifications. The user is responsible for the results AND Submitted: readability, usability or suitability for any particular purpose of the of any of the application of the data for other than its intended purpose. Hydro Survey Team Leader PDT information and the data furnished. The United States shall be under no liability whatsoever to any person by reason of any use STOCKTON SHIP CHANNELS Recommended: made thereof. These data belong to the Government. Therefore the Chief, Hydro Survey Section Checked By: Drawn by: recipient fully agrees not to represent these data to anyone as other 20 APRIL - 06 MAY 2015 than Government provided data. The recipient may not transfer CONDITION SURVEY Approved: PDT PDT these data to others without also transferring this Disclaimer. Chief, Construction Branch