Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKOMEX, H20 SCIENCE, INC - 2000-01-03.�.Wi-'yy+ �-': _ LLfn;/ � _ -' '.n '�1� �i :�16, �. i•4b � 4 J9�+'Y 'j �.p44 ri` _ .. r1 LJ DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR: The City of Huntington Beach 19001 Huntington Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 PREPARED BY: KOMEX 5500 Boisa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, California 92649-1102 USA 06 June 2001 105-002 FINAL 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the environmental investigation activities conducted by Komex, on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach (the City), as part of the City's compliance with Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) No. 00-86. The CAO required the City to evaluate the fate of sewage that had leaked (or was leaking) from its sanitary sewer collection system and to mitigate the effects of the sewage as necessary. Specifically, the RWQCB ordered the City to evaluate if the leaked sewage has had an adverse impact on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. Therein, the objective of the Komex hydrogeologic investigation was to evaluate if the leaked sewage had an adverse impact on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. The Komex scope of work, as approved by the RWQCB, consisted of installing nine groundwater monitoring wells in and around the downtown area; sampling groundwater once per week for five weeks at each of the nine wells plus one additional, already existing well at the Atlanta storm water pump station; measuring groundwater elevations in the ten • wells to calculate the groundwater gradient; analyzing the groundwater samples for biological and chemical indicators of sewage including two forms of bacteria (fecal coliform and enterococci), one viral indicator (Male -specific bacteriophage), four forms of nitrogen (organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate) and two forms of phosphate (inorganic phosphate and organic phosphate); preparing draft and final reports for the City and the RWQCB; and providing liaison between the City, the RWQCB, and the local press including the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register. Nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed within and around downtown Huntington Beach between March 14 and 21, 2001, at locations and depths approved by the RWQCB. The groundwater monitoring wells were developed initially between March 21 and March 27, 2001. Additional development was carried out on Well MW-6 (necessary as a result of a slow, low volume recharge) on April 2, 2001. Groundwater was sampled weekly, over a period of two days, on five occasions between March 28 and April 26, 2001, from the ten wells. Groundwater elevation data were collected on April 13 and May 1, 2001. Groundwater in the vicinity of Wells MW-5 and MW-9 appears to be unconfined. Elsewhere, throughout downtown Huntington Beach, shallow groundwater appears to be • confined by one or two silt and clay horizons, with no indication of perched water in sand 105-002 June b Final Report I KOMEX USA, CANADA. JKAND WORLDWIDE FINAL • horizons above where groundwater was initially detected. The confining lavers often contained trace natural organic material. The groundwater potentiometric surface, indicative of groundwater flow direction, within downtown Huntington Beach slopes inland toward the northeast, with an approximate gradient of 1.3 x 10-4 feet/foot. The localized potentiometric surface near the Atlanta stormwater pump station (in the vicinity of Well MW-11) slopes toward the pump station as a result of leaks in the walls and base of the pump station sump. Using the hydraulic conductivity for the OCSD facility, the average linear groundwater velocity in the Study Area is calculated as approximately 0.046 feet/day (1.40 cm/day) or 16.8 feet/year (5.12 m/vear), inland to the northeast. Using the hydraulic conductivities for the beach area near Newland Street, the average linear groundwater velocity is calculated as approximately 0.058 feet/day (I.77 cm/day) or 21.1 feet/year (6.44 m/year), inland to the northeast. The presence of several faults in the downtown Huntington Beach area (the faults as part of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone) may not influence the groundwater gradient and flow direction within the Study Area. The concentrations of bacteria] indicators (FC and ENT) and the viral indicator (MSB) were . below the detection limit in groundwater samples obtained from the wells in the Study Area. This indicates that there is no evidence of sewage in groundwater in Study Area. Chemical co -indicators (TOC, organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, inorganic phosphate, organic phosphate and total phosphate) are present in the groundwater within the Study Area, at concentrations significantly lower than those found in untreated domestic wastewater. TOC concentrations in the groundwater samples were approximately 70 times lower than those found in a typical medium -strength wastewater. Comparing all the chemical co -indicators, the concentrations, on average, were 68 times lower than in a medium -strength wastewater (inorganic and organic phosphate concentrations were only 21 times and 30 times lower, respectively). This indicates that there is no evidence of sewage in groundwater in the Study Area. The upper 30 feet (9.1 m) of groundwater is affected by infiltration of soluble material from the surface. This can occur where periods of precipitation flush the soil zone of nitrate and organic carbon. The elevated concentrations (relative to those for groundwater samples obtained from the OCWD deep production wells) of chemical co -indicators found in this study are likely due to infiltration of surface waters, leaching of soil organic matter and leaching of natural indigenous TOC from the clay horizons or aquifer material. Oilfield iactivity (or other industrial construction activity) in and around downtown Huntington Beach may have resulted in a surface connection between the near ground surface and the 105-002 June 6 Rnai Report ii KOMEX USA. CANADA. UKANDWORLDWO FINAL • shallow groundwater. The clay and silt confining laver may not be present throughout locations in the downtown area, thus allowing surface waters to infiltrate into the shallow groundwater beneath the confining laver. If this surface connection exists, it would be expected that concentrations of chemical co -indicators would be higher as a result of surface loading and leaching than those concentrations found in groundwater samples from the OCWD deep production wells. The absence of detectable bacterial and viral indicators combined with the low or relatively low concentrations of chemical co -indicators make it unlikely that any leaking sanitary sewers within the Study Area had an adverse effect on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. Further investigation of the groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach specific to the fate of sewage associated with any past leaks is not recommended at this time based upon the groundwater sampling results of this study. The influence on local groundwater in this area is caused by groundwater leaking into the Atlanta stormwater pump station through cracks in the walls and base of the pump station sump thus creating a local anomaly in the local groundwater potentiometric surface and probable groundwater flow direction. Non -storm flows that are presently being discharged from the pump station sump into the drainage channel will be permanently diverted to the OCSD treatment plant at some time in the near future. Data from groundwater samples collected from Well MW-11 (adjacent to the Atlanta storm water pump station sump) do not indicate the presence of sewage in groundwater. It is recommended that the City repair the leaks in the walls and base of the Atlanta stormwater pump station to minimize further inflow, thus minimizing the effect on the local groundwater flow direction and minimizing the pumping costs and system maintenance associated with continued pumping of this water. 105-002 June 6 Finai Report III KOMEX USA. CANADA, UKAN'DA"ORLVWO FINAL 0 PUBLIC SUMMARY Which way does groundwater flow under downtown Huntington Beach? • Groundwater is flowing inland, toward the northeast. Does groundwater flow toward the ocean? • No. How fast is groundwater flowing? • Groundwater is flowing at an average speed of between 17 and 21 feet per year (5.1 and 6.4 meters per n(,ar). Were any bacterial and/or viral indicators detected in any groundwater samples collected from the Study Area? • No. This indicates that there is no evidence of sewage in groundwater beneath "old town" and downtown Huntington Beach. • Were any chemicals that could possibly indicate the presence of sewage detected in any groundwater samples collected from "old town" and downtown Huntington Beach? • Yes. However, these were detected at concentrations up to 70 times lower than those found in typical medium -strength, untreated sewage. This indicates that there is no evidence of sewage in groundwater beneath "old town" and downtown Huntington Beach. If these other chemicals are not from sewage, then where are they from? • The upper 30 feet (9.1 meters) of groundwater is affected by percolation from the surface. Surface water (rain and urban runoff) will contain these chemicals because of fertilizer use on lawns, etc. These chemicals are also naturally found in soil and can leach from soil down into the groundwater. Did any of the leaking sewers in "old town" and downtown Huntington Beach have an adverse effect on groundwater? • No. The absence of detectable bacterial and/or viral indicators combined with the low or relatively low concentrations of chemical indicators make it unlikely that any leaking sanitary sewers within the Study Area had an adverse effect on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. 105-002 June 6 Final Report iv KOMEX USA, CANADA UKAND'RVCRLOWIDF FINAL I* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................ I 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY................................................................................2 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVE................................................................................8 1.3 KOMEX SCOPE OF WORK...................................................................8 2 BACKGROUND.............................................................................9 2.1 STUDY LOCATION AND PHYSIOGRAPHY............................................9 2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING............................................................................9 2.3 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY...........................................................10 2.4 BACTERIAL AND VIRAL INDICATORS................................................13 2.4.1 BACTERIAL INDICATORS.........................................................14 2.4.2 VIRAL INDICATORS.................................................................15 2.5 CHEMICAL INDICATORS....................................................................16 2.5.1 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON.....................................................16 2.5.2 NITROGEN...............................................................................17 . 2.5.2.1 Organic Nitrogen..................................................1. 18 2.5.2.2 Ammonia.................................................................. 18 2.5.2.3 Nitrite....................................................................... 19 2.5.2.4 Nitrate...................................................................... 19 2.5.3 PHOSPHATE.............................................................................20 2.5.3.1 Inorganic Phosphate ...........................................— 20 2.5.3.2 Organic Phosphate ................................................ 21 2.6 INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS.............................................................21 3 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................23 3.1 GROUNDWATER WELL INSTALLATION...............................................23 3.2 GROUNDWATER WELL DEVELOPMENT..............................................24 3.3 WATER LEVEL MONITORING AND SAMPLING..................................24 3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) SAMPLING ... 25 3.5 SURVEYING........................................................................................26 3.6 WASTE DISPOSAL...............................................................................26 4 RESULTS.......................................................................................28 4.1 BOREHOLE GEOLOGY.......................................................................28 4.2 GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION...................................................29 105-002 June 6 Final Report v KOMEX USA, CAN'ADA, JKAND VVOR_DW,DE FINAL 4.3 BACTERIAL AND VIRAL ANALYSES RESULTS......................................30 4.4 CHEMICAL ANALYSES RESULTS.........................................................30 4.4.1 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON.....................................................30 4.4.2 ORGANIC NITROGEN.............................................................31 4.4.3 AMMONIA...............................................................................31 4.4.4 NITRITE.................................................................................31 4.4.5 NITRATE.................................................................................31 4.4.6 TOTAL NITROGEN....................................................................31 4.4.7 INORGANIC PHOSPHATE........................................................32 4.4.8 ORGANIC PHOSPHATE...........................................................32 4.4.9 TOTAL PHOSPHATE..................................................................32 4.5 QA/QC SUMMARY............................................................................32 1-1 5 DISCUSSION...............................................................................34 5.1 HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY AND GROUNDWATER FLOW........................34 5.2 SEWAGE INDICATORS IN GROUNDWATER.......................................35 5.2.1 BACTERIAL AND VIRAL INDICATORS.....................................35 5.2.2 CHEMICAL INDICATORS.........................................................36 f� CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................38 6.1 HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY AND GROUNDWATER FLOW........................38 6.2 SEWAGE INDICATORS IN GROUNDWATER.......................................38 7 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................40 8 CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS..............................................................41 9 REFERENCES...............................................................................43 105-002 June 6 Final Report YI KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND V'/ORL' DWIDc FINAL 0 LIST OF TABLES • • I ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WATER QUALITY DATA 2 WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 3 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA 4 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS - BACTERIAL & VIRAL INDICATOR DATA 5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS - CHEMICAL INDICATOR DATA 6 QA/QC SAMPLING RESULTS - BACTERIAL & VIRAL INDICATOR DATA 7 QA/QC SAMPLING RESULTS - CHEMICAL INDICATOR DATA 105-002 June 6 Ginal Report vii KOMEX USA. CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL 10 LIST OF FIGURES • 1 LOCATION MAP 2 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 3 GROUNDWATER BASINS ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 4 SITE MAP 5 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE -- EVENT 1 6 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE - EVENT 2 7 WELL GROUNDWATER RESULTS - BACTERIAL AND VIRAL INDICATORS 8 WELL GROUNDWATER RESULTS - TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 9 WELL GROUNDWATER RESULTS - TOTAL NITROGEN 10 WELL GROUNDWATER RESULTS -TOTAL PHOSPHATE 105-002 June 6 Final Report viii KOMEX +USA, CA.NADA, UKAND INORLD;N1DE FINAL 10 LIST OF APPENDICES • • A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR FIELD ACTIVITIES B BOREHOLE LOGS C CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORDS D LABORATORY GROUNDWATER SAMPLE REPORTS E SURVEY DATA F WASTE MANIFESTS 105-002 June 6 Final Report ix KOMEX USA, CANADA, UKAND INORLDVADE FINAL I* LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ofy acre-feet per year bgs below ground surface °C degrees Centigrade CAO Cleanup and Abatement Order CFU colony forming unit(s) City City of Huntington Beach cm centimeter(s) degree(s) DHS Department of Health Services DOC dissolved organic carbon DWR California Department of Water Resources EM electromagnetic ENT enterococci ERT electrical resistance tomography OF degrees Fahrenheit . FC fecal coliform FS fecal streptococci GTI Groundwater Technology Inc. gpm gallons per minute HSA hollow stem auger km kilometer(s) L liter(s) L/minute liters per minute LL"STIS Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System m meter(s) m/km meters per kilometer m/year meters per year m3 cubic meter(s) m3/y cubic meters per year mL milliliter(s) MCL maximum contaminant level MPN most probable number MSB Male -specific bacteriophage IS MSL mean sea level 105-002 June 6 Final Report X KOMEX USA, CANADA, UKA�D'fJG-7_DW0E FINAL mg 0 milligram(s) mg/L milligrams per liter MW monitoring well nm nanometers INPDWR 'National Primary Drinking Water Regulations NRC National Research Council OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District %, percent PCH Pacific Coast Highway PFU plaque forming units PVC poly -vinyl chloride QA quality assurance QC quality control RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region State Parks California State Department of Parks and Recreation TC total coliform . TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TOC total organic carbon um micrometer USA Underground Service Alert USEPA united States Environmental Protection Agency VOCs volatile organic compounds • 105-002 June 6 Final Report A KOMEX USA, CANADA. JKAND WCRLDINOCE FINAL 0 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the environmental investigation activities conducted by Komex, on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach (the Cite), as part of the City's compliance with Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) No. 00-86. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Santa Ana Region (RWQCB) issued the City the CAO on December 12, 2000. The CAO required the Cihr to evaluate the fate of sewage that had leaked (or was leaking) from its sanitary sewer collection system and to mitigate the effects of the sewage as necessary. Specifically, the RWQCB ordered the City to evaluate if the leaked sewage has had an adverse impact on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. This report has been structured as follows: • Introduction. This section includes information on project history, the study objective and the Komex scope of work; • Background. This section includes information on the study location and physiography, geologic setting, regional hydrogeology, bacterial and viral indicators, chemical • indicators and investigation locations; • Methodology. This section includes information on groundwater well installation, groundwater well development, water level monitoring and sampling, quality assurance/quality control sampling, surveying and waste disposal; • Results. This section includes information on borehole geology, the groundwater flow direction, bacterial and viral analyses results, chemical analyses results and the quality assurance/quality control summary; • Discussion. This section includes a reference to the numerical and graphical data presented in the Results section and includes information on hydrostratigraphy and groundwater flow and sewage indicators in groundwater; • Conclusions. The conclusions section has been split into hydrostratigraphy and groundwater flow and sewage indicators in groundwater; • Recommendations. This section includes recommendations based upon the results and conclusions developed throughout the course of the investigation; • Closure / Limitations. This section details the general limitations inherent in such an investigation; and • References. This section provides a bibliographic listing of references used in conducting the investigations and preparing this report. 105-002 June 6 Final Report i KOMEX USA, CANYADA, UKAND ;/✓ORiOWDE FINAL • 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY On Jule 26, 1999, in accordance with Health and Safety Code §115880 (Assembly Bill 411, Statutes of 7997, Chapter 765), the Department of Health Services (DHS) was required to expand its regulations for ocean beaches (DHS 1999). AB 411 and the regulations contain weekly monitoring requirements and requirements for posting and closing beaches. The requirements specifically apply to coastal beaches that are visited by 50,000 or more people annually, and are located adjacent to storm drains that flow from the period of April 1 through October 31. However, prior to the implementation of AB 411 and the new regulations, monitoring data from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) showed that indicator bacteria concentrations in the near shore waters off Huntington Beach were above normal in April 1999. On June 27, 1999, the concentration of total coliform exceeded the health standards (10,000 most probable number per 100 milliliters [MPN1100 mL]), and the first section of beach was closed on July 1, 1999 (OCSD 1999). The health officer believed that the increased indicator bacteria concentrations were caused by sewage. • The first ocean water recreational closure extended approximately 5,000 feet (1,520 m) along the Huntington State Beach between Newland Street and Magnolia Street. The affected area continued to spread to the south and resulted in two additional closures on August 6 and August 11, 1999. The bacterial "plume" then spread to the north, which resulted in an additional ocean water recreational closure on August 18, 1999, extending to Beach Boulevard. On August 20, 1999, the last remaining section of the Huntington State Beach south of Brookhurst Street was closed. This closure extended down to the mouth of the Santa Ana River. Two additional ocean water recreational closures occurred on August 24 and August 31, 1999. These both extended northward from Beach Boulevard to their maximum extent at Goldenwest Street affecting Huntington City Beach. In total, approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers [km]) of beach were closed due to bacterial contamination. This closure extended from the mouth of the Santa Ana River north to Goldenivest Street. Initial investigations to evaluate the source of the elevated bacterial concentrations were led by the OCSD with the participation of the Orange County Heath Care Agency (OCHCA), the California State Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), the City of Huntington Beach and the RWQCB (OCSD 1999). The initial investigations failed to • identify a single significant source of the indicator bacteria, although circumstantial 105-002 June b Final Report 2 KOMEX USA, CA.NADA. UKAND WOR±OWiDE FINAL . evidence at that time pointed to urban runoff as the likely source of the indicator bacteria (OCSD 1999). As a follow up to the OCSD report and conclusions, a multi -consultant team was retained by the City to investigate the possible source(s), transport mechanism(s) and corrective measure(s) for the elevated indicator bacteria concentrations degrading near shore water quality. The team was to focus primarily on identifying and investigating potential surface water and urban runoff sources as well as potential groundwater and sediment sources. Komex undertook subsurface water quality (geophysical and hydrogeologicai) and sediment investigations. The objectives of the Komex investigations (Komex 2000) focused on the following: • Identifying, confirming or eliminating subsurface infrastructure or areas with geophysical anomalies identified in the subsurface as potential sources and transport pathways for indicator bacteria in the subsurface; • Identifying, confirming or eliminating groundwater as a possible source of the elevated concentrations of indicator bacteria that have led to the ocean water recreational closures and • • Identifying, confirming or eliminating near -surface sediments at several locations as potential sources of indicator bacteria. • To achieve these objectives, Komex undertook the following tasks in two separate phases: Phase I + A review of background information relevant to the area; • A geophysical investigation that utilized both borehole and surface geophysics, including natural gamma (electromagnetic radiation having an extremely short wavelength emitted during radioactive decay), induction, fluid conductivity and fluid temperature borehole geophysical logging and electrical resistance tomography (ERT) and electro-magnetic (EM) terrain conductivity surface geophysical surveys to identify potential bacterial sources or transport pathways for indicator bacteria; and + A hydrogeologic investigation that entailed the construction of groundwater monitoring wells for the purpose of performing an aquifer pumping test and monitoring the relationship between tidal and groundwater elevation fluctuations, in conjunction with collecting one groundwater sample from each of the ten monitoring wells and subsequent indicator bacteria analysis. 105-002 June 6 Final Repcyt 3 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL Phase II • Surface geophysics to investigate areas of concern identified during the Phase I investigation; • Vertical subsurface conductivity profiling to confirm the presence of subsurface conductivity anomalies identified during the Phase I investigation; • Groundwater sampling at existing monitoring wells to characterize groundwater quality and occurrence of indicator bacteria; • Discrete groundwater sampling from temporary monitoring points using a hydropunch groundwater sampling system to investigate areas of concern identified during the Phase I investigation; • Groundwater level monitoring at available groundwater wells to improve understanding of the local groundwater flow regime; and • Sediment sampling to investigate if sediments in the study area are potential sources of indicator bacteria. The Komex investigation program was designed to target the most likely sources of bacterial contamination and transport pathways that could potentially impact recreational . water quality in the nearby surf zone. The following specific areas within the Huntington Beach Study Area were investigated: • AES powerplant; • Ascon-Nesi Landfill; • Huntington and Talbert Channels; • Santa Ana River; • Storm water pump stations; • Hilton Grand Coast Resort construction site; • OCSD Plant No. 2; • Huntington State Beach and Huntington City Beach; • Newport Slough; and • Talbert Marsh. Specific to groundwater, the Komex Phase I and II investigations provided answers to the following questions: 0 Are indicator bacteria present in groundwater? 105-002 June 6 Final Report 4 KOMEX USA, CA:NADA. UK AND V✓QRLDAiDE FINAL . Yes, indicator bacteria in groundwater were positively detected at semen locations within the study area. If bacteria are present, what specific bacteria, in what areas, and in what concentrations? Indicator bacteria were detected in the groundwater at the Hilton Grand Coast Resort construction site; the Atlanta stormwater pump station; the Ascon-Nesi Landfill; Huntington State Beach between Newland Street and Magnolia Street across the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) from the AES powerplant; near the mouth of the Talbert Channel where it discharges to the Pacific Ocean; at OCSD Plant No. 2; and in the Santa Ana River near Adams Avenue. The concentrations of indicator bacteria in most of these areas were low (near background and/or the detection limit). However, three sites within the study did have concentrations of bacteria that exceeded the AB 411 standards. These areas included. The 11-inch diameter groundwater monitoring well at the Atlanta stormwater pump station (enterococci [ENT] 140 colony forming units per 100 milliliters [CFli/100 mL]), a groundwater monitoring well at the Hilton Grand Coast Resort construction site (ENT 590 CFli/100 mL) and a discrete • depth sample at OCSD Plant No. 2 (total coliform [TC] 44,280 CFU/100 mL). Is groundwater discharging to surface water? Groundwater flow within the study area is inland, toward the northeast, with an average hydraulic gradient of 0.0013 feet/foot (the inland flow of groundwater is caused by pumping from wells located further inland within the Talbert aquifer and other deeper aquifers). Given the direction of groundwater flow, groundwater may be discharging to the Huntington and Talbert Channels. Localized flow at areas along the beach and in the immediate vicinity of channels and marshes may be toward the surface water bodies. If so, can that discharge cause or contribute to ocean water recreational closures? The low number of bacterial detections in the groundwater and the corresponding low concentrations (with the exception of the three sites noted above) indicate that bacterial transport in groundwater may not contribute significantly to bacterial loading in near -shore ocean water. The dominant groundwater gradient (which is inland from the ocean) would limit the transport of bacteria to near shore waters. If groundwater containing ENT at concentrations encountered in this investigation discharged into surface water bodies, the isdischarged volumes would be small and would undergo dilution within the surface water body, posing little risk to recreational ocean water quality. 105-OC2 June b Final Report 5 KOMEX USA- CAPdADA, UKAi'VO 'WCR_DW+D= FINAL • Are there any areas that require additional groundwater investigation? Yes, additional investigation should be performed in the southeast corner of OCSD Plant No. 2 to investigate the geophysical low conductivity anomaly and high nitrate concentrations found in groundwater during the course of this investigation. Additional investigation should be performed in the area of the AES powerplant and across PCH at that location to assess the higher nitrate concentrations detected in groundwater during the course of this investigation. Additional investigation should be performed at the Atlanta stormwater pump station to evaluate the source of enterococci in the 11-inch well. Additional work should also be completed at the Hilton Grand Coast Resort construction site to assess the source of enterococci found in groundwater sampled from one of the dewatering wells. The aging sanitary sewer infrastructure in downtown Huntington Beach was known to have leaking pipes in many locations. Information collected from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department (Krieger 2000) shows that approximately 154,000 linear feet (46.9 km) of sanitary sewer line was installed in the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach from 1914 to 1966, with additional sewer lines being installed from 1967 to present day. Internal pipe inspections conducted by the Public Works Department have shown that the aging pipe infrastructure had many locations that were cracked and/or potentially leaking. The sanitary sewer infrastructure of the downtown area was not selected for investigation as part of the Phase I and II studies in that potential leaking sewers in the downtown area would not be suspected to contribute to bacterial contamination in near shore ocean waters for the following reasons: • Groundwater flow is directed inland, awav from the ocean. Seawater intrusion was first observed in municipal wells during the 1930s because of basin overdraft. This overdraft continues, causing seawater to migrate up to 3.5 miles (5.6 km) inland (National Research Council f NRCj 1994). Despite the Talbert and Alamitos injection barriers, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) (OCWD 1999) Balanced Basin Hydrologic Budget (1996-1997), estimates seawater inflow to the basin at 2,500 afy (3,083,717 cubic meters per year [m3/yj). The OCWD estimates that flow provided by the two injection barriers is not lost to the ocean, and that the net inflow of seawater described above is occurring in the Talbert Aquifer system. Sewage from leaking sewers would likely be transported further inland, rather than toward the ocean; 0 105-002 June 6 Final Report 6 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL • • Groundwater elevation contours in the Production Aquifer within the Orange County Groundwater Basin for the month of November 1999, show: that groundwater appears to flow inland from the coast toward Adams Avenue, where it merges with groundwater flowing from the north. Again, sewage from leaking sewers would be transported further inland, not toward the ocean; • Information from the RWQCB Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS) collected for a property in Huntington Beach along PCH indicates the presence of groundwater in two separate zones, each zone generally less than a few feet in thickness. Groundwater in the upper (shallow) zone occurred beneath the property as perched groundwater under unconfined conditions, while groundwater in the lower zone is apparently confined and may be perched. Groundwater flow in the two zones differed in direction and magnitude. In December 1992, groundwater was flowing east (inland) in the upper zone and northeast (inland) in the lower zone. Groundwater was described as brackish in the upper zone and saline in the lower zone (Groundwater Technology Inc. [GTI] 1993). Therefore, these data indicate that groundwater in the two zones was moving inland and sewage from leaking sewers would be transported further inland, not toward the ocean. . + Mean linear groundwater flow velocities are low (ranging from approximately 124 feet/year to 270 feet/year [38.3 m/year to 82.4 m/year]). The distance from the ocean to the nearest area of potential sewer leakage is approximately 1,300 feet (396 meters [m]). Even if groundwater were flowing toward the ocean at a rate of 270 feet/year (82.4 m/year), the travel time from the nearest area of potential sewer leakage to the ocean would be approximately 4.8 years (1,760 days). The literature reports (Bitton et al. 1983) that the Tao (an estimate of the time required for a bacterial population to decrease in number to 10% of the size of the initial population lone order of magnitude or one log cycle reduction]) for E. tali and enterococci in groundwater are in the order of 6.3 days and 34.7 days, respectively. With an assumed initial population of E. tali and enterococci in raw sewage in the order of 10,000,000 CFU/100 mL, the population of E. coli will have reduced to one CFU/100 mL within 44 days and one CFU/100 mL for enterococci in 243 days. Should raw- sewage from the nearest area of potential sewer leakage be transported toward the ocean at the average groundwater velocity noted, die - off would likely reduce the E. tali and enterococci populations to non -detectable concentrations before the groundwater reaches the ocean. • Other than when the ocean closure extended northwest to Goldenwest Street in the . summer of 1999, ocean water quality in the vicinity of downtown Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Pier has generally been of acceptable quality relative to the water 105-002 June 6 Final Report 7 KOMEX USA. ^.AAFADA. JKAtiDWOO_OWDE FINAL quality at Stations 6N and 9N located further to the southeast where reoccurring water quality problems persist. Despite the results of the Komex study, the RWQCB issued the City CAO No. 00-86 on December 12, 2000. The CAO specifically stated: • The fate of the leaked sewage has not been evaluated; • The leaked sewage is discharged to groundwater in areas where groundwater could migrate to and impact the quality of near shore ocean waters; • Sewage contains significant concentrations of bacteria, such that migration of sewage to near shore ocean waters could contribute to elevated bacteria levels in those waters, and • Although extensive efforts and resources have been expended to identify the source of the elevated bacteria levels in the near shore waters, the findings to date are inconclusive. 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVE The objective of the Komex hydrogeologic investigation was to evaluate if the leaked sewage had an adverse impact on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. 1.3 KOMEX SCOPE OF WORK The Komex scope of work, as approved by the RWQCB, consisted of the following tasks: Install nine groundwater monitoring wells in and around the downtown area; • Sample groundwater once per week for five weeks at each of the nine newly installed wells plus one additional existing well (the 11-inch I27.9 centimeter] diameter) well at the Atlanta storm water pump station); • Measure groundwater elevations in the ten wells to calculate the groundwater gradient; • Analyze the groundwater samples for biological and chemical indicators of sewage including two forms of bacteria (fecal coliform and enterococci), one viral indicator (Male -specific bacteriophage), four forms of nitrogen (organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate) and two forms of phosphate (inorganic phosphate and organic phosphate); • Prepare a report for the City and the RWQCB; and • Provide liaison between the City, the RWQCB, and the local press including the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 8 KOMEX USA, CANADA. UKAND WORLDWIDE FINAL 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 STUDY LOCATION AND PHYSIOGRAPHY The area in downtown and "old town" Huntington Beach where leaking sewers were documented is bounded by 1311, Street to the northwest, Memphis Avenue to the north, Beach Boulevard to the east, and Pacific Coast Highway to the southwest as shown on Figure 1. This area will be referred to as the Study Area. The Study Area lies entirely within the Coastal Plain of Orange County. The central lowland of the Coastal Plain of Orange County stretches northwest from Irvine past Santa Ana and Garden Grove into Los Angeles County. It has little relief and an average slope of less than 20 feet per mile (3.8 meters per kilometer [m/km]) {Department of Water Resources [DWR], 1967). The central lowland is bounded to the north, east and southeast by the Puente Hills, Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills, respectively, and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and southwest (Morton et al. 1976). The central lowland comprises the Downey and Tustin Plains with the Study Area lying on a coastal section of the Downey . Plain. The plain was formed by alluvial deposits carried by the Los Angeles, San Gabriel and Santa Ana Rivers (DWR 1967). AIong the coast of Orange County are low hills and mesas aligned northwesterly as a surface expression of the I\ewport—Inglewood structural zone. These features are breached by stream -cut gaps and ancient meanderings of the Santa Ana River through which fingers of the central lowland extend to the sea (DWR 1967, OCWD 1999). The eastern boundary of the Study Area lies within one of these physiographic depressions known as the Talbert Gap. To the northwest is Huntington Beach Mesa, which is approximately two miles (3.2 km) wide and extends inland nearly 4 miles (6.4 km) from the ocean. A cliff 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 m) high abuts on the ocean. The surface of the mesa slopes inland and eventually submerges under the sediments of the Downey Plain. The majority of the Study Area is within the Huntington Beach Mesa with the exception of the eastern boundary as noted above. 2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING iGeologically, the Study Area lies on the southwest limb of the Los Angeles Basin, within the Peninsular Ranges Province of California (Morton et al. 1976). The Los Angeles Basin is a 105-002 June 6 Final Resort 9 KOMEX USA. CANADA, UKAND WORLDWIDE FINAL structural basin and lowland area bounded to the north by the Transverse Ranges and to the east by the Peninsular Ranges. Directly beneath the Study Area, the Newport -Inglewood alignment of folds and faults forms the uplifted southwestern limb of the Basin. The Newport -Inglewood uplift extends for approximately 42 miles (67.6 km) in a northwest -southeast direction from Beverly Hills in Los Angeles County to Newport Beach in Orange County (DWR 1967). In general, rock units dip down toward the ocean and landward from the axis of the faulted anticlinal feature of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone. The surface expression of the uplifted belt is an alignment of low coastal hills and mesas, transected by several erosional features or gaps (DWR 1967). There has been considerable vertical movement along the length of the Newport -Inglewood structural zone with a southwest block of metamorphic rocks uplifted above the basement rocks on the northeast side. Increased displacement with depth suggests that there has been repeated movement along an established pattern. The Lower Pleistocene deposits have been displaced vertically by as much as 300 feet (91.4 m) and laterally by as much as one- half mile (800 m), with the seaward block moving northwest and the inland block moving southeast (DWR 1967). Deposits in the basin to the northeast represent Quaternary and Tertiary hybrid marine and continental sediments overlying a pre -Tertiary basement. North of the Study Area, where deposition is considered to have been continuous, these deposits have reached thicknesses of more than 20,000 feet (6,096 m) since the Middle Miocene. Recent (Holocene) deposits extend from the Coastal Plain through the gaps to the ocean (DWR 1967). On the southwest basin margin, folding, faulting and erosion, associated with the Newport - Inglewood uplift, has resulted in marked lateral variations in thickness and lithology along with numerous unconformities and stratigraphic discontinuities. In the Study Area, recent deposits unconformably overlie upper Pleistocene alluvial and terrace deposits (DWR 1967). 2.3 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY The Orange County groundwater basin is located in the northern portion of Orange Countv, and is overlain by both the Tustin and Downey plains. The basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles (906 square km), and is bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana :Mountains to the northeast and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The basin extends to the Orange county line to the northwest, where its aquifers 105-002 June 6 Final Report 10 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UK AND wo,?tDYVLDE FINAL . continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. The southwestern boundary of the basin is represented by The Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, which inhibits groundwater flow in all but the shallow aquifers (OCWD 1999). The aquifers within the Orange County groundwater basin can extend to depths of over 2,000 feet (610 m). They form an interconnected series of sand and gravel deposits, with interbedded clays and silts (DWR 1967). The clays and silts are more predominant in the coastal regions, while inland, the deposits become thinner and increasingly discontinuous, allowing groundwater flow between the shallow and deeper aquifers (OCWD 1999). A hydrogeologic cross-section across the basin, trending approximately along the Santa Ana River, is shown on Figure 2. The Orange County Groundwater Basin was divided into two major subdivisions, the Forebay and Pressure Areas, by the DWR (Figure 3). The Forebay Area, the area of recharge, comprises basins replenished by direct percolation from surface waters or by vertical groundwater flow from overlying hydraulically connected aquifers. The Forebay Area encompasses most of the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton and portions of Orange. The Pressure Area comprises the basin area where surface water and shallow groundwater are prevented from percolating in large quantities into the major producing aquifers by shallow (upper 50 feet [15.2 m]) clay and silt layers (OCWD 1999). Most of the central and coastal portions of the basin fall within the Pressure Area. The Orange County Groundwater Basin consists of three major aquifer systems: The Shallow, the Principal and the Lower Aquifers (OCWD 1999). The Shallow Aquifer system is of principal interest to this study, since groundwater from other aquifers was not encountered during this investigation. Locally, the Shallow Aquifer System comprises Recent (Holocene) sediments deposited following the Late Pleistocene lowering of sea level. Erosion of the exposed landmass by streams and rivers spread clay, silt, sand and gravel over large portions of the basin with Recent deposits reaching thicknesses of 175 feet (53 m) near the coast (DWR 1967). The lower section of these deposits is composed of interfingering lenses of coarse sand and gravel, which forms the Talbert Aquifer (DWR 1967). The Talbert Aquifer extends from the forebay area at the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon to offshore south of the Newport- Inglew-ood Fault Zone. The uppermost Recent (Holocene) deposits are comprised of stream channel and unconsolidated and semi -consolidated alluvial fan and flood plain sediments and are in part 105-002 June 6 Final Report 11 KOMEX USA, CANADA. UKAND WORLDIMIDE FINAL . argillaceous (clay or clayey), confining the Talbert Aquifer (DWR 1967). Within the confining layer, lenses of silt, sand and gravel form perched and semi -perched aquifers along the coast and in scattered sections of the main part of the basin. The Talbert Aquifer extends from offshore to the forebay area at the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon (OCWD 1999) and is the only aquifer in direct contact with the Pacific Ocean (NRC 1994). Beneath the Talbert Aquifer, elevated blocks of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone inhibit groundwater movement between the central lowland and the ocean for all but the shallow aquifers (OCWD 1999). The deeper aquifers are subject to seawater intrusion due to their contact with the Talbert Aquifer (NRC 1994). Seawater intrusion was first observed in municipal wells during the 1930s because of basin overdraft. This overdraft continues, causing seawater to migrate up to 3.5 miles (5.6 km) inland (NRC 1994). Despite the Talbert and Alamitos injection barriers, the OCWD (OCWD 1999) Balanced Basin Hydrologic Budget (1996-1997), estimates seawater inflow to the basin at 2,500 acre-feet per year (afy) (3,083,717 m=,/y). The OCWD estimates that flow provided by the injection barriers is not lost to the ocean, and that the net inflow of seawater described above is occurring as shown in the Talbert Aquifer system on Figure 2. Injection wells have been sited along Ellis Avenue, within the 2.5-mile (4.0 km) gap between the Huntington and Newport '_Mesas, located approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 km) from the ocean, in an attempt to reduce intrusion of seawater to the Talbert Aquifer. Water is injected into four aquifer zones along this barrier, using reclaimed water produced at Water Factory 21. Currently, the injection water is composed of 65` , reclaimed water and 35% deep well water (OCWD 1999). However, due to age and deterioration, the wells are functioning at a decreased capacity (OCWD 1999). As a result, groundwater within the Talbert Aquifer appears to flow northeast (inland) approximately as far as Adams Avenue, where there is a confluence with groundwater flowing from the north. Groundwater flow directions in the heterogeneous sediments overlying the Talbert Aquifer appear to be generally inland, although they are variable with a vertical component resulting in recharge to lower perched aquifers or to the Talbert Aquifer. Information from the RWQCB LUSTIS, collected for a property in Huntington Beach along PCH, indicates the presence of groundwater in two separate zones, each zone generally less than a few feet in thickness. Groundwater in the upper (shallow) zone was shown to occur beneath the property as perched groundwater under unconfined conditions, while groundwater in the lower zone is apparently confined and may be perched. Groundwater flow in the two zones differed in direction and magnitude. In December 1992, groundwater was flowing east (inland) in the upper zone and northeast (inland) in the lower zone. Groundwater was 105-002 June b Final Report 12 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UKAND VICRLDVIVIVE FINAL described as brackish in the upper zone and saline in the lower zone This variability was suggested as being attributable to irrigation of grass and shrubbery in the area around a nearby hotel that may have resulted in reduced salinity in the upper zone (GTI 1993). The OCWD maintains a groundwater monitoring network that provides data from individual aquifer zones within many areas of the basin. The wells were installed to delineate the depth and water quality of the principal aquifer system, where most of the groundwater production occurs (OCWD 1999). Production from shallower aquifers, the most prolific being the Talbert aquifer, represents approximately five percent of total basin production. Deeper aquifers, containing colored water have recently been considered as a potential future groundwater source (OCWD 1999). A total of 330,000 acre-feet (4.07 x 10' cubic meters (m-1j) of groundwater were produced from approximately 500 wells within the district from 1996 to 1997. Production has steadily increased since 1954, when production was 150,000 acre-feet (1.85 x I m') (OCWD 1999). There are no groundwater production wells in the Study Area. The nearest (former[y leaking as they have now been slip -lined) sewer is approximately 3.25 miles (5.23 km) away from the nearest City water supply well. The well screen on that City water supply well is from 233 to 800 feet (71 to 244 m) below ground surface (bgs). The sanitary seal on that well, located above the screened interval, is at a depth of 200 feet bgs (Johnson 2001). 2.4 BACTERIAL AND VIRAL INDICATORS Historically, water quality concerns have focused on the transmission of disease via pathogenic organisms. The number and variety of pathogenic microorganisms that might be present in wastewater is considerable and the routine monitoring for all possibilities would be either impossible or impractical. Consequently, indicator microorganisms are routinely used for assessing the potential presence of pathogen containing material (feces). The presence of indicator microorganisms does not mean that pathogenic microorganisms are present, but that the potential exists for pathogenic microorganisms to be found. Generally, indictor microorganisms are non-pathogenic, although many may cause diarrhea and urinary tract infections (Tortora et al. 1989). An appropriate indicator microorganism should be; present only when fecal contamination is present; have similar or greater survival characteristics as the target pathogen, be easily monitored; and not reproduce outside of the host. No indicators currently in use meet all four criteria, therefore a 0 combination of bacterial and viral indicators are used. 105-002 June 6 Final report 13 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL 0 2.4.1 BACTERIAL INDICATORS The total coliform (TC), fecal coliform (FC) and E. tali tests have developed over the past 90 years enabling a more accurate detection of E. coli. Each test from TC through to E. coli itself becomes progressively more refined until E. coli is specifically detected. The TC test detects aerobic or facultatively anaerobic, gram -negative, non-endospore forming, rod -shaped bacteria that ferment lactose to form gas within 48 hours of being placed in lactose broth at 35 'C (95 'F) (Tortora et aI. 1989). A number of bacterial species can be detected with this test. Some of the bacterial species detected have limited significance in wastewater investigations, and consequently the FC test has therefore generally superseded the TC test. The FC test uses elevated incubation temperatures to differentiate between TC and FC. FC are defined as the subset of TC that produce gas (or colonies) at an elevated incubation temperature of 44.5 ± 0.2 °C (112.1 ± 0.4 'F) for 24 ± 2 hours (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991). Fecal coliform are not exclusively enteric, and a few thermotolerant species such as Klebsiella originating from plant and soil samples may be found with the FC test. As a means of assessing fecal pollution in temperate regions, the FC fecal indicator is widely accepted (Roll and Fujioka 1997). E. coli is one of the principle species of FC, typically occurring in the intestinal tracts of most warm-blooded animals. Fecal streptococci (FS) bacteria consist of a number of species of the genus Streptococcus, and are gram —positive cocci or spheres (Tortora et al. 1989). The normal habitat of fecal streptococci is the gastro-intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals. For some time the ratio of FS to FC was used to differentiate between different sources of human or animal fecal contamination (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991), however due to variable die -off rates of different species the test has been abandoned in favor of the Enterococci test. Originally classified in the 1930s as Group D Streptococcus, Enterococci were officially given genus status in 1984 after hybridization investigations showed a more distant relationship to Streptococci, however, they are still commonly referred to as Streptococci. Enterococci are spherical, occurring singularly, in pairs or in short chains, and are naturally found as part of the digestive tract flora in many organisms including humans. Enterococci are robust microbes able to tolerate relatively high salt and acid concentrations and occurrence is widespread, as they are found in soil, food, water, plants, animals, birds and insects. Enterococci are tvpically one micrometer (um) in diameter and are generally considered non -motile, although motility has been observed in some species. Nearly all strains are homofermentative (not gas producing). Enterococci are considered more specific as wastewater indicators than the fecal streptococci 105-002 June b Final Report 14 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UKANO'1:CRI-DWIGE FINAL group as a whole. Typical indicator bacteria concentrations for untreated domestic sewage (Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991) are in the order of: • Total coliform 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 per 100 ml; • Fecal coliform 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 per 100 ml; and • Enterococci 10,000 to 100,000 per 100 m1. In groundwater that has not been influenced or impacted by human or animal wastes, the concentrations of these bacterial species should be zero or near zero. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) notes that no more than 5.0% of samples can contain total coliform in any one month (for water systems that collect less than 40 samples per month, only one sample can contain total coliform). Every sample that contains total coliform must also be analyzed for fecal coliform. The MCL for fecal coliform or E. coIi is zero CFU/100 mL (USEPA 2001). 2.4.2 VIRAL INDICATORS More than 100 viral entities are associated with human feces (Bio Vir 2001). Collectively . known as enteric viruses, these entities may be responsible for poliomyelitis, hepatitis and gastroenteritis to name but a few potential health implications. Although standard bacterial indicators are a good indicator for the presence or absence of feces, several virus specific tests have been developed to more closely mimic the survival of enteric viruses in the environment. Male -specific bacteriophage are a group of enteric viruses between 20 to 40 nanometers (nm) in diameter, which infect E. coh cells through the pili (Male -specific refers to the small appendages called pili on the surface of the bacteria). While they are able to infect E. coli cells, these bacteriophage are considered non-pathogenic to humans. Male - specific bacteriophage have been found to have the same environmental resistance as most animal enteroviruses (Bio Vir 2001), and are considered a valuable tool in assessing the potential viral load of a particular sample. A typical Male -specific bacteriophage concentration for untreated domestic sewage (Havelaar et al. 1984; Debartolomeis and Cabelli 1991) is in the order of 10,000 to 5,000,000 plaque forming units per 100 milliliters (PFL./100 mL). In groundwater that has not been influenced or impacted by human or animal wastes, the concentrations of Male -specific bacteriophage should be zero or near zero. The USEPA NPDWR MCL for enteric viruses calls for 99.99'%, removal / inactivation through a required treatment process (USEPA 2001). 105-002 June 6 Firial Report 15 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORiDf✓1DE FINAL is 2.5 CHEMICAL INDICATORS In addition to the bacterial and viral indicators described above, untreated domestic sewage also contains a number of chemicals that can be used in conjunction with microbial indicators as co -indicators. Untreated domestic sewage contains concentrations of total organic carbon, nitrogen (in various forms) and phosphate (also in various forms). 2.5.1 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON Total organic carbon (TOC) is quantified as the total amount of carbon in a sample that is oxidized to carbon dioxide in a chemically oxidizing environment using an appropriate catalyst (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991). The principle groups of substances that contain organic carbon in untreated wastewater are proteins, carbohydrates, fats, oils, greases, surfactants and pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and pesticides. Sources of organic carbon in wastewater include urine and feces from humans, food wastes, dirt and soil from laundry plus numerous soaps and detergents (Henry and Heinke 1989). Organic carbon in natural haters (surface water or groundwater) can come from two main sources (AWWA 1990). These sources include the decay and degradation of naturally occurring materials (such as vegetation or the weathering of organic soils) and domestic and commercial activities (such as agricultural or farming practices or other human activities). Leaking sewers could contribute total organic carbon to groundwater or surface water as untreated domestic sewage contains high concentrations of total organic carbon. Typical concentrations of total organic carbon in untreated domestic wastewater range from 80 to 290 milligrams per liter (mg/L), with 160 mg/L being a value typically used for medium - strength wastewater (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991). Consequently, total organic carbon has been used as a chemical co -indicator in conjunction with microbial indicators as part of this study. Based upon data obtained from the OCWD (as shown in Table 1), background concentrations of total organic carbon in groundwater in Orange County are in the order of 0.56 mg/L (OCWD 2001). These total organic carbon concentrations are based upon groundwater samples collected from various water supply wells in Orange County. These wells are screened deep within the aquifer and unfortunately, the background concentrations of total organic carbon in groundwater samples from these wells are not entirely indicative of background conditions in the shallow groundwater. However, background concentrations of total organic carbon in the shallow groundwater are expected to be slightly higher because of natural organic carbon inputs that are occurring at the surface (vegetation decay, landscaping, etc.). There are no drinking water standards for total organic carbon (USEPA 2001). 1C5-OC2 J,.ne 6 Fnd Deport 16 KOMEX 4J5A, CANAaA. WANDW0-?-DW1DF FINAL 0 2.5.2 NITROGEN Nitrogen, in various forms and when used in conjunction with other microbial or chemical co -indicators, can be an indicator of the presence of untreated domestic wastewater or animal waste (Heaton 1986; Freeze and Cherry 1979; Gillham 1991). The relative proportion of the four main forms of nitrogen in untreated domestic wastewater or animal waste can provide insight into the type and age of the source. The main forms of nitrogen in these wastes include: • Organic nitrogen; • Ammonia; • Nitrite; and • Nitrate. Untreated domestic wastewater and animal waste typically have nitrogen in the form of organic nitrogen (proteins and urea) and ammonia nitrogen (Canter 1996). As the wastes undergo "treatment" either naturally in the environment or in a wastewater treatment plant, the organic nitrogen is biologically oxidized to ammonia, with the ammonia subsequently being oxidized to the intermediate product nitrite. Nitrite is then further oxidized to nitrate. This process is known as nitrification (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991). The removal of nitrate -nitrogen to produce nitric oxide then nitrous oxide and finally nitrogen gas is tailed denitrification. Dissolved oxygen levels greater than one mg/L are necessary for nitrification to occur, conversely, denitrification occurs under anoxic (without oxygen) conditions. Groundwater or surface water samples containing organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen with little or no nitrite and nitrate, could indicate recently deposited or discharged animal wastes or untreated wastewater. Groundwater or surface water samples containing little or no organic nitrogen and ammonia but abundant nitrate -nitrogen, could then indicate that either; the nitrogen source is an animal waste that has undergone nitrification, or is treated or untreated wastewater that has undergone nitrification in the environment since its release. A complicating factor is that other non -sewage and non -waste sources contribute nitrogen loading to the environment. Heaton (1986) noted that two important forms of groundwater pollution (other than those caused by the disposal of animal or human wastes) that lead to 0 elevated concentrations of nitrogen in the groundwater include: 1 C5-002 June 6 Final Report 17 KOMEX USA CANADA, UK AND KICRLDWIDE FINAL . • Enhanced mineralization of soil organic nitrogen during the conversion of virgin land into arable land, and the subsequent cultivation of arable land; and • The addition of nitrogenous fertilizers. The sum of the concentrations of organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate is known as total nitrogen. Typical concentrations of total nitrogen in untreated domestic wastewater range from 20 to 85 mg/L, with 40 mg/L being a value typically used for medium -strength wastewater (Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991). The concentration of total nitrogen will remain the same throughout the process of nitrification. However, the concentrations of the various nitrogen forms that make up total nitrogen will change during this process. For example, if an untreated wastewater had a total nitrogen concentration of 20 mg/L, it might be composed of eight mg/L of organic nitrogen, 12 mg/L of ammonia and zero mg/L of nitrite and nitrate. As that untreated wastewater is oxidized in the environment or in a wastewater treatment plant, the nitrite and nitrate concentrations may increase to approximately one mg/L nitrite and 15 mg/L nitrate (as an example). However, the organic nitrogen and ammonia concentrations may decrease to approximately zero mg/L and four mg/L (as an example), respectively, with the total nitrogen concentration remaining the same at 20 mg/L. 2.5.2.1 Organic Nitrogen 9 9 Typical concentrations of organic nitrogen in untreated domestic wastewater range from 8 to 35 mg/L, with 15 mg/L being a value typically used for medium -strength wastewater (Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991). Consequently, organic nitrogen has been used as a chemical co -indicator in conjunction with microbial indicators as part of this study. Based upon data obtained from the OCWD, background concentrations of organic nitrogen in groundwater in Orange County (as shown in Table 1) are in the order of 0.15 mg/L (OCWD 2001).. There are no drinking water standards for organic nitrogen (USEPA 2001). 2.5.2.2 Ammonia Typical concentrations of ammonia in untreated domestic wastewater range from 12 to 50 mg/L, with 25 mg/L being a value typically used for medium -strength wastewater (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991). Consequently, ammonia has been used as a chemical co - indicator in conjunction with microbial indicators as part of this study. Based upon data obtained from the OCWD, background concentrations of ammonia (as shown in Table 1) in groundwater in Orange County are in the order of 0.1 mg/L (OCWD 2001). These ammonia concentrations are based upon groundwater samples collected from various Crater supply 105-002 June 6 Final Reporr 18 KOMEX USA, CANADA. UKAND LNCRLD'Al,DE FINAL wells in Orange County. These wells are screened deep within the aquifer and unfortunately, the background concentrations of ammonia in groundwater samples from these wells are not entirely indicative of background conditions in the shallow groundwater. However, background concentrations of ammonia in the shallow groundwater are expected to be higher because of nitrogen inputs that are occurring at the surface (vegetation decay, lawn fertilizing, etc.). There are no drinking water standards for organic nitrogen (USEPA 2001). 2.5.2.3 Nitrite The concentration of nitrite in untreated domestic sewage is typically zero mg/L as all of the nitrogen is still in the form of organic nitrogen and ammonia. It is only through oxidation in the environment or in a wastewater treatment plant that nitrite concentrations start to increase as the organic nitrogen and ammonia are converted first to nitrite, then to nitrate. As part of examining the total nitrogen balance in groundwater within the Study Area, nitrite has been used as a chemical co -indicator in conjunction with microbial indicators as part of this study. Nitrite is unstable in the environment and is readily oxidized to nitrate (Tchobanogious and Burton 1991). Based upon data obtained from the OCWD, background concentrations of nitrite (as shown in Table 1) in groundwater in Orange County are in the order of 0.3 mg/L (OCWD 2001). Nitrite is extremely toxic to most fish and other aquatic life (Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991). The USEPA notes that high concentrations of nitrite in drinking water can cause methemoglobinemia (more commonly called "blue baby syndrome"). The USEPA further notes that nitrite in water can be derived from runoff from fertilizer use, leaching from septic tanks, sewage or erosion of natural deposits (USEPA 2001). The USEPA NiPDWR MCL for nitrite in drinking water is one mg/L (USEPA 2001). 2.5.2.4 Nitrate As with nitrite, the concentration of nitrate in untreated domestic sewage is typically zero mg/L as all of the nitrogen is stir in the form of organic nitrogen and ammonia. It is only through oxidation in the environment or in a wastewater treatment plant that nitrate concentrations start to increase as the organic nitrogen and ammonia are converted to nitrate. As part of examining the total nitrogen balance in groundwater within the Study Area nitrate has been used as a chemical co -indicator in conjunction with microbial indicators as part of this study. '.Nitrate is generally short -lured in the environment with background concentrations being typically less than ten mg/L (HaIlberg and Keeney 1993). However, Hendry et al. (1984) found that in some weathered tills, nitrification of ammonium that was released by clays when the clay lattice was weathered resulted in 105-002 June 6 Rna! Qeperi 19 lKOMEX USA. CA.N.ADA. U'KAND FINAL nitrate concentrations in the groundwater that averaged 173 mg/L with a range extending from zero mg/L to 1,711 mg/L. Human activihi- in the area, such as farming and raising livestock, was not present. Nitrate concentrations in groundwater throughout Orange Count, typically range from one mg/L to four mg/L in the Pressure Area, and from four mg/L to seven mg/L in the Forebay Area (OCWD 1999). Data from OCWD deep production wells near the Study Area show that the mean concentration of nitrate (as shown in Table 1) in groundwater samples collected from these wells is approximately 0.35 mg/L (OCWD 2001). As with nitrite, high concentrations of nitrate in drinking water can cause methemoglobinernia. Nitrate in water can be derived from runoff from fertilizer use, leaching from septic tanks, sewage or erosion of natural deposits (liSEPA 2001). The liSEPA NPDWR MCL for nitrate in drinking water is ten mg/L (USEPA 2001). 2.5.3 PHOSPHATE Phosphorus is present in the biosphere almost exclusively in the form of phosphates (Schlegel 1993) and is essential for the growth of plants, including algae. Phosphates are generally found either in an inorganic form (orthophosphates and polyphosphate) or in an organic form. Limiting the concentration of phosphates in the environment helps prevent • noxious algal blooms in surface waters (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991). Phosphate in untreated domestic sewage is principally found as inorganic phosphate although some organic phosphate is also present. The sum of the concentrations of inorganic and organic phosphate is known as total phosphate. Typical untreated domestic wastewater contains between four to 15 mg/L of total phosphate with eight mg/L being the concentration found in mediurn-strength domestic wastewater (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991). 2.5.3.1 inorganic Phosphate The concentration of inorganic phosphate in untreated domestic sewage ranges from three to ten mg/L with five mg/L typically being the concentration in medium -strength domestic wastewater. As part of examining the total phosphate balance in groundwater within the Study Area, inorganic phosphate has been used as a chemical co -indicator in conjunction with microbial indicators as part of this study. Based upon data obtained from the OCWD, background concentrations of inorganic phosphate (as shown in Table 1) in groundwater in Orange County are in the order of less than 0.1 mgJL (OCWD 2001). There are no drinking water standards for inorganic phosphate (L-SEPA 2001). 105-OC2 June 6 "Final Report 20 KOMEX USA., CANADA, UKA-b'D7 4,O.R DOVOE FINAL 0 2.5.3.2 Organic Phosphate The concentration of organic phosphate in untreated domestic sewage ranges from one to fine mg/L with three mg/L typically being the concentration in medium -strength domestic wastewater. As part of examining the total phosphate balance in groundwater within the Study Area, organic phosphate has been used as a chemical co -indicator in conjunction with microbial indicators as part of this study. The OCWD does not monitor for organic phosphate in groundwater samples collected from their water supply wells (OCWD 2001). There are no drinking water standards for organic phosphate (USEPA 2001). 2.6 INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS Komex installed a network of nine groundwater monitoring wells in downtown Huntington Beach as shown on Figure 4. The groundwater monitoring wells were located throughout the Study Area and were co -located in areas where several known sanitary sewer leaks occurred. An additional pre-existing construction dewatering well at the Atlanta storm water pump station (identified as Well MW-11 in our investigation) was included with the nine newly installed wells as part of the monitoring program. A summary of the well identifiers and their locations, for the ten wells referenced above, is as follows: • Well MW-1. In the road on Memphis Avenue between Lake Street and Alabama Street, approximately 30 feet east of the intersection of Lake Street and Memphis Avenue; • Well MW-2. In the road on 13"" Street between Acacia Avenue and Palm Avenue in front of the residence at 617, 1311, Street; • Well MW-3. In the road on 1011, Street between Walnut Avenue and Olive Avenue in front of the residence at 221, 1011, Street; • Well MW-4. In the road on 3«' Street between Walnut Avenue and Olive Avenue adjacent to the vacant lot next to the residence at 214, 3..1 Street; • Well MW-5. In the road in the center of Huntington Street, approximately 200 feet south of the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue; • Well MW-6. In the road on Frankfort Avenue between Delaware Street and Hill Street across from the residence at 629 Frankfort Street; • Well MW-7. In the road on Knoxville Avenue between Huntington Street and California Street, approximately 30 feet west of the intersection of Knoxville Street and California Street; • Well MW-8. In the road on 811, Street between Acacia Avenue and Palm Avenue near the residence at 605, 811, Street; 105-002 June 6 Final Report 21 KOMEX USA, CANADA. WAND VIORi -MVIDE FINAL 0 • • Well MW-9. In the parking lot of Huntington City Beach at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway immediately to the right after passing through the toll booth; and • Well MW-11. In the fenced compound of the Atlanta stormwater pump station near the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue. This was an existing well and was not installed as part of this investigation. 105-002 June b Final Report 22 KOMFX USA. CANADA, UK AND WORLDW;DF FINAL • 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of the Komex hvdrogeologic investigation was to evaluate if sewage that has leaked from the sanitary sewer infrastructure in downtown Huntington Beach has had an adverse impact on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of the cite. All field work was performed in accordance with Komex's standard operating procedures for field work (Appendix A). The hvdrogeologic investigation field activities conducted within the Study Area included the following task components: • Groundwater well installation; • Groundwater well development; • Water level monitoring and groundwater sampling; • Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) sampling; • Surveying; and • Waste disposal. 3.1 GROUNDWATER WELL INSTALLATION • 'dine groundwater monitoring wells were installed within and around downtown Huntington Beach (Figure 4) as part of the Komex investigation at locations and depths approved by the RWQCB. The wells were used to collect groundwater samples that were analyzed for microbial, viral and chemical indicators. The groundwater monitoring wells were also utilized for measuring groundwater levels. The groundwater monitoring wells were installed between March 14 and 21, 2001. Before drilling commenced, each borehole location was surface screened for underground utilities in accordance with Underground Service Alert (USA) protocols. A hand auger was used to investigate near -surface conditions to a depth of approximately 8 feet (2.4 m). Following underground utility screening and investigation by hand augering, the boreholes were advanced using an 8-inch (20.3 centimeter [cm]) diameter hollow stem auger (HSA) to a depth of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 m) bgs. Borehole advancement and well installation (supervised in the field by Komex personnel) were performed by Apex Environmental Drilling, Inc. with a Mobile B-61 drilling rig. Soil samples were collected at approximate 5- foot (1.5 m) intervals, from the ground surface to the total depth of the borehole. All soil samples were described in the field for descriptive properties and presence of moisture. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 23 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL Immediately after borehole advancement, the boreholes were used for monitoring well installation. Observation wells were screened using 10 to 15 feet (3.1 to 4.6 m) of 24nch (5.1 cm) diameter Schedule 40, 0.020-inch (0.05 cm) slotted poly -vinyl chloride (PVC) screen, with 2-inch (5.1 cm) diameter Schedule 40, blank PVC casing to the ground surface. The placement of the screened interval was based on the soil description and estimated hydraulic properties of the soil and sample moisture content. Each well was screened across the uppermost unsaturated to saturated soil horizon. Each well was installed with a bentonite seal from the top of the sand filter pack to within 1 foot (0.3 m) of ground surface. At the ground surface, a ten -inch (25.4 cm) diameter, flush mount, traffic -rated monument, set in concrete, was used to protect the well. Well construction details for wells installed as part of this investigation are included in Table 2. Borehole logs and well construction details are provided in Appendix B. 3.2 GROUNDWATER WELL DEVELOPMENT The groundwater monitoring wells were developed 48 hours or more after well installation, initially between March 21 and March 27, 2001. Additional development was performed on Well MW-6 (necessary as a result of a slow, low volume recharge) on April 2, 2001. Well • development on all wells was performed using a submersible pump. Groundwater was removed until clear of suspended fine-grained material and the hydro-geochemical (pH, temperature and electrical conductivity) parameters had stabilized within 10% of the previous reading. 3.3 WATER LEVEL MONITORING AND SAMPLING As part of the investigation, groundwater was sampled weekly, over a period of two days, on five occasions between March 28 and April 26, 2001 (as approved by the RWQCB). Samples were collected from the ten wells included in this study, the wells located in and around Huntington Beach (Figure 4). Existing Well MW-11, utilized as a monitoring well for this investigation, was previously constructed by the Cite. Water levels were monitored in the wells before sampling, using a Teflon -coated water level tape, with reference to a marked point located at the top of the well casing. Well purging was performed with a submersible electric pump. Prior to sampling, monitoring wells were purged at flow rates of up to five gallons per minute (gpm) (18.9 liters per minute [L/minute]), until hydrogeochemical parameters (temperature, pH and electrical • conductivity) had stabilized within 10% of the previous reading. A minimum of three well 105-002 June 6 Final Report 24 KOMEX USA, CA.NADA, UKAND'NORLDUJiDE FINAL n f� volumes was purged from each well. Groundwater samples were collected using the submersible pump. Water samples collected during the investigation, including appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples such as field blanks, equipment blanks and trip blanks, were submitted to Sierra Analytical Laboratories, Inc. within six hours after the groundwater sample was collected. One duplicate groundwater sample was submitted for each day of sampling. The following analyses (as approved by the RWQCB) were performed for each groundwater sample: • Fecal coliform (FC) in accordance with Standard Method 9222D; • Enterococci (ENT) in accordance with Standard Method 923013; • Male -specific bacteriophage (MSB) in accordance with Standard Method 9211D; • Total organic carbon in accordance with USEPA Method 531013; • Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in accordance with USEPA Method 351.2; • Ammonia in accordance with USEPA Method 350.1; • Nitrite in accordance with USEPA Method 354.1; • Nitrate in accordance with USEPA Method 353.3; • Total phosphate in accordance with USEPA Method 365.2; • Inorganic phosphate in accordance with USEPA Method 365.2; and • Organic phosphate in accordance with USEPA Method Calculation. Chain of custody records are included in Appendix C. Laboratory groundwater sample reports are included in Appendix D. 3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) SAMPLING Chain of custody protocols were followed for groundwater samples sent for laboratory analysis. Groundwater samples (in their appropriate containers) from each monitoring well were individually sealed in clean, new, plastic ziplock bags. The ziplock bags containing the groundwater sample containers were then put into a cooler with ice and the chain of custody forms. The cooler was sealed and delivered to the analytical laboratory by either Komex personnel or laboratory personnel. QA/QC procedures in the field included the regular collection of field blanks, equipment blanks, trip blanks and duplicate samples throughout the course of the investigation. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 25 KOMEX USA. CANADA, WAND vVOR-010 iDE FINAL • • • Sample Type QA/QC Purpose Trip Blank Distilled water sealed under laboratory conditions to assess concentrations of potential contamination of the samples while in transit. Field Blank Distilled water sampled in the field to provide background concentrations of potential contaminants in the field environment. Equipment Blank Sample collected to ensure thorough cleaning of drilling/sampling equipment has been performed. Duplicate Sample Duplicate to assess the reproducibility of the sampling and analysis methodology. 3.5 SURVEYING Collection Method Container remains sealed, being transported to and from the laboratory and field site in the same containers and under the same conditions as other samples. Collected by pouring laboratory distilled water directly into the sample containers at the field site. Collected by pouring laboratory distilled water over clean sampling equipment. Collected as a second set of samples directly after the collection of the first. The ten wells sampled by Komex were surveyed for horizontal location and elevation by Lanco Engineering, of Torrance, California, a State -licensed land surveying company. The surrey provided horizontal location using the State Plane coordinate system and elevation relative to mean sea level (MSL). Survey data are provided in Appendix E. 3.6 WASTE DISPOSAL Soil cuttings from drilling activities were placed in the Cite Water Operations Department yard on Huntington Street in an eight cubic -yard (6.1 m3) locking, steel bin. Purged water from development and sampling was placed in the City Water Operations Department yard on Huntington Street in an 800-gallon (3,028-liter) plastic Baker tank and CS Department of 105-002 June 6 Final Report 26 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL • • Transportation (DOT) approved 55-gallon (208-liter) drums. Soil cuttings and purged water generated during the investigation were transported offsite by United Pumping Service, Inc. of City of Industry, California. Soil cuttings were disposed at Philadelphia Recycling Mine in Mira Loma, California. Purged water was disposed at Remedy Environmental in Anaheim, California. Analytical laboratory data for waste characterization and waste manifests are provided in Appendix F. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 27 KOMEX USA, CAtiADA, UK ANDIWORLOWDE FINAL 0 4 RESULTS 4.1 BOREHOLE GEOLOGY The stratigraphy within and around downtown Huntington Beach was evaluated during advancement of borehoies for Wells MW-1 through MW-9, at the locations shown on Figure 4. Borehole logs are presented in Appendix B. Borehole data collected from Well MW-5 (Iocated in Huntington Street near Atlanta Avenue) and Well MW-9 (in Huntington City Beach at Beach Boulevard) indicate that the soil to a depth of up to 35 feet (10.7 m) is composed of yellow to gray, fine to medium sands with trace to some silt. Occasional angular to sub -rounded gravels were also identified. In "old town" Huntington Beach on 3ri1 Street, Well MW-4 was advanced to a depth of 41.5 feet (12.7 m). Soil is consists of silts and clays to approximately 12 feet (3.7 m), underlain by yellowish brown/olive yellow to gray, fine to medium (occasionally coarse) sands with trace of silt. The clay located at 10 feet (3.0 m) bgs acts as a confining layer to groundwater. Field observations noted that this clay layer contains natural organic material. Well MW-3, located on 1011, Street, was advanced to 45 feet (13.7 m) bgs. The soil, to a depth of approximately 12.5 feet (3.8 m), is composed of brown/yellowish brown silts with variable sand and clay content. This layer confines a layer of brown, moist, sand, the sand extending to a depth of approximately 17.5 feet (5.3 m). The underling olive clay contains natural organics. This layer confines a yellow, fine to course sand, with trace of silt, extending to the total depth drilled. The presence of groundwater was noted in this lower sand layer. Well IViW-6 was advanced to 36.5 feet (11.1 m) bgs, in the eastern central part of downtown Huntington Beach on Frankfort Avenue. Near -surface soils to approximately 2.5 feet (0.8 m) are composed of silty sand. This surficial layer is underlain by a laver of olivelbrown silts and clays to approximately 12.5 feet (3.8 m) bgs. These confine yellow, fine to medium sands, in which the presence of groundwater was detected, to 22.5 feet (6.9 m) bgs. This layer is underlain predominantly by silts and clays, with a thin layer of sand at 21.2 feet (6.5 m) bgs. Wells MWA and MW-7B were advanced to 43 feet (13.1 m) bgs, in northern downtown Huntington Beach. The soil is primarily composed of brown to olive silts and clays, to approximately 27.5 feet (8.4 m) bgs, with a thin (<5 feet [1.5 m]) layer of moist, silty sand in 105-CO2 June 6 Final Repot 28 xoMEX USA. CANADA, UKAND WORLD'WIDF FINAL the upper 15 feet (4.6 m). The clays and silts contain natural organics and confine additional layer(s) of brown to olive sand, where groundwater was identified. Complications during the installation of Well MW-7 resulted in that borehole being abandoned and re -drilled as Well MW-7B adjacent to the Well MW-7 location. Borehole logs are included for both Wells MW-7 and MW-7B; however, Well MW-7B was constructed as a groundwater monitoring well. Wells MW-2 and MW-8 were advanced up to 45 feet (13.7 m) bgs in northwestern downtown Huntington Beach. The soil in the upper 10 to 17.5 feet (3.1 to 5.3 m) is comprised of vellow to brown fine to medium sand. This laver is underlain by brown clay/silt that confines a moist silty -sand to sand. A second brown to gray silt layer confines an underling, water bearing, yellow to gray sand. 4.2 GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION Water elevations measured in wells monitored during this investigation are presented in Table 3. Groundwater flow was evaluated for downtown Huntington Beach at two separate times during the investigation (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Groundwater is located at an approximate depth of 10.1 to 32.2 feet (3.1 to 9.8 m) bgs, with an elevation of 3.9 to 4.8 feet (1.2 to 1.5 m) above MSL. Groundwater flow is inland toward the northeast, with an approximate gradient of 1.3 x 10-' feet/foot. However, a local anomaly in the flow direction is caused by the sump located at the Atlanta stormwater pump station, east of the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard (at Well MW-I1). Groundwater at this location is approximately 10 feet (3.1 m) bgs, with an elevation of -5.7 feet (-1.7 m) above MSL. Groundwater flow in this area is in the direction of Well MW-11 (more specifically toward the sump in the stormwater pump station as reflected in the Well MW-11 water elevation data), although the overall magnitude of the influence is not definable with current data. The influence on local groundwater in this area is caused by groundwater leaking into the sump through cracks in the walls and base of the pump station sump. The water level in the sump then rises to a certain level and trips a float switch. Water in the sump is then pumped into the nearby drainage channel (non -storm flows that are presently being discharged to the drainage channel will be permanently diverted to the OCSD treatment plant at some time in the near future [Johnson 2001]). Effectively, the Atlanta stormwater pump station is behaving as a dewatering well, affecting the groundwater gradient in the local area. The groundwater flow gradient toward Well MW-1I will increase with proximity to this area, but as an average from Well MW-5 to Well MW-11, the gradient is is in the order of 1.2 x 10-3 feet/foot. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 29 KOMEX USA CANADA UKAVDWORLDWIDE FINAL . 4.3 BACTERIAL AND VIRAL ANALYSES RESULTS • As part of this investigation, water samples were analyzed for FC, ENT and MSB. The samples were obtairied from the wells at each of five sampling times. The concentrations of FC, ENT and MSB were below the detection limit. FC and ENT have a detection limit of 1 CFU/100 mL and MSB has a detection limit of 5 PFU/100 mL. The data are summarized in Table 4. A graphical summary of the data are presented on Figure 7. 4.4 CHEMICAL ANALYSES RESULTS Water samples were analyzed for chemical co -indicators that included TOC, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, inorganic phosphate, and total phosphate. On the basis of these analyses, several other results were calculated. The calculated chemical co - indicators included organic nitrogen, total nitrogen, and organic phosphate. TKN is the sum of the organic nitrogen and ammonia concentrations. By subtracting the ammonia concentration from the TKN concentration, the result is the organic nitrogen concentration. Total nitrogen is the sum of the organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate concentrations. Total phosphate is the sum of the inorganic phosphate and organic phosphate concentrations. By subtracting the inorganic phosphate concentration from the total phosphate concentration, the result is the organic phosphate concentration. The data are summarized in Table 5. Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 graphically show the TOC, total nitrogen and total phosphate concentrations, respectively. 4.4.1 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON Groundwater TOC concentrations ranged from <0.5 mg/L to 5.0 mg/L as shown in Table 5 and on Figure 8. The highest mean TOC concentrations were from groundwater samples collected from: • Well MW-7 (3.00 mg/L) located 30 feet west of the intersection of Knoxville Avenue and California Street; • Well MW-3 (2.36 mg/L) located near 221, 10115 Street; and • Well MW-4, (2.30 mg/L) located near 214, 3«' Street. In other areas, mean concentrations of TOC in groundwater ranged from 0.95 mg/L to 2.23 mg/L. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 30 KOMEX USA, CANADA, WAND WORLDWIDE FINAL 4.4.2 ORGANIC NITROGEN Organic nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.01 mg/L to 0.30 mg/L (Table 5) with four samples having concentrations higher than 0.1 mg/L as follows: • 0.30 mg/L, from Well MW-11 (sampled on March 29, 2001) located at the Atlanta stormwater pump station near the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta avenue; • 0.22 mg/L, from Well MW-9 (sampled on March 29, 2001) located in the parking lot of Huntington City Beach at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and PCH; • 0.13 mg/L, from Well MW-7 (sampled on March 29,2001) located approximately 30 feet west of the intersection of Knoxville Avenue and California Street; and • 0.12 mg/L, from Well MW-1 (sampled on March 29, 2001) located 30 feet east of the intersection of lake Street and -Memphis Avenue. Mean concentrations of organic nitrogen in groundwater ranged from 0.02 mg/L to 0.07 mg/L. 4.4.3 AMMONIA Ammonia concentrations (Table 5) ranged from 0.11 mg/L to 8.7 mg/L. Mean concentrations of ammonia in groundwater samples ranged from 0.19 mg/L to 1.84 mg/L, with the highest mean ammonia concentration occurring in Well MW-11. 4.4.4 NITRITE Nitrite concentrations (Table 5) ranged from <0.02 mg/L to 0.68 mg/L (Well MW-4 on March 29, 2001). Mean concentrations of nitrite in groundwater ranged from <0.02 mg/L to 0.27 mg/L. 4.4.5 NITRATE Nitrate concentrations (Table 5) ranged from 0.13 mg/L to 8.70 mg/L (Well MW-6 on April 19, 2001). Mean concentrations of nitrate in groundwater samples ranged from 1.22 mg/L to 6.54 mg/L. 4.4.6 TOTAL NITROGEN As noted previously, total nitrogen is the sum of the organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate concentrations. Total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.36 mg/L to 10.13 mg/L (Well MW-11 on March 29, 2001). Mean concentrations of total nitrogen in groundwater 105-002 .tune 6 Final Report 31 KOMEX USA, CANADA. UKANDWORLDW,DE FINAL samples ranged from 1.74 mg/L to 6.92 mg/L (Well MW-6). Total nitrogen concentrations are summarized in Table 5 and shown graphically on Figure 9. 4.4.7 INORGANIC PHOSPHATE Inorganic phosphate concentrations (Table 5) ranged from 0.07 mg/L to 0.61 mg/L (Well MW-2 on March 28, 2001). Mean concentrations of inorganic phosphate in groundwater samples ranged from 0.12 mg/L to 0.38 mg/L. 4.4.8 ORGANIC PHOSPHATE As noted previously, by subtracting the inorganic phosphate concentration from the total phosphate concentration, the result is the organic phosphate concentration. Organic phosphate concentrations (Table 5) ranged from <0.05 mg/L to 0.08 mg/L (Well MW-2 on March 28, 2001). Mean concentrations of organic phosphate in groundwater samples ranged from <0.05 mg/L to 0.08 mg/L. 4.4.9 TOTAL PHOSPHATE Total phosphate concentrations ranged from 0.08 mg/L to 0.69 mg/L (Well MW-2 on March 28, 2001). Mean concentrations of total phosphate in groundwater samples ranged from 0.14 mg/L to 0.42 mg/L (Well MW-2). Total phosphate concentrations are summarized in Table 5 and shown graphically on Figure 10. 4.5 QA/QC SUMMARY The results of the bacterial and viral analysis of QA/QC samples are presented in Table 6. No FC, ENT or M5B were detected in any of the equipment blanks, field blanks or trip blanks. The results of the chemical indicator analysis of QA/QC samples are presented in Table 7. Low concentrations of TOC, TKN, ammonia, nitrate and inorganic phosphate and total phosphate were detected in several equipment blanks during the investigation. The mean TOC concentration in the three equipment blanks that did have detections of TOC was 0.56 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.5 mg/L. The mean TKN concentration in the three equipment blanks that did have detections of TKN was 0.13 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.1 mg/L. The mean ammonia concentration in the three equipment blanks that did have detections of ammonia was 0.11 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.1 mg/L. The mean nitrate concentration in the ten equipment blanks that did have detections of nitrate 105-002 June 6 Firial Reporr 32 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UKAND AlORLDVOIDE FINAL was 0.64 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.05 mg./L. The mean inorganic phosphate 10 concentration in the five equipment blanks that did have detections of inorganic phosphate was 0.06 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.05 mg/L. The mean total phosphate concentration in the six equipment blanks that did have detections of total phosphate was 0.07 mg/L. with the detection limit being 0.05 mg/L. Field blanks followed a similar pattern as low concentrations of TOC, TKN, ammonia, nitrate and inorganic phosphate and total phosphate were detected in several field blanks during the investigation. The TOC concentration in the one field blank that did have a detection of TOC was 0.62 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.5 mg/L. The mean TKN concentration in the three field blanks that did have detections of TKN was 0.13 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.1 mg/L. The mean ammonia concentration in the four field blanks that did have detections of ammonia was 0.11 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.1 Mg/L. The mean nitrate concentration in the ten field blanks that did have detections of nitrate was 0.55 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.05 mg/L. The mean inorganic phosphate concentration in the four field blanks that did have detections of inorganic phosphate was 0.07 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.05 mg/L. The mean total phosphate concentration in the four field blanks that did have detections of total phosphate was 0.08 mg/L with the detection limit being 0.05 mg/L. Concentrations of chemical co -indicators in all trip blanks were below detectable limits. The low concentrations of TOC, TKN, ammonia, inorganic phosphate and total phosphate near the respective detection limits for both the equipment blanks and the field blanks may indicate the following: • These compounds are present at concentrations near the detection limits in the deionized water used for decontaminating field equipment; and/or • Laboratory procedures resulted in a number of false positives at or near the detection limits for the various compounds. The concentrations of nitrate that are consistently present in both the equipment blanks and field blanks at concentrations of up to 13 times the detection limit indicate that nitrate is present in the deionized water used for decontaminating field equipment. While the presence of these compounds in the deionized water used for decontaminating field equipment does affect the groundwater analytical results, the effect is negligible and as such, the conclusions of the investigation will not be biased by the QA/QC sample results. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 33 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY AND GROUNDWATER FLOW The soils in the vicinity of Wells MW-5 and LMT-9 consist primarily of fine to medium sands. Groundwater in this vicinity appears to be unconfined. Elsewhere, throughout downtown Huntington Beach, shallow groundwater appears to be confined by one or two silt and clay horizons, with no indication of perched water in sand horizons above where groundwater was initially detected. The water bearing zones, in general, are more sandy than zones that are unsaturated. The confining layers often contained trace natural organic material. The groundwater potentiometric surface, indicative of groundwater flow direction, within downtown Huntington Beach slopes inland toward the northeast, with an approximate gradient of 1.3 x 10-1 feet/foot (Figures 5 and Figure 6). However, the localized potentiometric surface near the Atlanta stormwater pump station (in the vicinity of Well MW-11) slopes toward the pump station. This is due to presence of the sump at the stormwater pump station, from which stormwater is pumped into the nearby drainage channel. Non -storm flows that are presently being discharged to the drainage channel will be permanently diverted to the OCSD treatment plant at some time in the near future (Johnson 2001). The walls and base of the sump extend beneath the water table. The walls and base are leaking and are hydraulically connected to local groundwater. This has resulted in the drawdown of groundwater, and a subsequent influence on localized groundwater flow in the area. Additional water level data near this area are required to further understand, with greater accuracy, the radius of influence of sump operation on groundwater flow. As noted in Section 4, data from groundwater samples collected from Well MW-11 (adjacent to the Atlanta storm water pump station sump) do not indicate the presence of sewage in groundwater. Approximate average linear groundwater velocities within the Study Area can be estimated using average hydraulic conductivities and gradients calculated from water level measurements. Hydraulic conductivities were derived from data collected during previous pumping tests (Komex 2000) performed at OCSD Plant No. 2 (8.18 x 10-1 feet/second [2.49 x 10"- cm/s]) and at the beach area near Newland Street (1.03 x 10-1 feet/second [3.13 x 10-2 cm/s]). The hydraulic conductivities derived from both the OCSD and beach tests are 0 typical of fine to medium sands (Freeze and Cherry 1979). These values are reasonable 105-002 June b Final Report 34 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UKAND WOREOLMAID- E FINAL considering the dominant water bearing soils encountered during the advancement of the boreholes during implementation of both the previous and current investigations. Average linear groundwater velocities were calculated using the following equation: v=Kiln where: v = Average linear velocity K = Hydraulic conductivity i = Groundwater gradient n = Porositv A porosity of 20 (typical for fine-grained sands) is assumed. Utilizing the hydraulic conductivity for the OCSD facility, the average linear groundwater velocity in the Study Area is calculated at approximately 0.046 feet/dav (1.40 cm/day) or 16.8 feet/year (5.12 m/year), toward the northeast. Using the hydraulic conductivities for the beach area near Newland Street, the average linear groundwater velocity is calculated at approximately 0.058 feet/day (1.77 cm/dav) or 21.1 feet/year (6.44 m/year), toward the northeast. For other locations within the Study Area the anticipated average linear groundwater velocities will 10 be similar to velocities at the two locations measured, although variations in the velocity may be caused by soil heterogeneities. The presence of several faults in the downtown Huntington Beach area (the faults as part of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone) may not influence the groundwater gradient and flow direction within the Study Area. 5.2 SEWAGE INDICATORS IN GROUNDWATER Three distinct types of indicators (bacterial, viral and chemical) to identify the presence or absence of sewage contamination in groundwater beneath downtown and "old town" Huntington Beach have been used in this investigation. Considered collectively, the indicators enable an assessment to be made on the presence or absence of sewage in groundwater. 5.2. i BACTERIAL AND VIRAL INDICATORS The concentrations of bacterial indicators (FC and ENT) and the viral indicator (MSB) were below the detection limit in groundwater samples obtained from the wells in the Study Area, at each of the five sampling times. FC and ENT have a detection limit of one CFU/100 105-002 June d Final Report 35 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL mL and MSB has a detection limit of five PFU/100 mL. Based upon these data, it is unlikely that any leaking sanitary sewers within the Study Area had an adverse effect on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. 5.2.2 CHEMICAL INDICATORS Chemical co -indicators are present in the groundwater within the Study Area, at concentrations significantly lower than those found in untreated wastewater. TOC concentrations in the groundwater samples were approximately 70 times lower than those found in a typical medium -strength wastewater (Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991). However, TOC concentrations in the groundwater samples were almost five times higher than those observed in Orange County groundwater (based upon sample data obtained for their deep production wells IOCWD 20011). Comparing all the chemical co -indicators, the concentrations, on average, were 68 times lower than in a medium -strength wastewater (inorganic and organic phosphate concentrations were only 21 times and 30 times lower, respectively). However, the concentrations of these chemical co -indicators were 4.5 times higher than average groundwater concentrations (based on sample data obtained for the OCWD deep production wells [OCWD 20011). The upper 30 feet (9.1 m) of groundwater is affected by infiltration of soluble material from the surface. Surface infiltration and soil leaching has been demonstrated to account for up to 173 mg/L of nitrate (Hendry et al., 1984) and 4 to 12 mg/L dissolved organic carbon (DOC), a proxy for TOC in groundwater (Wassenaar et al. 1989). This can occur where periods of precipitation flush the soil zone of nitrate and organic carbon (Roberts 1999; Roberts and McArthur 2000). Therefore, background concentrations of these chemical co - indicators in groundwater samples from the OCWD deep production wells are not indicative of background conditions in the shallow groundwater. As such, concentrations of these chemical co -indicators would be expected to be higher in the shallow groundwater. The elevated concentrations of chemical co -indicators found in this study are likelv due to infiltration of surface waters, leaching of soil organic matter and leaching of natural indigenous TOC from the clay horizons or aquifer material (Filp and Smed-Hildmann 1992). Oilfield activity (or other industrial construction activity) in and around downtown Huntington Beach may have resulted in a surface connection being formed between the near ground surface and the shallow groundwater. This may have occurred as a result of drilling activities, pipeline installation activities, and remediation or construction activities involving excavation. The confining layer(s) of clay and silt described in Sections 4.1 and 5.1 of this report may not be present in downtown area locations, thus allowing surface waters 105-002 June 6 anal Report 36 KOMEX USA. CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE RNAL 40 to infiltrate into the shallow groundwater beneath the confining layer. If this surface connection exists, it would be expected that concentrations of chemical co -indicators would be higher at these locations as a result of surface loading and leaching than those concentrations found in groundwater samples from the OCWD deep production wells. The low or relatively low concentrations of chemical co -indicators combined with the absence of detectable bacterial and viral indicators make it unlikely that any leaking sanitary sewers within the Study Area had an adverse effect on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 37 KOMEX USA. CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL 6 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY AND GROUNDWATER FLOW • Groundwater in the vicinity of Wells MW-5 and Mph'-9 appears to be unconfined; • Elsewhere, throughout downtown Huntington Beach, shallow groundwater appears to be confined by one or two silt and clay horizons, with no indication of perched water in sand horizons above where groundwater was initially detected; • The confining lavers often contained trace natural organic material; • The groundwater potentiometric surface, indicative of groundwater flow direction, within downtown Huntington Beach slopes inland toward the northeast, with an approximate gradient of 1.3 x 10-1 feet/foot; • The localized potentiometric surface near the Atlanta stormwater pump station (in the vicinity of Well MW-11) slopes toward the pump station as a result of leaks in the walls and base of the pump station sump; • Utilizing the hydraulic conductivity for the OCSD facility, the average linear groundwater velocity in the Study Area is calculated at approximately 0.046 feet/day • (1.40 cmlday) or 16.8 feet/year (5.12 m/year), inland to the northeast; • Using the hydraulic conductivities for the beach area near Newland Street, the average linear groundwater velocity is calculated at approximately 0.058 feet/day (1.77 cm/day) or 21.1 feet/year (6.44 m/year), inland to the northeast; and • The presence of several faults in the downtown Huntington Beach area (the faults as part of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone) may not influence the groundwater gradient and flow direction within the Study Area. 6.2 SEWAGE INDICATORS IN GROUNDWATER • The concentrations of bacterial indicators (FC and ENT) and the viral indicator (MSB) were below the detection limit in groundwater samples obtained from the wells in the Study Area. This indicates that there is no evidence of sewage in groundwater in Study Area; • Chemical co -indicators (TOC, organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, inorganic phosphate, organic phosphate and total phosphate) are present in the groundwater within the Study Area, at concentrations significantly Iower than those found in . untreated domestic wastewater. TOC concentrations in the groundwater samples were approximately 70 times lower than those found in a typical medium -strength 105-002 June 6 Final Report 38 KOMEX USA. CANADA ---'KAND 'WORLDIVA-DE FINAL is • • wastewater. Comparing all the chemical co -indicators, the concentrations, on average, were 68 times lower than in a medium -strength wastewater (inorganic and organic phosphate concentrations were only 21 times and 30 times lower, respectively). This indicates that there is no evidence of sewage in groundwater in the Study Area; • The upper 30 feet (9.1 m) of groundwater is affected by infiltration of soluble material from the surface. This can occur where periods of precipitation flush the soil zone of nitrate and organic carbon; • The elevated concentrations (relative to those for groundwater samples obtained from the OCWD deep production wells) of chemical co -indicators found in this study are likely due to infiltration of surface waters, leaching of soil organic matter and leaching of natural indigenous TOC from the clay horizons or aquifer material; • OilfieId activity (or other industrial construction activity) in and around downtown Huntington Beach may have resulted in a surface connection between the near ground surface and the shallow groundwater. The clay and silt confining layer may not be present throughout locations in the downtown area, thus allowing surface waters to infiltrate into the shallow groundwater beneath the confining layer. If this surface connection exists, it would be expected that concentrations of chemical co -indicators would be higher at these locations as a result of surface loading and leaching than those concentrations found in groundwater samples from the OCWD deep production wells; and • The absence of detectable bacterial and viral indicators combined with the low or relatively low concentrations of chemical co -indicators make it unlikely that any leaking sanitary sewers within the Study Area had an adverse effect on groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 39 KOMEX USA, CANA.DA, UKAND WORLDWIDE FINAL 10 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Further investigation of the groundwater beneath the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach specific to the fate of sewage associated with any past leaks is not recommended at this time based upon the groundwater sampling results of this study. The influence on local groundwater in this area is caused by groundwater leaking into the Atlanta stormwater pump station through cracks in the walls and base of the pump station sump thus creating a local anomaly in the local groundwater potentiometric surface and probable groundwater flow direction. Non -storm flows that are presently being discharged from the pump station sump into the drainage channel will be permanently diverted to the OCSD treatment plant at some time in the near future. Data from groundwater samples collected from Weil MW-11 (adjacent to the Atlanta storm water pump station sump) do not indicate the presence of sewage in groundwater. It is recommended that the City repair the leaks in the walls and base of the Atlanta stormwater pump station to minimize further inflow, thus minimizing the effect on the local groundwater flow direction and minimizing the pumping costs and system maintenance associated with continued pumping of this • water. 0 105-002 June 6 Final Report 40 KOMEX USA, CA;NADA, �KAA'D +JC:7 �4"✓iD� FINAL 0 8 CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Huntington Beach as it pertains to the investigation of downtown Huntington Beach at Huntington Beach, California. Our services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable, qualified environmental consultants practicing in this or similar locations. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. These services were performed consistent with our agreement with our client. Opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when services were performed and are intended only for the client, purposes, locations, time frames, and project parameters indicated. We do not warrant the accuracv of information supplied by others nor the use of segregated portions of this report. The purpose of a geologic/hydrogeologic/contaminant investigation is to reasonably characterize existing subsurface conditions at the Site. In performing such an investigation, • it is understood that no investigation is thorough enough to describe all subsurface conditions of interest at a given site. If conditions have not been identified during the investigation, such a finding should not, therefore, be construed as a guarantee of the absence of such conditions at the Site, but rather as the result of the services performed • within the scope, limitations, and cost of the work performed. In regard to geologic/hydrogeologic/conta min ant conditions, our professional opinions are based in part on interpretation of data from discrete sampling locations. It should be noted that actual conditions at unsampled locations may differ from those interpreted from sampled locations. Respectfully submitted, 105-002 June 6 Finai Report 41 KOMEX USA: CANADA, uKANDI WO.?LD'INIDF F:i,\!-:,L • • Robert L. Traylor, a California Registered Geologist and Certified Hydrogeologist, as an employee of Komex, with expertise in contaminant assessment and remediation, and groundwater hydrology, has reviewed the report with the title "Downtown f�gton Beach Hvdrogeological investigation, Huntington r`� F ��k,California." His signature and stamp appear below. rf �l R4 jLpR T `�; Wade Major Re logist 5877 Project Manager June 2001 June 2001 1��- , Shawn Roberts, Ph.D. Project Hydrogeologist June 2001 A foV�II) Ph.D. Proicrobiologist June 2001 1 C5-CC2 June 6 = nal ,?epert caoc 42 KOMEX USA. CANADA, UW AND 4VCRL 1110E FINAL. 9 REFERENCES ALh WA. (1990). "Water quality and treatment: a handbook of community water supplies." F.W. Pontius, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, New York. Bio Vir. (2001). Bio Vir Laboratories, Inc. 685 Stone Road, Unit 6, Benicia, California, 94310. Bitton, G., Farrah, S.R., Ruskin, R.H., Butner, J., and Chou, Y.J. (1983). "Survival of pathogenic and indicator organisms in ground water." Groundwater, 21, 405-410. Canter, L.W. (1996). Nitrates in groundwater. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Debartolomeis, J. and V.J. Cabelli. (1991). "Evaluation of an Escherichia coil host strain for enumeration of F male -specific bacteriophages." Applied and Environmental Microbiology, May, 1310-1305. DHS. (1999). "Implementation of AB 411 for public beaches." http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwmem/beaches/ab411_1999report.litm (Sept. 2000). • DWR. (1967). "Progress report on ground water geology of the coastal plain of Orange County, State of California." The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, Jule 1967. Filp, Z. and R. Smed-Hildmann. (1992). "Does fossil plant material release humic substances into groundwater?" The Science of the Total Environment, 117/118, 313-324. Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. (1979). Groundwater. Prentice -Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Gilham, R.W. (1991). "Nitrate contamination of ground water in Southern Ontario and the evidence for denitrification." Nitrate Contamination, NATO ASl Series, Vol. G 30, I. Bogardi and R.D. Kuzelka, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. Groundwater Technology Inc. (1993). "Monitoring well installation and soil groundwater monitoring report, former Arco service station no. 3068, 21302 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, California." March 23. Hallberg, G.R. and Keeney, D.R. (1993). "Nitrate." Regional Groundwater Qualittj, W.M. • Alley, ed., Norstrand Reinhold, New York, 297-322. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 43 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL . Hayelaar, A.H. Hogeboom, W.M., and Pot, R. (1984). "F specific RNA bacteriophages in sewage: methodology and occurrence." Water Science and Technology, 17, 645-655. Heaton, T.H.E. (1986). "Isotopic studies of nitrogen pollution in the hydrosphere and atmosphere: a review." Chemical Geology (Isotopic Geoscience Section), 59, 87-102. Hendry, M.J., '_McCready, R.G.L. and Gould, W.D. (1984). "Distribution, source and evolution of nitrate in a glacial till of Southern Alberta, Canada." Journal of Hydrology, 70, 177-198. Henry, J.G. and Reinke, W. (1989). Environmental science and engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Johnson, H. (2001). Personal communication, Howard Johnson, City of Huntington Beach Water Operations Department, January 17. Komex. (2000). Final Report: Geophysical, Hydrogeologic and Sedinhent Investigation as Part of the Urban RunofflCoastal Reinediation Action Plan. Huntington Beach, California. November 1. Krieger, S. (2000). Personal communication, Steve Krieger, City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. September. Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Evans, J.R. (1976). "Environmental geology of Orange County, California." California Division of Mines and Geology, State of California, Open File Report 79-8, Los Angeles, 474. NRC. (1994). Ground water recharge using waters of inhpaired duality. National Research Council Committee on Groundwater Recharge, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 304. Orange County Sanitation District. (1999). Huntington Beach closure investigation, phase 1. Volumes 1 and 2, December. Orange County Water District. (1999). Master plan report. Orange County, California, April. Orange County Water District. (2001). Personal communication, Rita Hintlian, Water Quality Department, May. . Roberts, S.C. (1999). "Surface/groundwater interactions affecting the Lincolnshire Limestone aquifer." Ph.D. thesis, University College London, 299. 105-002 June 6 Final Report 44 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE FINAL • Roberts, S.C. and McArthur, J.M. (2000). "Natural resistance to agricultural contamination of a limestone aquifer, groundwater: past achievements and future challenges." International Association of Hydrogeologists 3011, Congress, Cape Town, South Africa, Sililo et al., eds., 817-822. Roll, B.M. and Fujioka, R.S. (1997). "Sources of faecal indicator bacteria in a brackish, tropical stream and their impact on recreational water quality." Water Science and Technology, 35 (11-12), 179-186. Schlegel, H.G. (1993). General inicrobiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tchobanoglous, G. and Burton, F.L. (1991). Wastewater engineering -- treatment, disposal, and reuse, third edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Tortora, G.J., Funke, B.R. and Case, C.L. (1989). Microbiology - an introduction. Benjamin Cummings Publications Company, Inc., California. L°Wassenaar, L.I., Aravena, R. and Fritz, P. (1989). "The geochemistry and evolution of natural organic solutes in groundwater." Radiocarbon, 31(3), 865-876. • USEPA. (2001). Current drinking water standards. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.litml (May 23, 2001). 0 105-002 June 6 Final Report 45 KQMEX USA, CA,NADA, :iKAR'D W0?LDVV-Dr • m Q N Page 1 of 1 • • 0 TABLE 1 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, WATER QUALITY DATA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Sample TOC° Org. N` NH3 (as N)d NO2 (as N)B NO3 (as N)r Inorg. PO, (as NO Well ID Date I m /L)° (m /L) (m /L) (m /L) (m /L) HB-5/1 13-Jan-99 0.25 040 0.96 1-113-5/1 22-Jun-99 0.11 040 060 HB-5/1 25-Aug-99 0.28 0.40 089 0.10 HB-5/ 1 25-Jan-00 0.40 0.71 - HB-5/1 26-Apr-00 0.53 - 0.40 0.66 0.10 HB-5/1 24-May-00 0.32 0.10 0.10 000 0.63 - HB-5/1 30-May-00 0.48 0.20 0.70 0.02 0.62 - HB-5/ 1 30-May-00 0.47 - - 0.02 0.72 0.10 HB-5/1 6-Jun-00 0.37 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.61 - HB-5/1 29-Sep-00 - - - 000 1.50 HB-5/1 29-Sep-00 0.41 - - 0.00 1.42 - H8-5/1 Mean 0.36 0.13 0.10 0.19 0.85 0.10 HB-9/1 13-Jan-99 0.75 - - 0.40 0.00 0.10 H B-9/ 1 ; 3-May-99 - 0.40 0. i 0 0.40 0.10 0.10 HB-9/ 1 25-Aug-99 0.62 - 0.40 0.21 0.10 HB-9/1 25-Jan-00 - 0.40 0.00 - HB-911 15-Mar-00 0.72 - - 0.40 0.18 0.10 HB-9/ 1 24-May-00 0.62 0.10 0.10 0.00 0, i 0 0.10 HB-9/1 30-May-00 0.73 - - 0.02 0.10 0.10 HB-9/1 25-Sep-00 0.70 - - 0.00 0.11 0.10 HB-9/1 27-Dec-00 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 HB-9/1 Mean 0.62 0.18 0.10 0.22 0.09 0.10 HB-Dyke 13-jon-99 085 - - 0.40 - HB-DyKe 22-Jun-99 0.40 0.11 HB-Dyke 25-Jan-00 0.44 - - 0.40 - - HB-Dyke Mean 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.11 0.00 HB-5, 9 and Mean I 0.56 i 0.17 i 0.10 0.27 0.35 0.10 Dyke I I I I NOTES: a TOC = Total Organic Carbon b mg/L = milligrams per liter c Org. N = Organic Nitrogen d NH, (as N) = Ammonia as Nitrogen e NO2 (as N) = Nitrite as Nitrogen f NO;(as N) = Nitrate as Nitrogen g Inorg. PO-, (as P) = Inorganic Phosphate as Phosphorus KOMEX E:11 Projects 1100 10911050021 Excel \ 105-002 Chem-Bio-Tables USA. CANADA. 'UK AND WORLDWIDE r1 L_J TABLE 2 WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • OOMEX USA CANA%'1 U ANV WOPLOM." . Well ID' Date Completed TOC° Elevation (feet AMSL`) Easting Coordinate Northing Coordinate Borehole Casing Screen Filter Pack' Bentonite Chips Range (feet bgs) Graft Seal Range (feet bgs) Cement Seal Range (feet bgs) Diam.° (inches) Depth (feet bgs) I.D.' (inches) Type I I Total Depth (feet bgs) Type Range (feet bgs) Range (feet bgs) MW-1 14-Mnr-0I 34.74 6.029.QB1.055 2. ;91.303.0 i9 8 1-3 2 -1VC' SCti.4(j' 40 PVC: Sch 110 1 29 d d0 242 405 21 4 244 7 21.4 f) 1 MW-2 14-Mcrr-01 2i.87 6.027.908454 7.190.9(X).842 8 35 2 PVC Scri40 32 PVCSCh.40 21.4 - 32 it - 32.5 14 - 17 2 14 0 1 MW-3 15 Mar 01 36.85 6.027.581 433 2.189.064 716 8 45 7 PV(. SC,) 40 39.7 PVC Sc h 40 29.6 - 39.7 23.5 - 40 V, - 23.5 2 15 0 1 MW-4 1 °rM(Jr 01 32.73 6.029.192.619 2,187 e42 404 E A I.5 2 PVC SC-. 40 36.6 PVC Sc:h 40 264 36.6 21 37 17 71 2 - 17 0 1 MW-5 lt:-Mor :)1 21.25 6.030.711.740 2.187, i 10.115 8 3-5.5 1 PVC Soh d0 29 PVC SC,) 40 18.9 - 79 i3.5 - 29.5 2 13 S N/A N/A 0 1 PAW-6 i6.Mor 01 26.61 6.031.914.306 2.189.157.009 8 36.5 2 PVC. Scr1.40 31 PVC Sc ri 40 209 31 14.3 35 2 14.3 N/A - N/A 0 1 MW-7 19-M0f4)l N/A N/A N/A 8 40 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A N/A - N/A N/A. - N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A MW-76 26Mor01 33.97 6.M0.980.925 2,190636623 8 38.3 2 PVCSch.40 36.5 PVC Scri40 264 - 36.5 20.6 38.3 2 20.6 N/A - NIA 0 1 MW-8 2i-Mar-01 35.67 6,029,022.735 2.189,7111440 8 45 2 DVC Sc:h.40 40 PVC SCn.40 29.9 - c0 2/ - 40.5 23 - 27 2 23 0 1 MW-9 7i-Mar-01 15.00 6.0325;id.819 2.183-991.951 8 30 2 PVCSch.40 23.5 PVC S(:ri40 84 235 7 24.5 2 7 N/A - N/A 0 1 NOTES: C AMsL' rmov"..rixvlseolevel f 1.7) = 1n,ornC. cramc'ei (� !'VC - Cx6vviry C-.lorlae n Sr n LC iCr-=L (? tp :IA = `JG: A:]DIC]bi I ' ,PO Si•:7: a7112 wc�-, se, ec-^C'01 T9 S M3 R):_2 CI -^3.1 �-.Wl1 E:15Proj,;C151 ;Oo-T0911QS0011ExC I1Rf3rx)r1110ri (X72 Weu Cans=r:ua;rxf L)E tuil5 Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1 1-1 TABLE 3 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Top of Casing Rim Depth to Groundwater Date Monitored Elevation Elevation Groundwater Elevation F (feet AMSL)° (feet AMSL) (feet BTOC)° (feet AMSL) 13-Apr-01 34.74 35.07 30.72 4.02 1-May-01 34.74 35.07 30.74 4.00 MW-2 13-Apr-01 2787 28.25 23.25 4.62 1-May-01 27.87 28.25 23.26 4.61 MW-3 13-Apr-01 3685 37.21 32.08 4.77 1-May-01 36.85 37.21 32.19 4.66 MW-4 13-Apr-01 32.23 32.57 27.72 4.51 1-May-01 32.23 32.57 27.88 4.35 MW-5 13-Apr-01 22.25 22.54 18.21 4.04 1-May-01 22.25 22.54 18.34 3.91 MW-6 13-Apr-01 26.61 26.84 22.11 4.50 1-May-01 26.61 26.84 2218 4.43 33.92 34.26 2989 4.03 1-May-01 33.92 34.26 2988 4.04 13-Apr-01. 35.67 36.15 3128 4.39 LMW-7B13-Apr-01 1-May-01 35.67 36.15 31.33 4.34 13-Apr-01 15.00 15.32 10.45 4.55 1-May-01 15.00 15.32 10.56 4.44 13-Apr-01 4.41 4.41 10.10 -5.69 1-May-01 4.41 4.41 10.03 1 -5 62 NOTES: a iD = identification b AMSL = above mean sea level c BTOC = below top of casing All groundwater elevation data was collected within a three-nour period KOMEX E:11Projects1100-10911050021Excei1105-002 Groundwater Eevation Data LSA. CANADA. UK AND WORLD'✓✓7DE Page 1 of 2 • • TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS - BACTERIAL & VIRAL INDICATOR DATA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Fecal Collform Enterococcl Boctedophoge Sample I.D. Sampling Event Date (CPU/100mL)° (CFU/100mL) (PFU/100mL)5 M1111-1 1 29-Mar-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-1 2 4-Ap•-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-1 3 11-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MVJ-1 4 18-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-51 (aupicate of MW-1) 4 18-Ap•-01 <1 <1 <5 MVJ-1 5 25-Ap•-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-1 Mean ` <1 <1 <5 MW-2 1 28-MOr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-2 2 4-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-2 3 11-Ape-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-2 4 18-Ap•-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-2 5 25-Ap• 0I <1 <1 <5 MW-2 Mean - <1 <1 <5 MW-3 1 28-Mar-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-3 2 4-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-3 3 11-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-3 4 18-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-3 5 25-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-3 Mean - <1 <1 <5 MW-4 1 29-Mar-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-4 2 4-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 M W-4 3 12-Apr-01 <1 < 1 <5 MW-34 (dupiccre o` MW-4) 3 12-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-4 4 19-Aar-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-4 5 25-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MVJ-44 (dipli--a-e of MVJ-4) 5 25-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-4 Mean - <1 <1 <5 MW-5 1 28-Mar-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-5 2 5-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 M W-5 3 11-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-5 4 18-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-5 5 26-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-55 (04p!iCOte Of MW-5) 5 26-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-5 Mean - <1 <1 <5 MW-6 1 29-Mor-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-6 2 5-Aar-01 <1 <l <5 MW-6 3 11-Aor-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-6 4 19-ADr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-6 5 26-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-6 Mean I - <1 I <1 <5 KOMEX E:11 Prc ecfs 1100- i 09/105002/ Excei 1105-002 Chem-Bio-Tobi es USA, CANADA. UK AND WORLDWIDE Page 2 of 2 • • TABLE 4 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS - BACTERIAL & VIRAL INDICATOR DATA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Fecal Coliform Enterococci Bacteriophage Sample I.D. Sampling Event Date (CFU/100mL) (CFU/100ml.) (PFU/l00mL) MW-7B 1 29-Mar-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-47x (duplica-e of MW-7B) 1 29-Mar-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-7B 2 4-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-7B 3 1 1-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-97 (duplicate of MW-7B) 3 11-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-7B 4 18-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-7B 5 25-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-76 Mean - <1 <1 <5 MW-8 1 28-Mar-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-8 2 4-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-68 (aupdcote of MW-68) 2 4-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-8 3 11-Aur-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-8 4 18-Aar-0i <1 <1 <5 MW-8 5 25-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-B Mean - <1 <1 <5 MW-9 1 29-Mc-01 <I <1 <5 MW-9 2 5-Apr-01 <i <1 <5 MW-70 (dupfcare of MW-9) 2 5-A0r-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-9 3 12-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-9 4 18-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-9 5 25-Apr-0.1 <1 <1 <5 MW-9 Mean - <1 <1 <5 MW-11 1 29-Mar-01 <1 <1 <5 MIN-11 2 5-Apr-e1 <1 <1 <5 1NW-11 3 12-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-11 4 19-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-111 (dupl.cate o` MW-11) 4 19-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-11 5 26-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 MW-11 Mean <1 <1 <5 NOTES: a CFUi 103 m- = colony fc,m:ng unl•s per ' 0C m Ilili•e's n PFUilCO —L = claque fo,m ng units cer IOC m'lulilers c Nor Applicoole EA \ Projects 1100-!.091'.050021 Excel \ 105-002 Chem-Bi o-Totb.es US'A. -CANADA. UKAND :^.'ORLCLIAVE • TABLE 5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS - CHEMICAL INDICATOR DATA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • 00MEX L.'SA- 4NA 7.1, JK.1N.!1 il.:.`i'Xif:• Samplo I D 5aiplirig Event Dolt IOC" (.WL)' TKN": Org. N° (nWL) NH, (as NO, (as N)' NO. (as N)° )oral N" (mgN lFxxg POA(as P)' (mg/U oig. PO. (as PY(mg/<) Total PO, LN)" MW' 1 1969�.rrO1 07 e.7 012 3J 002 s.k.', 487 021 005 024 MW I 2 aAL-411 5 i) u .3d G 7 ii:0> :.A3 376 026 CO:: 029 M'J61 3 ;14%V1.01 4Cd is CS 2.40 270 027 C3.1 C29 M'N I 4 I8�A'ir-0I i_ 025 002 0::: +; GL- 330 358 015 O.Dc; ;1-7 MW-ii(nupi.-r,-a a: MW. li 4 18-Apr-01 4 024 (13c Cl.l CC9 335 359 0'8 c.,ZZ. 11 'll mwl 5 2;.Arn-0l 0 0;:) D03 r-i 02 230 3.70 010 Mw-1 Meal - -3 051.1 C.0`.: - .`.� 0'+ 3;,w - 7D 0TO :.:,G 2'l k4w2 1 2r-Mar.01 29 05:} 002 p21 C'2 540 :.W Del t;.p8 D.CR MW2 2 4-Ani01 019 0.0.3 i:.lr: OOJ 570 609 U19 ::•.Dc: OJ'l MW2 3 11-An(01 - OIe O02 1:.12 0--2 55U 5oz 0ej MW2 a ILYAni-01 12 0is C.Od +`.15 002 42;: 4e3 048 :)U5 D i MW2 5 J;rA(`I-CI 0t' C3! C..07 [:.,2 C12 530 664 O16 :?0- :f ig MW2 Meal - - I5, 022 002 o.19 002 567 559 038 006 042 M W 3 1 28-M!ir-01 - , C.70 C 06 _.... -".02 4.20 4 90 0-1 005 D34 MW-3 7 4.%)1-01 2;� C. :;e CO3 .: 5' :•.U., 377 OJf) 005 024 MW-3 3 11 AL19-01 2S +:.15 003 :i.l :i U/. :?:{I 00 076 005 029 M1N-3 a 18 V-r-01 1,5 (: 27 C OL •- 23 7.02 3a5 's 32 0 42 008 050 MW-3 _ 254Gx-01 Cy Ei:S 002 O.c3 002 AJ6 49.`. Cs 005 035 MW-3Mean - 23(: E:.43 004 031': W. 3 0.10 008 034 MW4 29Mn:-01 2;, :i67 OCA D.0 q.66 6/0 5Co 0X". 005 022 rlW.4 2 4.Ar)r-01 2.F, Del 002 DoU `1 LK 5'F) 63t C2e 005 027 new4 3 12-Arir-0: 24 01-1 D04 D.,y 0.31 �40 034 O.ia 0O5 022 M W-,V. (0,2,11= r-e c) MW e) 3 12-Arr-0: 2.6 3 ('1 O C5 L) Y D r. � 32 c 22 r 19 0 C5 O r r:w< a lc-Arr{' 5.0 Des 0C4 1)E1 on- r.iC 654 0,3 005 Ot MW4 ;, 2-"Arv-01 0n 066 aG6 ')Y3 07l 5a 658 0'9 005 C2: Woo-"A(C-ol:.:. n:a h'iV d), O OS 0co% 02.• 37 675 7 - 005 020 MW-4Moai - 23C 058 0C� 1154 02i ::c7 ;,72 0. 0 vim• C2i mws 1 Jr-Vrar-01 1 024 OC3 1)21 DOi SC i84 D36 005 C:-0 .W 5 2 5-APr-0i 0a 020 002 1' 18 0(;i 090 1 10 011r. 0 ;'3 015 aws i1-,iFi-01 3 02.1 COi t:la c s ; 10 135 072 aC-I c15 t(w s 4 :6-.Ann-0I 1 g 019 O a2 i:. 17 O U2 2 20 239 D Z' 0 06 0 ':9 MWS 5 25-A01-01 0 _,5 003 :::=J C 027 COS 03C MW-.SS {nLg9iCat0(11 MW 5 2C,Ani-01 D^ C32 CO'2 c';0 0C2 149 18m 02^ ODe- 032 MW-5 Meal 0 :^ C 25 003 :; 73 0: 9 148 1.7t 0 27 C De- 031 M'N6 19-Marta 35 C7' 00 CSt: C2': .10 60(: 024 OOi 031 MW-6 2 5-A.M-OI 2.? •"•14 002 :m.I2 0.112 540 ofz 0.19 'DO-5 022 MW-G 3 11- 1.1": 2C• 004 _T D.Ui .`•.08 536 0:A CDC 04C MW.6 a 19ALN-Ol 3t> fi.m DO6 060 003 -.i0 9:1; Dli 00', 024 MW{: 26 A0•-0: _.,, 1.-4 0CA I T 002 r•.'O 0US 03S MW-6 Mean - 2 14 :!.,'it; 0 iA 054 D 07 6 J5 G yl C 76 ',).Lk' 0 -0 E I( "Oi-N-'s(100 1095:C.kQ2 :•'el5ii;,ygC;2:.nern;l[>innos Page 1 of 2 0 TABLE 5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS - CHEMICAL INDICATOR DATA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • OOMEX USA, CAWA bK A.Mn Sample I.D. Sampling Event Date TOC' (mWL)' - TKN I Oro. N, (mg/1) NH3 (as N)* NOI, (as N)' NO, (as N)g votalml(mg/l.) trwxg-PO, (o&P)'(rr%gA) Org. PO, (as P)'(mg/L) Tokfi PO.' (ma/L) (niciffl (rnaft (rnofl.) r1p w - i0s 2 -k 20 S A. i 19 00O 144 tA,,V Ah dupi ccro c)t 0 00 1.�,; A:)UaSv:)'s ot, C.Is W.W. iLl 2 A-ALI,-Ii 2.i G 21% 00-1 012 ock) - ..n.. D 3 1 A 025. v 180 20,5 0 !, 005 c 1c; MW 9" (CM-LAMOt" or MW 3 Il-AL14.11; 40 027 0 U.' f; 03 185 2 017 005 21 ww- ;% e. 4'.-- 0 IA ..... .'.33 420 456 005 0.1e. MW- 7;. zb-ALv 'o; 15 2A! ;.50 P 02 2010 440 014 ucs MW-7ft Mean - oc -.99 c 3:i 275 385 -11 i8 005 c P I mv., 8 1 28-K."r j; 4---- cv 0 (-.h n02 700 7 AA 11.12 M MW-8 2 4 An, -.I I.' G;/ 24 C^2 O50 5 77 112 005 •-..12 MW 68 C.: MW 68) 2 4-4y -.1 17 Cii 0 cy 02 670 557 kl:)7 0 cs j.31 MW-8 .3 11 oi 18 UJ2 ---02 530 :� Q 030 UC5 v.M MW-8 4 18 -,A,:) r 01; 15 1) Q 0 30 002 5 7C 603 11.19 f) C5 MW-8 5 2&4)! Dl Zi.. C..w 1) 03 2 t4 CO2 705. 7.72 028 OCS 1.32 Mw-a mom 0 c --- 0 -V 3.02 1. !A 6 51 tj 28 Dc; 32 MW-U W-M.'r-1 2.-: ZJ2 022 450 0.03 1.32 O.Oi (125 005 mm.28- k4w 2 C Z_ 007 73 1.02 031 005 35 MW 7C f ,j[Aicolo� Q� MW 7) 2 I 2 C 23 00-- mo i 02 0 i 0 3t 047 o0b 0 -2 ki w 0 3 1;-Ani 3u 0 L-1 '06 -.04 1 52 2 'o 012 0 C5 '4 MwQ t lXAnr'.'-i 2- C. 31, LI G` 04 260 201 G 20 0135 0 22 N1w9 2'.Anr 'Y 1 002 1 X 300 0 71 005 073 MW-9 Mom 223 1 Ili 01; fi 1.21 003 122 251 020 0 CZ VIM 1 I 1 29 Mor 21' 5 *LC tl -; I F 70 002 1 - 10--, 005 D'I MW-i 1 2 s.1v -.-1 22 0 ?-1 002 2 3OL2 5d `j ;,.17 00,5 0 -Ij I l2-Ar,,r(j' 212 1: 1? :01 1 224 CC7 005 308 MW i 1 4 19-ALX'.)! 034 u -0 12 (102 i 8D 2 14 rl; COO 012 MW V I (;JuL)1c,:,-% ol MW 1-- 19-Arr.)' 36 :1 Ale. 02 231 C 12 0 Co '.)--4 MWi 1 5 2e41X 2 1 30 2c: 002 2 1c; 0 0:1 017 WIN- 11 mean I I - o:2 I I ;I I C37 I i !103 7, 3 0.12 0 14 J NOTES: o W�C i-do, 0,g--niL Cor',�Lm t% 1;(N -<lald,;:J wrog,an c3 Org N Cngo-,,;Nnopri (Col;-'U1C:--C Cis iKNrn;r.tjr. Arnmrr.c) N-k (,;s N) = AjnrPoiw,i ns ljomr;,n .140, ";:r.4) -41;f."? as 14111'Nerh (r.,z 4+;101e.,i-- N 70ri(,- ;-- x P% vi O!jl N = JCI�, 141tiopp^. U in 4 ' g N. I -, NO. ;' NO.) I 1-vXg Po, (Cn ---) :norgol�%: PhMArj;,e 05 "1=rlgus C)rg PO, (us -1) Organic Pr.*viQ'A CIS k Tp:�,- P) - `ol ? m^r)hUle as I mg1l. -nihigronic Exxon?[ I Page 2 d 2 Page 1 of 1 •TABLE 6 QA/QC SAMPLING RESULTS - BACTERIAL & VIRAL INDICATOR DATA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • • Sample Type Sample I.D. Sampling Date Fecal Collform Enterococci Bacteriophags Event (CFU/100mU0 (CF1.11/100mL) (PFU/100m1)b Equipment EB-3280' 1 2 8 - M a r - <' <1 <5 Blank --- ?-3290 1 29-Mar-Cl <i <1 <5 E13-4401 2 4-Apr-01 <? <1 <5 FEB-4501 2 5-Apr-Cl < <' <5 E15-4' ' 0' 3 - - -Apr-O' <' <1 <5 EB-4'20' 3 12-Ape-01 <1 <i <5 EB-41801 4 18-Apr-O i <1 <' <5 E13-4190- 4 '9-Apr-O' < <1 <5 EB-4250' 5 25-Ap,-O' <' <1 <5 EB-4260 - 5 26-Apr-01 <1 <: <5 Field Blank FB-3280' I28-Mo-01 <? <' <5 FB-3290' I 29-Ma-01 <i <' <5 FB-GGC1 2 4-A--r-Cl <1 <1 <5 FB-4501 2 5-Ap-01 <1 <1 <5 FB-4i1Ci 3 11-Aur-C1 <1 <1 <5 FB-41201 3 12-Apr-C1 <1 <1 <5 FB-41801 4 18-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 FB-419,21 4 19-Apr-01 <1 <1 <5 FB-425C1 5 25-Apr--^1 <1 <1 <5 FB-42601 5 26-Apr-01 <. <1 <5 Trip Blank Tr Blarr,c 1 29-Mor-'vl <' <1 <5 T- p Blanc 2 5-Apr-O' <1 <1 <5 Trip Blanc 3 11-Apr-Oi <1 <1 <5 Trip Blank 31 12-Apr-O. <i <' <5 Tr.o Blo, ,K 4 - 8-Apr-0- <' <1 <5 Trio Bla^k 5 25-Apr-O' <1 <1 <5 TrID,Bionk 5 26-Apr-Cl <1 <i <5 Trip 3ank r 25-A-r-C1 <1 <- <5 Trip 9cnk 5 26-Acr-Cl <1 <1 <5 Method Detecl;on L.mi: - 1 i1 5 NOTES: a F1:1102� -r,, = Colony forrnrig ! n •s Do, -00 rn lll;iTers 0 PF1;1100 m,- = plaq! a to,m rg ur)its per 100 milli -e-s C = NO App;.cao-e E:1IPrOjeCTS1100-?0911050021Excel\ 105-002 Chem-Bio-Tables KOMEX USA CANADA bKA,N'DWORLD'NfDE • m c m N • 1-1 0 • • KATELLA r /i- O. f �- i ¢ � •_ CHAPMAN_, �, Q; GARDEN GROVE �\ I d GARDEN CR4VE \� WE INSTER ' j SAN�TA AN&� � q � FI 60L5A i I I ai I LLJ. �, w IEDINGER. \c� z z \\ m NA, d� oW \\\ 1r I I I a\ `M'' WARNER CI�: ' HUNTI GT0N\\5EACH ��O y I-�MACARTHUR 1\ " lyl . a TALBERT r i _ _ r. � GARFIELZ) a:— .` ;i pa j I STUDY ��i jg AREA N,-E W P 0 R T 'B E`A,C H 2 Ir PACIFIC OCEAN 0 1 2 3 4 APPROXIMATE SCALE (miles) ���� CLIENT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ►� LOCATION MAP PATE: DRAWN: trECKED: 5/23/2001 Az wM PROS. NO.: FIGURE: 105002 KOMEX-H205CIEYCE•INC Lora70N: Huntington Beach, California FSLENAME: FIGUREI "� n n u • 0 0 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOT TQ BE C;QPIED WITHQUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM KOMEX APPENDIX A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR FIELD ACTIVITIES E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FLD_PROC,DOC KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE r1 U • • PROPRIETARY INFORMATION r r PI W1TH 7 PRl R P RMI N FR M K M X TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: DESCRIPTION OF FIELD PROCEDURES No. Procedure Herein Page A.1 GENERAL NOTES x A-6 A.2 DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING x A-8 A.2.1 PRE -DRILL HAND AUGE RING x A-9 A.3 HAND AUGER BORINGS/DRIVE POINT INSTALLATION A-10 A.4 HEATED HEAD SPACE ANALYSIS A-12 A.5 WELL INSTALLATION x A-13 A.6 WELL DEVELOPMENT x A-14 A.7 WELL PURGING AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING x A-16 A.8 SLUG TESTING A-19 A.8.1 RISING HEAD SLUG TEST A-19 A.8.2 PALLING HEAD SLUG TEST A-20 A.9 LIGHT NON -AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID (LNAPL) REMOVAL A-22 A.10 CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT) ADVANCEMENT x A-25 A.11 CPT GROUNDWATER SAMPLING A-26 A.11.1 HYDROPUNCH SAMPLING A-26 A.11.2 ENVIROPROBE SAMPLING A-27 A.12 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE) TESTS A-29 A.13 AQUIFER PUMPING TESTS A-31 A.13.1 STEP PUMPING TEST A-31 A.I3.2 CONSTANT DISCHARGE RATE PUMPING TEST A-33 A.14 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL ABANDONMENT A-36 A.15 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL ABANDONMENT AND RE -SET A-38 A.16 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING USING VACUUM BOX A-39 EAPR0JECT..\APPENDIX\WORD\PLD_PROC.DOC A-2 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UK AND WORLDWIDE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION !J T 7 BF Pr D wrm T PRr R P RMI I N FR M MFX LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF degrees Fahrenheit °C degrees Celsius `% percent APCD Air Pollution Control District ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials Cal -EPA State of California Environmental Protection Agency Cal -OSHA State of California Department of Occupational Safety and Health CCIZ California Code of Regulations CCIZ California Code of Regulations cm centimeter COC Chain -of -Custody CPT Cone Penertormer Test CQAO Corporate Quality Assurance Officer CQAP Corporate Quality Assurance Plan CTD Corporate Teclunical Director DOL US Department of Labor DOT US Department of Transportation FID Flame Ionization Detector • FOP Field Operating Plan FPM Field Program Manager HaSP Health and Safety Plan HSA Hollow Stem Auger HSM Health and Safety Manual ID Inside Diameter IIP Injury and Illness Prevention Program kg kilogram lb pound m meter mm millimeter MSP Medical Surveillance Program NAPL Non Aqueous Phase Liquid NGWA National Ground Water Association OD Outside Diameter OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OVA Organic Vapor Analyzer OW Observation Well PE Professional Engineer PH potential hydrogen PID Photo Ionization Detector PM Project Manager E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FLD_PROC.DQC A-4 KOMEX 'USA. CANADA. UK AND WORLDWIDE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOT TO 8E r-QP1EQ WITHQUT PRIOR CERMISSION FROM KOMEX ppmv parts per million by volume PVC Poly Vnyl Chloride PW Pumping Well QAP Quality Assurance Plan QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control RG Registered Geologist RPP Respiratory'Protection Plan RVVB Rim of Well Box SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SARA Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act SCAQMD South Co,1st Air Quality Management District sq.in. square inches SVE. Soil Vapor Extraction TOC Top of Casing USCS Unified Soi[ Classification System USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VEU Vapor Extraction Unit VEW Vapor Extraction Well VOC Volatile Organic Compound VOW Vadose Observation Well • WP Work Plan • EAPROJECTS\APPENDIX\S NORD\FLD_PROC.DOC A"5 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UK AND WORiDW!DE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION _ NOZ TO BE COPIED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM KOMEX ! A.1 GENERAL NOTES 1. The typical procedures described hereui are guidelines only. Specific procedures for a particular scope of work may be presented in a work plan (WP), field operating plan (FOP) or sampling and analysis plan (SAP). In addition, the procedures nnay be modified during work scope design or in the field during the field program. Any modifications should be made with the intent to provide more precise, complete, accurate, representative and comparable data or better satisfy the objectives of a particular scope of work. Alternatively, site conditions may require that the typical procedures be changed. The project's Field Program Manager (FPM) should be consulted before making any changes to a standard procedure for a particular project task. Any changes should be noted on field log books or forms and described in the any report of the field activity. The Project Manager (PM) should be notified of any modification to a standard procedure. If the standard procedure needs to be modified .permanently this should be discussed with the Corporate Technical Director (CTD) and Corporate Quality Assurance Officer (CQAO). 2. General observations and field notes are recorded in a personnel field log book or in a daily field report (see attached form B.1). Other field forms are used for specific field tasks (see attached forms B.3 through B.12). 3. All field equipment that is used is recorded on a Field Equipment Record (see attached form B.2). More detailed information about field equipment, such as calibration records, are noted on the daily field report, field forms for specific tasks, or any calibration log books which accompany a piece of equipment. Further details regarding equipment calibration are provided in the Corporate Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP) or project specific QAP. 4. All work must be performed, directed or observed by Komex personnel under the supervision of a State -Registered Geologist (RG) or Professional Engineer (PE). 5. When possible, all field work should be conducted using appropriate methods specified by either the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), State of California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal -EPA) and it's sub -agencies, other State and local agencies, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), or other professional organizations, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) or National Ground Water Association (NGWA). G. All work must be conducted in accordance with the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures outlined in the Corporate QAP or project specific QAP and/or the general QA/QC protocols used by Komex for all projects. 7. All work which may involve contact with toxic, hazardous or potentially hazardous materials or work in hazardous environments should be conducted by personnel that have received either 24 or 40 hours of intensive training to fulfill US Department of Labor (DoL), E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FLD_PROC.DOC A-6 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UK AND WORLDW:DE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION N T T PIFD WITff T PRf R P RMl + N FR M KOM Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory requirements, as specified in the Section 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1910.120 and 29 CFR 1926, as mandated under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 8, as enforced by the State of California Department of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal -OSHA). B. All work must be conducted in accordance with the health and safety procedures outlined in the general health and safety protocols used by Komex for all projects, and detailed in the Corporate Health and Safety Plan (CHaSP), Respiratory Protection Plan (RSP), Health and Safety Manual (HSM), Medical Surveillance Program (MSP), Injury and illness Prevention Program (IIP), Code of Safe Work Practices Handbook (the "Safe Work Handbook"), and any project specific HaSP. 9. All items which may come in to contact with the media to be sampled (e.g. groundwater, surface water, sediments and soil), or installations in contact with the media (e.g. wells) must be cleaned prior to installation or use and between sampling locations or intervals using the Standard Practice for Decontamination of Field Equipment Used at Nonradioactive Waste Sites as described in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D5088. In brief, items can be cleaned using either a steam cleaner or brush and tap water, followed by a brush and alconox solution, a tap water rinse, and a deionized water rinse. All items must be air dried, or with a paper towel, prior to use. 10. Unless otherwise specified in the work plan, all wastes generated during field work are stored at the site in roll -off soil bins, temporary transportable water tanks, or US Department of Transportation (DOT) approved 55-gallon (208 liter) drums, and labeled as unspecified waste. The drum count for each field project is noted on a site dru n inventory form (see attached form B.3), The bin or tank contents are noted on the field forms. The hazardous designation of the waste is determined after receipt of laboratory analyses results. The wastes are removed from the site within 90 days by a licensed hazardous waste hauler and disposed of at an appropriate landfill or other disposal/recycling facility. 11. Non -hazardous Waste Manifests (bills of lading) or Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests are prepared for the transportation and disposal of the contaminated soil. For waste tracking purposes, the manifests must indicate at a minirnunn the site name and address or location, the generators name, waste type (e.g. solid, Iiquid, sludge), its hazardous designation, the waste haulers name, the final disposition of the waste, and all appropriate USEPA or State waste identification numbers. 12. A glossary of technical terms used in these typical procedures can be found in the following ASTIR Methods: D653: Standard Terminology Relating to Soil, Rock and Contained Fluids; D1129: Standard Terminology Relating to Water; and D4410: Terminology for Fluvial Sediments. EAPROJECT5\APPEND IX\WORD\FLD_P ROC. DOC A-7 KOMEX USA. CANA'DA, UK AND WORLDWIDE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION N 8 PI D Vb17fi U7 PRI R P RMf 1 N F M K M X 0 A.2 DRILLING AND SOIL. SAMPLING 1. Unless otherwise specified in the work plan, borings for groundwater monitoring wells, vapor extraction wells, observation wells, recovery wells, or other wells installed within unconsolidated sediments are drilled with a truck mounted nominal 8 or 10 inch (20 or 25 cm) outside diameter (OD) hollow stem auger (HSA). The borings are drilled by a State -licensed drilling contractor. Drilling is conducted in general accordance with ASTM Method D4700: Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone, and ASTM Method D1452: Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings. 2. Prior to machine -auger drilling, an exploratory borehole is excavated with a hand auger and post -hole digger using the procedures outlined in Section A.2.1. 3. All augers are steam cleaned at the site prior to drilling and between each boring. 4. Soil descriptions, sample type and depth, and related drilling information, are recorded on a boring log (see attached form BA), in general accordance with ASTM Method D5434: Standard Guide for Field Logging of Subsurface Explorations of Soil and Rock. 5. Unless otherwise specified in the work plan, soil samples are collected at depth intervals of five feet (1.5 m) using a split spoon modified California sampler, in general accordance with ASTM Method D1586: Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils. 6. The sampler is cleaned prior to use and between sampling intervals using the procedures outlined in Section A.1, item 9. 7. Unless otherwise specified in the work plan, soil samples are collected in 2-inch (5 cm) diameter, 1 and 4-inch (2.5 and 10 cm) long, stainless steel tubes. Two one -inch (2.5 cm), and four 4-inch (10 cm) tubes are generally enclosed in the sampler. Prior to initial use, the sample tubes are immersed in 3% sulfuric acid solution, and then cleaned, rinsed, and dried using the procedures outlined in Section A.1, item 9. 8. Tile sampler is driven into the soil using a 140 pound (63.5 kg) hammer dropping approximately 30 inches (0.76 m). The number of blows required to advance the sampler 18- inches (0.46 m) is recorded on the boring log for each 6-inch (15 cm) increment. 9. Following retrieval of the sampler, the second 1-inch (2.5 cm) ring is removed for head space analysis (Section A.4). The two lower 4-inch (10 cm) sample tubes are immediately removed from the sampler. The ends of the two 4-inch (10 cm) sample tubes are covered with Teflon pads or aluminum foil and capped with a PVC cap. Each sample is labeled with at least the • sample number, sample depth, project name, date, project number, and company name. The sample number is also written on the PVC caps. E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FI-D_PR0C.DOC A-8 KOMEX USA, CANADA. UK AND WORLDWIDE • n U PROPRIETARY INFORMATION _ _ --_ - _ _ __ _._ _ __. NOT TO BE COPPED WITHOUT PRIOR P�RM155fON,FRQM KOMEX 10. The samples are placed in ziplock bags and stored in an ice chest cooled to a temperature of approximately 40°F (5.5 °C) using blue ice packs (or ice if packs are not available). 11, The samples are delivered to a State -certified hazardous waste testing laboratory within the Stipulated holding time. Sample preservation and handling is conducted in general -accordance with ASTM Method D4220: Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples. 12. Sample hwidling, transport, and delivery to the laboratory are documented using chain of custody procedures, including the use of Chain -of -Custody forms (see attached form B.5) as specified in ASTNI Method D4840: Standard Practice for Sampling Chain of Custody Procedures. 13. The soil remaining in the first one -inch (2.5 cm) ring, and two upper 4-inch (10 cm) tubes, is xised to describe the soil lithology using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as outlined in ASTM Method D2487: Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), and other soil properties in general accordance with ASTM Method D2488: Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure). 14. All wastes generated during the drilling of soil borings should be stored, handled and disposed of using the procedures outlined in Section A.1, items 10 and 11. A.2.1 PRE -DRILL HAND AUGERING 1. Prior to machine -auger drilling, an exploratory borehole is excavated to a depth of approximately five feet (1.5 m) below the ground surface, in general accordance with ASTI11 Method D1452: Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings. The borehole is drilled with a 31/2-inch (8.9 cm) diameter hand held auger. The auger hole is then enlarged to the diameter of the hollow stem augers using a post hole digger. The purpose of the hand auger/post hole boring is to determine the occurrence of subsurface piping, or other obstacles, before truck mounted rig drilling. 2. The auger bit is cleaned prior to excavating each exploratory borehole using the procedures outlined in Section A.1, item 9. 3. Soil descriptions, sample type and depth, and related information are recorded on the boring log (see attached form B.4), in general accordance with ASTM Method D5434: Standard Guide for Field Logging of Subsurface Explorations of Soil and Rock. EAPROJECTS\APPEN DIX\WORD\rLD_PROC .DOC A-9 KOM EX USA. CANADA. UK AND WORLDWIDE PROPRIETARY INFORAAATION NQf.TO BE COPIED -WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM KOMEX 0 A.5 WELL INSTALLATION 1. Unless otherwise specified in the work plan, groundwater monitoring wells, vapor extraction wells, observation wells, recovery wells, or other wells installed within unconsolidated sediments are installed in general accordance with ASTM Method D5092: Standard Practice for Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells in Aquifers. 2. In general, the wells are constructed of flush jointed, threaded, 4-inch (10 cm) inside diameter (ID) PVC. Slot openings, length, density and open area, are 0.02-inch (0.5 mm), one -inch (2.5 cm), 168 slots per foot (551 slots per meter), and 3.36 sq. in. per foot (0,007 m2 per meter) respectively. 3. Monitoring wells are drilled to varying depths. The borehole may be partially back -filled, and a monitoring well set with varying Iengths of screen and blank casing. The well heads are set approximately 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 cm) below ground surface. 4. Unless otherwise specified in the work plan, the well casing is installed 'inside the hollow stem of the auger flight. 5. If grain size analysis (ASTI'vi Method D422: Standard Test Method for Particle Analysis of Soils) and subsequent filter pack calculations are not available, the annulus around the screened interval of the well is back -filled with a screen washed no. 2/12 (finer -grained soils) or no. 3 (coarser grained soils) Monterey sand. A filter over -pack of no. 30 (finer -grained soils) or no. 2/12 (coarser grained soils) Monterey sand is back -filled to a depth of approximately two feet (0.61 m) above the screened interval. 6. Develop the well in accordance with Appendix A.6 and ASTM D5092. 7. Immediately above the sand pack, a minimum two foot (0.61 m) layer of hydrated bentonite chips is placed to act as a seal between the sand -pack and the overlying grout. The annulus above the seal is back -filled with either a cement-bentonite grout containing between 5 and 10% bentonite, or hydrated bentonite chips. 8. A permanent mark is made at the top of the casing to indicate the top of casing measuring point. 9. A locking well plug is placed in tine top of the casing, and locked with a padlock. The well identification (ID) is marked on the top of casing, well plug and padlock. 10. A traffic rated well box is placed above the well casing and set in concrete. Tlne lid of the well box is set up to one -inch (2.5 cm) above the surrounding grade to prevent surface drainage . from entering into the well box. E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FtD_PROC.DOC A-10 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UK AND WORLDWIDE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOT TO 6E COPIED WITHOUT PRIOR PERM15 IQN FROM KOMEX . A.6 WELL DEVELOPMENT Prior to well development, the water level in the monitoring well is recorded using a conductance probe, in general accordance with ASTM Method D4750: Standard Test Method for Determining Subsurface Liquid Levels in a Borehole or Monitoring Well (Observation Well). At some monitoring wells an oil/water interface probe is used to monitor the presence of non -aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). 2. All items entering the wells (e.g. conductance probe, bailer, pumps, vacuum hose stinger) are cleaned prior to use and between well Iocations using the procedures outlined in Section A.1, item 9. 3. Unless otherwise specified in the work plan, groundwater monitoring wells are developed in general accordance with ASTM Method D5092: Standard Practice for Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells in Aquifers. The wells are developed immediately subsequent to the installation of the sand pack and prior to the installation of the bentonite seal. The monitoring well is surged using a rubber surge -block suspended from the main winch line of a drill rig operated by a State -licensed drilling contractor. 4. The surge block is run to the base of the monitoring well approximately 10 times depending on the well depth and the number and length of screened sections. This surging process . evacuates fines from the well, clears the well screen and allows the sand pack to settle more evenly within the well annulus. 5. After surging, the standing water within the monitoring well is purged using one of the following methods: A vacuum truck A vacuum hose with a stinger attached is lowered into the well. The vacuum pump is turned on "sucking" the groundwater from the well. The process is repeated several times until complete purging of the well is accomplished. For wells deeper than 30 feet (9.1 m) a stinger with an air entrainment capability must be used to lift the groundwater up the hose. An inert bailer An inert hailer (either stainless steel or Teflon), with diameter slightly less than the casing internal diameter, is lowered into the well. After the bailer has been completely immersed in the groundwater, it is retracted. The process is repeated until complete purging of the well is accomplished. A submersible pump A pneumatic or electric submersible pump is lowered into the well. When the pump rests just above the bottom of the well, it is turned on. Pumping episodes are repeated until complete purging of the well is accomplished. The pump is then removed from the well. 6. Items 4 and 5 are repeated until the hydro-geocheunical parameters (e.g. pH, temperature and . electrical conductivity) of the purged water have stabilized (when three consecutive E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FLD_PROC.DOC A-11 KOMEX USA. CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE • 0 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION _ _ ._ __ NOT TO 8E COArED wlTH0�17,PRrOR PERM[��JON FROM KDMEX parameter readings agree within 10% of each other). This is usually at least twice the water content of the casing and filter pack, or five well casing volumes. 7. Development procedures, purging volumes and hydro-geochemical procedures are recorded on a well development data sheet (see attached form B.7), E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FLD_PROC.DOC A-12 KOMl;X LJSA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOT TO BE,CQPfUJ2 WI HQUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM KOMEX 0 A.7 WELL PURGING AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 1. Prior to purging groundwater monitoring wells, the well head condition- is inspected for evidence of tampering or damage. After removal of the well cover, tine condition of the well casing head and cover are noted. Particular attention is focused oil the presence of debris or bacterial build up in the well. Any bacterial slime or other debris at the well head is removed prior to purging. Care should be taken to ensure that no foreign object is dropped into the open well casing. 2. Prior to well purging, the water level in the monitoring well is recorded using a conductance probe, in general accordance with ASTM Method D4750: Standard Test Method for Determining Subsurface Liquid Levels in a Borehole or Monitoring Well (Observation Well). At some monitoring wells an oil/water interface probe is used to monitor the presence of non - aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). hl addition, a clear bailer sample may be taken and visually inspected for turbidity, biota content, the presence of NAPL and to assess possible dissolved phase contamination.. 3. All items entering the well (e.g. conductance or interface probes, pumps, bailers) are cleaned prior to use and between sampling periods using the procedures outlined in Section A.1, item 9. • 4. Well purging and sampling is performed in general accordance with ASTM Method D4448: Standard Guide for Sampling Groundwater Monitoring Wells. 5. Groundwater monitoring wells are purged until the hydro-geochemical parameters (e.g. pH, temperature and electrical conductivity) of the purged water have stabilized (when three consecutive parameter readings agree within 10% of each other). This is usually at least twice the water content of the casing and filter pack, or five well casing volumes. The following techniques can be employed for well purging: A vacuum truck A vacuum hose with a stinger attached is lowered into the well. The vacuum pump is turned on "sucking" the groundwater from the well. The process is repeated several times until complete purging of the well is accomplished. For wells deeper than 30 feet (9.1 m) a stinger with an air entrainment capability must be used to lift the groundwater up the hose. An inert bailer An inert bailer (either stainless steel or Teflon), with diameter slightly less than the casing internal diameter, is lowered into the well. After the bailer has been completely immersed in the groundwater, it is retracted. The process is repeated until complete purging of the well is accomplished. A submersible l2unlp A pneumatic or electric submersible pump is lowered into the well. When the pump rests just . above the bottom of the well, it is turned on. Pumping episodes are repeated until complete purging of the well is accomplished. The pump is then removed from the well. E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FLD_PROC.DOC A-13 KOMEX USA. CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION _.. _ __ NOT 70 8E COPIED WITNQl1T PRIOR PERMISSION FROM KOMEX • A dedicated "h-i-w I1" 12L,m At some locations, a dedicated in well pump may have been installed in the monitoring well. In such instances. the pump is turned on upon arrival at the site. Pumping episodes are repeated until complete purging of the well is accomplished. The dedicated pump remains in the well after the well purging is complete. 6. Unless otherwise specified in the work plan, the wells are allowed to recover to 80%, of their original volume, or for a maximum period of 2 hours, prior to sampling. 7. Prior to well sampling, the water level in the monitoring well is recorded using a conductance probe, in general accordance with ASTM Method D4750: Standard Test Method for Determining Subsurface Liquid Levels in a Borehole or Monitoring Well (Observation Well). At some monitoring wells an oil/water interface probe is used to monitor the presence of NAPLs. 8. Any NAPL is purged from the monitoring wells, prior to undertaking sampling procedures. 9. The groundwater samples are collected using a stainless steel bailer or disposable polyethylene or Teflon bailer held by dedicated nylon line. "10. Samples collected from each monitoring well are placed into appropriate EPA approved 0 sample containers. 11. Each sample is labeled with at least the sample number, sample depth, project name, date, project number, and company name. The sample number is also hand written on the PVC caps and glass surface. 12. The groundwater samples are placed in ziplock bags and stored in an ice chest cooled to a temperature of 40 OF (5.5 °C) using blue ice packs (or ice if packs are not available). 13. The samples are delivered to a State -certified hazardous waste testing laboratory within the stipulated holding time. Sample preservation and handling is conducted in general accordance with ASTM Method 04220: Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples. 14. Sample handling, transport, and delivery to the Iaboratory are documented using chain of custody procedures, including the use of Chain -of -Custody forms as specified in ASTM Method D4840: Standard Practice for Sampling Chain of Custody Procedures. 15. Any additional sample is used for field analysis (e.g. pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, electrical cond►.Ictivity, and/or oxidation-reduction potential). Hydrocarbon content may be • analyzed using a Hanby Field Test Kit. E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIAWORD\FLD_PROC.DOC A-14 KOMEX USA. CANADA. UK AND WOR; DW'DE • • PROPRIETARY INFORMATION . _ __ _ NOT 70 BE CQPIECi WITHOUT PRIOR PERr�If55fON FROM KOMEX 16. Purging and sampling procedures, purging volumes, hydro-geochemical parameters, and sample details are recorded on a monitoring well sampling form. 17, All wastes generated during the purging and sampling of wells should be stored, handled and disposed of using the procedures outlined in Section A.1, items 10 and 11. E:\PROJECTS\APPENDIX\WORD\FI.D_PROC.DOC A-15 KOMEX USA. CANADA, UK AND WORLDWIDE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION r T Pf WiT UT PRf � P - Mf SI N F M K lv4EX • A.10 CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT) ADVANCEMENT L CPT holes are advanced using a truck mounted CPT rig in general accordance with ASTM Method D3441: Standard Test Method for Deep, Qdasi-Static, Cone and Friction -Cone Penetration Tests of Soil. 2. All CPT rods are steam cleaned at the site, or washed using the procedures outlined in Section A.1 item 5, prior to use and between each CPT location. 3. The CPT probe electronically detects and records penetration resistance and side friction of the soils. This can be related directly to specific soil lithologies. 4. The CPT operations are supervised by a Komex geoscientist or engineer under the supervision of a State Registered Geologist or Professional Engineer. 5. No soil is removed from the ground by the CPT process. G. Upon removal of the CPT probe an approximately two inch (5 cm) diameter vacated hole remains in the ground. The hole is either sealed as the CPT probe is withdrawn by injecting bentonite grout through the annulus of the CPT rods, or back -filled with bentonite chips after • the CPT rods have been removed. The upper portion of the CPT hole is repaired to match the existing surface cover. • E:\PROJECTS\APPEAIDIX\WORD\FLD_PROC.DOC A-16 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND WORLDW'DE • co 0 • • 0 Key to Log of Monitoring Well C City of Huntington Beach I.KOMEX Huntington Beach, California Project No. 105-002 d � L m .0 0 — 2 s y r- `� E Remarks 0 rn Geologic Description Well Diagram ❑. Q.0 � in Q L U) (n z ut iA 0. C7 ❑ CJ 0 �C � � 0 ® C 10 1❑ Depth7 Depth in feet below the ground surface. ❑2 Sample Number: Sample identification number; associated with a darkened box on the right side of the column indicating the portion of a sample retained for possible chem°cal or physical (soil properties) testing. ❑3 Sample Tyne: Type of soil sample Collected at depth interval shown; sampler symbols are explained below. ® Blowa 1 6 Inches: Number of blows required to advance driven sampler each 6-inch interval, or distance noted, using a 140-lb hammer with a 30-inch drop. ❑5 En Pholo-Ionization detector (PID) field sample headspace reading in parts per mdhon. 12 SAND (SP), poody graded CLAY (CL). low plasticity SILT (ML) Blank casing in concrete Blank casing in Volclay grout Blank casing in medium bentonite chip seal 0 SAND (SW). well -graded RAI CLAY (CH), high plasticity SILT (NIL). high plasticity I �( I=,;( I 1 Blank casing in filler pack LM Slotted casing In fitter sand Slough 1 flowirlk sands OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOL5 Q First water encountered at time of driCing and sampling Static water lave! measured in well cn specified date Change in material properties within a lithologic stratum — — — Inferred contact between soil strata or gradational charge in lithology i 61 Remarks_ Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or Komox's field personnel. �I lraohlc Lou: Graphic depiction of subsurface material encountered: typical symbols are explained below. 1 USCS Soil Classification: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) group symbol for indicated stratum; group symbol may be generalized across minor layers and lenses. alr Description of material encountered; may include color, plasticity, grain size. moisture, and relative densityleonsistency. F Tj gywi-ojagfam; Graphic depiction of well construction; text to right describes construction materials and depth ranges. IESAND with silt (SP-SM) Silly CLAY (CL) i i Clayey SILT (ML) j Silty SAND (SM) /rJ Clayey SAND (SC) _;(�• GRAVEL (GPIGW) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS 2-inch-ID unlined Hand auger sampler split spoon 1.5-inch-ID un!iried 2-inch-ID split spoon soil split spoon (SPT) coring tube GENERAL NOTES 1. Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive; actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2. Descriptions on these logs aop'y only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other local:ons or times. (ilk Log of Monitoring Well MWA C City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 Date(s) Drilled 3114/01 Well Location: Refer to site plan Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger (6-Inch OD) I Elevatior of Ground Surface; 35.07 feet AMSL TOG: 34.74 feet AVISL Drilling Contractor: APEX Drilling I Initial Wales Level: 33.0 feet BGS (drilling at 35 feet) Sampling Method; Unlined 18-Inch spift spoon sampler Static Water Level: 30.74 feet BTOC on 511101 Geologist: SCR i Reviewer; AZ Total Depth: 43 feet Well Depth: 40 feet rn lu � _ L U w .0 � O O `fl a Remarks 0 Geologic Description Well Diagram a A_- toCL sn " E 30 p LJ B-mch-dia. steel well cove with UJ Z 0 _ in m rL (D D L) gr16-inch bolted lid -.at at 1152- AsRhalt_tuad.fi.incttt3ss'lck 0 • ° —Steel well box set in MW 1-1 4.0 SamGle at t t Ss ML r SILT with some clay, da*k yellowis 1 brown ; (' OYR 414), low to rredium plasticity, trace fine to �000 "� concrete to 1.5 fl (nartl auger). coarse send. micaceous, moist, no odor i I --8.irch-dia. borehole 5 MW1-5 0.0 sample al 1210 I ! f—Becomes clayey. with trace fine to medium 5 (hand auger). sard —z-loco sin. ao Pic blank casing _- ---- ----------------------------- (0-29.4ft) SM SAND w;th some silt, light yellowish brown . I. (2.5Y 614), fine to medium, micaceous, trace bands of Iron oxide staining, moist, dense, no odor; �: 701% quartz, 15'% I:th;cs, 15% feldspar 10= MWi-10 13 00 5amplea!1226 ig i 20 ! (split spoon). 25 I i volclay ggrout A i -- ------ 1I i ML ! --1 SILT, light yellowish brown (2.5Y 613), trace sand, i l i I i trace black naturai organics. trace iron oxide i I I s'.ainirg. trace calcite cementation, moist. slit(, 15� I MW1-15 5 I 0.0 Sompleat 1232_ I I I no odor 115 9 l +: CL I S9ty CLAY, light yellowish brown (23Y 613). trace black natural organics, trace iron oxide staining, f trace calcite cemertation, molst. hard, no odor l 20 MW 1-20 7 0.0 Sample at 1236. ,� f—Becomes olive (5Y 513). with abundant natural 120- 17 organics, abunca,t iron oxide s'.alring 25 CI LlML Illy CLAY to Clayey SILT. olive (5Y 513), trace ✓ f' nalaral organics. Mace iron oxide slat-ing, moist, J %' —NSF Pu egeld hard, no odor medium bentor.;Ie ------------------------------------ chips (21.4-24.4 ft) _ CL Silty CLAY, light olive hrown (2.5Y 514). some iron oxide stair ing, some calcite cementation, trace 25 j Sample at 1250. ! natural orgarics, moist. very stiff, no odor 251 4—RMC #2112 MCInterey fitter MW1-25 10 0.0 15 pricer repids sand pack 1,24.4-40-5 ft) -capi'aryTringe 20 I a: 25lfl f 1 ! ' 'Water -74 at 27.57 It before drew•down for ' 4t`------------------------- SP -------- .. SAND, yellowish brown ('•0YR 5'6)• fine to .. we"development I (possibly perched) I medium, trace silt, micaceous, we,, derso; i 70%quartz. 15%111.hlcs, 15 feldspar _ 30 Sheet 1 of 2 I�1 • • Log of Monitoring Well MW-1 C City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 a� s a CD o Remarks u t°n U Geologic Description Well Diagram Q L to N fa m -3 E d IL o T � CO U') (a IL0 Z)U 30-I MW1-30 v 14 0.0 I5amo!e a! 1315. SP SAND, yellowish Crown (10YR 5.'6). fire to 30- 1 18 medium, trace sill, micaccous, wet, dense, 20 1 no odor; 70% duar'z. 15% ethics. I —Static water level 1 15% feldspar continued measured on 511I01 1 p (continued) all 30.74 ft BTOC At 1324 moasU o I - i rstwalerat - -- --_- ----------------_I�—2-inchSch.40PVC I33 C n bgs- -CH - CLAY. olive (5Y 513). high plaSnel'y, abundant slotted casing. I iron oxide staining, trace specks of calcite 0.020-inch slot cementation, moist, very stiff to hard I (29.4-40 R) 35 I MW1-35 127 10.0 SUMD!ea,.1335- 35- 20 C #2J12 Monterey 1 : i sand filter pack I ) - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------ I (24.4-40.5Tt) -I SP SAND (probable lithology, interred from flowirg sands in auger) 40 ; 40-, -1,.-ram--End cap (0.45 ft long) � I . —Slough (flowing sand) Total depth of borehole = 43 feet. u ! Reach total at 1355- idep!h 1 Overdrilled due to problem with flowing sands. i 45- j Well Installod at 40 feet; completed at 1545. 45 1 50 55 a 60i i � I Sheet 2 of 2 • 1li 0% Log of Monitoring Well MW-2 C City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 Date(s) Drilled 3114101 Wel! Location: Refer to site plan Drilling Method: Hallow -Stem Auger (8-Inch OD) Etevalion of 28.25 foot AMSL TOC: Ground Surface: 27.87 feet AMSL Drilling Contractor; APEX Drilling : Initial Water Level: 23.36 feet BGS (drilling at 25 feet) Sampling Method: Unlined 18-Inch split spoon sampler Static Water Level: 23.26 feet BTOC on 511101 Geologist: SCR Reviewer: AZ Total Depth: 35 feet Well Depth: 32 feet CA m L U C O t w ° a Remarks O U — in Er Geologic Description Well Diagram a o� w a AZ - rn'� 11 E , COn 3D fl ; U 615 -in � 8-:rich-dia. stool cover with (/@J Z m d 0 U well ZIA-inch boiled lid 0 _ ,S:a'1 at 0745. ! AsMall-med 6 inches thi 0 —Sines wall box Satin sm I Silt SAND with some cla strong brown y y' concrete [0 1.5 .t MW2-1 0.0 Sample at 0805 (7.5YR 4/6). moist. ro odor (hard auger)- I I j SW-SM SAND with some silt, dark yellowish brown —8-inch•dia, borehole 5 MW2-5 f 0.0 Sample a10815 '' 1' (10YR 414). fire to coarse, well -graded, micaceous. mold. no odor 5 I i (hard augur)- T. . ..) —2-loch Sch_ 40 PVC 1 i blank14it)ng 1 - --- --------- ------------- - � (o-z1 4 fq SP SAND, brownish yellow (10YR 616), fine to i medium. poorly graded, !race slit, mlcaceaus, I some iron oxide staWng, moist+ dense, no odor I 0 0 Sample at 0828 10i MW2.10V23 i 10" 0 (sA1il spoon!. Volclay grout CL CLAY, light olive brown 1,2.5Y 516), moist, medium (L5-14 ft) I I i/ stiff, no odor � 1 - - - - i SP-SM ------------------------------ SAND wi.h some silt, yellowish brown (10YR &6). I fine to medium, poorly graded, some Iron oxide staining, moist, dense, no odor 15 i J Mw2-15 Sam le et 0832. 13 0.0 p � 15 ! J _ NSF Po egaId medium ite 20 .MLlMH SILT, light olive gray (5Y 612), medium to high -17 R) chips (14.171t) 25 1 plasticity, mlcaceaus, bands of iron oxide staining. moist, hard, no odor CH CLAY, tight olive gray (SY 612), high pfas.icl:y, isome to moderate iron oxide staining, same dark —RMC f12712 Monterey 20 areas (possibly natural orgarics), trace specks of 20. sand filter pack MW2.20 7 0.0 Sampla at C835. calcite cementation, moist, very stiff, na odor (17-32.5 R) 12 I 1fi Becomes olive gray (5Y 512) _ � �``� ' Static water level 25 MW2.25 7 D 0 Samples[ 0837 : I SP I SAND, fight ye9owish brown (2.5Y 614), fine to coarse, poorly graded, trace silt, micaceous, trace iron oxide staining, wet, dense, no odor; 75%quartz, 1596 feldspar, 10°1 tnhics 25 I:: 1-2-inch measured an 5l1101 at 23.26 R BTOC Sch. 40 PVC 17 Driller reports 1 J I slotted casing, pl ca8ary fringe -- a 30 at 25 it 0.020-inch slot -32 (21.4 R) —water at 27.57 R befo-e drawdown for • ;�:�_; weit development 30 I Sheet 1 of 2 • • C KOMEX Log of Monitoring Well MW-2 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Project No. 105-002 N N 41 D L 0 O E Remarks L) UO3 ItE Geologic Description Well Diagram EE vc, cl 3 o Lff UEA p E v O fCL ° (n N 30— MW2-30 35 0.0 Sample at 0055 r Sri_ SAND, light yellowish hrown (2.5Y 614). fine 10 3¢� 2-inch PVC 0.020-inch f3' medium, poorly graded, trace sill, mtcacsous, trace stot casing with 0 45-ft [ + iron oxide staining, wet, very dense, no odor; '' end cap (21.4-32 f11 ' 70% Quartz. 15% feldspar, 15% lithics �I .:... I � �i(—RMC #2112 Monterey sand fills, pack (flowing sand in auger indicates sand is - - - the most likely lithoiogy to !otaf depth) —Slough (flowing sand) 35 RLOch lots' ts' idapitiat 35a Total depth of borehole = 35 feet- Overdrlllederdrllled due to problem with flowing sands, i I I I i Wall Installed at 32 feet; completed at 1040. i i 4b_' i :40 1 1 i I I. 45_l 1. i i I 45 I 5D I • I i l I i 501 � l 55 f 55 J W ' � 60 i I 80 J T U m 2 2 6 I Sheet 2 of 2 • • • Log of Monitoring Well MW-3 Cis City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 Date(s) Drilled 3115101 Weil Loca(iow Refer to site plan Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger (8-Inch OD) Elevation of 37.21 feet AMSL TOC: 2r�s and Surface' _ 36.85 feet AMSL Drilling Contractor: APEX Drilling Initial Water Level: 33.1 feet BGS (drilling at 35 feet) Samp))ng Method: Unlined 18-inch split spoon sampler Slalic Water Level: 32.19 feet STOC on 511101 Geologist: SCIt Reviewer: AZ Total Depth: 45 feet Well Depth: 39.7 feet N _ -r- U N 2 C O — CD a Remarks U ,U Geologic Description Well Diagram a a-0 Q E� Ej y N a a 3: � Cl) N U m 8-inch-die. shot ro 7 In Z '• m O --� M U) CU D well cover with - bolted lid 6-I Start a! 0805. mom U- w.ASRCaIll4aSjSLi0G1:65 thick —Steel well box set in i •. ML Sandy SILT, dark yellowish brown (10YR 416), concrete l0 1.5 fl MW3-1 ! 0.0 Sample at On5 moist, no odor auger). II(hard .. ----t ML ' ----------------------------- Sandy SILT with some clay, brown —8-inch-dia. borehole 5 t� moist, no odor 5 MW3-5 0.0 Sample at 0037 + - it•and auger). i R —2-inch Sch. 40 PVC blank casing (0-29.6 ft) 1 O-' hfW.�-10 .I i O Semp'e a' 084n ' � Becomes reddish brown (5YR 5M) I � 10 20 (splil spoon). 60 I / ML ri Clayey SILT, pnle olive (5Y 6141. trace fine Sand, Irate shell fragments, trace calcite cemerlalion, 111 —Volc'ayy ggrout moist, hard, no odor (1.5-15 ft) SP - _ SAND strong brown (7.5YR 516), fine, trace s;ll. ' 4 abundant mica. abundant son oxide sla�ning. 15 ! Sample ato845 moist, medium dense, no odor ' I MW3-15 9 0-0 13 ZO ✓ i —NS17 Puregoid medium bon.onite chips (15.23.510 J � - - ------------------I CLAY, olive gray (SY 512), high plasticity, some Irar. oxide staining, some natural organics, trace r"'• 2D- FAW3-ZO $ 0-0 1SarrpleatCd'55. 12 16 '....J .:,.: , calcite cementation, moist, very stiff, no odor fine "-"� Silty SAND layer, olive (5Y 514), Ine to coarse, micaceous. some iron oxide staining, moist ' r. -SM -t _ _ __ Siltyy SAND with some clay tight ya lowish hrowr - dense, 2 25 MW3-25 -! i I 20 I O.o�SampleatQts Griner reports 30 ?O cap'Vary nrige 4 at 25 C. ---- SP-SM I IJ (10YR 614►. molsi. no odor 25 -- - - ---------- - -- ------- ----- SAND with Some sift, tight yellowish brown (10YR 6141, trace iron oxide staining, moist, very I " �E—RMC cl f12112 Monterey Sand filler pack {23.5-4D 1t) dense, no odor SP - - - - - - ----------_ SAND, olive yellow f2.5Y 616), fine to medium, I : "j -i trace silt, micaceous, some iron oxide staining, { moist, very dense, no odor 30-I Sheet 1 of 2 • • r� u dD Log of Monitoring Well MW-3 C City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 m U G lit�_ a Remarks con Geologic Description Well Diagram Q. a� W u, a W.-to p E E E o CL m U@ UJZ !rn m d C7 �U 3D— h!W3-30 15 0.0 Sample at OW8 30 I Sp SAND, olive yellow (2.5Y 6?6). fine 7o medium, 13 , --.inch-dia, borehole 50 .. trace slit, micaceous, some Iron oxide staining, moist. very dense, no odor (continued) i[—Water at 32.00 ft before development JJJ { I �Sla:°c wale, level measured on 5/V01 :.. — at 32.19 it BTOC �r 35 MW3-35 12 0.0 Sample al 09+5 I Becomes yellow (2.5Y 716). fine to coarse, 351 2-inch Sch- 40 PVC x0 I clean, wet slatted casing. Measure U•st O.D20-inch 51ot -i 5012: wa!er al i (29.6-39 7 it) 39.' it bgs wren ffII 'd4ing at 351t I --RMC 42?12 Monterey I sand files pack (23.5-40 it) j l End cap (0.45 it long) 40 f IJnatleto I 40I tr sa- nla at a0 n (flowing sand it auger Indicates sand is :he most likely litholo to total depth and at !otal dev!h': .. y gY 1 .. —Slough (flowing sand) due to flo» ng • sands- - I f ; I Reach total Total depth of borehole = 45 foot. depth at 0919. t Overdrlllod due to problem with flowing sands. Well Installed at 39-7 fool; completed at 11J0. 50 I s so- a J �a 55-� I I s5i h i Y 60dI I 80.: II � ' t u I S 0 U I I I 65— Sheet 2 of 2 • • • OD Date(s) Drilled 3115/01 Drilling Method- Hollow -Stem Auger (8-Inch 00) Dritling Contractor: APEX Drilling Sampling Method: Unlined 18-Inch split spoon sampler Geologist: SCR Reviewer: AZ m rJ U .S O L e3 et o `� d Remarks u s°05 CL U) Z cr"an i m CLL 0n 0 I Stan a! 12;.i:. -I MW4-1 4.2 Sample at 1230 I I I (hand auger). 5 3.0 MW4-5 Sample at 1235 4 hard auger}. i 10� MW4-10 5 7 0.0 :Sampla et l249 `8 :(split spoon) 15j i M4V4-15 F9 0.0 Sample at 7256. I„ 16 . I 20] — MW4-20 13 q.0 Sample at 1300- 23 - 1 e � 25 M104-25 15 0.0 sarisp la at 1309. .. i 25 . erfler reports 35_ I---_ ic;) at25 l'lntinge D t I C Log of Monitoring Well MWA City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Califomia Project No. 105-002 Wall Location. Refor Io site plan Elevation of 32.57 feet AMSL TOC: 32.23 feet AMSL Ground Surface: initial Water Lave(: 26.7 feet SGS (drilling at 30 feot) Static Water Level: 27.88 feet BTOC on 511101 Total Depth: 41.5 feet Well Depth: 36.6 foot Geologic Description SM I Silty SAND, dark olive (5Y 3111. tine, moist, hydrocarbon -like odor (probably due to asphalt) 1 1 I _ ___ ________ __ _ __ CL h S:lty CLAY with some fire to madlum sand, brown (10YR 413). micaceous, mo!s1, no odor 51 _______________ ___ _ __ I 1 CL CLAY, Owe (5Y 413), Some black natural orgarics, some iron oxide s'a-nirg. some calcito cemenla;ion, mois!, stiff, no odor I 4 10] Silly SAND layer, olive (5Y 5141, firo. micaceous, trace iron oxide staining, moil SP-SM r SAND wfth some sin, yellowish brown (10YR 515), I fine to medium. micaceous some iron oxide 4 staining, moist, medium dense to dense, no odor 15- I 4 Becomes olive yellow (2.5Y 6161, with less silt, 4 { no iron oxide staining I I ----I----------------------------� SP SAND. light yellowish brown (2.5Y 613), fine to medium• `.race Sltt• micaceous, snme iron nxido s!alning. most, medium dense, no odor j 20� f—±Becomes right gray (2.5Y 712) ? f—Becomes olive yellow (2.5Y 016), dense Welt Diagram 8-inch-dla. steel weir. cover with 15116-inch belted lid Steel wall box set in convete to 1.5 ft -ilia. borehole 2-inch Sch. 40 PVC blank casing (0-26.4 fl) Volclay gout f 1.5-17 ft) NSF puregold medium bentonfte chips (17-21 fl) Sheet 1 of 2 • • • Log of Monitoring Well MW-4 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 e1 as L C c1 m O 0 O -g r rD a Remarks fn Geologic Description Well Diagram a Q �' tR 4 L Ii7 'in u 3 U M M E O �j m in to m d Q U 30 MW4-30 6 0.0 sample at .313 30 F SP SANp- pale yellow (2.5Y 8!4}, flne'.o medium. 2-incn Sch. 40 PVC 16 Measure first trace sill, (almost clean), micacoaus. same iron slotted casing. WOW Ed g. t 32 oxide stainirg. wet. dense, no odor ! 0-020-inch slot - - 28.7 ft begs when : dri ling a! 30 ft I (26.4-36.6 ft) 4I----RMC 92112 Monterey sassd 7 fl) aack 35— Sam le at'317, Racemes olive (5Y .?a) 35 ! (21-37 fq MW4-35 10 0 0 I F r J�20 =. --- 40 I End cap (0 45 fl long) MW4-37'sample at 1310 { Becomes loose F 3 6 I ' SNJ-SM I SANG wl;h some slit, o iae gray (5Y 512), fine to coarse• some shell fragments. wet. loose, natural i` , —Slough (flowing sand) or anic odor SP SAND, light otive brown (2.5Y 514), fine to 40 MW4 40 4 0.0 sampta a! 1325. "' i medium, trace silt, micaceous (biotite), some shell 40 fragments, wet, dense, no odor Lowermost sampling 20 40 I Becomes gray (1 GLEY 5�}, fine to coarse 4' ::'.I —Lowe - l Reach t,tal I Total depth of borehole = 41.5 feet. - I depth et 1325. Well Installed at 35.6 feet; completed at 1500'. encountered problem with flowing sands during well construction. y 45— 451 I - � I - i I 50 _ 58 I � t I , �1 55 i I I 155 r � i 0 601 I so Y I CO z o !I � 65 Sheet 2 of 2 • • C Log of Monitoring Well MW-5 C City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Califomia KQMEX Project No. 105-002 Date(s) Drilled 3116101 Well Location: Refer to site plan Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger (8-inch OD) i E:evafian of 22.54 lost AMSL TOC: 22.25 feet AMSL 4 Ground Surface' Drilling Contractor: APEX Drilling Initial Water Level: 20.2 feet BGS (drilling at 25 feet) Sampling Method: Unlined 18-Inch split spoon sampler I Static Water Level: 18.34 feet BTOC on 5H101 Geologist: SCR Reviewe-: AZ If Tote! Depth: 35.5 feat Well Depth: 29 feet y N P CD 13 .5 a) UD a Remarks -= to .2 Geologic Description Well Diagram i a-0 _j fn CL .0 f!7 N E E " E o m U m B-inch-die. steel to Z ] rn m a� (� j U ii well cover boiled 314-inch bolted lid 0 'Start nt 0745. I sPhaltroad-5_iach�slhic 1 0 ? b�, .1 -Sleet well box se(in SW-SM MW5-1 . I :' �' 0 0 Sample et o80a Grevelly SAND with some silt, ligN yellowish 6 brown (2.5Y 614), fine to coarse, subrourded to concrete to 1.5 fl (hand auger}. •. �il rounded gravel up 10 112 inch. dry'. no odor - SP --- SAND, yellow (2.5Y 716). fine :o medium. trace --B-inch-dia_'Jorahole 5 MW5-5 _ 12 0-0 Semple at 0824 sill, dry, derse, no odor 5- J� 25 (split spoon'.30 Remover only 1_8 In. due to drY I' Racemes moist. with irate suhangular 10 I 1 ;sail even though (�js subrounded gravel uo to 114 Inch j -2-inch Sch. 40 PVC using sand catche+. ram" ',',' blank casing (0-18.9 it) 1 U MW5-10 4 0.0 Sample at 0831. j>::';•: Becomes yellow (1 OYR 716), with no grave' t 10{ 35 I� --NSF Puregold mediu-n bentonile chips (1.5-13.5 it) ( I �- * Becomes yet ow (2.5Y 7i5) RMC #2112 Monterey y 15 MW5-15 ---1 12 0.0 Sample at 0835 1 151 _ sand fi'ter pack (13.5.29.5 it) S_ P-SM SAND with some Silt• light gray (2.5Y 712)• fine :o I __ 20 25 f medium, some bands of iron oxide staining, moist. I LI 1 Cense, no odor li -Wa!or al 18-1 0 I I 1 L before drawdown .far well development I f-Becomes light yellowish brown (2.5Y 614). ,Kith �Slalic water level 20-I h4W5.2D -? I YO 0.0 .Sample at C845 no iron oxide s;amin 20 g measured on 511101 at 18.3.1 ft ETOC SP 20 Dri'ler reports 1 SAND, light yellowish brown` (2.5Y 614). fine to capillary hinge--i' 40 capillary a120 f ;evident i medium grading firer wish dap n_ !race sill, _ from sample micaceous, trace Iron oxide slairing, wet, dense, no odor -2-och Sch: 40 PVC Slatted casing, --------------------------- :- O.020•inch slot I SP SAND, tight yellowish brown (2.5Y 614), fine to (18.9-29 ft) 1 i coarse, trace silt (almost clean), micaceous, wet, no odor 25-I MW5-25 - .... 20 0.0 Sample a! 0904. sots" Maas uefist-------___-___!L___P_____---__ 25 25 clean, w4h ravel u l0 314 nc>ti water a! SP-S.M Ir SAND with some silt, gray (1 GLEY 51), fine. wet. 20.2 ft bgs when � no ado( drilling at 25 ft. ' I 11I-�i- SP SAND. greenish gray (GLEY 511), fine, trace sill I L ' End cap (0.45 ft tong) MW5-29 3 D 0 Sample at 0920 (almost clean). m caceous, wet, 'pose. no odor 1 ... .. ". I 5 �: ',-.: t-Slough (flowing sand) 30 Sheet 1 of 2 • • • Log of Monitoring Well MW-5 C City of Huntington Beach IKOMEX Huntington Beach, California Project No. 105-002 U O c -- G �, rA Q Remarks - c°0 5 Geologic Description Well Diagram Q a.0 E I dl n cl L U 'N p MZ E O U) In V rn m a o 50 30 MW5-29 6 0 0 SP SAND, greersh gray (GLEY 5 1), fine_ trace silt, 30� m+caceous, wet, loose. no odor ( continued i - ", Mth ntedlum to coarso sand (romwis mostly " t—S�ougn (flowing sand) ♦ - . I fine sand) and some gravel up to 112 inch MW5-34 p-p sample at D928 I f—Sand grades fine to medium, claan, with no , gravel ;— �Lowermost sampling 35 35 ' inle-oval Reach tonal depth at 0926. Total depth of borehole = 35.5 feet. t Well Installed at 29 foal; completed at 1105; encountered problem with flowing sands during well construction. ; 40 II i 1 1 45- I 1 5a i I i I s i 60 I I L G r I 155- 6V 3 Sheet 2 of 2 • • • Log of Monitoring Well MW-6 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Califomia KOMEX Project No. 105-002 D81e(s) Drilled 3116101 Well Location: Refer to site plan Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger (8-inch OD) Elevation of 26.84 feet AMSL TOC: 26.61 feet AMSL Surface: Drilling Contractor: APEX Drilling _Groun_d Initial Water Level: 23.9 feet BGS (drilling at 25 feet) Sampling Method: Unlined i8-Inch split spoon sampler Static Water Level: 22.18 feet STOC on 511101 Geologist'. SCR Reviewer, AZ I ToW Depth: 36.5 feet Weil Depth: 31 Seel m N CD— C O L @ a Remarks U in Geologic Description Well Diagram Cl- CL ID Cl- Q {n 'N E E 17 E p , d @ U M 8-inch-da. steel 0 3 U3 Z rn m E (3 U spha(lroad 6 inct)g ck 0 wall cover le 3f4-:�ch boiled lid Steel well hox set in _ 0 Start at 1215. SM Sar^ple al '226 Silly SAND, light yellowish brawn (2.5Y 614), fine. 'caceaus. I ; concre!e to 1.5 fl fr1W6-1 I D.0 ----f�!hpnd auger}- m, r moisto odor i ' �... — -- ML — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Clayey SILT, light olive brown. (2.5Y 514), 1 i 8•i^ch-die horghole 5— MW6-5 - 0.0 Sample at 1223 m'.caceous. moist. ro odor 5 • - fhpnd auger! —2-inch Sch. 40 PVC ' Oi blank casing —— (0-20.9 fill Silly CLAY, light olive browr (2.5Y 514). '•ig� plas!lcity, some iron oxide staining, trace calcite cementation, moist, very stiff. no odor 10 MW6-40 14 (sCCH 6 0 Q Sample at 1305 I'ts poon )' 10 J ( s NSF Puregald 24 i i I' medium bentonite ch ps {1.5-14.3 fill SP-SM SAi b wi}h trace (aimosl sumo) Sit. pair yellowF— i I' (2.5Y 714 , fine to medium, moist, dense, no odor :. l �--- L 13 I I RMC #2l±2 Monterey MW6-15 16 0 0 Sample at 1309 sand filer pack 24 I -,- Water at 18.35 It — — — _ 5P ----------------------------- SAND• pale yellow (2.5Y 713). fine to medium, : - before drawdown for trace silt, micaceous, moist. medium dense, 1 well development 20— _ at 13.2- no odor I 20 i1 ' MW6-20 10 D D Sample i 6 Becomes alive yellow (2.5Y 616). with some 20 iron oxide Staining Slatic water !evel . measured on 511101 — at22.18ft. BTOC ____ CH ________________________ ___ CLAY, olive (5Y 514). high p%s!icity, moist, very — stiff, no odor 25—MW6-25 6 00 Sample at 1319. 25 12 Measure first 18 water at ---2-inch Sch. 40 PVC 23-9 ft bgs whan slo!teo casing, drilling at 25 It. I '�-I 0.020-inch slot (20.8-31 ft) I -1 I ML andy SILT with some c-ay, olive (5Y 514), abundant Iron oxide staining- moist, very stiff !o hard, ro odor 30 Sheet 1 of 2 • KA • C KOMEX Log of Monitoring Well MW-G City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Project No. 105-002 to aVi U c° a Remarks �, to 0 Geologic Description Well Diagram E E E �v, o m 0 cnz V m a C7 �U 3U— MW6.30 15 0-0 Sample at t329- , • MIL Sandy SILT with some clay, olive (5Y 514). 170 I....:: I 16 aburdanl Iron oxide staining. moist continued' L—End can (0.45 f1 bong) 21 I I; SP-SM SAND with some sill, olive (5y 5!4), Cra !o medium. micaceous, wet, dense, no odor .::::a— RMC 92:12 Monterey f I ----L---------------�-------------- sand figerpack CHIML Silly CLAY to Clayey SILT, olive {5Y 516), high to I (14 3-35 tt) i medium plasticity, moist, hard, no odor i I 35 MW6-35 10 0-0 Sama`e at t3et1. I i ::. ..::. ........I 35 Lowermosl sampling - 20 30 interval —U- Reach Intai r depth at 1340. Total depth of borehole - 36.5 feet. , I J ( i i Well Installed at 31 feet; completed at 1545. 40 I i I I I r I40-1 I I 45 ! I ' j I I 145-I I 1 50 I I I i i so 55� i f I 155.; 60 I' I I I I I 60I II I z I z ii i i z I a 65 Sheet 2 of 2 • 0 Log of Monitoring Well MW-7 (abandoned) City of Huntington Beach IKOMEX Huntington Beach, California Project No. 105-002 Date(s) Drilled 3119101 Well Location: Refer to site plan Drilling Method: T Hollow -Stem Auger (8-Inch DD) E'evafon of 34.3 foot AMSL Ground Surface: TOC: Not applicable Drilling Contractor. APEX Drilling Initial Water Level: 31-61 feet BGS (during drilling at 35 foot) Sampling Method: defined 18-tech split spoon sampler Static Water Levet: Not applicable Geologist: SCR Reviewer: AZ j Total Depth: 40 foot Well Depth: Not applicable In _ s U C t a� c° a Remarks Li U).� Geologic Description Well Diagram a E E O� M j °ic' 3 a I, E O '0 a �U) f0 W Z 0— .v in 0 CU +J iCL MW7-1 I Start at 0800 �— 0-0 Samy'e at 0819 �� 17balLrnad f�inchesaia0k Silly CLAY, brown (7.5YR 412), medium plasticity, medium toughness. moist, medium stiff- no odor --Concrete (D-2 4} :�(handauger)- I 1 I WOO - SM I f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Silly SAND, olive (5Y 5r4). Cre, moist, no odorMW7-5 :;. 444 Sample at 0825 ;hand 'I S i.-f I I 5- --8-inch•dia. borehole l NIL I. Sandy SILT olive (5Y 4W. fine card. micaceous,—Y trace iron oxide staining, low toughness, moist. stiff 1a very stiff, no odor 10 MW7-10 8 —a —0 Sample al 0838 10 I (ap�il spoonl. I' !._{ Silly CLAY, polo olive (Sv 6I4). some calcite 14"! —NSF Quregold 18 —( j CL pdules uo to 112inch—nlnlst CLAY, olive (5Y 514). some calcite nodu'es and cementation, trace iron oxide stoirin trace black I meditim hentonite ! 1 chips (2-30 R) 15 MW7-15 8 0,0 ;Sample al 0849. 14 natural organic matter, moist. very st9t no odor--- ML Clayyeyy SILT with some fine sand, greenish gray (1 GLEY rail), some calcite cementation, trace iron oxide staining, trace natural organics, mo!s;' ' very Stiff, ro odor i 15 y - 20 b1L I SILT, olive (5Y 516). micaceous, moist. very stiff, no odor ' i — Sand bridgge .y,� (approx. Tit) MW7-20 I �12 0.0 .Sample al 065T. BeCOmeS pale Olive 15Y 6!4 , wi`.t• some iron } oxide staining f , With trace ralural organics 20� ? �� 25 MW7-25 i I t0 j 0.0 i5ampleatG910- 17 II 21 I I CL ML Slny CLAY, olive gray (5v 412), moist, very stiff In hard, no odor Becomes al ve (5Y 514). with Some Iron oxide stainin trace calcite comentation Sardy SILT, olive (5Y 514), fine sand, micaceous, moist, very sift 10 hard. no odor 25 42 ) 30— Sheet 1 of 2 Log of Monitoring Well MW-7 (abandoned) City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 C tm 0 0 CO E Remarks U*) 'U Geologic Description .2 CL 2 W En OL E CL to M U) v) 0 En n FL 30 30 135 sample at D920 . SP_SPV SAND w1h some 511t !race}. olive (5Y 5.13). line to medium. micaceous, mD-si, very dense, 45 1) 00 no odor Sand grades mostly fine. wt-h increased sit-, wet 35— IMW7-35 20 0.0 sample at 0930- 1 .. ; i 35 fi.1 25 Measure -st ML Clayey SILT, alive (5Y 5i3). micaceous, moist. 30 water at A hard, no odor 31.6 I'll bgs when 35 CL CLAY. olive (5Y 5i2l), some iron oxide staining. drilling at ft. trace calcite comentofflon, moist, hard. no odor II A 40]— .— —' N4 'I. Total depth of borehole - 40 feet. While setting the well. a mud plug developed in the ' augers, rocruiring removal of boll, augers Find wait casing. Ovandrillod to 40 feel, but had to remove augers before completing wall Installation due to mud rings. When sand was added, well bridged at • 17 feet, Well was abandoned and a second hole drilled alongside in which to Install a replacement well (refer to Log of Monitoring Wall MW-7b)- 45] 50—t 55—' J . J 60— N Well Diagram NSF Pore tz I d medium entonite chips with 112 bag of sand (30-36 ft) lime -release pellets (38.40 it) Sheet 2 of 2 • • • Log of Monitoring Well MW-7b City of Huntington Beach . Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 Date(s) Drilled 3/20/01 Well Location: Refer to site plan Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger (8-inch OD) Eleva!lon of 34.26 feet AMSL TOG: 33.92 feet AMSL Ground urfacgo Drilling Contractor: APEX Drilling Initial Water Level: 28.0 feat BGS after completion Sampling Method: No samples collected; logged from cuttings Static Water Level: 29.88 feet BTOC on 511101 Geologist: SCR Reviewer; AZ 1 Total Depth= 38.3 foot Well Depth: 36.5 feet m �i r✓ O C — O .0 c°E Remarks Q to t°n . ° Geologic Description Q = u m to z u3j m d C7 Z) U Slat at 0805. ansh95-' ' 0 ' drilFing 4 It from CL I CLAY, brown MW-7- No samples were [MW.7b was drilled 4 feet from MW-7. Refer to collected t�ojobrm Logof MW-7 for detailed Illholo MIN-7b was I loged from drill cuttings to verily lithologles and drill cuttings to approximate depths.] � I IverifyIan soil 'layer and __--� CL ---------------- Silty CLAY, olive I approximWe 1 - depths We 5 i s•mfla'to MW-7- i I I y_ SM _ ______________________- Silty SAND, light olive brown, fine, micaceous, i I I l I moist i I II I 10 I i J I 'i I 15� I i — — — — — — — — — TML �I SILT, olive, micaceous, mold i i I I I 1 1 a-; 1 15-1 1 Ctayey SILT, olive. micaceots, some calcite cl-ips, ~ moist ' 20' Well Diagram 8-inch-dia. steel well rover with W-inch bolted lid 14 —Steel well box set in conc•ete to 1.5 it 8-Inc! -dia. borehole 2-inch Sch. 40 PVC blank casing (0-26.4 ft) NSF Puregold medium benlonile chips (1.5-20.6 ft) RMC N211 Monterey sand filter pack (20.6-38.31t) I f—With trace natural organics, no m;ca or calcite r 1 chips 7S_ 2-inch Sch. 40 PVC sloped casing, 0.020-inch slot (26 4-36.5 It) w[ __ Sheet 1 of 2 • �J ID Log of Monitoring Well MW-7b C City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KQMEX Project No. 105-002 N N L C U a ED a Remarks � �° Geologic Description Well Diagram CL CL m t!1 4 O EE I o c)m m (n Z cn m a 0 j U 30 30- h1L Clayey SILT. olive, trace natural arganics, moist 1 .... SIP-SVI : SAND with some silt, olive, fine to coarse (most:y_— ]]] rune to medium), micaceous, wet 35 i I; I 35-: F Reach total Total depth of borehole = 38.3 foot. j depth at v9 ; 40� II I I Well Installed at 36.5 feet; completed at 1045. 40 1 451 1 451 50-i measured on 511101 at 29.88 ff BTOC 2-inch Sch. 40 PVG slatted casing, 0.020-inch slot (264-36-5 fl) RMC PZ12 Monterey sand filter pack (20.6-38.3 ft) End cap (0.45 ft long) k I - � I I 55 ssl I , 60 60 65 Sheet 2 of 2 0 • Log of Monitoring Well MW-8 City of Huntington Beach j< Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 Dale(s) Drilled 3120101 and 3121101 ; Well Location: Refer to site plan Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger (B-inch OD) Elevation of I round -Surface: _ 36.15 feel AMSL TOC: 35.67 feet AMSL Drilling Contractor. APEX Drflling Initial Water Level: 32.65 feet BGS (drilling at 35 feet) Sampling Method: Unlined 18-rnch split spoon sampler Static Water Level: 31.33 feet BTOC on 511101 Geologist: SCR Reviewer: AZ Total Depth: 45 feet Well Depth: 40 feat rN d UCD C C E Remarks - cn 3 Geologic Description Well Diagram CL a a a!e rn fl. �' E 30 p !E V1 'y CJ 8-inch-d a. steel (M Z well cover with 3/4-inch bolted lid a� —Sleet well [wset in stall on 312of0, Rf1A((_�nanG[8t�rfladnGhG;ithlC$ Fit 1015- � i. Sample a! 1040 SM Silly SAND, dark yellowish brown (IGYR 414), fire concrete to ixx it MW8-1 00 (hand auge,). to medium, molsl, no odor 11 ' Becomes brown (7.5YR 514) ! —8-inch-die. borehole 5 MWB-5 D.0 Sampleat 1045 I i 5I (hand augc•). i —24ch Sch. 40 PVC blank casing (0-29.9f1) End fa 3r2010r- SP SAND, olive yellow (2.5Y 61B), fire to medium, Resuma drilling clear, trace iron oxide Malning, moist, medium + I ory 321C11 a! dense, no odor 101 0 I MWB-10 +215. 8 D.0 Sample a! 1230 10' 12 l(splilspoor.). 16 .� i —yygyrout 1.5-23 rl) i (1.5-2 { I 15 MW9-15 9 0,0 el 1235. < + Becomes yellowish brown (10YR 5161, 15'1 ISample 20 micaceous, with trace sill (almost clean) CH Silly CLAY. olive brown (2.5Y 514) high plasticity, Fire laminae with some Iron oxide staining, trace 201 calcite cementation, moist, very stiff. no odor 201. MW8-20 r, 5.0 Sample at 1242. I 23 IVIL '\SILT, yellowish brown (10YR 5161, micaceous, I 1 J SM scirpe iron oxide stairing, moist, hard, no odor Silty SAND. brown (10YR 5/6), fine. yellowish C —NSF Purego'd micaceous, some iron oxide staining, moist. medium bentonite 25 1253- i:� :.: medium dense, no odor 25 chip s (23.27 fl) MW8-25 8 0.0 Sample at 15 Sandy SILT layer, light olive brown (2.5Y 516), 6 15 I' fine sand, micaceous, bands of iron oxide staining, moist, vary stiff .l 1------------------------------� I Sandy _ Rr r.0 42112 Monterey 1 sand filter pack � .,..I .' ML SILT, yellowish brown (10YR 516), fine (27-4D.5 ft} sand, micaceous. moist, very stiff, no odor i 30 Sheet 1 of 2 Log of Monitoring Well MW-8 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California KOMEX Project No. 105-002 rn QJ r U r-� c° a Remarks c° Geologic Description Well Diagram m [lam ro m rn 0. UJ 'N E 3 m U m �Z �w m EL 0 Z)U 30 MVV8-30 6 0 0 ISe �pla at 1259- i ;- ML Sand SILT. yyellowish brown (10YR 518): light 30 J: .. i ML 1al.lYfi�r4mt(2.�Y�LGj�c lowa�2inches 18 Clayey SILT. light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6). Weler at 31,31 f1 micaceous, some iron oxide staining, moist, before development very stiff ater level l n•easuwed on 511,01 at31.33ft8TOC ____ ______________________ SAND with some silt, light yellowish brown I (2.5Y 6/4), fine to coarse (mostly fine to medium). 35 _ _ I wet. loose to medium dense. no odor 35 —2 inch Sch. 40 PVC slotted casing. A4W8-35 3 0.0 sample a' 1319- _ 0.020-inch slot § � •_ Measure firs" water at SP SAND- light gray (2-5Y 614), fine !o coarse, trace _ (29.9-40 R) 32 65 rt bgs silt, wet, very dense. no odor I �35ft. whe1 dr•Yirg EAI; 351t I +++{{{(((—R1,1C N2•'12 Monterey sand filter pack 1 (27-40.5 R) JI "_. 40� _ Becomes light brown (2.5Y 614), 40-: End cao (0.45 fl long) MW8-40 55 G.0 Samnre as 1330 I - Y yellcwis+i c!can, loose —Slough (flowing sand) =1 i r SM 5�ty SAND. tight olive drown (2.5Y 5,6}, fine to ,:,'.1 _ �,` � �t medium, wet. no odor [logged from soil or drill bit[ 45 I Reach tea I Total depth of borehole = 45 feel. 45 ddpth at 13A0. 1 - ; So preat 45'1 e sam i Qvordrllled due to flowing sand In auger. due 10 flowing ' Wall Installed at 40 foot. I sands. i i I 50 1 1 i 50 1 i i 1 r J 0 60 u U Z 0 J U i M - 65_1 Sheet 2 of 2 • • Log of Monitoring Well MW-9 C City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Califomia KOMEX Project No. 105-002 Dale(s) Drilled 3121/01 Well Location; Refer to site plan Drilling Method: Hollow -Stem Auger (B-inch Op) Elevation of 15.32 foot AMSL TOG: 15.00 foot AMSL Ground urf8 Driliing Cont*actor: APEX Drilling initial Water Level: 11.25 foot BGS Sampling Method: Unlined 18-inch split spoon sampler Static Water Level: 10.57 feet BTOC on 511101 Geologist: SCR Reviewer: AZ Total Depth: 30 feat Well Deplh: 23.5 feet N 4I L V m .S C O - .Q E Remarks +n .to Geologic Description Well Diagram a a-0 a,3 a :N a E E l' E _ U B-inch-dla. steal ra ' U m a 0 Z) U well cover with 314-inch bolted lid U _ I Start at 08'-0. e � AsRh9it.r98d�L]f1Gt1@.S�i11Glt " —Steel well box set in i ODD $amp!A 08. GW-GM. Sandy GRAVEL with some sat. light olive brown ; n concrete l0 1.5 ft h4W9-1 auger). g * (2-5Y 514), angular to suhrounded gravel up to 1 1 (hand + 1.-112 inches, well -graded, fine to coarse sard. moist, moderate hydrocarbon -like odor R" t [ ; -B-inch-dia. borehole : i1 SP ____ _ _ ___ __ SAND. pale yellow (2.5Y 713). fre to coarse (mostly medium). !Taco sill, moist, very faint ? rY NSF Puregold 5_ MW9-5 D.0 !Sa^'tan at0aa0 j 5_ hydrocarbon -like odor I medium bentonite i�(l,and auger). N chips (1.5-7 R) + I .-A :> '-.-ww-- SP i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SAND. light alive brown (2,5Y 5!3), fine to �(-2-inch Sch- 40 PVC blank casing (0-8.4 R) —' _ j I medium, clean, some iron oxide staining. moist to — 10- - al.most wet, medium dense, no odor 10 MW9-10 4 0.0 Sampteat0915 _ t - 6 I(splitspoon) Static water level measured on 511!01 at 10.57 it BTOC Mon terey RE zer2 sarnU ri p ack (7.24.5 ft) 15- MW9.15 6 0.3 :Sample at D917, 9 1Drll!erreports M f----Becomes dark bluish gray (2 GLEY 411), wet. : 11 I water table. with no Iron oxide staining =j 2-inch Sch- 40 PVC 1 slotted casing, 0.020-inch slot (B.e.23.5 Ill)jNot possible to sample below 15 fee: due to flowing sands; sand cuttings in auge•s were logged but assessirg depths was not possible) — 20-( Ureble 10 20- sam5 pie below l n 1due to I flowing sands: _ ; S R of sand in r--- I auger whey at i 20ft. Log I -+ .—End - cutlings it auge no! possible in i. -. in 20-foot and 25-foot auger. olive (5Y 514). Erna : cap (0.45 R long) _ de!ermine to coarse, abundant shell fragmarts. trace silt depths. . :`.... 25 !:< Slough (flowing sand) -t I in 5-foot and 10-toot auger: as above except gray (1 GLEY 5r) Reach total Total depth of borehole s 30 feet. i depth at 1020 :r'; Well Installed at 23.5 feet; completed at 1130. 30- Sheet 1 of 1 • n • 0SIERRA ANALYTICAL. T D RE CHAIN OF CU � Y CORD TEL:949.348.9389 FAX: 949.348 091 15 26052 Merit Circle • Suite 105 • Laguna Hills, CA • 9 653 Client: C(-r Y G' 1!�pMIV — - -' Client P: Chen-, Address..5� �o CSc1sa A+/F. lz& _ Turn .Around T,me ] l nrncaiale Aaentior -- — — — Rcques:rc Rush 24-8 hnu:s Client Tcl. No- 3 v ! 3 Rush 9-5 ;ou:s Client Fa'o. - .zZLg13_7 — )t11 D _ 3 �� l r] Norna; . Client P:oi. Nl'an- Wk0E M 20f— I ] ylooilc - ----- - $Ic:-ra I --• --�• —•- --- � Con:atner `10. o. ' Client Sample No. Sanwle No. Daiefi:tne i ti;arrlx + i'resc 'a::as + T���e I Corimmers j V"z� I b 3-LeI D I IC� _1�1�Ntti '� �O S _ - j3�4 �7o �b o i� r u�� �5 I 0 Date: Page of _ — Lab Pmject No.: B / 03 - 6' f5 C7 r sr -per: V: - - ` ' -- Total Number of Containers Sample n15P0,3r: Q . _S� Suhmiiied to Laboratory Pnwc[ t:anc. j G ff< I rCa:::cc^*': II so I I] Return Ir, ;'lien, ���'�—_ . nc ochvery uf sam-res and :he :icrrar-:e on ;n,s ::iin orcusw[v rnnn :oova res the tncuiicC under 51E RRn's Trns a:w ]s /'e.aC E)iSpOsal' _ autwn:a,ror ;o ,rnnrn aml.•a-s �oo.•e Conanions, unlcsS mne-Iw aF,ced -:err. it r-.Line bc;Wc" SlEikk� and CLIENT I T,nc s: Q' Tiar .Samples cremined :o ce `anrelaus by SEi �Rr Will be r:urned ro CLIP wT prcryive nOS Com-.:n- t , I Cn.^ear.. —.—... •] C):hrc ---- I] Rrhrwunshed Sv, I Dare. R:cei-ec 50 I Total \umber of Containers -'--- ! Received by Laboratory Compare- Tenc ! Co;m. nr I Time ' Rrlaruishcd B.,: .lam Recriaed By Darr FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY - Sample Receipt Conditions: I Chilled - Temp ("C) -- Com:ang. Time: conpa:n, I T.me Sample Seals ❑ Presenatrves - Venfied By Speciai Insin,ctiors: �J_Prnpe:ty L beled Other prop :Mile Sample Container Slonree Location K--tC.-3- V'Vlte'r I Re,: 9a_'a(;--- - ----- ---. .. - -- - — -- ----- -- - ISIS.-REHI:TIOh u';:ne - Tv rucompar, $amairs. 4'e l:nk - Lanoraie.y Can,. !'nk - f.rid Fersartnr! r'-,:- 0 KOMEX•H20 SCIENCE-INC Environment and Water Resources 5500 BOLSA AVENUE, SUITE 105 HUN T INGTON BEACH. CA 926d9-1102 TEL.: (714) 379-1157 FAX.: (714) 379-1160 ROSH CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD E-MAIL: komexh2o@komexh2o.com- 0 Dale _3 W M Page Laboratory_ (LT-¢+' Res. --ts. 9 J.L_ �C ... _. Sampled By. 9t5fi:Vti Project Name: G Project No.: �� �, No.: ANALYSIS REQUIRED rpCPA Client: C1�rY x- `Task O OF 05AMPLE I© r> 0 �� c p00 `�Op0, 00� ` O o� Gig e �� `� ! 46 L 0 v "9�� �E = LOCATION! WELL/ LfiB 1p GOO,�.� ��ho Gpc tG F �4' ao g0 a� oL �, r" �C.� o ' c BORING ID - DATE - Q r O' �,`e ti -1-53�F_ _ 105 ':�.,� � I _- I i I x �K 953 `—._ 1Z53 ! 15 -- -- -I---- I- - ,c - x n >t x n Spec:ai Analysis or hart^ling Requirements: Matrix Codes: DIN - Drinking Water; GW Groundwater; Remarks: ' WW - Waste Water; S - Soil; O - Oil; 5L - Sludge: M - Miscellaneous Type of Ice : ' Wet ice O pry Ice iD Blue Ice O None ITem ;. on receipt: Preservation Codes: Relinquished By; f !Received By: �.— —C�rL� 'Date: .Time: H - HCL; N -! iNO,; 5 = H,SO4; T - Thiosulfate. S - NaOH; O - Other Name_ jt �!'� -�_—_-Name: Relinquished By: Received By: .Date: (Time: Data Package Options (Please Check if Requested) Type 1: RW0CB Reporting D Provide on Disk i_t Name: :Name: r2� Type 2: 4tiIP Protocol 0 iSend via E-mail U relinquished By: iReceived By: IDate: Time Type 3: Specity EE Name Name: STERRA AN.,ILLYTICAL TEL: 949-348-9389 FAX: 949-348-9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 CHAIN OF CIPODY RECORD . Laguna Hills, CA - 92653 Date- L3b Piojmn No - 49 CIicn',: 0-L 0� CiienE PT0j- Numbcri?roi. Narrje- Analy Requested �]Df— f —1 Cilem Address: c, oucL i I —L E- OS C-& Tum A, mind Time D I.-nr-,cdia'.c Arent'Gri i z�Al ti Requested D R--sli 21-1� hOLr.% 0 Rush. 7--136 noijrs Tel. No: 7q 5-2 —CJJY� 3 Q: j r Ix Norm.al Cher.', Ito.' 7� Sicm C'uniamer No. U!, .5 1 Client Sample No Sample No. -Daie-hrric Maim Presmatives T�-Pc contamers -_-ilK Ix I �I� I �_t I I 27 7PIAIrl 6uj it I x I xb< Mw— L4-7x .7,591 1x I Y- Lx L?S�[A I I i I KIN! H LLH._ ? I i _ .ice_ .. ._ .--- Tofai Numbe; ol- Containers S311TIPit M%PUSAL Subm'ned to LaboamT. Primed Warec' 145 r- j No I Zmort :-) Rew-in to Client Lab Di,Pasal- 1 Reiiaq:r;i:ed fay D,i- 3-210 Recemrdki e jt—---:w--SI--RRA's --ii" Conditims. "Ims .--r..d SIL.�kk., CUEN7 d�- c R CLIE.%7. L-j Ca.'7-- Time Company —e to b, -�Iow, in Archive -_mos P.. Rc:ei-cd 3y- Z)ale 15 Ibtal N,ct ujnbe-. -C "onminers Rec,-;Ived by Laboratory Other ;:Me Gmmm 7,,,e .1 FOR LA-90E-ATDRY list: ONLY - SaT.iple Receipt COnditiOrIS Ret:ci-� ily Dec: Yintact ] ChdIcd - -tcmp (nC)__ sarnple SCAIS .0 11mwivalives - Verified By Spec:al InsiructiGnS. [A/Properly Labeled' ] Other W/Appropriate Sampic Corininer Fj Sic).-ag!e I-r>call.r., Rev- Oh791, DIS. KIBUTION: WII,Ir f,- A-Tm7jljar.. SaMr%ICS. V111— - '-ai-racor, Copy. IlinI FieLd Pr:v,rm-1 --0-Y 0 9 0167_3-C7(�77_ • KOMEX-H20 SCIENCE-INC Environment and Water Resources 5500 BOLSA AVENUE. SUITE 105 HUNTING TON BEACH, CA 92549. 1102 TEL : (714) 379-1157 FAX.: (7 14) 379-1100 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD Date: 3 o! ?age 40,4 t ILI; 17 U S Labora.ory: SlL{ Results To: E-MAIL: komexh2o@kcmexh2o com Sampled By: Project Name: C; Project No.: Task No.: ANALYSIS REQUIRED � `0 Client: Ci i U� f4+t� o�°� F Z SAMPLE ID � r� t'`�` 0 O �P� 00 �o ,c. 0 O _ � h� G / a O G C9� �b Q} O O o O 0 .Lh L LOCATION! ;+� G OQ QJ � �h pti o' tie .� y � ;� �'` gam' � o tee/ ";� � x o I ° �• ` � O Q C3 S r, BORING I❑ - DATE - fiWELL/r �``�� �'�� 5vcne �Jr��Q��.�Q����`L r'���0�����r��J`OC' J�'�S,OG�` V �. �;�j =I cis -[z )5�- I— ---� i — j— I - y IQ -- I i Soec;al Analysts or Handling Requirements - Matrix Codes: DW - Drinking Water; GW Groundwater; Remarks: �', �,� ��pe��w;✓G '; - Sr rj� Type of Ice : Wet Ice 0 Dry Ice O Blue ice 0 None iTemp. on receipt: °C WW - Waste Water, S - Soil; O - Oil; SL - Sludge: M - Miscellaneous. Preservation Codes: Relinquished Bv: (Received By: C :Date: !,Time: / H - HCL; N - HNOs; S = ,H SOAI: T - T hiosulfa:e; S - NaOH; O - Other Name: Relinquisned By: IName: G1-L Received By: ;Date: 1Zw - Time: Data Package Options (Please Check if Requested) I Type 1. RWQCB Reporting O Provide on Disk 0 Name: Name: j Type 2- WIP Pro;ocoi ❑ Send via =-mail Cl Relinquisned By: Receivec By: Date: Time: Tvae 3. SpeciN - 7 I Name, ;Name: WERRA -AuNALYTICAL CHAIN OF CURDY RECORD TLL:949o348"9389 Date ?age FAX: 949o348,9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 - Laguna Hills, CA - 92653 Lab Proiec( No.: Chem: CD aQrX--Q CiLM PT0j. Nurpbe.,'P.oj'. N.mr: f3 Analvses Requested Cl Q2 bj -M— I IV r&t I YL9 tC41 -Ij I Address: S560 1 Client Add 4 qu Tum Ar6tind TIME lica::)nse Anennon Requested Rush 34-8.-iours 01 'Y�� 4 y ;C.-ITc�l. No: 79 115-7 Cl Russ-.7-96nours zI. 1-1 Chent Fax No.- 0 L] MoHe �—z CienL Proi.!Vl2i.: col bo -6 Cowainxi N - 0 f Client Sarnple No. Samolc No ono ne L S k� fi as -i-IIIT I PIescrv;LdVLS C ai FG4401 L.4" CP r P,�,o pi�e( -3 mm 1.4 t Pjaf ek I I 110,.4 / 61tul r I A Lj :Uiinqu;u�j .21 5 C -Lc3y.)ate li,.e: Lompany- I'T 1 Rehnquisl,.ed Ety. i Daze: Fkec-i,ed 3y: Company' Spec ial l--LSU-,:L',ic)ns Rcr. N, Pro Dacc j-i -L( f inc: Dwe lime: Total Number of Containers Submirztd -o Laborarory 7hic!i-,, of —I ..ne on :hi, =2.r of cus,oj- icn-. coos. -nu;" ac_hon:.avun :he nal-s ,oeaiied ai—m and Cincifiorz. ni� w�iw grred upon in iaiL �c�� %'lERR.A a-4 CI-IcNT. I r SSamples. et—M W bc %vz e4u$ to CI-IE%-. Co 1; e r. " S Sample Dispolal: C] Ac!„;n :a Cken.- 10 Lai) N.,P0Sa:- D Archive nos Total Nurnber of Coric-liners Otner Receised by f.abormory FOR LABOPLATORY L:S',-z ONLY - Sample Receipl. Conditions: C1 Inuict f-j Chilled -'remp (0Q__ Q sample Seals Piznervatives - \,erificd By Property Labeled ❑ Other Approlnitaie.Sarnple Container Sk)rjee Location DISTRIBUTION: :.abl)13!U-.' Curt'. Pi-.e ;ic!d Pc.,om, Cog,Y 9 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL CHARM OF CUSTODY RECORD TEL: 949.348.9389 FAX: 949.348.9115 a� 26052 Nterit Circle • Suite 105 • Laguna Hillis, CA • 92651 Client: 1�Oil{ �. �� (_'j s[Ie1 Q Cl:cn: Proj. NumFcr:'Proj -Name: Y Client .Address: t). 5 D4 �7C�SG� 1 b5-Gl I �t f�/tit�li� t�z j ►^7 GC I- c{ — l L� Turn A.cund Time -1] lrr.mrdi31t A;t:.::un �l JCL:: r$:ed ❑ Rush 3--=3 ODL'f5 17 Client 'le!. No: l - 1] 1i f, / �_- I�� /;L'S : i=-±o nows lJ� Client Fax to.. _ �� �� r 4 6 U ;�'`ar:n2: Client':oi. Liu C.c3c-04 i] �:crailc $terra Container tiu. u; �-12-I �, lj Client samair No. ' Sample No. i Dazefi'me �1ain, x Prescnativ.s Typt: C:onla rii e'rs II I I Y�n I wCJU N /P IiL Piusft.-c I I Ila I-/! m w 3 110�+ 0 116 ' 4-ci i wo—w-F tas�►�h b ` 3 1 lam_ _ `rpic_ �'. !�tlt� i2.5cir>,] � l I; ✓; ✓1 E(3 r 1 i 11' 10 ' I'rhrosv) 't s i 3 i ii - i I N M 1250 ml I I �I ✓i 'i Sample: signamr: /J (lel._iL� y �_ ! S,:pn1 Via: Fnn:cd %'a:•,e- 1 I fCaaner�wa .:I No.? Rciinqu,snca: B;. `�� � _ I rJa,e: i+"1 ♦1j/C]�2xc:v ' Corr._any: iael.:,c,:isnee tty: rrt----��o. nany: •J R-:inquismd Bv. - Special Instruct ions: Rer ad''gj Q-.T I-".- (z, Recr:.rd Hy- i vac I Companq- C: Date `t'_:1 Qt Pape 1__. ui y�- nalvses Requested____ C u � 2 al Cz �t , ��i✓i�1�✓�'fl ! I -' :%�i✓ ICI �,�_� Total Number O C.ontamm Submitied tD Laboratory I� I i Comments - Sample Disposal: C] ,2c-urn co Client The :kl:emery of mam, ie, and me „� iare:r on 1s cn in r cusro y Corn vun..:iroies ''''''11 Daee i au,nonzatrm w De,lorm :he ax nal?wi ecvted annve ender SIMA's Temss and J Lab Disposal- ' Cund.aons. unless other %c aq:red -jr on m w:ninq x:wern SIEZRA and CLIE` 7. r %-'] L.� Samola dc�e:mined :u r mua dms iv MEIR, w.d sc rryncd :� ,-:.:t� i. Cl ^ Ar-live rr:05. Tom! Dare I Number of Containers ol;,er__ , R ct:i%ed by Laboratory IDaze: ` Rmr,ved By I D1e FOR L.kBOR-ATORY USE ONLY - Sample Reeeipr Cond;uons: I ❑ Intact ❑ Chilled - Temp (°C)—_ LCompany: .------ I ii�:e: ❑ Sample Seals ❑ Preservatives - Verified By Properiv Labeled ❑ Omer ---- ---- --- '--�---'- - ❑ Appropnalc SamDlc C'uneiner ❑ Storage Location DGTR!Itt.1101. what T,. ,._nmr.jnv Samples. Ye 10LL . Latnmew: C'Pv Pink Fic!d Prison:iel Cagy 0 A5IERRANALYTIC�I CI-i AI�I OF CUSTODY RECORD TEL:949.348.9389 FAX: 949.348.9115 SIERRA26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 - Laguna Hills, CA - 926-3 0 Date. �1�? d E ?age ! nF Z Lab Prcjeci No.: �.'✓ 1�- --- y Client; Kconme� �zb Sc. erxp — C Cent Proj. Number. tiamc. u n��bSes Requested 1C�$—Oil idol 'n c" r ^r Client address. $S[}[`j 1-601$G_ 105- �. �2 612l,-`!_ ! 62 - Tu^: Around rrte ❑ !rl:ncc:at[ Accaliort i • w I� � } 1 ��� ] Rusn '_ ' 8 hours �{ CIA C.Jent TeL •-No: � �_sZ�.� s�7 -- ] Rush _ )A i { Circn; r-< -No. �� �, ryr� b G �I IS i Cl,iert[ P:'u �tqr : �.t�{itC' l , ! t%%`' —� .mobile �I U i] I C C I I t 5ier J E. Contamer No. of t� r �� z �: I J J I L� Itl I z Client >amalc NO. ! Sample No. 1 Dar��Tirt;c I ti1:t=.r�x � I':;:servati>.'_s I 7}•pz t (�crni3incrs r , rnw Igo s� ���4ia LA.,-CAXr I �� �i�u�c 1 3 � �I.✓I I_ l i l l —�- '--I-2 .S�s �to5P I M W mw —I I_2 I n_IW I 1 1.— m w 6f5 I toq �. I I z-s9 Ohl � - ✓I Ai"/1! I I-- .M Wass — - Z. S '' I N t r� t� �c�sac ► ' I .- I I �i.%I �' I C _ _.... rn w+ Icss! .i. ! o .. k � Nrn i I I ` ✓I lJ ✓ rnw 2._..__ ? i I o4i �• i ��/� IS' ._r'— i =•'^:rrr _iti �n::e JI— RellnGuishcd By: -- �// Cnnn.pany: � QTr -- -.-{ palm I �] ITIn- I T `il;.yeJ vi. - + R _--ed 3a ' Cor.;ang: S l I -'-' r..e l ura[ NU:iiuer a: Cor:t,Mtners Submined :o i.ahor<awr.. Je'arcry of sar..niee lad ;he ;igr:ure ua mis cra.n of :cs:a:y raa :pntl:n.rrs aal:lar': hm m xrfc . :he ar ym* so clfira airo•e under 51c1RRA's Te^=4 anG i:o,Klilionl. un1cm ocn—iX agreed _Pon In --ing mween. SiERR-A and CUFF' I. • . anPmes dele.-r:I.IC� la :le �32ar;Jauf i.=R R.{ be .Lned :P CC![1T. $ :C -�Il Pv Sarttp+e alspaszt: ' '1 ArC :I �'[ aMs. R:hnyusar.J 9y-- I [hlr: I Rn:e:.ed By' --- - . _� due_ Totaf 1`umbe, of Containers Other— -- _ -- -- . —. Received by :_aboratory Ca Os— i 1'inc I Company: I + FOR ?:AB0R-,'Vr0RY USE ONLY - S: tnple Receipt Conditions: :Inrr �yhcd By r,,:r: R,,e:�_a 3,: ; �,le -- — — �— — - I i ;(3 Intact ] Chided - Tcrnp (DC') - '-- Company: - lir.1- —� � Cnmpary.. ---.— Tuaci ---- ;] Sample Seals [] Preservatives - verified By --__ �xc,al !nsr,:JC:ions: I] ?roped. Labeled C] Other Appropnale Sample Con.=diner iiD Stomg: Location Re, Q,."an .. DiS: Rlr)LT1Q1v Who:. T.i -, .mp2ny Sanpmes. Y,Pow - LaDncalon' C:rv.?•nk - =-cld P_nul:1_m Cjr. SIERRA ANIaLYTICAL CHAfN1 OF CUSTODY RECORD �7 TEL: 949.348.9389 Date: 4 1Zr 10 ! Page 2- of ( r FAX:949.348.9115 ® 26052 'Merit Circle • 'Suite 105 • Laguna Hills, CA • 92653 Sys _ Lab Project No Client: Kom e) Hzd ill Client Proj. VurnberrProi Name: t� A17alvses Requested (�/ {� f 0 Client Address: Iny-- 'd �; ' �' [ I 1r CRG 1 � 1CS 0 4 _ Turn A,o nd Pine ] I nmcd:ate A tcnlion � i loos , 0 _ C Clie-! Ce:. No. 1 ?� -- r ) r5� N4_ _ Rush 71-96 hours J { � d Client Fax No � / �'lrnai I 2*SI ! �I PeI — Ciien_ P:oi. Nl�z —U)Cl"z �. C�I c]I I._ I k Slesrri. l -- I •- --- (,ontaincr- No. W, t— i '3 l Client Sample `o. I Sen'ple Rio. T vct --ime I N1.e':r:x PreServ=ves T ;.c Conta.rcrs 1� Camntents i -- .. 14f� I � IL)'���"` i 3 - - �11.v 1 �----I t ��II ��—I--� �- T�_�1cs�_... � ._�.�JI I . ✓j :..I � ,_.�I ✓I-! j �-- �I •I -- - rn w I i ,� —i I�c 1 3 TU w�6 I—� I �z I ,, I _ i � ���C 1 _1 I I I . I� .—' NI I}- �iit maim Signature' -�"�.� ` .-_ Pr:nred Name 15.coed Vie_—Lt! s' r r ICaTtr:''HJ,xdl `Jo I Y'1 l./ kOCalutnber of CO it eat f1Ci$ Subrnlr_ted :U Laboratory .� 4„ Sample Disposal: ❑ Re:urn ;o Client ❑ �b DtS,'lfl5a i' '❑ I I Rcli:au:shr,; 3y I 4 ;h[e. CJ E :{tr:—d 81 q I Dale 'I : he dth—r of w:hptn and tnc vrrr4mrt, on this d—n m cssio ty :urn carrsr:m;cs aUo: ::3non so the anJl_.srs ,aec:f:ed atrr.e urrdr: SIERRA s Tins mW �U - r I �f 171mc: � is _ - 1 h - atrium LUrhl]LORS. GJry Urh;rw i,c J2:C: 1':;wM 'n +-1:.1¢ hr:wm SIEW La s+d CLIENT. � s-smoies desr�:iuCd ur be aar.:dais i+ SiE� R,� w ill k rr.�rrca to CLIENT. I, :t05 Cow.oany. 4 Cono:sar- T, ,r r s .gr[atce 11 I .I.rq':isned By. .. - I� Dare: -- I Reao•eI 8% -'--'^ j U.— Total Nunnber of Con¢ainers ❑ O;hcr _—'— Received by Labora€ory' 'R,1moliahrd 1 FOR LABOp-ATORY USE ONLY- Sample Receipt Conditions: BY: Darr. R--,ta By. D,;r: - -- I I ❑ Intact Chilled - Temp (°C') — -- Comwny. - F.mc: w Cam;uny nine.-- ❑ Sample Scals ] Preservatives - Verified By — .—_— Special Properly Labeled I:1 nthcr Appropriate Santelc ConMir.er Sutrge Location R ' Y + _ .—_. _..—_ _ .. — - ._ -_. —.—_ —_. _ __ __ _ l;liT, R'Crl: CU1 ',` 'u acWnppro-i�n•n�es. Fc!ie. :Jlx:par+CJ:. Ptr.. 'r f`ensrnt: CJ:e� i SIERRA ANALYTICAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD 'UL:9496348-9389 FAX. 949e348*9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 - Laguna HiLls, CA - 92653 Client. Koo QY- It Wince (; Client Proj. Number,T-oj. Name: Client Address -5.5D0 Pto-5-o1 fl (\2 _S=LV cij unc iLrn get Turn Aruund Time ij JF;imedlatc Ale nrion Re, --1 0 Date: 4!75."01 P391!—�.f I— LabProjec-,No.: IDS-0109 nalyses Requested '-D Rush 'hour% Client T-1-1 Nw �El Lqt-3 -D Rush 72-96 -IOLLIS L t - - - 7 "1 — 11 Chen! F-L\ N-L).7 41 .—J 3 Clivit Proi. .'ARn: ID Mobile Sic-ra container Client Sa-nDlc No. -N Sarnole o. -Datv.-firne M at r., Preservatives 1 . YI)e 1 ContainCrILI cc— PT- rn L0 110630 LAxap-s- A, lcs,) R, -SL- rn LAD- r4 /t+ It A- P" 0-,7 1 -ell rn LAO I NIR f'SC'-('wr I i --- C, - C--,O F-7- 31 6 FG- 501 1 1:1—j r— 0 43 f3. c-, I q f%3�?AbC— 13 5O f 10-03( ---'1 113 4 1 F= 13. L1150 10-03 . . . . . . . . . . -A ia-olc- R.1 ...... Shcd By: Cninp,ny, 0 Rc!.nq-j.s.wd B� zompa.y. comrary: Special [.'Isurucnons: R-" rm,Ni, smm-i via Total Number of Cortainers Submiwed to Laboratory —1 Laic: �— 0 R IIWIMM7211nn W PC:1 . M. .niiyyes 1p.WiCd abort -,J- SIF RRA' I rrr•.n, And 5—Pin De I—Jxis *y S?FqJRA -..'I jexnxvd.,a CL:E.JT I D.w MM Coma--y D:Lf-: R-mcd 3ir -Ime: Cen:wn. Comments Sample Disposal; Ream to C:icni ❑ Lab Dispom;* AC'.Iic Mos. Total Number of Con-tainm 1:1 Other Received b,; boratorn D.1c FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY - Sarripk! Rcccespt Conditions: D-'matt E] ChiHed -Temp (OC)___ Time: 0 SampJe Seals ❑ Pirc-servanves - Venfied By 21'proper!v Labeled F-1 0(her aApprupi-iaLt Sample Container !-I Swrage Location IL WSTRML, :TUON. Uh.(— T.jAcca,c,.,? YcQv- Ulwwj:L—Cqiy. Pirk - Pic!d ilt:,-liirxiCopy SIERRA AINALMCAL >� CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD TEL: 949.348.9389 dater s ?age FAX: 949.348*91 15 UK 26052 lrterit Circle - Suite 105 - Laguna Hills, CA - 92653 Lab ?roject Na.: Cl;ent: KOTYiwL 1�10 cCC � Client Proj. N� ! � umberiPto;. Name: c tA1 naalvses Requested 01OL _ Client Address: .SHOO GoL3c L PN . 1 b`� r —� � I {,�' � I I I � Z c —CY i I G 1 � oZ i_rn .A: ound Time ❑ it :::edia:e .4: a ::,uo I � � I R quested I C ; Cllert Tel. No: �} �✓ TG[ 1is — -- i] R;ch ?�-96 you ; I �. t_�I .�,/� O Client rrax tio.:. .. 1�._- 1160 - �j'� r ^al -- ----'^dr ❑'t CIIL=r1i ?r04 ViaC.: l� C.t� i ' � �>wlt LA — - - - - ---- Sierra I777 Container NJ Chem, Sa:rs le No. ' S:Lmnl ti p c o UaLw'Tiirie I %431- x :Iresenranvees i T-upe C"Mia➢iter5 � I lfll I QI i COITIMCnls Las _IC) 1� ; w 1� � � 6— rn —S 11A Mastic I �! i - i -'�✓ �I I I I — If�:�caSS.-I -- 1 1 I i � I —i- r w - Obi 1 I �� I - I-t U6 ` I 3 -� ✓ I i. i_ ..I I - I ----- AN rnw -CII j l� l� Ntr� I�lr m 1IL76 i a��`�I_ ._ % �ilti,� tab- 'M w —moo I ! } ! `� I 'r -._. N/� d'�, {'ir.,sh-4' 1 — - � � I -- '� ✓ `f �_' `r : '_ '' I -- � �----- --,-� NIa .. ! I , �! ! I , l i I '• I I I ___ I i ]InmrSlX­:a,- S,ouedva 1Tiii]t'rOICOT1minerS Sample Disposal: Submitted to Laboratory ilrlll:cd N.­ S }r'' r'} } (Calnrra:,.d•d vJ) i I� R-!ur-. to Client Fj '• t^/ The dch.ery of samolo and the slgsw: J :Ins troll or cusludy tom cansamles ^� Rchnyuahcd 9y. ; :Jate ;.7[ E Rccrl�ca liy ' L j wlhor::arwn Io per:urn me analysm sx. irlcd ibo,c undo: i1=RitA's Terms acd J �j UiipOSai' ( Concim ms. ,rlless aaerw-sc agmW upon m � :lra :rc:wmn i7FAR.A and CLIENT r l 0 r r ` 2•� I ! 2-.20 1 (]Iy � �: �� Sure-,,ks dcrc:mlacd a ac hags dl s =y 51=..RZa +•III be ter n d m CLI .V .-. .Archive mos. c I Tom! `umbero# Containers ] °t'`r 4!irsq•�I,hrd 3y. , �atc. Its•.tclvca Ry :'tart --- Received by Lsborator• Curoany: I7.r CMI'Dany. TT.me ' IIndL'ISa[d By Dale. ItRe,.ee Icy „e. FOR LABORATORY L•SF ONLY - Sample Receipt Con[litiOnS: _ C] Intact. 3 Chilled - . CJmwr.y: I Tn..Com-nany: I T'%nl. k — -- -- Ci Sample Seals 0 P,-eservatsves - Verified By Special InsLnucL1ons: 1 Properly Labeled f] Other— I� Appropr,'±Le Sample Comainer f] Storage Location Rc. 0:79y-- -- -- - - -- - -- D1STR1B1iTIUA' u'aite ...ra ••.::,unary l.IniC fS. -!IJw i.al"Ir]Ip; v' Cap.-. ?:ni =:cld PcnJnrr: [-upv SIERRA ANALYTICAL. CH F'14 OF CUSTODY RECORD TEL:949.348.9389 F:AX: 949.348.9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 103 - Laguna Hills, CA - 92653 X Client: 14 ,� tt Cheri, ?roj..Number;Prof. Namne. -- �lnalysi CliientAddress'1Cb��vCZ ,)<e- i Date: ; 5 } Page } a Lab ?roject No.: 1 !s Requested p—r �7 cc�]]1 C) I i Turn Around Time ] !r..r..::7ia:e Arennon I Ci 1 (� Li i Re-swc 3 � i ��• I 4 Rush ':tours l rRush a;?l -v6ours Clic't Tel. �o1 U iQ 04en,^at No.: b CGcnr 'roj_tL �� = - ' • — - ---- -- obi — d I Sierra +�l i COntaul'r No o I � A _ �I LT. C11eat Sar: plc •`to. j Sample N. ; -Dare:Time ?a:ripe Prescr%ativl s Tv.;e Con[alners I �l - rn W-` i} -- - I l0 77 7 i 5 0 c crro U rn w - l i I I s o� i tyl� . _...� c P� --1 I - ✓ ,✓f til if rn w` I E I I l 5-- I I tit r I r t,: 117 �o_I - - ¢ _I �►��s�'1�, �tTC I �! �l-- . 1 II J. -- �I i] Sa;^oler Sixratvrc �, it Pr rtcL' % -nc ~✓ }iiCa- CitJV` C'�oo7n+paw Eli i RcL:ua:nr.N.. 13s Special lnsrrucitons: Rr, .i,.-•Jb 15mmdy'a ....1._....�i {t'ame:rlViva;ll N0 1 Dale Lt 5/ot� 11IM- er.By u,[�' l -5,oi Ca:nrary -5�er i:'wr. I Recei•cd D, : t)as: Reccrvcd 3v: Company _ T;:rc o�o� Corllllem, Tom! Number of Containers Sample ffispo5al: SLbmineC to L boramory - --- I] Re:u-, to Cliori a �chvtry of ,ar..paS a,c; :ae ,;:aamrc o . t�,s :'-:. ur::;,ia:v rort cunsumtcs ;� Lao olsno5a1- ,auhor;za;ion Date �/ 5 ! 1 � ;o perwo :he anaivws som icd awry umler ):F RRA s Timis 3M J ConCx;una, unicas ome-. .w y,,r j .,, on in —1..,y :;c:era i:ERZ1 and CLIENT i.me: i iamalcs bemired :o be :nta,doua Sy 51FRa % -11 oe wumca w CLILVT ] drChiv-- Dnr Tom! Number of Containers ] Other Lu-+: — _ Received 1-31ior, tore flue. • FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY - Sample Receipt Conditions: t,11e fnlact !]('killed- Temp (,,C)_ _-_,--- Time. Sample Seals ] ?rsservanves - den ied By Properly Lahel_d i] Other r Aapronriate Sample Conmire, I] �,ongc Lucatio. �- _— .-- -i)15.'MHL rkN %`,h,tt 7,, Pnm,:narl C:,r_• 10SiERRA ANALYTICAL CHArN OF CU *DY RECORD FEL:949.348-93,S9 FAX. 949-348-9115 A Acm d 26052 Merit Circle -Suite 105 - Lab m Hills, CA - 92653 Client: J�Q W& Client P.oi NumbedProj. Name: Ch.'enE Addnss- 650,3 A-_Lse rG Svtf, i05-- IDS —OkA Analyses I C� T-jimAro-ind-5--ne -:1 Immcdiale Artention Rush 24-8 hours gien. iei \o- _71q —057— CIE Cliunt Fax No.: k, 1160 XN -ie 9 Date: lq—,:-! j 101 Page ._./. Or Ub P.ojev No.: 105-4o i equested q-' --2-67 I %JI i d: ien r T.: EIA CD Sicr-ra COIIIAMWr Io. Of Chen: Sample NO. Sample No. i DalciT;mc Matrix Prescrvanoes TypeComa; &0 C o m e n Ls 1 x 1% S K ix Simpler P.1mce N.me: t-_rkc, C�inmr.Y By Cn,Nr.,: Special Lis,7-Lctions: Recri d U, company Der [Rec­ed By T.mc Cocrranv D-it I Recri-td Hv I I 0-5- I Dale I T,-c CT]Total Nurnbe; of Containers Submired to I.Phoratory L IV ­1:­Ir ­inlpin AM the Si. , ­IUIC an MIS cu,n of cuctod, farmcmsi:rw:j MI. I. ­t7r.r hriwrm S1 RRA and CLIENT. I.pi,,j at; �.. —j W M hAU,aa s b. Sl--k1,A ..!I t. r-!u �-d W WEti). Total Number ol-Conlainers Rece;ved Lab'oralom-, sample Disposal: IJ Rcmm to Clitm D 1.37 D!sposal' 1:1 Archive___..'nos 1:1 Othe. FOR LkTiORATORY US =- ONLY - Samnle Rect;P1 Conditions: ID Chilled - Temp T:.c Samnit! Sea;s ❑ Preservatives - Venfied By F--LKProperl,, Labeled ❑ 0!hcr propTiate Sample C0nLaLrM- Sloraer Lucation 17!(),' ',k,n.iV 1­4-11W,171 C,,vv. Pini, ic:d Pemor.ar' Cnp. 0 b s SIERRA AINALYTICAL CHMN OF CUSTODY RECORD TEL: 949.348 *9389 FAX: 949.348.911 5 26052 Merit Circle • Suite 105 • Laguna Hills, CA • 92653 Client: kovYy-,K t+z 0 5l✓L c [, � Client Proj. NumbenTrol. Name. �Oj101A Chen, PsddT^_ss: S ()O #� CA � 7 E c{1 - E f Q L —_ Turn Time ❑ Immedla:c Arentrnr. Client Tel. No: iq- 379 - I 15 7 �L It t.IICi1t r:!x �rD.: _ It& 0 Client Prol. My-: WAory M4,G{z, Sierra I Client Sample No. Sample No I 1?at-l'firle -- I1AiA,- M W T7 + 1139 h`[Il0 i 11377 1 Prrnrer! \a -re: �rlL ti:E4�'!(�j/jJ•� l Relu.garsned 3, Co.:.pamv I� R0114utsned iiy Con�ny. i•] Rc.inomshrd By: C=xaw Spcc:al ins -,ructions Rcr. Ir Sq 1-0 tact — :Zc quevel! I] Rush =;-38 hours L:sh i2-')6 hours O 13: ,Mobile �- + _- Container .No. of Matrix. Preserva::vs Iype I Containers GLJ — Gw jr i ` (Canter/ura.�odl ;:o.! r IT�—: �, I Con:pary. � LEI i• Dez I Rece:+ed i.N Company Date. Rece—d By. T I Tirrrr + cornpaly. ` I-] Date: L ;-j I !()I page _� Of Lab ProjecL tio.: 1 d S- D I A Analyses Requested o04-.2-6$ XI I I f t y; _Q X� 1 1-7 Commcn-us x< Iy-, Ix I xI! )c i x Ix i x I x1 _ 1 I_vrntwe6l �s X( I ?C K I k i ?C I x I .K I x1 ,cI;x I ' 'T'W' %.(Auk - - I I l � x Ix xl�l Klkl�s�l ki k! I i <;<x j 13 Total Nurnber nt Containers Sample Disposal: S:1brTittvci to L.ahomoTv Rerun: is t. ilml Thc d[1ivtry :11 sam Pies i:rd the swiaiurr on nl-Usioay r.r ion51nJ1. % Dare' Q I! au:LrpnUCKNI 10 prrfu .. t5r 3u11� Sp(:a Gr! rPxp,c under SIERRA'S Tr—s -A I Lap Dib.puidi' 33 r Cnndtrmns, unSess ax .tse a rced •.p o : niinr k:Wer.. 5!l Rlt� and C:.I F.�'i. - i Sarnpin dntrrtlneJ x� !rt .`.aalaous try SIERFLA .:IL he letunee! to C;rI \l. ❑ ,Arcaive Date: -Ibial Number of Containers °71eC — Received by Laboratory I Daw FOR LABORATORY USIE ONLY - Sample Receipt Conditions: fB Intact ❑ Chilled - Temp (0C}__ Tmr: ❑ sample seals ❑ Presen'ativcs - Verified By Ca"Pioperly Labeled ❑ Other I0•Aporopriale Samplc Contain: 1•�_ Stooge Locauon M iGro lNGie D'STRLBI.TIQ1: WMIC - Tu Aecoaipany Samp - . STilo. - L,mratory Coi:y, i'Ir: - Firlc Przurnrl C,r., SIERRA ANALYTICAL TEL-. 949-348-9389 FAX: 949-349-9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 101* Laguna CMAJN OF CUSODY RECORD CA - 92653 J.Ah 1'rtijcvl NIL: ios-oiA • (Aivni: KomF�< ?C, Clicit Pruj.'%wnIx:r/roj. Nrv: Analvses Requested f 04 -,LC. 5. —EV Furn %r,m.d _j < m 4- :E I act - j o. W57 1 7=� 4 4. _j k...h - 1i6 0 C6 t Ii, j . V;Ackr— Sierra a 14, I NI - I t (AIVIII SaInLflr. \t. Sample D.Irr."flint.thin; Pi t,cr1 i, us T% 7,,11:1r,r� IAa Comm,ril x Lo SqD: -Lx AW 9LJ ,LAY5qL( I GLA) i)c K.: ac i ?C K (ISO? I q Zo m.ro K !.K i K T—t L'o. L /V 1< -3 F i '0MI N! tM'-LX--'L1 1'('0 111 ZI I I I C-1 simpl. ry6p—mh: ........... I h,1 Mrf,.rm 0, -- --------- I —d FNI 2 L:j Received',I)v LaboraLory Chiffid Pr"tr%-j0%r,- vr1rwd 11% Sivi-61 1m,1,-LLj:11U[1,: mw R\S= L.—l— I .— V-k- t.,*l Pr!,-.-; 0 ASEERF—A ANALYTICAL TEL: 949-348-9389 FAX: 949-348-9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 - 0 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD CA - 92653 Daw. 4- 114S !-01 I..'Lh Pi-muct -NO.. [lien,: 0 5Ccwv-4, Client VrOj. ';Linilivi-11rol. Narnv: A..Analvses Requested vS5CD gcsC,(.1i,ni %ja rr„ SULTF- t05 Cmi:c, �a qz-6-tj -110z� Turn %rwnd I igric III r LZA L 1160 (':it w Pr-,!. %[Lr.. W A4Z)e- /V14 SC� 9-•Z _j Tierra _ COpilainer NO. Of Do 0; Tillic Clivill Sample alliple NO. Dnlvi (:,.nlmn,r, I Ic W! S tin I za�7s wow Ix i Fe- I K I K x I 'K 1,41 /V\ S k 10� 11 17-017 11 ""�?C,6 L�< 2< I x -K- 24 X IF 6 "11'8 0 L 1209 AA U I --I llr� i 19 lx 6� r-O AA L;in, !ST. Ix vial lism ruci ions: al 0 Kig V L—it--( /0 ele — 44- j ,/- -.1-1 pnil;rd A—, --dIr I1y.14RA', 1',r— -d .12m* M.Pwiml: _j _j .,,,h.,, :� tkh- RccciV;�d he UML), V Ch.IIIJ - rrrnp 1-CI _ . . .... __ Pr—r, vi, %,'I, irwd BY _j !11:1;jllll. 1101: 1 0— -v, ASIERRA.kNIALYTICAL TEL: 949-348-9389 FAX: 949-348-9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 - 0 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD CA - 92653 C F1vrez�SC i e nc-o C:Iiclll J1;-tj.j. :1 IT IV Anaiv.ses R An nr_1,I.Irr 5-600 6CISC, t5 Turn xf.10..d 'fi-1 cn, 3 '11 rill Yj% C CJ" L? Nicmi L:L)n1nincr Nj j1i T%Ln(:tn;mn-r, 01 e, "�Y %)It:, iNV Lyss (_-)C.4�` Freicr,I ---E- Irl -q2Kes I/,"- 1(,-Li-,5 3 F13 U41q 2.45L I 1 30 1 { ploct" I b row lik 1 JLq57 It(,-4,5- 1 4' H Q0 q � j L C, i,,h- M. 0 Mile: Rn--c f Llh 6710 S4 — 5A7g' eque5(ed COI I I ffk' 111 N T,,,[..,[ N:1:n-HbcL s2mp4c iF.RRA -d 1'. P6, —.rd "I. —I Dlh- '-v Pit L.AR414ATI IkY 1;',F il-NIA Rec-pil I r. I., I -- D Chdka T'.nq t'i 'I sj.pl, . j '4 A pprollriul, Ornwinirr L] SL..r us,.i— Ili-, I., N .,­ ..h­4­ I . I.,ki -1 ......... I L'..­ s- s ASIERR-A ANALYTICAL CHAfN OF cus,rODY RECORD TEL 949-348-9389 Dale: LE-d'61 1 10( FAX: 949-348-9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 - Laguna M11s, CA - 92653 Lain Pri I jvt I N LL: Klov)q e7c � (an c-P Oicril Proj. Nunowi-I'mi. 1,.inw: .analyses ReqLieste(� o 105 I Ic) I - !'urn -wound l'inic _j mr—i- 7D-yi,> ! b i I I 31 �V. A 27 7 C-1 - 11 91 14 . i fivw V-1. : b �v I11 c,,-) C,� ni,--46r nil 7-1 -2;; 61 Clit-III S;1rTIpjv Nil. Nka.ix No D:110,1 Z. n >e Y1 uQ x 71 50041 cl c> I XJ x 17 14 A 16 Slxoak TOL11 M COW-JilliCr, N.,—t-m 04 —W­p—n.o j12­,,.Q- IFRR.1 3— and 0 I of ) Simp4c M••Pmjk _j X—,—.. 4 -1— 101,11 11U111her cv'CjmLl!1-tc. S 11th- RrMPI 1w Chill"I -T,r,np :-C I 1 6n, i �.nnpJe tunlain.r _j -/V u—.ft— �fr-- .J: 0 9 SIERRA ANALYTICAL ("HAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD TEL: 949-348-9389 FAX 949-348-9115 26052 Merit Circle -Suite 105 -Laguna hills, CA - 92653 I :,h P-.,.jv0 Nu.: 14.3ni uoc: --bas.-- -4 Clienr Prol. "tunivrProi. Narov: A n S sYeqeste RoH,x Hx6rL livrl %ddr-550-0O4 CG forii Aj'ound our _j 1 '4111 F I kql Pr --I. �cll C-1 -254—, Colwuntr No. of Sivrrn Clicill salm[JlV. No. S;L111 k j)L- Cmll.lifwr, I-rvwrv;ih% I, x x -2, >e �j 4 x j I >I .......... Speens l Ins:ructiorm: III I L u Uti NL::"0Cr SUirwilucd �o ...... ... I ' qFRR.% Sg1— LIrI,r LI I� hl—, t ld—l� %I F.R.G% -.11 Iw rlturmU W, 4:1 1 F.% 1'. TOLL! LL. LJ Corinnows _j R11,11 ;-- ('111L .J C 11— I. -RUCCiv-,'Ov 1-abo-ivory .1"Inp I-C; .2— 11 r"rr.'al i—, - Vir irkd KY I PII-r _j C,wamr.- __j m,,rj-_r jl,; zl:v, tu, I I %, -1111y.m 11 —llp— % Ah— eif ......... . . . 0 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD Marc: 4-- a CA - 92653 7M_ (Jiv C;ical Proj. NUrrillcuProl. N;:mic: G m: kc--rnPz�ykt-, C, scQyr-S,, grialyses Re iested Sr-)Q- (.hrnl Addrr, j cd, I rilm kr-nd In _j In-11-1 %L1,n1,m 7 Q.L i )o _j J. -40 _j Lc� c(clo M I d U +ri �� C'mrailacr Nu. ur �G c f.iA, I :,:1111PI.: 'No. )a r -I% rv, rvali,c ml n liv!-1 �.3171plu No. r All. F oc Cc i si- 1;ic -,(I& rn rye__)301 1� 'All -JI )30 16-431 130 ILA Sr 1 13017 %21! L Lt5 1314 94 I M L11-:1 t 5�;- ik"i 1 1 1 i i-d It, .......... Spt-cial Instructions; SIERRA ANALYTICAL TEL: 949-348-9389 FAX- 949-348-9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 - Colillimil-N. or-J. Numoc.- o! C or!Ltffl-12T,� sampir N.P—k _j R,I,,, I., CU-1 d, 1P.WRX, 1— —d —1 ,IKKri,% .1d - - L'o." - — -------------- j _j Nu, c—p—Y. Rcc d by L.nbocmory Prtnsr, mi,- - V,, irKd R, c.dn-f 1w 0 9 SIERRA ANALYTICAL CHArN OF CUSTODY RECORD TEL:949*348o93,99 FAX: 949*348*9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suire 105 - Laguna Hills, CA - 97-653 4r 0 Dam:L ;-Z5 G I P.r--,L-.f Lab D:ojcc' No.: C'ient: Ciien. PrE)i. Nluinber'Proj. Na,= Analyses Requested KII ,cy! C';enl A 'drcss: < Ru. ... au[c ;re main TurnArum'd 1 1.0 Uinptea ain tequcs-d >d ID Rus:i wuvs —1 —1 r) rZ m 1-7 — L> T,:! 0 '1-')6 hau-s 3 7-q —1 15�Z-. - it--- --- , --- I C; it rr, '0. L x N C-1 LIN NlobL;C Ch- r5 L > Comainer N.- 0. of r U I I jT" Marx H x 1 P-C Con:amwrs :. � TVD �Zrnrflt. -No. Samp[c X, i) Sel-v,.!E:VL!S e I J71CIS'(1 LE7 LL)CLI-',Y Iz5t!nt' —J2✓' ./rf r'n L.i,- - -'F LN L • FT - - - -------- R-na.,ahed;k Out: CoInpany- -Dam: 1 Rmci—1 By Tam R--. -:s-' No ) Tocal of Contairler.'s Submitted w Laboraton, -Z3 52MPIC WSPOSA: :3 Rcmrn zo cliclir 2-1< �.n4 lynMIC — !�'s ;:�ain ')r,ZLI�Iwy Ibmi corw:mm The dei., c. ji - awhorizanon tu ptr.� ffic knaiy�s spm�'Cl im- —. MERILA's F-- .d L.a.) L)tsposa 1* rordman,. ,less wn—.w 30.retj �xn -n • r.ImR Ke!-etn SiERR.A and C�.:hN T T.— Simples oclu—ned z x nu—.!w,Y ^v ilhRR.-% wil[ be reamed :a C.L:E";T ArL.Isv,-__--nus 7, C� Tow! Nurnber of Containers IR,--celved bv Lalborator%, 'Tnue, OR LABORATORY USF ONLY - Sample Receipt ConditLOFIS: al-EaCE Ij Chilled- T.--mv Tinic Ij Sample Seals 7reservativeN Ve6;-ied By Zril-perly Labeled ot6cr Sirn.r.:e Cori.--,iincr Locatioa. I II-M I 0:,,"UM.- : AN mpar.v S.,mric,. �'ci!ow i—ratcr- 1',nk - C:.L!7 0 0 0 ASIERRA ANNALY-FICAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD TEL: 949.348.9389 Date: �12LI_QL Pageof FAX 949"348'9115 26052'vietit Circle - Suite 105 -Laguna Hills, CA - 92653 A, Lab Project No.:0 la Cl�ent: KarnQ�/ 111.c) solefeQ Client ?rili. Nurnbernlroi..Narne: EAnalyses Requested i 96 Client Address: L n5 Tuni.ArnUiLd Tiune 0 !;-.i-ncd:31e Ar!-Mion C Gi 2_6�tq I Requeszed 0 hvurs Rusn 72-46 hovr5 )(Mal C I Lcn,L. 7 L — __ 4)—=. C! ient Fax N o.: 1;01 0-60 C) Clier-a P.ol. Mobilc C IS I Siena Comairier No. tic (:Rent Sairnp[c No. 1 Sample Nio T,..--c Comairicrs C DalvTirne Malr;x ?reserV3LiVL!S CommeriLs FnLo t !/-3/9-L-1 4l wc_Je_y-i5 Gig ­lLNLr H I L I sipflel; Total Timber ofConrainers Sample DiSpfJ521: Priazed (Cam--.!Wa,rN1.1;o I Submi.-M.d 'o Laboratory D Rzrum 10 cli-ni :he ofu.ptes and :he SignalL:- or. MIS Crain 04 C,,,:Li!y to,, conSoc.."" C3 D Dare I Received 'Y: [I> tn the analysesanalysessp—ried above ,',der SiUM-N's 7 �.. a and LabispoS.31* Condionns. u-ics­i� --- s otnagrmi m)n :n —,n 1e betweenSIEM-N ..d C,1.1"T. 71rne' co_�,ny Sampi" Z.c=incd cia be nxrzrd,. by 317;ZRA -ill Ile 'M,Mcd w CU%­, lkel.rloui%hed Liv, Dare: R_,-ci-vc By- Date: Total Number of'Containers Other Received by Laboratory Time 3v: kale: I Rccei•ecl By- Date: FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY - Sarn.ple Receipt Conditions: C2 Chilled - T err.p —5mr.Company_ Sample Seals C] Preservatives - Ve-rified By S.,-ec:a! iriszn�!clioas T J4.,Cpe. ly Labeled If' :Appropriate SaMPIC CO[ILaMef Localloil f1N-t"_r% DLSl R131 TIWV. Whitt - �ariidci Y010w - LaNaltor: cop'. rivi, �.Cld. C.. 0 0 0 ASIERRA -A--N-.NLYnC.NL CHAT OF CUSTODY RECORD ?I-ol TEL: 949'34809389 Dare: FAX 9494348"'9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 - Lagurm Hils, CA - 9265.3 :-M)?r-)it:r.t No.: 0 /0 ZI-1171:9? Chnt: Izkc CIKM.' PrOj Numbeni'Proi. Name: Analyses Requested y. CE'ri: JI-C T '4 rid T:-rc 0 1r-.r..=di.i,,n : CI j RuNII '--.S nourN r 2 )n :IOIL:3 Cic.--.r Tel No: Zt!& 7 Cli-.!:'.E F3x No.: - - - ------------------------ L 'o or i samo!t No. a - .- 11 �N I Comm-c-nEs I Sierra conl3i., -,-.1 S.lr kiamx Pi-eservat:ves .,7 2: .1pie xo. C'n"ine..; 4 2-L 0) 1 131 t.: j;- un. g,,,, 6T ZLOi $7 131 i-e�d - ;_.: i I L>L- 13 In - 0/ L.... "T rn 1311-� Zi 5 L-3 II-- ;-� �-' - '- i- i --' . -i i -. i ; . -" -- �--� 4 "--(�C) 13190.1 9..5i.-I I 13 n1 f-n Lo -11 o..,,[,.! �a,- A 2,0'6 "I J Sinecin; :.c.ij;?s S.C.—.d V.1 Dar. I R.—vr.d Ce1711!2.1v- di� I dotal L)Fcontainers Sample D61>0521: Siibmkied -ci Laboratorl D Cicr:t me Scher;.' of ,amainand :he ,q.qajU­)n tn,j cna,n .,( ­icav farm —%liviles 7- L I auir%ap.z3i,on WI X.;I'L)r;n :he mii"m xcmed 0-C Si'-E.R'-�W, s and LI Lab Disoma., nim orht�iv: +±—d uwa ip. —11,u 'x:-,een SIERRA and CLIS\7 VZ ZC�0- SIF.RkA —Ibemmmed,uc'.:cN- Archive_ —.r.as. D.ae Tocal \--UT-.bei- ofContai'ners R;-ccIv,-d I.,v Laborawry 71me Dax: FOR L.-kBOR-NfORY USE ONLY - Saniple Rtctipt Conditions: ia,fntact -:1 chdkd - --111P "0C1 Sample Seals 10 P. eserv3rives - 'Vel i fled B." Cj�c'rnperly Labelec! 0 Offier Sar,-.Pje C,),j'.aj.:eZ- swragt bxmior: k in . r-� i::, Yc'IuW - C, -rm ? • • C-7 rl • • A. SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: 4/2/01 Karnex 1-I20 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr, Wade Major Clmit Project Number: Date Sampled: Daic Samples Received Sierra Project No.: 105-002/City of FIB 3/29/01 3/29/01 0103-650 Attached are the results of the clienlo-physical analysis of -the sample(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The retraining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date.of'this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise its. 1101Zry Richard K. Forsyth Laboratory Director Reviewed 1'bis re11ur1 is applicable Duly m Ibe simp:c mceivcd by Ilic laboratory Tlie liability of the tabura[my is limited Io Ibe amu,ml paid for Ihis report. This reporl is fur [he excltlsivc use of Ibeclienl to wlinlu it is addressed and opo.1 [lie coudi[iou ilia[ [be dia17 assumes all liability for the further d;siribu[ion of the report or its collteuts. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105. LAGUNA HILLS, CAL150RNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRAL.AHSQEARTHLINK.NET SIERRA LABORATORIES, INC. SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORT Reference: B,1CLCno1aglca1 SB111PICS Obla611C(1 It Vill-iOL1S 94CS. Investigation: ]lactcriological Analysis. RESULTS Fecal Coliform Bn(crococcus Bacteriopbage . Sample No. S.L , No. IhLLC Time efu1100 nil cfu/jo0 ntl Wflaucsiloo_1111 M W-4 9654 3/29/01 13:00 <1 <1 <5 MW-9 9655 3/29/01 ' 1145 <1 <1 <5 M W-6 9656 3/29/01 14-30 <l <1 <5 MW-11 9657 3/29/01 16-20 <1 <1 <5 EB32901 9659 3/29/01 16:36 <1 <1 <5 FB32901 9659 3/29/01 16:39 <1 <1 <5 Trip 131ank 9660 3/29/01 16:50 <1 <1 <5 Me111011 SM 9222 1) SIM 923013 SM 921 1 D Detection Unlit 1 1 5 APR Q 4 2001 Richard K. I�or•sy r Laboratory Director �- ---- . l hi, reporl it uppliLt[hh- rrrdy to the sample r—em ed Ly the hrhomfol •. 711r linhilill. of !hc lohnr ior-11 A linmed fo the nururorf paid lot tlrn report. HiA nyrore A Jor the rsr 1—me nee of file cheat hr uhrau it i, o Ntr urndiriutr that the client moana� all li«hdirr /,it rhr Jurthrr dimtholinn of thr report ur in cawou,. 26052 MrRrT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LACUNA HILLS, CALIFOFINIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS®EARTHLINK.NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC 0 0 . .......... XQIYI'&x MOScience, A e'Silinpledi". 3/29/0 5500 Bolsia:Avenue. Suite 105-:::. Date:Received 3129/01: Huntinton :Beacfi, CA-92649,1102-.... Date Pkep irM:. 3/29/0 1: na yze. te;' l'' 'd A �: '. 3129/0 1 Siei -r: aProject No:: :0103 65.0 Analyst:- Tu...; Client -Project :11): 105-002YC. itV of 11B ......... .. . ....... .... :`Sample Matrix Liqutd . ....Report.. ate:::. 3/3 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Slerram Client:.. —I ID Na ID 0.— QUANTITY VALUES Total Organic Carbon, mg/l 9654 MW-4 2.5 :9655.:. mw-g 2.5 . .. .... ....... ... . . mw. G 3.5 9657 M W.- I F. 1.8 9 65 8.: F-B-3290 1. 0.6 <0.5 9660 "Trip` Bla'nk: . . . ........ ............... <0.5 Method No. SM-5310B Metho"d::D'6teoti'0'11,:Limit::; U SIERRA ANALYTICAL • 0 Komex H2O Science ELAV No.: 2320 5500 Boisa Avenuc Suite 105 Date Sampled: 03/29/01 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 03/29/01 Date Prepared: 03/29/01 Date Analyzed: 3/29-4/2/01 Sierra Project No.: 0103-650 Analyst: RF Client Project 1D: 105-0021City of l-l13 Sample Matrix: liquid Report Date: 04/102/01 Client Sample No.: MW-4 MW-9 MW-6 MW-I l Method ncicrllon Ullits Sierra Sample No.: 9654 9655 9650 9657 Lltnll Analytes: Method: Ammonia (NI13)-N 350.1 0.63 4 50 0.66 8.70 0.10 ing/L Nitrite-(NO2)-N 354.1 0.68 0.03 0.25 <0.02 0.02 mg/L Nitrate-(NO3)-N 353.3 6.70 1.32 5.10 1.13 0.05 mg/L TKN 351.2 0.67 4.72 0.71 9-00 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Tolal (PO,)-P 365.2 0.22 0-28 0.31 0.11 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Inorganic (PO,)-P 365.2 0.20 0.25 0.24 0-09 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-P Calculaton <0.05 <0.05 0.07 <0.05 0.05 mg/l. r Dilution Factor ND means Not Detected Reporting Lunit _ (Pr:etical Quantitatiou Limit x Dihuion Factor) SIERRA ANALYTICAL • • 0 Komex I120 Science ELAP No.: 2320 5500 I3olsa Avenue Suile 105 Date Sampled: 03/29/01 Hu'n(ington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 03/29r01 Date Prepared. 03/29/01 Date Analyzed: 3/29-4/2101 Sierra Project No.: 0103-650 Analyst: RF Client Project 1I): 105-002/City of I-II3 Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 04/02/01 Client Snmple No.: F-13 32901 t. F-13 32901 Tiip Blank l+,tethatJ Detectlan Units Sierra Snmple No.: 9658 9659 9600 Limit Analytes: Method: Ammonia (MI&N 350-1 0.11 0.10 <0-10 0.10 mg/L Ni1ri1e-(NO1)-N 354.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 mg/L Nitrate-(NO&N 353.3 022 0.18 <0.05 0.05 mg/L TKN 351.2 0.13 <0.10 <0.10 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Total (PO4)-P 365.2 0.08 0.07 <0.o5 M5 mg/L Phosphate, Inorganic (PO4)-P 365.2 0.06 0.05 <0.05 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Organic (PO,)-P Calculator <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 r 0.05 mg/L dilution factor ND menus Not Detected Reporting Limit— (Practical QuantitaGmt Limit x Qilution Factor) �o SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: 4/2/01 Komex 1-120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major diet)t Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received Sierra Project No.: 105-002/City of I-IB 3/28/01 3/28/01 0103-616 Attached are the results of the chemo-physical analysis of the sainple(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Siena Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attaclied or completed at the submittal of (lie samples. The analysis were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date of this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise tis. Richard K. Forsyth Laboratory Director Reviewed T1ris rcporr is applera6lr only !� rLc aasrry>}r rcccived 3ry rlc latwratary. The liahilisy of tl;r laboratory is Jimilyd la Iht aulnatu paid for !L•is rtporl. TTris rclrort is fur [Le exclusive use of theclicut to whnnr it is addrmcd a:ul upon she condition tlsas Ole client assumes all lialdlily for Ilse furdmr disnibutiot of the reborn ur its contenss. 26052 MERIT CIRCL-E SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHOt,IE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIEFtRALA13S C EARTHLINK-NET %fGf(I(A LARORATORII-S. INC. — --- 0 F ..a.A SIERRA ANAr.VTICAL Komex-1120 ScienceAnc DD1IS Certificate No.2324 5504 13olsa Ave., Ste. 145 Date Sampled: 3/28/01 .. ]luntington 1kach,iCA:92649 DateSiNnitted: 3/28/t71 Reference: Investigation IWAtimle No. MW-2 MW-3 Method Deflection Limit LABORATORY REPORT Bacteriological samples obtained :ft Various sites. Bacteriological Analysis. e Richard K. Forsyth Laboratory Director 9534 9535 RL,SUI.TS Fecal Colifurul Ell Ic'ocoCelts DwAt Iim 0,11/100 ID] K auiLml 3/29/01 11:18 <1 3/28/01 12:33 <1 SM 9222 l) I <I <1 SNI 9234 B I Bacteriophage uJ;1.111,tcs/100 ml SM 9211 O 5 iIlii, rrpurr is uppli, rdrlr rm11• fit rlrr• 'fin grh. rrr rirrd hI rhr Jnbarrrrury. T by bnhilrly of dn' luhorrrmry +c lurriled ru the uninuui punt Jur !pn rypurr 1 hi, report it/nr iGe :•rr$u,r^c rur uJ lJx• rhr 1r! rrr ulurru it i, rrrJrJrr.�rrd rHr=1 ry�:xr rbr rv+rrJrfrrur rhor Jlr.' rlir•rrr u, rrrrrrr r rrll 1ir11+r1ir�fr+r 1l+c %irr:l+cr rl',rrihrdiun rrJ rLr• .FjjAPR 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SLIrTE 105, LAGUNA HELLS, CALIFORNIA 92653TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115E-MAfL: SfQHOALAf3SOEAF;THLINK.NET 04 2001 ii �• SIERRA LABORATORIES INC • • Kgmex 1-120 Science Date Sampled : 3128101 5500.Bolsa'Menue, Suite 1WI :: ; . :: ...Date Received, 312$/01 .: . Huntington Beach, CA 92G�t9=I102 Date Prepared 3J287Q1 Date Analy ed. 3128101 . Sier.raProjectNo Q:1Q3 GlG Analyst .T Cllent Project ID: 105 002ICity o£11B Semple Matrax: Liquid . Report Date-.':'... 3/30J01 SIERRA ANAL. YTLCAL • 0 Komex 1I20 Science FLAP No.: 2320 5500 1lolsa Avenue Suite 105 "Dale Sampled:" 03/28/01 11unlington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 03/28/01 Date Prepared: 03/28/01 Date Analyzed: 03/28/01 Sierra Project No.: 0103-616 Analyst: RF Client Project JD: 105-002/City of 1-I13 Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 03/30/01 Client Sample No.: NIW-2 • i. N1W-3 Method Datec[ton Units � Linti[ Sierrn Sample No.: 9534 9535 Analytes: Method: Ammonia (NI-13)-N 350.1 011 0.64 0.10 mg/L Nitrite-(NO2)-N 354.1 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 mg/L Nitrate-(NQ)-N 353.3 6.40 4.20 0.05 mglL TKN 351.2 0.23 0.70 0.10 ntg/L Phosphate, Total (PO4)-l' 365.2 0.69 0.34 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Inorganic (POJ-P 365.2 0.61 0.31 0.05 mglL Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-P Calculatort 0.08 <0.05 4 0.05 rug7L Dilution Factor Nt3 means Not Detected Reporting Limit - (Prauical Quaatitatiou LimiL a DiluLion Factor) C] SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: 4/2/01 Komex I120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Client Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received Sierra Project No.: 105-002/City of I-II3 3/29/01 3/29/01 0103-635 Attached are the results of the chelno-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were perforated according to the prescribed method as oullined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 clays from the date of this report If you require additional retaining; time, please advise us. e�" e_�n� Richard K. Forsyth Laboratory Director Ltl Reviewed This report is applicable only to the sample received by [lie laboratory. 'rhe liability or Ibe laboratory is limited to the amnunl paid I'or this repor[. 'rhis report is fur the exchlsive use of tbeclisot to Whom it is addressed aid upon the condition that [lie r.licrll assmces all Iiabihly for the furtiicr distribctiou of the report or its coilents 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS0EARThILINK.NET S1f:RRA LAIIOIIATORMS. INC. SIERRA A N A LYT ICAL LABORATORY REPORT Reference: Bacteriological samples obtained at various sites. Invcsligntion: 13.Icleriological Analysis. Sample No. S.L. No. A MW-1 9589 M W-7 9590 MW-47x 9591 Method Detection Limit Richard K. Forsyth Laboratory Director R1:SuLTS fecal colifor•m Rttte cru1100 ml 3129/01 9:38 <l 3/29/01 10:41 <1 3/29/01 10:44 <1 W 9222 1) I Enterococells efn/100 rnl . <1 <1 <I SKI 923013 1 11u, report m upplicrrhlc m,lp hr Me iun,pfr rcrcicrd lrp nce 71rc liuhiluy rrfthe lydiuranny i, lirnired A, Ili, u+nr,uur p,+r.! fnr'rhi� rrlwIT the ,.rz Hive -u 41he elim, la ulr.;lu it is redbe—M fond upun drr rrrnduirnr rhnf rho dial u+wnnr, a/l ul rlrc 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SLATE 105. LAGUNA HILLS. CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS®EARTHLINK.NET Iiacteriophage 1J7t1ucs/100 [ill SM 9211 D 5 SIERRA LABORATOKIES INC E • 0 Itujtiez 1i20 Science D;�te�t►zyleil .. ......... < 3/29141 5500 Bo1sa.Avenue; Stiite 105.:. Date'Received 3129/01. Huntington Be�cli, CA-'92649 1102 :: Date -Prepared : 3/29/01 Datc:Analyzed 3/31, /01 Sierra Project No..: ` 0103-635 ..:'Aniflyst T.0 Gllent Prdj:ect ID 1:05 002/City of IIB. ::. :. _.. 5i}tiijsle Makr�x Licirtid." Report D,A6. 3130/01 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sierra Client:: ID No. 3D No. QUANTITY VALUES Total Organic Carbon, nigh ..9589. `.::.. :.::....-MW-.l..' .::. 0.7 9590 MW 7. =.. 2.1 9591 MW 47X 1.8 Method.NO. SM-531013 Method Detection Limit.: 0.5 SIERRA ANALYTICAL • 0 Komex 1120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 IIuntington Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0103-635 Client Project ID: 105-0021City of HB Sample Matrix: Liquid ELAP No.: 2320 Date Sampled: 03/29/01 Date'Received: 03/29/01 Date Prepared: 03/29/01 Date Analyzed: 3129-4/2101 Analyst: Rr Report Date; 04/02/01 Client Sample No.: htW-1 MW-7 NIW-47X h1clLod Detection Units Sierra Sample No.; 9589 9590 9591 I-Jntit Analytes: lltethod: Ammonia (Nli,)-N 350.1 1.35 2.05 1.55 0.10 mg/L Nitrite-(NO2)-N 354.1 <0.02 0.031 0.035 0.02 mg,'L Nitrate-(NQ)-N 353.3 3.40 3.20 3.90 0.05 mg/L TKN 351.2 1.47 2.18 1.61 0.10 mg/L PJlOSl>halc, Total (PO4)-P 305.2 0.24 0.44 0.1& 0.05 mg/L Phoshhalc, Inorganic (PO4)-P 365.2 0.2) 0.39 0. J 5 O.D5 mg/L Phosphate, Organic (PO,)-P Calculaton <0.05 0.05 <0.05 1 0.05 mglL Dilulia„ Factor ND means Not Detected Repnrling Limit - (l'raetleR1 QdHtitalion Limil c Dilution Faclor) •. SIERRA ANALYTICAL :7 Date: 4/2/01 Komex 1420 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Snite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Oise- t Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received: Sierra Project No.: 105-002/City of 1-113 3/28/01 3/28/01 0103-609 Attached are the results of the chemo-physical analysis of the sanlple(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, tne. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were performed according to the prescribed metltod as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date bf this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise us. _An "/ r� RlcharCr l K. Forsyth Laboratory Director Reviewed Tlris repart is applicable only to the simple received by the laboratory. The IiabiIily at1he laba:atory is Iiuutcd in [lie amouat paid for Ibis report. 'I his reporl is far the exclusive use of Iheclient to whoul it is addressed and upon the condition that the clicur a55rr1ae3 a6 liahifky Car the further distribution arflic report or its contents. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, L.A(aUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPI-IONIw: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABSCEARTHLINK.NET SiFRRA LABORATOKIGS, INC 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABORATORYREPORT Reference: Bacteriological samples obtained at v;i6ous sites. Investigation: Bacteriological Analysis. amulr�No. ha Itl?sLLTs Fern) Coliform Entcrococcus Bacleriophage hole cfu/100 fill crudoo II►I aWI ► IOQ n11 MW-8 9517 3128/01 13:55 <1 <1 <5 MW-5 9518 3/28/01 15-01 <1 <1 1-15 EB-32801 9519 3/28/01. Id:34 <I <l <5 F13-32801 9520 3128101 14:40 <I <I <5 u Method SM 9222 D SNI 9230 11 Detection Limil I I .AM9211D 5 "eL4vyl An042001 Z chard K. horsytl Ulborator•y Director 71d% I-epr,n n r+ppharhle r+fllI- u, the omple rrre,red Ill. the lul'm ruurl' T he Imi'dire e:/ Mir lrrhr,r.Ifmu I. i, F.+uiurd A+ Ihr u+nn:,u! pf rr fiid ,r rhm repr,. III;, reJlif,7 n - fire vxf III%h r u,r fi/ Ili, cairnI rV mhmu iI i, udrl+Ysrrl r+f,rl up,r+l die r,u:drnfifr rherl Me clr:ur rr,,ome., fill !i❑irilnl-/:,r the /usher 11,ru-;i,u6::u n/ II:,: I.Vpp)I or Err unueul+. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALA13S(0)EARTHLINK.NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC • • 0 I(oxnex H2O Science nalc:Salyl I l .-3/28/01 >: 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Siilte 105:. Date Received 3128/01 I-Iuntington Beacti; CA.926494 ] 02 .: Date Prepared:.... 3/28101 DateAfialyzed .3/28/01 SleriaProjectNo DlQ3 G09 ly Anast TU Clienf Prajcct ID 105 OQ21CIty of IIB Sample Matrix Liquid Repoli llate ' 3/30101 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS QUANTITY VALUES SIERRA ANALYTICAL 0 • • Komex H2O Science FLAP No.: 2320 5500 1lolsa Avenue Suite 105 Date Sampled: 03i28/01 13iintington Bench, CA 92649 Date Received: 03/28/01 Date Prepared. 03/28/01 Date Analyzed: 3128-4/2/01 Sierra Project No.: 0103-609 Analyst: Rr Client Project 1D: 105-002rCity of HB Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 04/02/01 Client Sample No.- MW-8 MW-5 Ell 3280t FB 32801 nte+l,od Detection Units Sierra Sample No.: 9517 9518 9519 9520 Limit Ant►lytes: Method. Ammonia(NH&N 350.1 0.38 0.21 <0.ru <0.10 0.10 mg/L Nitrite-(NOt)-N 354.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 mglL Nitrate-(NO,)-N 353.3 7.00 1.60 1.02 0.84 0.05 mglL TKN 351.2 0.44 0.24 <0.10 <0.10 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Total (PO,,)-P 365.2 0.25 0.40 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 mglL Phosphate, Inorganic (PO4)-P 365.2 0.22 0.36 <0,05 <0.05 0.05 mg/L Phosphale, Organic (POq)-I' Calctllatoal <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 mg1L t Dilution Faclor NO nscam Not DetWed Reporting Limo - (Pracdcal Qnamilvion 1-imii K Dilution Factor) LJ Sri SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: 4/17/01 Komex 1120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Iluntington Reach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. WadeMajor Client Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received Sierra Project No.: 105-01 A -City of I-IB 4/4/01 4/4/01 0104-094 Attached are the results of the chemo-physical analysis of the satrtple(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from (lye date. of this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise us. /; xi�z Richard K. Forsyth Reviewed Laboratory Director This upon is applicable duly to the sample received by Ilse lahoralory. 'ntc liabi!ily of [he lalwralory is looked m Il:c amotrcl paid for [his repurt. rLis rcporl is far the e SelnSice use of [Iteelielll to wlrora it is addressed and upau 111c cpudiiioq that [Le client assumes all l;abilify for t1:e further dislribulicu of the rcporl ar (Is ent[IeOLS. M2o 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIrOHNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: sIERRALABs0EARTFILINK.NET SIERRA LABORATORIES. INC mAgma - SIERRA A N A L Y T I C A L LABORATORY REPORT Reference: Bacteriological samples obtained at various sites. Investigntion: Bacteriological Analysis. RCSUL"I'S Fecal Coliform Enterococclis Bacterlophage • Samplf, No. S•L• No. D-aig Time cfit/l00 ml efuli 04 ml plag1j s/_ 100 till MW-4 10439 414/01 9:30 <1 <1 <5 MW-3 10440 414/01 10:49 <1 <1 <5 EB4401 10441 414101 11:10 <l <1 <5 FB4401 10442 414101 11:30 <1 <1 <5 Method SM 9222 D SM 9230 13 SM 9211 D Detection Limit 1 ] 5 Richard-K. Tarsylli Laboratory Director This reporf is npplirable only to the sample rerehed by (lie labornray. The linbilir, of the tabaraforp is limited to the amor,rrr poirl fur tiers repurr. Ail report is fur - the ezehrsi,-e use ofthe diem! to "horn it is addressed and apom the rondirimr that the drenr as.nones all babilin for the fin drer',fisn ibidax of fhe report or, its ronlenis. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CAL;FORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9380 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: 51ERRALABS 0 EARTHLINK. NET SIERRA LAIIORATORIES INC • 0 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sierrn ' ` C1.. t` ID No ID No:. QtiA �TI`I'Y VALUES Total Organic Carbon. mv11 1.0440 . MW 3 2.3 104 1 ;I;Il44bl:.-. .: <0.5 1.. 10442-. F13 4401 <0.5 mm V[elllod No SY1-531013 0.5 SIERRA ANAL. Y7ICAL • • • Komex 1420 Science FLAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/04/01 Huntington peach, CA 92649 Date Received: 04/04/01 Date Prepared: 04/04/01 Date Analyzed: 4/4-4/1 1/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-094 Analyst: RF Client Project ID: 105-01A/City of I B Sample Alatrix: Liquid Report Date: 04/12/01 Client Sample No.: Mw4 MW3 r` Ell4401 1:11 4401 hlethntl [Detection UTI!ts Sierra Sample No.: 10439 10440 10441 10442 [.Intl[ Analytes: htethad: Ammonia (NII3)-N 350.1 0.40 0.31 <0.10 0.11 0.10 Ing/L Nitrite-(NO,)-N 354.1 0.04 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 mg/l. Nitrate-(NO,)-N 353.3 - ; 5.90 3.40 0.10 0.11 0.05 tng/L TKN 351.2 0.42 0.34 <0.10 0.12 0.10 mg/L Phosp1181c,'1"oral (PO4)-P 365.2 0.27 0.24 0.06 <0.05 0.05 mg/L 1'hosphale, Inorganic (PO,)-P 365.2 0.24 0.20 0.05 <0.05 0.05 Ingll, Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-P Calculaton <0.05 <Us <0.05 <0.05 0.05 mg1L Dilution Factor ND means Not 1DCLeut d Reporting UILllt+(Practical Quautitadon Limit x tlilulion Facter) SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: 4/ 17/01 Komex H2O Science 5500 Balsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major ,Dien[ Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received Sierra Project No.: 105-OIA-City of I-1 B 4/4/01 4/4/01 0104-105 Attached are the results of the chenlo-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain"of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date of this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise us. 4"-e r Z// Richard K. Forsyth"'Reviewed Laboratory Director 11iis report is applicable poly Iu rlre samp:c rcceivcd by the laborauxy. The hability of the laboratary is limited lO the anliµ:It1 paid for Ibis report. This repa tl is for (lit exclusive use of theclienl Io WIlmn it is addrrascd and upon ILc cotldilion Il:a( tLe client Mimics all liability ror tltc further distriLrrlion onfie teporl or its coa nim APR 2 0 20Q� i 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABSOEARTHLINK.NCT SIeRRA LABORATORIES. INC- *SIERRA' A NA LYTr CAL I Komcx-1120 Science -Inca 5500.Ilolsa Ave., Ste::105 Fluiituigtaiillcach.CA 92G39 Attn. h1r: Wide Mr alos Stem Project No.:.: 0104 1050.0 �I Client 111diect li) City:of F113/105 O1 A :> Itepor rp tte 4/7/01 :. LA110ItATOItV REPORT Reference: 13ac4criolobical 5ar1)p1cS Ohtairtc:d at various sites. Investigation: 13actcrialogical Analysis. RESULTS Fecal Coliforrn 1, Itterococcus Bacteriophage . Sample c No. S.L. No. I)atc ri�lg cfu/100 [ill cfu/100 tnl 1>1mill_uljQU nil N11W-8 10486 4/4/01 12:58 <1 <1 <5 MW-68 10487 4/4/01 12:59 <] <1 <5 M W-2 10488 4/4/01 14:04 <1 <1 <5 MW-1 10489 4/4/01 15:23 <1 <1 <5 MW-76 10490 4/4/01 16:12 <I <1 <5 Method SM 9222 D S�1 9230 13 Slbl 9211 D Dctcction Limit 1 1 S Richard K. Forsyth Laboratory Director .YNY rrpurr it npplicrrhle unlV to lire .uru¢!r rrrrived hr the hrhnrurnr c 1lrr li,rhilrtl+uf nce l,rhueurrrrp• i% hepia- 1 tr. IAJ rruruurlr prnrllur den relu.rr. Am report iv lnr the rxchrmlc mr u/ dre clirnr A+ upon, d it nddrrrrcrl find ulam the ern; aam rh.0 the (liew nruuue.t fill habday.lur llre further; ivrilmlienr nl rite rrpnre fir in cuurn+rr. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIEARALABSOEARTHLINK.NET SIERRA LA©ORM ORIE:S INC • • • ::Xomex:I120 Science Date Sa►nPled 4/4/0.1 5500 Bolsa Ave�iue, Suite I05 Date Received. 4/4101. Ilt�c�tingtan Bencls CA 92649 `I102 Date I'reparei 4/4101` Date Ai�alyzeil '41�4/01:: ' . Sierra -Projeet No.: O iO4=10� Analyst TU :ClieijtPrn�ect.ID .:. :105 OlAlCliy.ofl-113 : -:Sample Mat ix Liquid.: Report_Date - 411010.1 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sierra �� �' �' Client ID Tn..: ID No QUANTITY VALUES 'rotal Organic Carbon, m l 10486 M1vv8 1.9 10487: MW68 - 1.7 10488:.. MW2 :.:.: 1.6 10489..IvIW l 1.$ 10490. 3vfV,77G 2.7 Metnod:No.... SM-5 31013 Method Detection: Limit ::: 0.5 SIERRA ANALYTICAL • • Komex H2O Science ELAP No.: 2320 5500 Balsa Avenuc Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/04/01 1-funtington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 04/04/01 Date Prepared: 04/04/01 Date Analyzed: 4/4-4/1 1/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-105 Analyst: RF Client Project lU: 105-01A/City of 1-lB Sarnp)e Matrix: Liquid Report Dale: 04/12/0) Client SlttttpleNo,: mWB MWGB %, btW2 kiwi Mctktod Detection Units Sierra Sample No.: 10480 10487 10488 10499 Lltnit Annlyles: Method: Ammonia (N113)-N 350.1 0.24 0.15 0.16 0.32 0.10 tug/L Nitriie-(NO2)-N 354.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0-02 0.02 mg/L irilrakc (NO3}-N 353.3 6.50 6.70 5.90 3.40 0.05 mg/L TKN 35L2 0.27 0.17 0.19 0.36 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Total (PO.,)-P 365.2 0.12 0.31 0.22 0.29 0.05 mg/L PhosPllate, ]norganic (PO.,)-P 365.2 0.10 0.27 0.19 0.20 0.05 nrgli- Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-P CalCUlat011 <0.05 <0.05 <0A5 <0.05 0.05 Ing/L Dilution Factor NI] illemis Npt UcteCled Reponing limit - (PrsetiCMI Quileitation Limit x WILHou factor) SIERRA ANALYTICAL 0 • • Konivx H2O Science FLAP No.: 2320 5500 Bo)sa Avenue Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/04/01 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 04/04/01 Date Prepared: 04/04/0) Date Analyzed: 4/4-4/11/01 Sierra Project No.. 0104-105 Analyst: RF Client Project ID: 105-01A/City of FIB Sample Matrix: Liquid Report pate: 04/12/01 Client Sanytle No.: MW76 \lclhod ,Detection Units Sierra Sample No.: 10490 Llrnit Amlytes: Method: Ammonia(NH,)-N 350.1 0.27 0.10 mg/L Nitrite-(NO&N 354.1 <0.02 0.02 mg/L Nitrate-(NO3)-N 353.3 2.50 0.05 nng/L TKN 351.2 0.29 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Total (POa)-P 365.2 0.15 0.05 nrg/L Phosphate, Inorganic (PO,)-P 365.2 0.12 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-P Calculator <(1.05 0.05 mg/L Dilution Factor W) mctni4 Not Dctecicd Reporting Limil — (Praclical Quaulitation Limit x Diluticn Factor) • �aII11I1I11. SIERRA ANA[.YT ICAL Dale: 4/17101 Komex 1120 Science 5500 BuIsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1 102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Client Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received .SieKp Project No.: 105-01A-City of I-1 B 4115/01 415101 0104-122 Attached are the results of the chemo-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, attd A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date of this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise tls. Richard K. Forsylb Laboratory Director // /- Reviewed This rcport is applieal:le tnrly In die Sample received by die laboratvty. The liahihly of 11C IM:ortlnty is limited to ilia an -mint paid for this report This repots is for the exclusive use of dtef:lient to whom it is addressed and upon the candition that tlic client assumes all liability for the fanbcr distribatiou of the rcport or its centptts. APR z 2O01 ............... V Rk 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, ✓—AQUNA MILLS, CAUFORMA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALAUS0EARTHLINK-NET SIE:KKA LABORA16RIES. INC. SIERRA A N A L Y T I C A L LABORAToizY IzEPowr Reference: 13acicriologlcal samples obliined ai various sites. investigation: 13acieriological Analysis. RESULTS Fecal Coiifnrm E1►tcrococcus 13aetc riollhage iSannile No. S.L, No. j2 [ft "rime efu/100 1111 -cfu lilt phul Iles/100 ntl NIW-G 10630 4i5/01 9:07 <1 <1 <5 1` 134501 10631 4/5/01 9:00 <l <1 <5 1-134501 10632 4i5101 10:03 <1 <1 <5 NNW-5 10633 4/5101 10:17 <1 <1 <5 MW-9 E0634 4/5/01 11:17 <€ <1 <5 M W-70 10635 415i01 11:19 <1 <1 <5 Melhod SM 9222 1] SM 9230 I3 SM 9211 D Detection Limit I 1 5 Richard K. Forsytt Laboratory Director 77ei, ,i7rorr i. .rule hr the wnrple r rc •i, rd Ls' d , 1,rhnruhlri•_ Ih.- 1whilify ,I lhv lnhunrfur,• i, lirrlifed to fire urrrunuf p: rid Jur the, report. ll,ir rrpur! I 1nr tlIr• e.TCIIr,lre r.,r uJ tier C'!Y'rA Ill I•Guur it i, n,LI,,! .l l-d Lend upurr the our, 'fir,", Ill( It dr cheep o,,,nuru nil linhdlfv Jut fir pruner dim it if,,;: uj fill- rrpnrf of it, c,Inann. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIEriRALABS(gEAHTHLINK•N1=T SIERRA 1..ABORATOR[IiS INC • 0 Kpmex TI20 Science Date Sazrttil.ei] 415/01 SSOO Bo1sz Ae eniie; Sulte:.].DS . D,at :Receiv ch 4l5/0I Pluiitingtoi Be7cli, CA 92649=1102 Date Prcl�ryrecl : A/5L0.1 Date A�lalyzed 4/9/01 Sierra Pri ject No 0104-122 :Analyst TU Client Pr6ject.ID. 105�01A/pity of IIl3. . Sample itil trtx := I iquld :.Report D,lte: 4/9101 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sler'ra Client. ID Nn iD N0` QUANTITY VALUES :. Total Organic Car -ball, 11 /1 :10630 M W 6 . " 2.3 :.: 10631 .::.. rB.450 k ; .; : <0.5 10632 f B 450.1 <0.5 ::.10633:.:.:.:.:.. MW-5...:..... <0.5 10634 MW 9 . 2.9 10635 : :::MW-70 2.7 we"tliacl Na SM-5310B Methocl Dctectimi.Limit: 0.5 SIERRA A14ALYTICAL • 0 Komex 1:120 Science FLAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/05/01 1Iulttington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 04/05/01 Date Prepared: 04/05/01 Date Analyzed: 4/5-4110/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-122 Analyst: RF Client Project ID: 105-01 A/City of 1113 Sample Nlah-ix: Liquid Report Date: 04/12/01 Ciient Sample No.: MW-G F11 4501 Ell 4501 MW-5 :Method Iielectlpn Units 1'1'°fl Sierra Sample No.: 10630 10631 10632 10633 Analytes: Method: Ammonia (N11j)-N 350.1 0.12 <0.10 <0.10 0.18 0.10 mgiL Nitrite-(NO&N 354.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 mg/L Nitrate-(NO3)-N 353.3 6.40 0.22 0.35 0.90 0.05 mgiL TKN 351.2 0.14 <0. r0 <0.10 0.20 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Total (1`04)-1' 365.2 0.22 0.10 0.07 0.18 0.05 mgiL Prtospiume, Inorganic (PO,)-P 365.2 0- 0 0.08 0.05 0.15 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-P Calculaton <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 mg/L Motion Factor ND means Not Detccicd Reposing Limit -(Practical Quaimmion Limit x Dilution Factor) SIERRA ANALYUGAL C • 0 Komex 1120 Science RL.AP No,: 2320 5500 I3olsa Avenue Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/05/01 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 04/05/01 Date Prepared: 04/03/01 Date Analyzed: 4/5-4/10/01 Sierra Project No,: 0104-122 Analyst: RF Client Project II): 105-01 A/City of 1-II3 Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 04/12/01 Client Sample No.: m%V-9 5. W-70 1lcdtnrl Detection Units Sierra Sample No.: 10634 10635 i_ttnt[ Analytes: Method! Ammonia (N113)-N 350.1 0.23 0.20 0.10 mg/L Nit6ie-(NO2)-N 354.1 e0.02 <0.02 0.02 ntg/L Nitrate-(NO))-N 353.3 0.15 0.13 0.05 mg/L TKN 351.2 0.25 0.23 0.10 tng/L PhOsphate,'rotal (PO4)-P 365.2 0.35 0.52 0.05 tngrL Phosphate, inorganic (PO,)-P 365.2 0.31 0.47 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-P Calculaton <0.05 005 0.05 mg/L Dilution Factor NU means Nul Detected Reporting Limit a (PTactical Qu2mitawn Limit M I)ilLLtloll I']C[DT) A *IaRRA A N A L Y T I C A L Date: 4/17/01 Komex I-120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Client Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received Sierra Project No.: 105-01 A -City of HB 4/5/01 4/5/01 0104-154 Attached are the results of the chemo-physical analysis of (lie sample(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. • The analysis were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date of this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise us. r � Richard K. Forsytfi Reviewed Laboratory Director This report is applicable nil Iy to the salrgde received by the laboratory. The liability of the laboratory is Iindicd to vie amoons paid for this rcporl. III is report is For die e;clasive rise of Iheclieul to whom is is addressed and upon lase condilien that the cFenl assmues al'. liability for lax p.urher dislribulion of the report or its contutls. APR 2 01001 D 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9369 FAX: (949) 346-9115 E-MAIL: sIERRALABS®EARTMLINI(.NET SI LII RA LA IIORATORI ES, INC mhA- SIERRA ANALYTICAL Reference: Investigation: Is Sample No. RiW-II Trip Blank Mclhod Detection Limit LABORATORY REPORT Bacteriological samples obtained at various Slles. Bacteriological Analysis. /"" 4, � �/ z 2 i�' Richard K. Forsyth Laboratory Director S. L. No. Lhk lilu 10779 41510E 15:09 10790 4/5/01 NIA r Fecal Califorin Enterococcus Bacterioplinge cfu/100 Jill cfu1100-1111 plaques/100 ml <1 <1 <5 <I . <1 <5 SM 9222 D SM 9230 B SM 9211 D 1 1 5 •71ri, ,rpo,'1 i, upphruhle „ II). ru III 'ample rr•, ri,'ral I,v the bhol oa,r I- Me Ii:rhililp rf III. hrhnrnln, y i, linrucd rn dre 'If.) 1.1 Laud fua1Ln r-rpnr i 7hi, , cpurr i, Iur rim• era lrni, c me of nce'licrrf w rrhuu, it i, uddre„rd and [pun di ,.nrrdilr.,n rhur the c lieru I... I'll linhihrylur III fi:rdu•r dmrihwimr :,I the repmI or ih cm,rcrrIV. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALWORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SI E RRALA13S 0 EA RTH LINK. NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC is ICUincx< I24:Science Date`�amhle l :-415/01 5500:BQ1sa Avenue, Suite 105 ` . Dale Received -415/0I. _LIUrltillgtOn 13E%Lli, CA 92649 1102 °DatemPrepared 4/5/0I ::. _Date:Aiialyzeil ;;.g1910i Srcr.ra ProjestN 0104 !S Anilyst -TU : .Client Project ID 105 01A/C ity:df IIB" ` Sample 1latrrx.: Lii}urd Report D.ite: ::41I 0(01M. INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS SIERRA ANALYTICAL • • Komex H2O Science ELAI' No.: 2320 5500 I3olsa Avenue Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/051101 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 04/05/01 Date Prepared: 04/05/01 Date Analyzed: 4!5-4!10/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-154 Analyst: lZ Client Project ID: 105-01 A/City of 1113 Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 04/12/0) Client sanyle No.: how-11 , � Method Derectlou Units Llnilt Sierra Sample No.: 10779 Analvles: Method: Annnonia (NII3)-N 350.1 0.21 O.10 tng/L Nilrite-(NO,)-N 354.1 <0.02 0.02 [ng/L Nitrate-(NO})-N 353.3 2.30 0.05 mg/L TKN 351.2 0.24 0.10 ing/L Phosphate, Total (PO4)-P 365.2 0.20 0.05 Ing/L Phosphate. Inorganic (PO,)-l' 365.2 0.17 0.05 tng!l. Phosphate, Organic (PO,)-P Calctllaton <0.05 i 0.05 mg/L Dilution Factor ND means No[ De[eeled Rcpar[ing Limit - (Practical Quantita[ioa [roil x Dila[ion. factor) SIERRA ANALYTICAL • Date: 4/17/01 Komex 1-120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major 'Client Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received Sierra Project No.: 105-01 A -City of IIB 4/ 1 1 /01 4/1 1/01 0104-267 Attached are the results of the chemo-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the project identified a ,I The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by IPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date of this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise us. Richard K. Fors t Reviewed Laboratory Director Tlris report is applicable only 1011te sangsle received by the laboralory. The liability of den labaralory is linliletl to the alnorlul paid for this rcporl. Tbis rcporl is for the exclusive 115e of thCC'icul to whom it is addressed and upon the condiliou Ihal [lie client assmnes al! liability for lie Further dislribulam of the report or its cordents. i! LJ tI1 . APR 2 0 2001 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFOI�RiI%�`9'L'$J��•=�a;s�laa�a�a'.:t TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 34B-9115 E-MAIL: SI7=RRALABS0EARTHLINK.NET 1;1[7RRA LAI)MAPORIFS, INC SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABORATORV REPORT Reference: Bacteriological samples obtained 1111. V,-WiOLIS ',JWS. 111vestigalion; Micteriological Analy%is. Afts.,111111le No. S.L. No. 1". w MW-5 11392 4/] 1/01 MW-6 11393 4/11/01 Method Detection Limit 4�-7z-20Z Richard K. fForsyllf-. Lahoratory Director I RLsul"I's Fecal Coliform EntcroCOCCLIS Bacteriophage IWLP. c ru/ 100 111.1 crilifloo ]III 12blultes/100 till 13:59 <1 <1 <5 14:57 <1 <1 <5 SM 9222 1) SM 9230 11 SM 9211 D I 1 5 1-,/ 1.1 it filipirz f1hic m I I.] - u, III t. wmpk r, I vi, rd hY lj"- 1,11 1 wfiry I /it! imth! lit I, ri/ /h i: If ihin fafiry I % linuwf I lei III a inomma ptidlor thit rel-r-I I It i v I -v/j ("-r i.k lor i,,e ofilm chow lo .ham it i, -I'lie-odumllipolf the coliflilimi /Inif the cflw a-unw% virihmimit jfilic vplit I or It% wiletili 26052 MERIT CIRCL.E SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL. SIERRALAE3S0EAn'rViLINK.NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC 0 0 . .. ..... ....... . ......... anip e. D'Ite""'s, 'I d. �4 -110 F :5500:116ka . .......... ..... ...... Dat':Re ehiM e.... C.. 4/ 11 /0 1: .. ...... .......... . .... . .... . ..... . ..... fluntington' Beadi, CA� 92649711.02- . ...... ... " : .... ... ....Date-Trepa"' A ........... 4/. 1: 1 m mmm.. Date Ana d. ly�e :::::4/1:1/01 . .. ... . .. ......... ....... ... .. .... ... ...... . ...... . .... . .Sierri Proj ed No.: 0 1 04�267. Alliil�st: TU. .. Cli6nt�-Proie'et.:11)--:..:.::.:105�OI:A/Cit�:6fHB ...... SaMPWNU�trix- ti�uid. e. 'R port. -el), W ... ...... ...... ::':4/11 /0 1 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sl� r Cl i6h t'.:" ID No.: 11) No. .... .. .. .... .... ..... . -S QUANTITY VALUE m Total Organic Carbon, m 113 9 1: mw 5 1.3 .. . ...... .... MW-6 ... .. ... ..... .. .. .. 1.1 ........ .. ...... ...... . ......... ...... . .. ....... ..... ... .. ..... . ..... .. ... m . .. . ...... ... Method NO.: SM -5310B N,lc'tlldd': Detect ibii� Lffil I . '::..: . . 1 0.5____ SIERRA ANALY-tICAL 0 0 Komex 1420 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suile 105 Huntington Beach,.CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-267 Client Project 11); 105-OIA/Ci(y of HB Sample Matrix: Liquid E LAP No.: 2320 Date Sampled: 04/11101 Date Received: 04/11/01 Date Xrepared: 04/11/01 Date Analyzed: 4/11-4/16/01 A na I ys i., RF Report Date: 04/17/01 Client Sninple No,� MW-5 MW-6 NIV111011 DOOCHNI 1; 11 i ts 1A111?f I Sierra Snmple No.: 11392 11393 Analytes: Method: Amrnoiiia (NH,)-N 350.1 0.19 0.21 0.10 mg,L Nitrite-(NO,)-N 354. 1 0-04 0.03 0.02 111g/1- Nilr.t1e-(NO3)-N 353.3 1.10 5.08 0.05 wg1L T'KN 351.2 0.21 0.25 0-10 Ing/l, Phosphate, Tolal (PO4)-P 365.2 0.15 0.40 0.0.5 mg/l, 1'110SPII�lte, 1110tgl'ttlie (PO4)-P 365.2 0.12 0.34 0.05 mg/L Phosphrile, Orgailic (PO4)-l' Calculawn <0�05 0.06 0.05 mg/L Dilution Pactor ND mcans Not Delectcd Repni-liTiM Limit - (Practical Qi1anfitatimi Liiiiii x [)iluliori Facipt) 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL 0 D a t e: 4/17/01 Komex 1-120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Mijor Client Pro ject NLImber: Date Sampled: Date SampIcs Received SiC]Ta Project No.: 105-OIA-City or 1413 4/11/01 4111101 0104-268 Attached are the results or the clicnio-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the project 1denti fied a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc, with a chain ofmistody record aLtachccl or corilpleted at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were performed according to the prescribed method is outlincd. by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of 1he samples will be disposed of within 30 clays frorn the (late of this mport ff you require additional retaining time, plcase advise us. Richard K. Forsytri Reviewed Laboratory Director 11iis teltott is applicable mily 10 flLC 5,1111PIC TECCiVeli Ily IFIC I RhMatory. Tlie I iability of tht laboralory is I imited to Ihe apimmit Nid ror this rcpnrt. This rcliorq is for lbe excjusi�e imc of thccLiem In i.linin it is add rtsqNl a nd upun the midition th I Ilic clicni msqmmr3 all flibil0y for the ffittlier disiriblition nf [PIC TCPI!T1Dr its coiflcritS. rdfj% Q 1 V 10- 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105. LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TEt.EPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9113 C-MAJL: SI EF21RALABS 0 EARTHILINK. NET SIEMA I-AnGRA-10RIES, INC. A - SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORT I Reference: Bacteriological samples obtaincd -It W11-101.15 Si(U. lTlVC5ligqfion-. 13-acterinlogicnI Amilysis. RESULTS Fecil Coliforill Ellieromccus Baclerioplilge Sailmle No. S. 1— No. Dqlc Ift" vN/L00 ml MUM III W.-mucs/100 ml N-1 W- 1 1 1394 V1 1 /0 [ 9:08 <1 <1 <5 MW-7 11395 4/1 1/01 9:59 <1 <1 <5 MW-97 11396 411110 1 10:02 < I < 1 <5 EB41 iOl 11397 4/11/01 10:52 <1 <1 <5 F1341 101 11398 11/11/01 1 (1�59 <1 < I <5 mW-9 11399 4/11/01 11:09 <1 <1 <5 mW-2 11,100 4/11/01 11:46 <1 < 1 <5 Trip Mank 1 1401 A.1 11,(11 N /A < I < 1 <5 MW-3 1 14n2 1111/01 13:09 < I < 1 <5 Nlcthod Detection Limit SM 9222 1) SM 9230 B SM 9211 1) 1 1 5 Richard K. Forsytli Laboratory Director Illil i-ep,jr, i%jpj?1fufrhlv ojidvi,i rite %tiroqdv rilfc-ri-rdlF.1 Plulwhilm."film h,bf,lfjffjy:l.i% 111j, nq fy ;4 1— I/P(- q-xchrvj'-o 'I", (rf Ifie clicril If' whom il i3 o'blee-ed err:,l upol. /hu I Mnblb')l rho, Ihv fliew cf,v,rr)e, ill lij,hWil- far flu, ell r,-,h,ftifjrj "I IIF(- "'Ifloll 0" 11, clfmenr� 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LArLJNA Hil-i-s, CALIFC)RNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: StERRALABSOEARTHLINKMET SIERRA LABORATOMES INC 0 0 Dat��San'ipled-..:-. 4/11 /01: -5560:1361vi Avenue �Suite 105 Dite-Retelvedv: 14/11/01 141111tiqt6 Bc.idj,CA92649 1102 ... .... .......... DAte:P.'�0"'P'.q" 4/1110 1: Wt'CAhal ed Y.z :::4 11/0t -'Sf6rr.i:-Prn I ect No..-.:i :..:0 1.04-268.....:...-.. Ahpj�.sfi - .............. ... .... ........ ... .. Cileiit-Prbject ID:: .105-0 1 A/Cit� of MB ... . ...... ... . .... . ..... .......... .. ..... . ..... ........ ..... .. . aniple I.itrim' :Lt" id . .. .. . .. .. . qui .. . .. . ... .... . ......... .... .... ..... --------------------- — -------- — ----- :: - - - "' " D' R t, a ep!)r te:.��' -::' /16/01 4 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS S16mi Client QUANTITY VALUES Total Organic Carbon, mg/1 13 94::� 1.8 139�.::::.: M %V-: 7.:. 4.1 N.,IW-.97 4.0 11397: BB 41101 0.58 -::FB'4 J: 10 1; 0.62 .11400. MW-2:: 1.8 11401 <0.5 ;11402;'�' .. ......... 2.5 ...... ..... S.M-531013 jm0thqd:Dctcction:.L1'M1t: 0.5 SICRRA ANALYUCAL 0 0 1.1 Komex H20 Scietice 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 Hunthigtun Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.- 0104-268 Client Project ID: 105-01A/City of 14B Sninple Matrix: Liquid ELAP No.: 2320 Date Sampled: 04111[91 Date Received: 04/11/01 Date Prepared: 04111/01 Date Analyzed: 4/11-4/16/01 Analvs(: R-F Report Date: 04/17/01 Clicill Snniple Nn.- NI w - I MW-? MW-97 Ell 41101 MC111m] Ile(ection Units - Sierrn Sample Nn.: 11394 11395 11396 11397 Limit Analytes: MC(liod: Ammonia (NI 1,)-N 350.1 031 0.23 0.24 <0. 10 0.10 ng/L Nilrilc-(NO,)-N 354.1 005 0.03 O�03 <0-02 0.02 :ng!L Nitralc-(NO3)-N 353.3 2.30 1.90 1.85 0.20 0.05 mg/L TKN . . 351.2 0.35 0.25 0,27 �,0-05 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Total (PO4)-l' 305.2 0.29 0.19 0.21 0.06 oM nig,L Phosphate, Inorganic (PO,)-P 365.2 0.27 0.16 U. 17 <0.05 0-05 Ing/L I'llosphatc, Organic (PO4)-P Calmilaton <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 nig/1- N Pilution Faclor NO meRns Ro�wted - Reporling Limii - (Pr2dicid Quaifflialim Limi( x Diltifinn Facim) SIERRA ANALY1 ICA, E 0 0 Komex 1120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 Fluntington Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0 1 04-2G8 Client Project ID: 105-OIA/City of 1-113 Sample Matrix: Liquid ELAP No.: 2320 Date Sampled- 04111 /0 1 Date Received: 04111/01 Date Prepared: 04/11/01 Date Analyzed: 4/11-4/16/01 Analvst: RF Report Date: 04/17/01 Client Sample No.: F[3 41101 MW-8 MW-2 rtip Illink melhod - Defectlarl Miffs Sirm Snniple No.: 11399 11399 11400 11401 Linilt Mellm 1: C Ammonia (NI[3)-N 3501 <0. 10 0.11 0.12 <0�10 0.10 mglL .\1i(ri(c-(NO2)-N 354. f <0.02 <0 02 <0.02 <0.172 0.02 mg/L Ni(Tale-(NO3)-N 353.3 0.13 6.30 5.50 0-05 0.05 ilig/L TKN 351.2 <0.05 0.12 D. 14 <0. 10 0.10 JIIg/L Phosphate, Total (PO,)-P 305.2 <0.05 0-35 0.48 <0.05 0-05 mgiL T'llospliale, Inorganic (P()4)-p 365.2 <0-05 0.30 0.44 <0.05 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Organic (PO,)-P calculitoll <0-05 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 Ing/L Dihilim) Factor N13 mrmnA Not DeIrcled Reporting Limit- (Prack:Il QIMIllitaliOtt U11111 x Diltilion FMCIDT) SlERRA ANALYTICAL 0 Koniex FT20 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 Huntington Besch, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-268 Client Project IM 105-0 1 A/City of HB Sample Matrix: Liquid ELAP No.: 2320 Date Sampled: 04/11/01 Date Received: 04/11/01 Date Prepared: 04111101 Datie Aunlyzed: - 4/11-4/16/01 Ana6:st: RF Report Date: OW 17/01 Ciient Samplu No.: Detecilml Units Sierra Snimple No.- 11 M92 Limit Atinlyles- methrill: Ammonia (NII.,)-N 350.1 0.15 0.10 Ilig/l, Nitrite-(NO2)-N 354.1 OM OM mg/L Ni(mlc-(NO3)-N 353.3 0.40 0.05 ITig/1- TKN 351.2 0.18 0.10 mg/L Plinsplinte, Tolal (PO4)-V 365.2 0.29 0.05 Iligil, Phosphate, [norgallic (PO4)-p 365.2 0.26 0�05 111g/L I'llosphite. Organic (PO4)-l' cliculmoll <0.05 0-05 mg/L Dihilion Factor ND means Not Detected RCPOFfillg JJMil — (PTRCliC21 QUanfilat;OJI IJIllit X DillLtiou Factor) SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: 4/17/01 105-01A-City of Komex H20 Science Client Project Niiniber: 1-1 B 5500 Bolsa Aventie, Suite 105 Date Sampled: 4/12/01 Hunfing(on Beach, CA 92649-1102 Date Samples Receivc& 4/12/01 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Sierra Project No.: 0104-296 1 At(aclicd are the results ofthe chemo-physical analysis of the sample(s) fi-oni the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or 1�01111)lCtCd at thC SUbmittal of the samples. The analysis were perfoi-nied according to the prescribed melhod as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 (lays from the date of 1his report If you require additional retaining time, please advise us. Richard K. Forsyth Reviewed Laboratory Director J'lliR 1`17pill'I is applicable only to Ilic sillnill: rcrci,rd by the IghnTatory. I lie Iiibilily tiribe Lzboralmy is limited III [Pit iniouni pid ror this rcliort. TlIiS TCPVrt is For Ilic exclilsive. Ilse of theciielit it) 1010111 it is addrcS%ed and lipoll the condifilin dial Ilie client assunics al I liabi I ily ror the FlIrIlICT distributinit of [lie report nr [IN Coo, [ell Is. APR 2 0 2001 tool — ------- 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SLjrrE 105, LAGUNA HiLL-s, CALIrOnNFA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABS 0 EARTHLINK. NET SIWLA LAIKMATORWS, INC- 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABORATORV REpoit-r Reference: Bacteriological samplIl ObMil)Cd Pl VMIOLISS SitCq. frivestigation: Bacicriologic;i! Analysis. USULTS Fecal Coliform J."Illerococcus Baderioplinge 9 SamVic Nu. q.LNo. V-,3—t -c D-lu cfli/IUO Jill r �ftllluu [n] lik(lifes/loo ml MW-4 11506 11i 1210 1 8:40 < I < 1 <5 MW-34 11507 4/12/01 8:44 < I < 1 <5 EB41201 11509 Q 12/0 1 9:20 < I < I <5 F-1341201 11509 012/01 9:26 < I <1 <5 MW-9 1 l5fO 4/12/01 9:34 < I < [ <5 NEW- I 1 11511 4 /12/0 1 11:48 <1 <1 <5 Tr i p 13 1 a n k 11512 1/ 12/0 1 N/A < I < J < 5 Method SM 9222 D SM 9230 13 SM 9211 1) Detection Limit 1 1 5 Itichni-cl K. Forsylli Laboratory Director lbil I-cparl is f;ppIirtrhIc, md.j. Ifs [It, i(roijill- r-4!f t-n-rd Ir.l. II'(- III/ mf'!!J� Ihe Y,j ii 'q;Mj I/-,' fowlili'm that dw clit'Iff d/ 1whilifi-1,wihe furdwrrhirrihnfimi ofilso w1jorl or ir% ctiniew,. 26052 MER�T CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 T-ELEPHONET: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SI EPIPALADS 0 EARTHLINK. NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC 0 0 Kom6x.1120 Science.m..... .;.�..'5500,13 I :"M,&i1i6;'::s1Ii e:: ......... .. osa 471:2/0 11mithi2ton lkavfi� CA: 926494 101'.- ateprepared* ,i�:A 'D, 12/01 ...... .. .... . ... . ... ..... :'�:Dftte'Anplyzet 14 01�.�' .. .. ....... a Peoj ct'No -296.. Sl&r. e 01.04 A lal Clight Pf 61 604D.: .1.05-0 1 AlCity of FIB qtr i L eporf :Dnt6:: . ..... . INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sf Cuent. ID No4 tD.N0:. Total Organic C a :11506:'.."':. 2.4 1�1 507--� MW-34 2.6 11508 B 4 1'20 L: <0.5 .. ... ...... I BOO:: "'FB 41201:�:. <0.5 11510:i: mw�9 1.3 :4 15 1.5 ...... . .. .. . ........... ... ......... ....... Trio Blank ......... ........ <0.5 . .... .... .... . . ........ .... ... .... Method N6.--:�!'�- SM-5 3 1 OB 0.5 QUAWITY VALUE, S SIQRRA ANALYTICAL 9 0 0 Komex 1120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suile 105 1 Junfington Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-296 Client Project ID: 105-01AYCily of ED Simple Matrix: Liquid ELAP No.: 2320 Date Simpled- 04/12/01 Date Received: 04/12/01 Date Prepared: 04/12/01 Da(e Analyze& 4/12-4/16/01 Analyst: Rr Report Date, 04/17/01 ClIeni Sample No.; MWA MW-34 1:1141201 F 11412 01 Method Delettlon Units Sferrn Sample No.: 11506 11507 11509 11509 Aunlytes: McIllod: Ammonia (N]4-,)-N 350.1 0.59 1 0.56 <0 10 <Q. 10 0.10 mg/L Nituile-(NOz)-N 354.1 (1.31 0.29 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 mg/L Nilrale-(NO.1)-N 353.3 5.40 5.32 1.20 1.32 0-05 111g."L TKN - 351.2 0-63 0�61 <10-10 <1). 10 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Total (PO,)-P 365.2 0-22 0.21 <0.05 <0-05 0.05 mg!L Plinsphalc, Inorgaiiic (PO4)-p 3 6 5.2 0.19 0.19 <0.05 <U-05 0.05 Ing/L Phosplia(c. Organic (PO4)-P CRICLIh-0011 <0.()5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0-05 mg/L Dilution Factor NI) meaus Not Doccled Reparling Urnif - (PnuitaJ Qnaibwminn Linj;f x [MInjo)) Facroy) SIERRA ANALY-tICAL 10 0 Komex 1.120 Science 5500 Bohn Avenue Suite 105 llusillnglon Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-296 . Client Project ID: 105-0 1 A/City of HB Sample Malrix: Liquid ELAP No.: 2320 Date Sampled: 04/12/01 Date Received: 04112/0 t Date Prepared: 04/12/01 Date Analyzed: 4112-4116101 Analyst: RF Report Date: 04/17101 clielil sAmple No.: Niw?- I I Method Deleclion Units Sierrn Sample M.: 11510 11511 AnRlytes- method. Ammonia (NH&N 350. 1 0.28 0.21 OAO gg I- Nitritr-(NO2)-N' 354.1 0.04 0.05 0.02 mg/L Nitraic-(NOO-N 353.3 1 �82 1.96 0.05 mpr/L TKN . - 35 J.2 0.30 0.23 0,19 mg/1- 11huspliale, Tatal (PO4)-P 365.2 0.14 0.08 0.05 Illgil, Phosphate, Inorganic (.Po,)-[) 365.2 0.12 0.07 0.05 mg/L Phosplinte, OTganic (Pb4)-p calcill-alon <0.05 <0.05 0.05 ing/L Dilutinn Facior ND meang Not DetEcled RCpOrlillg I-indl — (PTOCliCAl QlMlltit3tinlL l,illlil x Dilul;m Nuot) 0 A SIERRA ANALYTICAL E 0 Date- 4/20/01 Koniex 1-120 Science 5500 BDISn Avenue, Suite 105 I luntinglon Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Client Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Saniples Received Sierra Project No.. 105-OIA-City of 1-1 B 4/18/01 4/18/01 0104-416 Attached are the results of the cheino-physical analysis of [lie sample(s) from the pro . ject identified a The samples were receive(] by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chin of custody record attached or .completed at (lie submitta I of the samples. The analysis were Performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, an d A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date of this report If YOU require additional retaining time, please advise us. Ri�hard K. Forsyth Reviewed Laboratory Director 1111% report is applicible only to [lie Rimple rcceived by Ilve laboTMOTy. The lbbility ornic iihormlory is Iiiiii1rd to the aniouslit piiil for this report. This report is for Ole exchisi,,it Itse of Ilicclicill If. Whoill it iq .1difics.1rd .111d 11poll lite CE!litfilipli till[ illefliCUlt agSialies mll Iiihiltiv for Ilic ffirtherdistribluion ni'dic tqlOrt or its L(Mlteilln. 26052 Mr:RiT- CmCLE S UtTE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORN�A TELHPHONE� (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SI ERRALASS Q� EARTHLINK. NET NIVRRA LA110KATOWS, INC. *A SIERRA ANALYTICAL 1, A 13 0 It ATO R Y 11 E 1'0 11 T I Reference; j3aCtCI-j0j0gjClj S,-llllp[CS 01*1hIC(l Rt V,160LISSAM Investigntioll: Bactuialogical Analysis. RESULTS Feca I Coliform Enterococcus Bacterinplinge sample Np� &L, No. Dals ium r-fu/100 III I &full 00 1 11' plaques/100 ini Nlw-1 12095 1/181101 9:113 <1 <1 <5 N-M-51 12096 4118/01 9:45 <1 <1 <5 17-B041 801 1209 7 4/18/0 1 10-45 < I < I <5 F [3041801 12098 4/18/01 10:46 < I < 1 <5 MW-7B [ 2099 11:05 < I < 1 <5 NIW-9 12100 8 i'() i 11:48 < I < 1 <5 Method SM 9222 1) SN-1 9230 B SM 9211 D Detection Limit 1 5 xaw'e' 7 Richard K. Forsyth Laboratory Director 7 1, 1 , r"Im I r i % (117plir, I/, /(' or, �v ro the if')! p I I - n". ?. f - -(-,I Iq � I! I :- fi, G, ra & py I! f I,. I iah ii!f%- of fhe fi, Itomr-1; I � lit) tire, I /I) llfr III) If' rm I p o if I lei I- /I iii rc-pro-I. 11ri, r-clifir? Afin. ib(� virchniiv im- of olu, t liew In ,hmn n I, fiddr-e.—vil alief iqmr, Ille comfillim rilra ifiv divirf f?%�ijoivx rf!l liabililYffil. I/ir fro-ill(-r r1lirrihrifirm ofibe r[-17rjrf fir, i1i cook-IrA. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105. LAGUNA HILLS, CA4-IFrORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 3413-9115 E-MAIL: spEnPIALABS Q EARTHLINK. NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC 0 9 . .. .. ...... . ... .. .... Date Si4thpled;:. 4/18/0 5500 1361sa AvOzllue-� Sulte:105 D 'to'ReMVed :::4/18/01 -4-lutithigit ii-BeMIXA::9264 9r-.11 02:::: 0 --D.l(6 P�cjmqred:: 4/18/01:.: . ...... ..... . ..... ..... ........ DaW Ali 4/14/0 1 ... ... ... .. ......... ..... 'oj d No: 10 4 16:: SierraTr ::..0. -:4. —Alialyst ..... . .. .. .......... .. . ...... Samp. A fix:. olliquid e r D te: INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sierra: m Client'. ID TWIN QUANTITY VALUES Total Organic Carbon, ing/l :12095 . .. ..... ... ....... .. .. . .. .. ........... ... . .. M W- 1.: 1.8 :.12096::..'"' MW-51 1.4 12.097�-... EB41 801 <0.5 12098 �.FB41801: <0-5 �:m,12099..-;..:.mm �;:i:- :.MW- ..7b:: 1: 4 .5 :...12100m. . . ........ .. .... ... ... .. ... . .... ......... ... . .. ....... . ..... 2.1 . . ....... m- Em -m.m. . m ...... .... . .... lme 'o'dNo'...' th SM -5310B 0.5 SiFRRA ANALYTiCAL 0 0 Komex H20 Science F-LAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suffe 105 Dnle simpled: 04/19/01 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received- 04/18/01 Dale Prepared: 04/18/01 Date Analyzed: 4/18-4/20/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-416 Analyst: RF Client Project ID- 105-0 1 A/City of 1113 Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 04/20/01 Client sample No.: N1 W- 1 .14 W-5 f E134 f 9(7 f FR4 1901 Method VOrrflon Units Sierr� Simple No.: 12091 12096 12og! 12098 Hillit Analytes: Metholl. Ammonia (N' [3)-N 350.1 0.23 0.2G I G <Q. t 0 0.10 1118/1, Nilritc-(NO2)-N 354.1 0-026 <0.02 <0.( )2 <0.02 0.02 ingli, Nilrale-0�0.0-N 353.3 3.M 3.35 0.71) 0.68 0.05 mg/l, TKN 351.2 0.25 024 <Q. 10 <0. 10 0.10 mg/L Phospliale, Totil (110,)-il 305.2 0.17 0.21 <().()5 <0.05 0.05 mg/l, phospriale, filorgallic (PO4)-P 365.2 0. i 5 f 8 <0.05 <0 05 0.05 n1gif, Phosphow, Orginic (PO,)-1, calcuLalon <0105 <0.115 <0 D5 <0,05 0.05 mg/3- MIL60ti FHCtOl NV meant Nvl Delecled Repotihig Limil - (Mclical Quanliminii [Apnil x Dillition raclor) StERRA ANALYTICAL Kornex 1120 Science ELAII No.: 7320 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suile 105 Date Sampled: 04/18/01 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Reculved: 04118101 Date Preparcd: 04118101 Date Analyzed: 4/18-4/20101 S erra ro ject No.: 0104-416 Analvst: RF Client Project ID: 105-OIA/City of HB Sample Matrix: Liqiild Report Date: 04/20/01 Client Sample No.: Ntw-711 NIW-9 uni(s Llml( Sierra Sample No.: 12099 12100 Arialvies- Ammonia (NI [��)-N 350.1 0.31 0.34 0.10 mg!L Nilritc�(NO2)-N 354.1 0.030 0.037 0.02 mg/L Nitrate-(NO-,)-N 353.3 410 2.60 0.05 mg/L TKN 351.2 0.35 0.37 0.11) Ing!l, Phosphate, Total (POA)-P 365.2 0.1c) 0.22 0.05 IlIg/L PhosphELIc, hiorpnic (PC)4)-P 365.2 0.12 0.20 0.05 nigIL Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-P calculatoll <0.05 <0.05 0.05 mg/L Dilution Farlor NO nivmt� Not betecled Reputling Limit— (Practical Qliantilation Uink x Dilution ractat) 0 0 SIERRA ANALYTiCAL 0 Date: 4/25101 Komex 1420 Science 5500 Bolsi Avemic, Suite 105 Hunfingion Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Client ProJect Number: Date Sampled: Date Saml )1es Received Sierra Project No.: 105-0 1 A -City of HB 4/19/01 4/19/01 0104-478 Attached are Ilic results of the chemo-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain 01CLIStody record attached or compleled at the submittal of the samples. The analysis were perfornied according to the prescribed methad as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days from the date of this report If you require additional retaining tinic, please advise LIS. .-ale _/_Z� Richard K. Forsyh'i Laboratory Director /_11" Reviewed This report is applienlile villy to the simple received hv the laborMory. 'I lie lialvilily offlic Inhomtory is limiled to tire amourit paid ror thii report. Tliis rrport k for ilie excitisive iiqe nrilierlicitt to wlinio il is 3ddrc%srd and upon ilic condilmn flut [lie client assumes all liability Im the finfliudisiribolion ofthe report or ils corileals. o PIT? AP P 2", r' 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILL—q, CALWORNIA 92653 TE=LF--HONr-: (949) 346-9369 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MA1t_: �31EHRAI_AtISOEARTHLINK.NET S SIERRA l.AI30RAT0R;rS, INC. SIERRA ANALYTICAL Kollipx-1120 Science-1 tic Doffs Cellificate 2320 D 6: S i in pJ dd.-m::::-'- 4119/0 -.5500 Bolsa Ain., Ste; 105 111111fillooli Beacli, CA 92649: 4119101 Athi.. Mr. Wide Mijors Date Aimlywl: 4/19--4/2 1/01. m Sierri Project No.: 0104-178 Client Project 11): 0(y on 113/105-01 A Rqiort Daw, 4/2 1 /01 L A 110 R A 'r o it Y R K P 0 R'l* i Reference: Bacteriological samples ob(iined al variousshcs- Investigation: Bactcriological Ami;ysis. R US U LTS Fecil Coliforill I'lliferucomrs Badellopliage '5'suLlple N'% S.L. No. Dite iialle cril/100 1111 cru/100 1111 pl'ju uesj 00 ill Nlw- 11 12,155 dli 1910 1 16:45 < I <1 <5 F110,11901 12,156 1,,19::()l 16-30 <1 < 1 <5 MW-1 11 12457 019fol 16-45 <1 <1 <5 Method SM 9222 1) S';Il 9230 13 SM 9211 1) Dclection Limil 1 1 5 Richard K. Fol-51111 Liboratory Director '111i, rrpm/ M 41" Ifil"plu re[ vi;vd hv Ilic Ifibmalm 1- / he bobdirvol dw !ubmwIm-] - A limard I" rhe awo,roll irfriif ff)r- driv I qsm,. Illivrelrorlit.1ol- F/r! CIr ImAu im- ,.f Ili(, rhav m 0,, 1 0 i, mJfh'r,­-d fm!l mpm; dw r, m,h!irw.,/wI rhe , IR"'! 'r, �!mw' 'I", liahilif. V for fhe rr" du r di'll-iblar"ll "/ du repoll 13" P I 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LA(3UNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TEL,FPHC)Nr-: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MA14: SIERRALADS 0 EANTHILINK. NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC 0 0 0 Mite'Sani I P.. �::4/19/0 F .,::...::.:5500.13olsi:'Aveiiiie suitb::105�m .......... ... Huntingtonlie'.1ch', CA 92049-:1102 m . Wfeyi -epired: 4/19/01:;- ... .. ... ..... ... . .......... ......... ....... ...... Slefea PvojedNo., 0 1 04-�478 C.y . . .. .. ...... S.111101e; Matri. m Ll qui ...... !R -t:Date':':: 4/20/0 m ENDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS ........... C I t..%:.:.. en Ib No. I D 'IN, 6. QUANTITY VALUES Total Organic I I __��,qrbon, n1g/1T 12456 MW-'l 1 1.3 124 5 6.,.. FB041901 <0-5 1245.7. MW-l:l 1 .......... ........ .... ....... .... ..... 1.7 Method No. SM -531013 Method Deteittion Li�n­ t" 0.5 SIERRA ANALYTICAL 0 0 9 Komex 1120 Science 1;500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 Ifunlington Beacb, CA 92CY49 Sierra Project No.: 0104-478 Client Project 11): 105-0 1 AiCity of HB Sample Maf rix: Liquid ELAP No.: 2320 Date sampled: 04/19101 Date Received: 04/19/01 Dite Prepired: 04/19/01 Date Analyzed: 4/19-4/24/01 Analyst: RF Report Date: 04125101 Client Snimple No.: Mw- 11 F11041901 MW-1 I I (Jefec(foll Units Unilt Sierrn Snniple No.: 12455 12456 12457 [Annlyus- Ale(hoth Ammonia (Nll,)-N 1 351) 1 0.32 1 <). 10 0.34 0.10 mg/L Nitrite.(NOI)-N 354.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0-02 0.02 111gll- I NitrF'tC-(NO3)-N 353.3 1.80 0.20 1.95 0.05 111gil- TKIN ' 35 L2 U4 <0. 10 D-36 0.10 1718/1- Phosphatc. Tol-al WOO-p 365.2 0.12 <0.05 0.14 0.05 Ing/1' Phospha(e, Inorganic (PO4)-P 3651 QJ 1 <0.05 GA2 0.05 rngfL Phosphate, Organic (PO,)-P Calculatoll <n.05 <0.05 <0.02 0-05 Ing/L JDjkllior Fac tor No mewis Not Detected Reporting Limit - (Practical Qitautitalicit Limit x Ditisliari Faclor) 0 0 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: 4/25/01 Komex 1-120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Sufte 105 11untingion Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Clictil Project Number: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received Sierra Project No.: 105-0 1 A-CILV of I-IB 4/19/01 4/19/01 0104-448 Attached are the results of tile clienio-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a Chaill OF CUStody record attached or .completed at tile submittal of the samples. The analysis were performed according to [lie prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the sampies will be disposed of within 30 days from the date of this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise us. Richard K. Forsyth/ Laboratory Director /6V- Reviewed I his [Cpalt ig 2pplirable cmly to the girillile truived hy [lie 11bormorv. 111c liability ofilic 11boratOTV is limited to the arimmil paid for tlli% report. 11ris rrpnri is ror the CACIllilve Ilse of rlicclie"I to Whom ii is iddresied nlid t1fOrl IlLr Colldit:011 thil [lit: clim.1 asimms nil lialiffily for Ilre further disinbuliciri of Ilic teport or its conlepits. I Tfl r4PR 2' 7=2001 JL-51Z�X III - 0" 1711 26052 MERIT CIRCLE StJITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TFL-rPt-FONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: !3IERr:;At-AI3S(9EAnTHt-FNK.NET 511:1111A LABORA rORIES. INC E SIERRA ANALYTICAL 1, A 13 0 11 ATO R Y It E' P 0 RT Referellee: 1huteriological samll[cs obi ai lied at Various sites. Investigation: Bac(criplogical Analysir. USULTS Fecal Colifni-lin F-Inkrocomis Bacteriopillge SBUIVIC N12, Daw limme crunoo i I CROW fill 111,1questloo ml MW-4 12222 4/19.101 11 �Ao < I < 1 <5 MW-6 12223 4119io 1 13:00 < I < 1 <5 17-13041901 12224 4/19/01 12%W <1 <1 <5 Method SM 9222 1) SMI 9230 B SM 9211 1) Doection Limit 1 1 5 I 4Le zzw Richnird K. Forsytfi Laboritory ffirectm- I Iti, rep"i-I A fit p tic (,h /(-,)I I /j - /a the vru ph, r-x I roff hJ Ib, - hA-famy. 7 1, r I f1thilm - qfihe Irdwraj- v r.s lim irez I tfp the ([It W /)md for IN, fl-pol I. IIJA n-jim-I'm III[, rxrlm,i�e mw I-JI'MI it i, okhem-drmliqum I/-,- r"'Wiliml filwifir. chrill"'wirfe., all 1whilit.t-fi- I/w Im-thet, divrihaiwr 4ff,,- vep--I 26052 MEF91T CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx; (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALA13SCEARTI-ILINK.NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC 0 0 � Cie -lice' Kdffi x .1120 S e ...... . 5500 BoW Aventle, Suite 105: Date'.Received; 4/19/01 J41ifitin0ofi: Bkcbi:-.CAi-92649:-1:102' ..... :Dat6:PreMared, �'.�..-:.4/19/01 : m, . %:..-,-.::....::.i ..... ... . . ........ . ........... Date Ann yz'ei 1 . ........ 4/19-4/24/0 1':. 0.1044 8' 4 .. .......... C HeritTro ect D..:.:': :1o5-01:A/CitybH-1B: SAn016 Matrix:-:.: . Ijioid::... Rq)ort Date: .4/25/0 1' INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Slur .. wo...... ID 0. 1 D.N o.. QUANTITY VALUES Total Organic Carbon, mg/1 12222 "MW-4 5.0 3.5 12224��:.: ... .. ...... .. .......... ... 90 0.5 ....... .. .... SM-53 I OB Me-lhod:Detccfidi! Limit 0.5 SfERRA ANALYrICAL 0 0 Kornex 1120 Science ELAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Avenue Sijjtp 105 Date Sampled: 04/19101 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 04/19/01 Date Prepared: 04/19/01 Date Anolyzed: 4/19-4/24/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-448 Analyst, RF Client Project ID: 105-OIA/Ci(y of HB Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Ditte: 04/25/01 ClInit Smilple No.: %IW-4 MW-() E [104 1901 NI(Allod DOW1011 Sierra Srimple No.: 12222 12223 12224 Analytes.- Method: Ammonia (NH3)-N 350.1 0.41 0.60 <0. 10 0. 10 ilig/L, Nitri(c-(NO2)-N 354.1 0.09 0.03 <0.02 0.02 Ing/[- Niir,aIc-(NO,)-N 353.3 6.10 R.70 0.60 ().95 mg/L TKN 351.2 0.45 0.66 <OJO OJO mg/L Phosphale. Toial (PO4)-P 365 2 () 15 O�24 <01)5 0.05 111g/1- Phosphale. Tnorgaiiie (P6,)-p 365.2 0.13 (1-22 <0.05 0.05 iiig/L P"OSP11ate, Oti,'R"'C (PO4)-P Calculalun <0.05 <0.05 <O.G5 0.05 mg[L Dilution Faclor ND means Not De(ecied Reporting Lim ft - (Praclica I Qu an litatmil Unlit x Dilution 1`2CIDT) I 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL 0 Date: 4/25/01 Komex 1120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avemic, Siffle 105 flunflngl�n Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major 105-OIA-City of Client Project Nuniber� 1-1 B Date Sample(L 4/18/01 Date Samples Received: 4/18/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-439 Attached are the results of tile clicnio-physical analysis of the samplc(s) from the project identified a The samples were received by Sion -a Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or c.ompleted at (lie submittal of the samples. The analysis were perfonlied according to tile prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.s.'r.m. The itmaining portions of tile sanipIcs will be disposed of within 30 (lays from tile date of this report If you require additional retaining tinic, please advise vis. -kichard K. Forsyth Reviewed Laboratory Director I his ircilott it allplicable only to ilie siilll)!c mcei,ed by tile III-mmory. T' �ic Imbility of [lie labliTilory is limiird In flue minoin-t Imid for this tepoft. This reliort is fw the lTXCh1qiVC list of Illerlient in Minor it is nddrrsnud -ud lipaii ibe condifioll [tint tile cl;cllt assullics 311 liallilily fm tire runher disiribrificiii oftlic rciiori or its caritems. 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONF: (949) 348-9389 FAV (949) 348-9 115 E-MAIL: sirRRALAr3Sa'VFARTHLINK.NET SiFRRA 1,AnORAT(IRIES. INC A SIERRA ANA I�YT I CAL LABORATORY izEi,oii'r I Reference: Bacleriolngic.,-il villiltl.'e-q OhMillUt iIt V.160LIS .9i(C.s. hivestigilion: l3actcriologicn] Ama'aysis. RESULTS Fer.11 cciliforill Illferococcus Bacleriophage Saml2le No. IL, NQ, Date Rim cfulloo it] drildoDila plaques/100 in MW-51 121911 4/18/01 13:40 <1 <1 <5 MW-3 12195 4/18101 1,1:32 <1 <1 <5 MW-2 12186 U] 8/01 15:22 <1 <1 <5 NIIW-9 12187 4/18/01 16A 1 <1 <1 <5 "Frip Blank 12189 4/18/01 NIA < I < 1 <5 McIllod SKI 9222 Q SM 9230 B SM 9211 1) Delcclioll Limit 5 Aativz��V� Richard K. For-S5-th Laboralory Directol. 171A I-f'l 1-1 i'appliffrOr wilY lo lin, mapir ic-E, h,-,JhY dw 1,03firyfifiev Elfrrmlo il j, t�w t.w-flormil ibur rhe , li(,rjr (1111rMeN fill lifilifff.11 1pl. efreffir-illf.) 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SU;TE 105, LA(3UNA Hou-s, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: siERRALABSIDEARTHLINK.NET - SIERRA LABORATORIES INC 0 0 0 .....D.-IWSAl-nl)led:J ':....:::4/18101 .. ..... ... 5500:Bblsd­�Menii iS6ite::105 D te I a eceivef 'A IS 0 F- .1-luiltington Beach,:CA:026494.102. e: ::re -D-ite AllalY ze: d: ::4 19-4124/ 1: 0 ::Si6te�-Pr6t6�t�No....:.�.0104.�439: A iiAK� t: D ........ FAIC6.6fliff'.; ..... .... ..'�Snrnplc'Ma rt iq' uid - -------- - Reb6ftDate -:::�:-:.:"4/25/0'P-; INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sfr:RRA ANALYTICAC 0 0 Koinex 1120 Science -5500 Bolso Avemic Suile 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-439 Client Project ID-. 105-01 A/City of HB Sample Matrix: Liquid ELAP No.: 2320 Date sompled. 04/18/01 Date Received: 04/18/01 Date Prepared: 04/18/01 Date Analyzed: 4/19-4/20/01 Analyst: RF Rpport Date: 04/20/01 Client Sample No.: MW-5 MW-3 mw-2 mw-8 Method Detection Units Siemi Sample Nn.: 12184 12IR5 121116 12187 Arinlytes- Method. Ammonia (NI15)-N 350J 0.17 0.23 0.15 030 0.10 Ing/L. Ni(rifc-(NO2)-N 354.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 mg/L Nilrate-(NO�)-N 353-3 2.20 3.05 4.25 5.70 0 05 mg/L TKN . . 351.2 0.19 0.27 0.18 0.33 0.10 mg!L pbospbalc, Toll] (510,)-P 3 65.2 0. 41) 0.50 0.52 0.54 OX5 MgIL Phosphate. Inorganic (PO4)-P 365.2 0.43 0-42 0.48 0.49 0.05 mg/L Phosphitc, Otgamc. (PO4)-p Calctifilom 0.06 0.08 <0.05 0.05 0.05 mg/L Plutiori Factor ND meam Not I)ctcc [eel REPOTling Limit - (Practical Quailtitalimi Limit x Dilution Factor) 0 SIERRA ANA LYT I G A L 0 E Date: 4/30/01 Komex 1120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Chent Project Number: Cilly of 1-113 Date Sampled: 4/25/01 Date Samples Received: 4/25/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-563 Attached are the reSLIhS Of the ClIC1110-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the project Identified a The samples were rccelved by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis werc performed according to the prescribcd mc1hod as onflined by ETA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples wi H be disposed of within 30 days From the date of this report If you require additional relaining time, please advise us. Richard K. Forsytl� Reviewed Laboratory Director 12XICIllgive 115C ordleclie'lit to W11r.111 it iS atI(!iv%secI arid ullno lhc cmidiliao Ilim ilic client assitrues all liability for 1he furdierdisiribution offfic cercirl or iN collirriti. 26052 MERIT CIFICLIZ SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILL-S. CALIFOHMA 92653 TEI-Fri-ior4ra: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 346-9115 E-MAIL: 51 ERRALAHS 0 EARTMLINK NET SIERRA I-AnORATOMES MC 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL 11 0 LABORATORY REPORT Reference: Buoclioll)gical samilles obt.ained at various sites. Investigalion: 13acteriological Aiialysis. 11 ES U LIS Fecal colifol-111 Eifler-ococcus Haderioplinge SiltmIc No. "JI-SLU. MaR E 11 Lp. cruilu-1111 vril/loo fill 1141A( it cs/ 100 H1 I MW-3 1301-3. 4/2�/O 1. 9:13 < I < 1 <5 MWA 13014 4/250 1 10101 <1 < 1 <5 NIW-44 13015 4/25/01 10:03 < I < 1 <5 MW-9 13016 4/25.101 10:51 < I < 1 <5 MW-2 13017 025M 1 10:13 < I < 1 <5 1-1342501 13019 4/25fO 1 10:45 < I <1 <5 mw-1 130 19 1/25/0 F 12-39 <j <1 <5 Method Detection Limit SM 9222 1) SM 9230 13 SM 921 [ D 1 1 5 MAy 0 3 2001 Richard K. Uol-sylh Labot-Alory Director 7 hi, vr1mri iv ()///If' dirlif if) libmw if i% (uhh.-tir , d fjjl,l 111)(n) I/ml d1c. clig1jr (MI'Me, offlial-ifff.1.1or the "f1hr ropoly f"' ill f f2,ff(-!ffl 2f3D52 Mer-AIT CIRCLE SUITR 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 TELEPI-JONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 34B-9115 E-MAIL: !3;ERRALAF3S0EAnTHL1NK.NET SIERRA LAnORATORIES MC is ......... Korne,x 1110. sc! tile .. ... .. d ...... 5500`1161sa A�cifue, �Suite: 105 :Datc Recchied: 4125/0 F.. TI u fi ti n gto'n; B ca cl i, CA 92 649'11. 0 2 te:Prepared: 4 25/01 te Aiial 4/25/0 1: Slefth �Pfo e"c f: N p.: 0 1 04z563: AiAhIt. D.i:i:� ..c. it 6f:FIB.' .s I m i ........ amp atr x --iqui .. e: ........... INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Sierra:,... QUANTITY VALUES 13013 MW:3 13014 -MIA' 4: - 130-15 MW:44 MW4 1.30 ....... .1W W.;2 ... ... .... X. :1.13018: B42501: . .. ........ . . ...... ....... ....... :mw; I.:::: . .. ... ... . .. .. .. .... odBetochowLimif Total Organic Carbon, rng/1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 SM-5310B 0.5 SiERRA ANALYTICAL 0 9 10 Komex H20 Science ELAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/25/01 Huntington Beacli,.CA 92649 Date Received: 04/25101 Date Prepared: 04/25/01 Date Analyze([: 4/25-4/30/01 Sierra Project Na.: 0104-563 Analyst: RF Client Project TD: City of HB sallipte Matrix- Liquid Report Date: 04130101 Client srimple No.: M%kr 3 MW 4 MW 44 I mws Defec(fon Unils Sierra Sample No.: 130 11 13014 13015 13016 Analytes: Method: Ammotlia (NI-1,)-N 350.1 0.63 0.60 0.59 0.()4 0.10 ung/L Ni1ri1e-(NO2)-N 354.1 <0.02 0.22 0.23 <0.02 0.02 ing/L Nitrate-(NO3)-N 353.3 4.20 5.80 5.87 7.05 0.05 mg/l, TKN - 35 12 0.65 0.66 0.65 O�67 0.10 mg/L Phosphatc, Total WOO-P 365.2 0-35 0.21 0-20 0.32 0.05 nig/L phasphatc, Inorganic (PO4)-p 305.2 0.31 0.19 0.19 0.28 005 ing/L Phosphile, Organic (PO,)-P calcul.,11011 <0.05 <0.05 <0.02 <0-05 0-05 mg/L Diltifion ractor ND meani No( Detected Reporting Limit - (Pracrical Quamlitatim Limit x Motion Factor) S115RRA ANALYTICAL 0 Komex H20 Science ELAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Avenue Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/25/01 flunlingfun Beach, CA-92649 Date Received: 04125101 Date Prepared: 04/25/01 Date Analyzed, 4/25-4/30/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-563 Analyst: RF Client Project ID: City of HB Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 04130101 Client Sninple No.: MW2 MWI Method Delecifun units Sierra Sample N[?.: 13017 13019 nallytes., Melhad: Ammonia (NH,)-N 350.1 0.32 0.87 OJO Ing/1- 'Nitritc-(NO2)-N -', 5 4.1 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 nig/L Ni1ra1c-(NO%)-N 353.3 6.30 2.80 0�05 mg/L TKN . . 351.2 0.34 0.90 0.10 mg/L Phosphate, Total (POA)-P 365.2 0.18 0.11 0.05 mg/L Phosphire, Inorganic (PO4)-P 365.2 0.16 0.10 0.05 mg/L Phosphite, Organic W04)-p Calculalon <0.05 <0.05 0.05 ing/l, DilLifion Factor NE) nicins Not Detected Reporting Limit - (Practical Quawitatian Lima x Dihmin Factor) 0 SIERRA ANA CYT(C; A L 9 1-1 Date: 4/30/01 Komex 1120 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 HuntingtIon Beach, CA 92649-iIO2 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Client Pro�jecl Number: City of HB Date Sampled: 4/25/01 Date Samples Received: 4/25/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-573 Attached are the results of the chcmo-physical analysis of the sample(s) from the pro.ject identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, 111C. With a Chain Of Custody record attached or completed at the submittal of the samples. The analysis xVere perforriled according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaining portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 days fron-i the date of this report If you require additional retaining time, please advise us. Richard K. Forsyth Reviewed Laboratory Director l'bis report is applicaNe only in dic sample Tervi,ed by the labormury. 'rhe liability offfic hbMalUry is limild to the amoinil paid for ihis report. 'Phis report is for the exchisive me a I'theclitil 110 whoin i I is adlITC55H Ond UP011 the midition 111;11 Me dieut issuilles 01 liability for the NAM diSITilititif)[1 or the report or its C0111MILIS. 26052 MErtrr CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA Hit -Ls, CALIFORNIA 92653 TPLEPHONE7 (949) 348-9389 PAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABSOEARTHLINK.NET Iff SIERRA I.AnORATORIES. INC. 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL 0 E LABORATORY REi,otcr Reference: [3,ictel-iological samples nbumned at Vill ioLI.S.94CS. Inveitigiltion: Bacteriological Anah'SIS. 5-muk No S, L, N D--'.,A—c Fecal Coliform Bactedophage Dwig Kru-/100 ]III cfu/IOU rill I "hI tieslLou In MW-9 13047 4 "1 5m"O 1 14:25 < I <1 <5 NIW-711 [ 30118 11/1,5101 15A 7 <1 <1 <5 1-11342501 130,19 4125.101 16:30 <1 <1 <5 F B42501 13050 4125 "0 1 16:45 < I <1 <5 Method De(ection Limit SM 9222 1) Shal 9230 13 S M 9211 1) 1 1 5 -/V/Wmll Lz-vzil ;11AY 0 3 20, Mehard K. Forsvib" Laboratory Director I, "I'phr"hic wdj�lo dw hp 1h, Me I'ahilif.l. "film fah it fluourd In f)icf fur-jew poiff[,u 111i, r-rl 1 7 !,1, rrlwy ( it I;,, - (fir p.re 111C of1hr Eliew I') 1, 11 ..... ii 1, "40, wW q,,-,) Ihv 1 011111111111 1114- C111"If 11% 1 W'W.' d/ lifthda-I fr,r- the 1nrrh,,r- dwrihuji I up-1 or i', c 26052 MEnIT CIRCI-E SUITF= 105, LAGUNA HILLS. CALlFo':IN!A 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL.: SlEr4RALA[3SOEARTHLINK.NE_:T ' SIERRA LABORATORIFS INC 0 20Science DAWSAMWMI. 4/25/0t.: ,::;,;:550o.B- lsaA,�6iijc�-su lt� 105 :4/25/01::. tbn..:Be .C.A::92649:F.1102:ii..-.'�:.'.. ....... .. .... .... -Pr d /25/01; . ...... .. .. t d—­ DR c-Analyze 4/25/01---:: c :S1err':sk:P'r`oj e- t-Nol� -:::�:0104 573: ''Anil Ys.:.: . TU:: Client Pr6fecit ID:' City f f!B:- S.,1n1p.lo;mfttr:W]: Liquid:� �.�:ftortl)ate: A/27/01 INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS IMetlioci No.: SM-53 I OB Method Dote'ct;ion Linlit, 0.5 SIERRA ANALYTICAL 1-1 0 0 Komei 1120 Science ELAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Avemie Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/25/01 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received - 04/25/01 Date Prepared: 04125/01 Date Analyzed: 4/25-4/30/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-573 A mg I ys 1: R F Client Project ID: City ofl]B SampleAla(rix: Liquid Report Date- 04/30/01 Ofent Ssml)fe No.. MVV-9 NIW-7h r--11342501 F134250 f N10(had Deledion Units ---- Limit Slerr2 Sample No.: 13047 13049 13049 13050 Analytes: le(hod.. Ammottia. (N14.,)-N 350.1 1.70 2.30 0,12 0.13 0.10 mg/L Nivite-(NOD-N 354.1 <OM <O.f)2 <0.02 <0.02 0.02 flig/L Ni1ra1c-(NO3)-N 353.3 1.30 2.00 0.92 0.70 0.05 mg/L TKN 351.2 1.70 2.40 0.13 0 14 0.10 mg/L I'llosphale, Total (PO4)-P 3 65. 2 0.23 0. J 5 0.07 008 0.05 mg/L phosphate, 111orgallic (PO4)-[, 365 2 0.20 0.14 0.07 0,07 0-05 mg/l, Phosphatc, Organic (1104)-P caiculatotl <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 fug/L ,I)i1alion Factor IND means ND[ Delected RrpWing Mmii - (Pradiral Qnam;i2jim) Limij )t Dilwirm Factor) 0 A SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: -3/2/01 Komex H�o Scielice 5500 Bolsh Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Client Project Number: City of 1-113 Date Sampled: 4/26/01 Date Samples Received: 4/26/0 1 Sierra Project No.: 0104-610 Attached are the results ofthe cherno-ptirsicai analysis ortic san-ve(s) From the project. identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, Inc. with a chain of custody record attached or completed at the siibmittal of the samples. The analyEis were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by EPA, Standard Methods, lind A.S.T.M. The remaiiiijig pol-ti()lls of tile samples will be disposed ofwithin 30 days from the date of this report If you reqLlirp- additional retaining time, please advise its. -ei�Richa�rdr-�®rsytb��� Laboratol-Y Director Reviewed Ili is mporl iq lipplicable oil] v 10 lie m ,,pi e rcccivcd by ilie tilmrmnry. 'The I imbility of [lie llbflUfory is I irmilrd to tile arnoumit pa;d for this rcpam 'Fllis rel,011 is For the CxC1llqiVr. use of Illeclieric in w1iom it is iddreRsed a nd iijimi [lie conditiou I:la Ithe client RS51131117S I I I I iallilily 150F 1111! rotIllcr diSITIbUti011 Of tilt MPUTt Or its Eolklflll�4. MAY 0 4 2001 26052 MERIT CIRCLr= SUITF 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALMORMA 92653 TELEPHONE: (9,19) 348-9389 FAX: (9-19) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SlErtRALABS(gr=ArITI-ILINi<.Nr=T kIERRA I.ArIORATOR1179. INC. 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORT Reference: Baclel iological sanlp�es obtainvd',It XiMiOLIS Si(C5. Investigation: 1371CICHOlOgical Amilysis. RESULTS Fecal colifarill Enlerucoccus Bacteriollhage 5-,=) I c No. Date liffl-e efil/lou III] Kfu/100 III Wnallcs/100 1111 mw-1 I 13 192 1/26.1101 12:45 <[ <1 <5 Method SM. 9222 1) SM 923013 SM 9211 1) Detection Limit 1 1 5 Richvird K. Forsvili Laboratory Director lhi, relpare happlirfri-h-wdY m 11'emm,ple let h.v Mv hd .. rwm�- I/W fIjI ... I fluledf1pri,16'reply, I!". mr. 'Ifflu. ([if-r,f la ulmm il ff;,- -,Mhf;Ml 111W the di"m um,mn fill bfdiI;fi-/i?r-f1re Pffhe o'cluml or il, ("'Weyltv 2(D'05�! MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORMA 92653 TELEPWONF-- (949) 34L9-9389 FAx: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: S'EnnALABs(Pr-AnlHLINK.NF-T SIERRA I-AI30RATORIC-S INC .......... ... . ........ .. ... .. . .............. :iWfi Sa I'd" ..... ... ... 4/26/0 F' venife, Ul A- S500 Boka A 'S it 408 D A t em R e c 6 iv 6 d 4/26/0 1-Juntington: Bea011 CA 92649-1102' -DateTrcparcd.:'. �4 /26/01... D ate'Anal rz�d:.:.: . ....4/27/01 . ... ....... IV sleiffTtuifttl 0 0 104.6 1.0 . .... ......... .... . .......... ... ...... .. . ... ........ : ... . m; �;- . A ... . ......... .. . .......... . . c 'tTi,*44a: ci 2B:' [I eft m c ty�bf m N1, SanTle, airl .-:Li�tfld.. 11cliori Date:':' .4/29/01; 0 0 SIERRA AHM.YTICAL is 0 0 Komex 1120 Science ELAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Aventie Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/26/01 Hunting(on Beach,CA 92649 Da t e Received: 04/26/01 ' Date Prepared: 04/26/01 Date Analyzed: 4/26-4/28/01 Sierra Project No.- 0104-610 Analyst- RF Client Project 11): City of 1113 Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 05/02/01 Clieri(SAinplc No.: MW-1 I Deleclinn Units Sierra Sainple No.: 13192 Analytes: Method: Artinionia (N[-],)-N 350.1 1.25 0.10 111g/1- Nitrite-(NO2)-N 354.1 <0.02 0.02 ITI fr/L Nitrate-(NO.)-N 353.3 1.4n 0.05 nig/L TKN 351.2 1.30 0.10 111g/L Phosphate, Total ROO-p 365.2 0.17 0.05 nig/L Phosphate, Inorganic (P 0,)-P 365.2 0.16 0.05 ing![- Phosphate. Organic ("04)-p calculaton <0.05 0.05 nig/L Dilution Factor ND wanm Not Driected Reporting Uniii = (Practical Quawitalion 1-finil x Dilution Factni) 0 A SIERRA ANALYTICAL Date: 5/2/01 Komex 1120 Science 5500 Bolsa Averme, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Attention: Mr. Wade Major Client Project Number: City of HB Date Sampled: 4/26/01 Date Samples Reccivcd: 4/26/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-609 Attached are the rCSLIltS Of the ClIC1110-physical analysis ofthe sample(s) fi-om the pro.ject identified a The samples were received by Sierra Laboratories, hic. with a chain of custody record atliched or collipleted at the siffimittal of the samples. The analy�is were performed according to the prescribed method as outlined by 17"PA, Standard Methods, and A.S.T.M. The remaiiiing portions of the samples will be disposed of within 30 clays from [lie date of Lilis report If you reqtiire additional retaining time, please advise us. Richard K. Forsytll� Laboratory Director Reviewed 1111i, report is aplilicable only to the sawple received by thC 1.1bOrMOTY T'ke liability ofthe lalturalory is limited in the amoont Imid rur this report- Illig report is for tile VXV11111iVC Me OF01CCliCIII It? whoIrl it i% 2ddrc%srd apd upon the condi(im, that the client assumu all liability for the riallicr disiribi0ion offlic report or its contems. AY 0 412 LOG I 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105. LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 2653 TELEPHONE: (94 9) 348-9369 FAX: (949) 348-9 115 E-MAIL: SIERRALABSOEARTHLINK.NF-T SIERRA LA13DRAI DRIES, INC 0 SIERRA ANALYTICAL �l 0 LABORA,rollY REPORT I Reference: BacleriMogical Samples oblainedul val-ioussitrs. I nV est igat lost: lkideriDlogical Analysis. 5-airlIAP, Ni2, Mug RusuLls Fecal Coliforin ElEltel-nCoccus Bacteriophage Jim s efulloo In cfllllou in] p1.IqJjqsaQLniJ 1:1142601 13 196 4 `26101 8:40 < I < [ <5 F1342601 13197 d/26101 8:49 < I <1 <5 MW-5 13199 412610 1 9:09 <1 <1 <5 MW-55 13199 4/20101 9:12 <1 I <1 <5 T1342601 13190 4/26101 9:51 <1 <1 <5 NAW-6 13191 4126/0 1 10:15 <[ <1 <5 MvIlind SM 9222 1) SM 9230 13 SM 9211 D Dclutioll Limit Ridiard K. Forsvth' Laboratory Director 711i, ri i� fil3phrethle jrjfl- Io fhe mirl q, Iv n. lil III o It fhrj '-ofm 1. 7 he I. a I, ili!p "i the If fhar lo ... y i3 If!" if,,, III) the ffmovia 1wif I lor MiN n-porr Ilri% j5pr rhe avclu,ivr im, offhr rhod In lihom rl rl fIf4h-vi,(-fl froul irprul dre cwWaim, Ihfrf On, ditur, i—wrie% ltll lirrhilifl. for flu.- frrdrvr fhirriburnm ofibe r%-1-11 OF if, 2(�052 Mr-niT Clqcl-rz SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFOrINIA 92653 TE-LEJIJ90NE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAIL: SIFFIRAL-ABS 0 rmARTt 'LINK. NET SIERRA LABORATORIES INC 0 0 Komex H20 Scienc,c Date Sanioled: 4126/01� 5500:Bolsa.Avelme Su ite 105. �m:DaW:11keived- ::'::4/26/01 Huntington:136adi, (�A.91649 1102 P red4 c: rep.q 4/16/01 ... .... D ze ate 4/2-7/0 i: slerra: P'roj ed No.: 0 1 04�609:. .. . ..... .. ...... ... ... ;Analyst-... TU client Proje'e-t1l): City: Of FIB 11�: SiiIniple Matrix:;:. Liquid Re t 1). te:. Mor. ..4/28/01� INDIVIDUAL INORGANIC ANALYSIS Slerfa.: Client.. ID No. ID No.::.... QUANTITY VALUES Total Organic C nrbon, rng'I 1).18 6 VB426n <0.5 .13'187: 2-442601 <0.5 01,88 MNk'-5 0.5 J 3189 ��.NIW-55 0.5 '.13190 TB42601 <0.5 13 10 1:� 1�4W-6. <0.5 Mb.thod.Nb.�.. . SM-5310B Method Detection Limit 0.5 SiERRA ANALYTICAL 0 0 Komex 1120 Science FLAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Avenne Suite 105 Date Sampled: 04/26/01 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Date Received: 04/26/01 Date Preparvd: 04/26/01 Date Analyzed: 4/26-4/28/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-609 Analyst: RF Clien( Project ID: City of HB Sample Matrix: Liquid Report Date: 05/02/01 Glertt Sample No.; 1-1342601 EN2601 MW5 M%V51 Method Defectioll Unit's --- Sieryn Sample No.: 13196 131 H7 13198 13199 Until AnnIvItes: Mel 110d: Ammonia (N11.,)-Ni 350.1 0.11 0.10 0.32 0.30 0.10 1119/1- Niftilc-(NO&N 354.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <Q-02 0.02 Ingl[- Nilrale-(NO3)-N 353.3 1.10 1.05 1.60 1 49 005 Illg/1- TKN 351.2 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.32 0.10 Ing/1- Phosphate, Total (PC)4)-P 365.2 n.(17 006 0.30 0.32 0.05 mg/L Phosphole, Inorganic (PO4)-P 365.2 0-116 0.06 0.27 0.28 0.05 ing/L 111insplinle, Organic (PO4)-J' calcillaton <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.03 0.05 mg./L DflUtion Factor L=�� -- - . --.- - - --J ND nicans Not Delected Repot(ing Limil - (I'moical Q!Mllilmlinli Limit x Dilution Ncim) SIERRA ANALYMCAL 0 0 0 Koinex 1.120 Science ELAP No.: 2320 5500 Bolsa Aventic Sulte 105 Date Sampled: 04/26/01 Huntington Beach,.CA 92649 Dale Received- 04/26/01 Date Prepared: 04/26/01 Date Analyzed: 4/26-4/28/OJ Sierra Project No.: 0104-609 Analyst: RF Client Project ID: City of I-lB Sample Nfitrix: Liquid Report Date- 05/02/01 Client Snniple No.- N1 W6 Dclection Units Limit Sierra Snuiple No.: 11191 AuRlytes: Mediod. Ammonia (NH.,)-N 350.1 1.10 0.10 una/L Nitrite-(NO,)-N 354.1 <0.02 0.02 mg/L N11ra1c-(NOj)-N -153.3 6. 1 () 0.05 mg/L TKN . . 351.2 1.14 0.10 ing/L Pirospimic, Total (PO4)-P 365.2 0.35 0.05 mg/L Phosphate, Inorganic (M)-p 365.2 0.31 0.05 rng/L Phosphate, Organic (PO4)-l' Calculawn �,0.05 0.05 rng/L Dilution Fador KID ineens Not Deircittl Reporting Limit - (Practical Q�ianiitarion Liniii x biltilion Ficinr) 0 0 04/27/2v,@l 16: 16 3105330320 LANCO PAGE 01 .LANCO ENGINEERING TRANSMITTAL 'to! ko—tvQ-y- (4-2-0 ATTENTION: WE AR-E TRANSMITTING: q�-AT YOUR REQUEST FOR YOUR REVIEW / INFORMATION 0 �OR YOUR EXECUTION 0 FOR YOUR FI 'LES 0 ORIG INA L TRACINGS QUANTITY DESCRIPTION I ---- iei- t,- Le-lw L-\, kEMARKS BY: C.c. DATE: q - 7- (-* - 10 OUR JOB NO.: TRACT NO. RE: ck c- iL tl m 4:6 n '71-0 —QC—J— VIA: 0 MAIL 0 mp-NSFNcr--Ft 0 TO BE PICKED UP 1010 CRENSHAW BLVD. a SUITE 200 a TORRANCE, CA 90501 @ (310) 533-4955 a FAX (310) 533-0320 WELLA 5RID RTHING GRQEAS INQ RIM ELEV aLUILL-EAE-UNQ IQE OF CASI 2191302.921 aams I - 136 35.OB56 2191303.019 602901.056 34.7356 MVM 2190900.753 60279D&587 28.2478 2 190900.842 Ga27908.454 27.8678 MVV#3 21890"B72 OW7581.574 37.2116 /J 2189M.716 6027581'433 36.8518 2187"2-AO1 8M9192.75 32.5M 2187442.404 QM1 92.649 32-2253 MW#5 2187110.72 e03071 1. BM 22-5412 2187110.715 6030711.74 22-2512 mvm 2189156.M &)31974.338 26.8371 2189157. C"I 6031974.3W 26.6071 MW97 2 1 9OB36.53 60309M. SE2 34.2576 21906M.623 8030960.92.5 33.aV6 MVM 218971OL30 6029022-841 36.1481 2189710." 6029G22- 735 35.6701 MW#9 21&31W.O:p OD32&U-B37 15.3176 21 &3991.951 6032534-819 14.99M 2187444,-42 6033138.979 4.4088 2197444.245 6033 138.976 NO CMANG (GRND=4-241) MW#1 1 4.41 2187444.352 6033139.031 MVW*5 22.51 2197110.758 6CW711-781 r3 MVM 28.81 2189156.969 6031974-298 0 0 In *A& ' SIERRA ANALYTICAL Dale: 4/23/01 Koinex 1120 Science 5500 Balsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102 Allenlion: Mr. Wade major 0�eiil Pro iect NUmber: Date Sampled: Date Samples Received S)cj-)-;] J11-oJecl N.D.: Huntington Beach Project 4i2101 A �/2/01 0104-035 Attached are [lie results ofthe clien-lo-physical analysis oftlic saniplc(s) frotil the project idenlified Lib The samples were received by Slerra Laboratories, hie. With it chain 01'eustody record attached Or completed at the SUbmittal. of [lie samples. The ffllalySiS were performed accoi-ding to the prescribed method aS OUL1111CCI by E-11A, Standard Nlefliods, and A.S.T.M. The A;l11iIll11lLg ]JU11101IS (-1i'6jC Salllj)jC�- NVIJ be diNf)USCd LdVI I'llill. 3G rhlys kom !1-,,: claic u)C (his report. ll'YOLI ;'C(jLlil'C ii;--W, Z1'd'--;L-'v Us. Richard K. Forsyth/ Reviewed Laboratory Director 'FII19 MIXITI ij .1pi"11117.1111C Uilly Iu LIIC S:1111111C tt!CCiVCd Ily th, libmatory 'I Ile !iahilky oftiw hA1011101V IS IiIIIIICLI 10 LIIC 1111cii,it paid Itir (Iiis iclimr. 'I iili irpoit i� fw ilic C.Ch.SIVC 114C of 111CCliCill It, 1010111 it iS ;,LLdICS.%Vd Mid 1,11011 tile ll;;Ii il%c Clicill ISN't"Ics all ImIllinv rEll tile fill0lel distl b.6%,11 r1l INC lul�011 1,; I(s C0111-t, APR ZS Igo, 26052 MERIT CIRCLE SUITE 105, LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORMA 92653 TELEPHONE: (949) 348-9389 FAX: (949) 348-9115 E-MAII1-: SiERRALASS 0 EARTHLINK. NET SIERRA LADORATORIES WC 0 0 Kamex 1120 Science Oate Sampled: 412ig f 5500 Bofsa Avenue, suile IDS Male Received: 412/01 Huntington Beach, CA 92G49 Mate Prepared: 4/10/01 Mate Analyzed: 4110/0 1 Analyst: m w Sierra Projeet No.: OtO4-035 Chent Project ID: FILIDUJIgI011 BMICh P[ j. S.1111ple jNjj?jj-j�v: waler Report [).We: 4,117/0 1 'ro,rAl. Pr.'rROLE UM I IVI)ROCARRONS LPA METHOD 8015 - Gasoline Rilige.Ily(It-oc-ii-boiis(C4-Cl2) (Purpe And-Lrap) ISM11ple No ciielit Sample No. Cancentrition (ug/1) 1-15-iTt-ition Fad 9/4Surrugate Recovery PQL 10071 WC4201 86 1 7R 50 Quality Assuriuce/Quality Control Data QC S91uple I D: 0 104 10- 13 Ion k I,Cs Qc spike Spike Dup Qc QC L C01111301111ki R e c. Limits % [tee. '!/a Itee. L Limits RPD Limits TPH oi ciasolillc 9] 90-120 8-1 85 50-150 0.99 0-30 ND Illeall., Deteaed J�cporfingz Lill-JI (RI.) = PlildiCal QLIM)LAMM11 [JI-1111 (PQL).x MItilion Fictor S0711RA LABORAWRIFS INC. 0 0 0 Komex 1120 Scince Date Sampled: d/2/01 5500 1301�sa Avenue, Suite 105 Date Received: 4/2/01 Huntington Beack, CA 92649 Date Prepared: it/ 16/01 D.Ife AlMlyzed: 4/16/01 Analyst; mw Sierra Project No.: 0104-035 Clicia Project ID: Huntington Beach Pri. Sample Msfrix: soil Report Date: -U17101 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS EPA METHOD 8015 - Gasoline 11-apgc Hydrocarbons(O-02) (I'll rpe A il d �Tp p) -Sie, r., F7 " �L Sample No. client ample No. Coll cell( ration (Ing/l(g) I Dilution Factor Recovery IAQL (mg/lig) 10072 2WC4201 N D 1 65 0.050 Quality Assurance/Qualily Control DiN LQc S,1111ple I D: 0 104 16-13 kin k LCS Qc Spike Spike Dull Q Compound Y,. Rec. Limi(s Rec. % Rec. Limits MID Limits I 111-Ins Gasolinc 10.1 80-120 79 71 50-150 11 0-30 ND mcam Not I)ci,:cic(! ReporWILL 1-41111 (M.) � 1'rucLical QU-111161.16011 I-111111 (PQL) X DiUMOrl Factor S'ERRA ANALYTICAL 0 0 is Koinex 1-120 Science )5GO Bolsa Avenue, Suite 101-1 Munfinglon Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-035 Client Project ID: Huntington Ocach Pij. salliplematrix. . Water - ELAP No.: Date sampled.. Date Received: Date Prepared: Date Analyzed: Analvst- Report Date: 2320 04/02101 04/02/01 04/05/01 04/05-04,109/0 1 s M 04/17/01 Vo I a Ili I u 0 rga n i cs (G C/M S) PreparAllioll Meth0d; Pm-ge &,ri,p Copcejurator (EPA Methad 503u) Amulysis Method: EPA filkthod 8260B Client Sample No.: WC4201 Practical Quallfilation Limit ullits Sierra Sample No.: 10071 Amilytes: Belvelic ND 1-0 jig/L ND 1.0 Iw/L ND 1.0 1, 1 k, /L III olliodichlol ND 1.0 ILg/L BI(III1411,61111 ND 1.0 fLg/L III-Eill',0111CLhillie ND 5.0 jLg/1- 2-11M.111011C (MDQ 130 1.0 �Lg/l- 11-BtQ)-I[XIiZCLle ND 1.0 pg/L ND 1.0 Itg/l. (el j-j3ILO![bL;j)7CjjC ND ;-0 lig/L ND 1.0 vgil- IN D Lo ILg/L Chlolocilmliv ND 5.0 j(glL CIOURL1601111 N ID 1.0 jkg/L ch lol o incl lim Ic N D 5.0 IL&L 2-Ch lorololuciu; ND 1.0 lig/L .1 -ch Im oil) I t lelie N D 1.0 ilglil- 1) i brooloch [ol muethal Lc ND 1.0 pg/1- ND 5.0 pg/L 1,2-Dibioniocdume ND 1.0 ILg/L Dihl Oillmilullulne ND I �O �Lg/l- 1,2-Dichlorob-ciucne ND 1.0 jig/1- 1,3-Dichlombelizelle ND 1.0 ILg/L 1,-I-D:cIiIoroh,!nzcnc ND 1.0 pgIl- I)icjllolotlilltlol-ollicilialle ND �.O jigiL !, I-Diclilmocilianc ND I �O pg/L SIERRA ANALYTICAL 0 0 Koinex 1120 Science -5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington lk-ach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-035 Client Project ID: Hunfington Beach Prj- sample Matrix: Water ELAP No.: Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Prepared: Date Analyzed: Analyst: Report Date 2320 04/02/01 04/02/01 04/0-5/0 1 04/05-04/09/01 sm 04/17/01 Volatile Organics (COMS) Preparation Method: Purge & Trap CiIncentralor (EPA Melholl 5030) Analysis Method: EPA �-lcthnd 826013 Client Sample No.: WC420 I Practical Quallfflatioll Units Sierra Sample No.: 10071 Allalytes: 1.2- D idilm t)clhanc ND 1-0 �Lg/l- 1, I-Dichloloollielle ND 1.0 pg/1- ci� U-Dichloroellictic ND 1.0 ptg/1- (rans [,2-Dichlojoellivilu ND 1,() �Lg/L j.2-DjcjII(-tj(tjmopaIIe ND H) �Lg/l- Q-Diclilompropane ND 1-0 lig/L 2,2-Dichkimpropmw T*4 D 1.0 ILgil- 1, 1 -Dichloropropenc ND 1.0 Fig/L cis- 1.3-Dichl(IJOIN01MIC ND 1.0 Rg/ L 13-Dichloi opropune ND 1.0 Itg/l, F-thylbenzene ND 1.0 �Lg/[, I lexachlorobt)(adiene ND 1.0 pgiL Isopropylbenzene ND 1.0 �Lg/L .1-1sopTopyllollicne IN 1) [.0 �Lg/L MvIbylene Chloride ND 1.0 �Lg/L mcillyl-l-Bulv] 4.9 1.0 lig/L ND I.D jLg/L 11-111-opylbelizene ND 1.0 lig/L sly1clie ND 1.0 jLg/1- 1, 1, 1 .2-Terrachlojoeilmne ND 1.0 �Lg/l, N D 1.0 pg/L To unchiorociliv tic ND 1.0 jLg/L Tollicile NI D 1.0 1,2, 1- 1-richloi obenzene N D 1.0 pg/L obenzene ND 1.0 Itg/L -Tridil(ILOCLIltl[le I NO 1.0 [Lg/1- StERRA ANALYTiCAL 0 Komex H20 Science 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-035 Chent Project ID: I-11-111tington Beach Prj- Sample Matrix: Water ELAP No.: Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Prepared: Date Analyzed-. Analyst: Report Date: 2320 04/02/01 04102/0 1 04/0 5 /0 t 04/05-04/09/01 sm 04/17/01 Volitile Orginivi (GC/MS) Preparation Method; Purge & Trap Con centr-Mor (EPA Method 5030) Analysis Method; EPAN-fethod 8260B Client Sample No.: wc,1201 Practical Quanti(ation ullits Limit S ice-ra S:inpple No.; 10071 Analytes: 1, 1.2-TrichlorwAllane ND 1.0 pg/1- N D 1.0 jig/L ND 5.0 ILWL I �2.3-1-1"CIIIMOJ)] OJIMIC N D 5.0 [igil- 1.2,4- J"L-jHjC'j1N'1bC1VCjjC N! D 1.0 J.Lg,/L ND 1.0 JLg/L villyl C11101-i'le ND 3.0 pg/1- 111,P-XvIelles ND 1.0 [Lg![, ND 1.0 fic,:I- Dilution Fiactor Qc Limits Surrogate Recovery: Di b] 001 Oil L101-0111CLIN-111C 96 80-120 92 81-117 88 -74- [2 1 IQC Reference No.: 010409-BI-I Almlytes: I-cs I-cs Spili—e 111ke Dup. spike Rill) 1% Re c. QC Limits 'Yo Rec. 'Y.� Rec. Qc Limits QC 1-finifs I'l-Dichloroethene so 80 - 120 78 80 1; 0 - ISO 2.5 0-30 T601101-0011ene 86 90- 120 94 98 �1 - 157 4.2 0 - 30 Benzene 96 SO- 120 92 96 37 - 151 4.3 0-30 Foltieiie 88 80- 120 94 98 47- 150 4.2 0-30 Chlorobenzene 98 1 80- 120 1 106 1 108 1 37 - 160 1.9 0-30 NJ) mcans No, DeLcuted Repoiling Limil (RI-) = PrOCLical QImmilation J-iw.iE.(PQL) x DilUtiffil Factor I SIERRA LABORA I"ORIES INC 0 0 Komex 1120 Science Date Sampled; 04/02/01 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Date Received 04/02/01 1-1untiniton Beach, CA 92649 Date Extracted: 04/09/01 Date Analyzed: 04/09/01 Sierra Project No.: 0104-035 sm lient Pro ' ject I D: 1-11.1111ington Beach Pij, Sample Matrix: TCLP Extract Report Date: 0 [/04/17 TCLI'VOLATILE ORGANICS - (GC/MS) ETA NIFFITOD 8240 Concentration, mj!/1 Quantitation Client Sample No.: 2WC4201 practical TCLP Limits Limit, SiCIT.1 SM11ple No.: 10072 mg/L COMPOUNDS: Benzene ND 0 5 0.005 Cal -bon teti-achloride ND 0-5 0.005 ChIOL-obenzene ND 100 0.005 Chlot-OF01-111 ND 6.0 0.005 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 7.5 0.005 1 .2-Dichloroelitane ND 0.5 0.005 1, 1 -Dichlorocillylelle ND 0.7 0.005 IMethyl Fihyl Ketone N 1) -)I)o 0.02 fe I 1-a C1 I I aroe 111 c 11 C 'Vinyl N D 0.7 0.005 Tri C 111 01-ou I I I y I elle N D 0.5 0.005 C11101-ide ND 0.2 OM5 Pilution Factol, I QC Limits %SLII-1-Og',1IC ReCOVel-'IeS: Dibrornotlouromethane 91 80-120 Toluene-dg 97 81-117 4-13101110fIL101-0benzene 74-121 I Qn-flityAssurance/Quality Control Data IQ C Sa I it 1) le I D: 0 10409-131, LCS — JQC spike Spike Dup QC QC Compounds 1%, Rec, Limits 'A Rec. % Rec. Limits M"D Limits IJ-Dichlomethene 80 80-120 78 80 50-150 2.5 0-30 Trichloroethelle 86 80-120 94 99 71-157 4.2 0-30 Benzene 86 80-120 92 96 37-151 4.3 0-30 - Foliieiie 8s 80-120 94 98 47-150 4.2 0-30 Chlombenzetie 9s 80-120 106 108 37-160 L() 0-30 ND means Nol Detected Reporting Limit (RI-) = Method Deiection LimiL (MDL) x Diltition Ridor TCLP Volatiles Page 4 of 4 SIERRA ANALY FICAL 0 I* 0 '�'0111CX 1120 SC'eneel InC- 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 4105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-035 Client Project ID: I-IL1111ington Beach Fir]. Sample Matrix: "', 0 i I ELAP No.: 2320 Date sampled: 04/02/01 Date Received: 04,102/01 Date Prepare& 04/06/01 Date Analyzed: 04/09/01 Analyst: JBN/BW Report Date: 04/171101 CCR,rioc 22 metms (,rTLC) Preparation M.etbod: EPA'Metbod 305013 Amalysis Method: EPA Method 601013 & EPA Method 74711 Clietit Sample No.: 2WC4201 Quantitation Units Sierra Ss'mple No.: I'M72 Limit Analyles: TTLC Limits: Antimony 500 ND 3.00 Arseiiic 1 500 4.67 2-00 Barium 10000 64.9 2.00 mg/kg Beryllium 75 ND 0.75 ing/kg QW111141111 100 ND 0.50 mg/kg Chromium 2500 19.3 3.00 lilgil�g Cobalt 8000 8.43 2.00 mgIkg Copper 2500 13.0 2.00 mg/kg Lead 1000 166 2.00 1110kg MCI-CIII-Y* 20 ND 0.050 ing/kg Molybdc]ILIM 3500 ND 1.50 Inglk-g Nickel 2000 12.9 Loo mg/kg ISelenium 100 ND 1.50 mg/kg Silver 500 ND 1.00 Ing/k-g Thallium 700 ND 2.00 mg/kg Vanadium 2400 40.8 1.00 mg/kg Zinc 5000 40.2 2.00 IDilution Factor I - ND me;ws.No(DctecIed Reporting Limil = (I'metical Qiianfitaiion Limit x Million Factor) � lleruciii.Solid RCSLIRS Jej)MICII Oil a "Dry Weigh(" basis. SIFRILA ANALYI [CAI. 0 0 9 Kornex 1-120 Science, hic. 5500 Boisa Avenue, Suite H105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-035 Client Project 11): FlUntington Beach NJ. Sample Matrix: Liquid (Aclueous) CLAP No.: 2320 Date Sampled: 04/02/01 Date Received: 04/02/01 Date Prepared: 04/06/01 Date Analyzed: 04/09/01 Analyst: JBN/13W Report Date: 04/17/01 Metals in Aqueous Samples Prepai-ation Method: EP�:t-klethod 3010A Amilysis Method: ETA Method 6010B & EPA Method 7470A Client Sample No.: WC.4201 Practical Quarifilitiort Ullits Sierra Sample No.: 10071 Limit Analyles: Method fl: Antimony 6010B 0.021 0.020 nigh, Arsenic 601 OB ND 0.020 nigh- Barimn 601013 1 -05 0.010 mg/L Beryllium 6010B N D 0.005 mg/L. CadmIL1111 6010B N D 0.005 11101- C111-0111-Mill 6010B N D 0.010 Llig/1- coball 60 1 OB N D 0.010 111gil, coppel 6010B N D 0.030 k1101- Lead 6010B ND 0.020 111gli- MerCLII'V 7470A ND 0.001 mg/L Molybdentim 6010B ND 0.020 mgil- Nickel 60 1 OB ND 0.020 Mg!1- selenimil 60108 ND 0.030 Ing/L silver 6010B ND 0.020 Mg/L Thallimil 6010B ND 0.010 111gil. Vi-ifflMHU111 601011 ND U) I () Ing/L Z111C 60 1 OB ND 0.020 111g/1' DikItion Factot, - I f I I I - I I Reporling Limil = 11.110Eical Ouawita(ioti Limit x Diltilion Faclor SIERRA ANALYI ICAL 0 E Kolnex 11,0 Science, file. 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite U105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Sierra Project No.: 0104-035 Client Project ID: I-Juntingtoil Beach Pri- Sample Matrix- Liquid Extract ELAP No.: 2320 Date Sampled: 04/02/01 Date Received: 04/02/01 Date Prepared: 04/191101 Date Analyzed: .04/20/01 Analyst: JBN/13W Report Date-. 04/2010 1 Toxicity Characteristic Lcachij�g Procedure (TCI,P) EIPA Method H. 1311 - 30 1 ()AJ601013/7470* Client Sainifle No.: 2WC4201 Practical "Ll"Infit"Ition Units Sierra Sample No.: 0072 Limit Analytes: TCIJI Limits: Arsenic 5.0 ND 0.30 mg/I Barium 100 0.36 0.050 Ludl Cadm iLIIII 1.0 N" D 0.080 111gil chl-0111KIIII 5.0 N 1) 0.080 flig/I Lead 5.0 N 1) 0.30 11101 Mercury* 0.2 N D 0.005 mg/I Selenium 1 0 ND 0.30 Silver 5.0 N D 0.040 n-IL/I ND means Nil[ De1mcd likIERRA ANALYTICAL CHARNT OF CUIRODY RECORD 'rFL:949034809389 FAX. 949a,348-9115 26052 Merit Circle - Suite 105 Laguna Hills, CA - 92653 CliCMI PTOj. NumberTro:. Name: Client AddTCSS' tz A - �1 i, (-N - e- 'ru rn A rounc. -time Q !mrncdia-.e Are -Lion \1 Requested J:j Rush 24-48 lv"rrs IV Client Tel. NO: i4 I I -z-,!7 -:1 Rush 7-.--96 hours Q rx ClicnE P.cj. 13 Mobile slerru COnt3iner No. of Cherit Sample No. SaMDIC No. Da,,Crrime m w r; Y. I j 1 Preservat;ws I T�ype : Container% Z-0 I bJ i�,,4 7-0 1 'Vitt I <-��k 0,1 P (00-7 Z, 40 iaj - - P.mic�!Kamc 171 Rthw)".shc'. By: Cumpaiw' k"D ED keiii,culsiicil -ly- C on 1=1 Y: Datc. Recewel- 5,: Ti— Conipr� Dale I R.",,,cd 11�' T­: I Company: - 3-- 0 Date� Page of —i CIA Lab P-.ojccl. Vo.: — 0 / 0 V —0.3-5- JLna es RMuested P_ _JT V -41 ,j " �121 149 00 CDMMenrS Fwal N. u-mber oJ'Containcrs -Z, 'Submitied to Laboratory The dchwely of �mrlcl anC L41C �ignaluic or. Inis cham i)r cusind� lotm Ci,lislifultS 10 p.-I.Wr. the nnlyws Ab.- ..Pdcr S1EKR_-', `Ternu &-id Condel,ons. Wii— Arreed upon m -filing bel— SiERFLA and CUENT, L Dau Total N urnber of Containers Received by I-aboratory Dow Time Special lnll,,C,i,,ns, (-t '-t LQ "Ro ro 4-�q�� XCA S - i, Y--\ " _� - Sample r1kPosal: Remm to Client IZI Lab Disposal* 'D Arcn:i,e _mcrs. C] Other FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY - Sample Receipt Conditions: Intact Chilled - Temp (OC)_ Sample Seals Preservatives - Verifled By Properly Labeled C] Other ID Appropr-.3te Sample Container [] Storage Location _gLA3__!�:.16 - 17 RZ, 01.'-..jl. [):STRr8L.7L'l0N wniie To %ccompanv SampIcs. Yc:6w - LaWat� Cop�. Pink - htle Pcmwc! copy _—T —Manifest 1. Generator's US EPA ID No. NON -HAZARDOUS o 3OUS 2- Pa 901 oil Ll WASTE MANIFEST . . . . . . . . . . . 52471 ,--T9PVa,8r? VWVY 1.9001 RUN71-NGTON STREET RUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92640 4. Generator's Phone( 71.4 )536-5527 5. Transporter 1 Company Name 6 US EPA ID Number A. Transporter's Phone UNTTED PIMING S.EPVIC9:, ITIC. 1C.A.D.0.7-2. 9.5-3. 7. 7. 1 026) 961-9326 7. Transporter 2 Company Name 8. . US EPA ID Number . . . . . . . . . . B. Transporter's Phone 9. Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10. US EPA 10 Number C Facility's Phone PEME 0 Y FW1fi0*1EV1'A7. 3200 E. FRONTERA ST. ANARFIM, CA 92006 C A L. 0 .0. 0,%,2. 0. n. S. 0. 0 (.714) 630-23nll 11. Waste Shipping Name and Description 12. Containers 13. 14. Total Unit No. TYPO Quantity WYVDI 0. TION HAZARDOUS WASTE, UQUID b. E N E R A c- T 0 R Aild:tional Dascriplions for Materials Listed Above E. Handling Codes lor Wastes Listed Above ) WASTr WATER # MIS - 00556 P. 0. X10709 15. Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information 24 HOUR EMERGENCY PRONE ff (626) 961-9320 ,j(jB Sjr WFAR APPROPRIATE PR(,)T9CT[VE FQIITPKFNT rx GOGGLFS 16. GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION: I certify the materials described above an this manifest are not subje�t to fBdaral reqiiletiang-ftir-�porjlng pfooer disposal of Hazardous Wasia. Printect(Typad Name Signature Monlh Day Year Z-7 r) 105-1) - 76 T R 17. Transporter i Acknowledgement of Rocel pt of MaterialS A IN PrInts I ed Name r-.7� ,N - <,- Siggatuke Month Day Yea r S P U IQ - � V 2 V2 0 2 Acknowledgement of Roceipt of Materials R T Printed/Typed Name Signature Month Day Ysar E R 19 Discrepancy Indication Space F A C 0. Facility Owner orOperalor: Ce rtilicatlon of receipt or we Ste materials covered by this manilest except as noted In I [am 19. Pni-ilacIfTyped Name Signature Mo nth Day Year GENERATOR'S COPY NON -HAZARDOUS 1. Generator's US EPA ID No. Manifest D ument No. 2. Page 1 of WASTE MANIFEST . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 470- 2 orator's NaMe and MailingAddress CETY OF HUWrT?1GT N 13ZACH 19nGl HITNTINGTO-N STREET HUNTINGTON BEACR, CA 926,40 4- Generator's Phone ( 714 ) 5.315-5-5427 5. Transporter 1 Company Noma 8. US EPA I D Number A. Transporter's Pnone MTED PUMPING SKRVTC�--, INC. I C -A .1) .0 - 7.2. 9. 5. 3. 7. 7. 1 (62 6) 9 (,1-- 9 3 2 Fj 7. Transporter 2 Company Name 6. US EPA I D Number . . . . . . . . . . . B. Transporter's Phone i 9. Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10. US EPA ID Number C. Facility's Phone PHILADELPFITA REr"ir-LUNG 141NE, 1-2000 PILL JADELP11TA TIREET 14rRA LWA, CA 9175-2 ()85-8343 11 - Waste Shipping Name and Description 12. Containers 13. 14. Total Unit No. Type Quantity WVV.l a. NON 11AZARDMIS WASTE SOLID S 0 1 C M (3 b. E N E R A c T 0 F3 Addillonal Descriptions for Materials Listed Above E. Handling Codes for Wastes Listed Above CONTAMENA'11D SOIL P. 0 .# W1071.0 15. Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information 211 HOUR EKERGENCY PRONE # (620) 961-9321� JOB ME: WEAR APPROYRTATE PR0TFCT.1v_F; cQmpwir & GOGGLES. I _71 k - -) 16- GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION: I certify the malarialti, de3crilaed above on this manilosl ato nol,qvhjocl to federal rdg fion&�r reporting proper disposal of Hazardous Waste. Pfintedfryped Nqma C-Als C Signature Manih Day Year 5�-)tuon --7k� 10-511 T R 17. Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Recillpt of Materials A N �P/nndffypad Narne tura Monih Day Year S H P 0 18. Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of Materials R T Panted/Typed Name Signature Monih Day Year E 19- Discrepancy Indication Space IF A C I 20. Facility Owner or Operator. Curtilication of receipt or waste materials covered by this manilesl except as noted in Iteni 1`9. PdnlBdfryp&d Name Signalufo MDn1h Day Year GENERATOR'S COPY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CALIFORNIA 92648 CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK LETTER OF TRA-NSNfITTAL OF ITENI APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOP.NI[ENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: May 11, 2001 TO: Komex H20 Science, Inc. Name 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 City, State, Zip ATTENTION: DEPARTNTIENT: REGARDING: Amendment No. 3 — Prof. Serv. Contract See Attached Action Agenda Item E�-17 Date of Approval 5-7-01 Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item. Remarks: egwz� aoe�;�- Connie Broc",ay City Clerk Attachments: Action Agenda Page x Agreement x RCA CC: R. Beardsley DPW Name Department K. Dills DPW —Water Narne Department Narne Name C. Mendoza Depanment Department X Risk Management Dept. X RCA X RCA RCA RCA X Bonds Deed X Agreement X Agrccmcal Agr"MC131 Agreement Insurance x Other X Insurance Other X Insurance Other Insurance Other Insurance Other X Insurance I (Telephone: 714-536-5227) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: May 7, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 01-54 Council/Agency Meeting Held: os- al - 0) Deferred/Continued to: XAgroved ZI Conditionally Approved L3 Denied All Q; —'5T- diWaetFgignature Council Meeting Date: May 7, 2001 Department ID Number: PW 01-54 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION 4 00 SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL -0 rnczmr7:� SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR p2g., PREPAREDBY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORR- SUBJECT: APPROVE THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH KOMEX H20 SCIENCE FOR STUDIES RELATED TO URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Aftachment(s Statement of Issue: A third amendment to an agreement with Komex H20 Science is requested for urban runoff/coastal remediation studies. Funding Source: Funds in the amount of $197,974 are budgeted in the General Fund, Urban Runoff Program, account number 10086001.69365. Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Contact Between the City of Huntington Beach and Komex H20 Science Inc. for Ground Water Investigation in the Vicinity of Downtown Huntington Beach. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the amendment and instruct staff on how to proceed. Analysis: On January 3, 2000, August 21, 2000, and December 18, 2000 the City Council approved a contract, first amendment and second amendment respectively, to Komex H20 Science (Komex) for studies relating to urban runoff/coastal remediation. Specifically, the second amendment was in response to Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 00-86 issued to the City by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). The purpose was to determine if groundwater quality in the downtown and "old town" areas has been impacted by releases of untreated wastewater from cracked or broken sanitary sewer lines. Under this amendment, monitoring wells were drilled and installed. 01-054 May 7 Dills (3rd amendment to Komex) -2. 4130101 148 PM I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 7, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 01-54 After review of Komex' workplan, SARWQCB has requested an expanded scope of work, including installation of additional monitoring wells and analysis thereof. A third amendment is proposed at this time to provide further consulting services for the groundwater investigation in the vicinity of downtown Huntington Beach and for services provided over and above the original contract. The additional cost of the expanded scope of work is $102,540. Komex has submitted a request to the City for additional funds in the amount of $118,807 to cover actual costs for items performed over and above the original scope of work for Phase I and 11 studies (Attachment 2). Due to the urgency of the work, staff requested that Komex wait until the project was complete to submit for cost overruns rather than approve individual change orders. Staff has reviewed Komex' request and is recommending an additional total payment of $95,434 for Phase I and 11 studies as presented below. Komex Original Request Staff Recommendation Phase 1: Task 5 — hydraulic characterization $3,656 $2,500 Tasks 8, 9 & 10 — salt water intrusion, sewage plume mapping, buried utility and underground pipe identification $5,935 $5,000 Task 12 — meetings and miscellaneous items $9,891 $9,891 Subtotal $19,482 $17,391 Phase ll: Task 1 —work plan $1,043 $1,043 Task 2 — pre -field and permitting $15,282 $6,000 Task 3.2 — push probes $13,000 $5,000 Task 3.3 — groundwater sampling at probes $16,000 $12,000 Task 4 — monitoring and sampling at existing wells $4,000 $4,000 Task 7 — interim/final report $47,000 $47,000 Task 8 — meetings and miscellaneous items $18,000 $18,000 less unspent funds from other tasks ($15,00g) ($15,000) Subtotal $99,325 $78,043 Total $118,807 $96,434 011 -054 May 7 Dills (3rd amendment to Komex) -3- 4/30101 3:53 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 7,2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PWOI-54 The total amount of the third amendment to the contract is $197,974 ($95,434 for work completed for Phase I and 11 studies and $102,540 for additional downtown area groundwater monitoring as requested by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). A summary of the total Komex contract work is presented below, including the funding split with the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The reimbursement from OCSD has been approved by their Board and is pending a joint funding agreement that is currently being developed. Phase I Phase I additional work Phase 11 Phase 11 additional work Downtown Study Downtown Study expanded scope Total Environmental Status: Attachment(s): Huntinaton Beach OCSD Total $105,000 $45,000 $150,000 $17,391 $17,391 $243,880 $120,120 $364,000 $78,043 $78,043 $89,810 $89,810 $102,540 $102,540 Not applicable. RCA Author: Ken Dills:Jm, ext. 5055 $636,664 $165,120 $801,784 01 -054 May 7 Dills (3rd amendment to Komex) -4- 4130101 3:53 PM A�TTAC.H.M.E�NT'.#'l AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND KOMEX H20 SCIENCE INC. FOR GROUND WATER INVESTIGATION IN THE VICINITY OF DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment to Original Agreement") is made and entered into this 7th day of May � 2001, by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and KOMEX H20 SCIENCE INC., a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2000, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that certain written agreement entitled "Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Komex H20 Science Inc. for Geologic, Hydrogeologic and Geophysical Consulting Semices" (the "Original Agreement"), pursuant to which CONSULTANT was to perform certain "Phase I" geologic, hydrogeologic and geophysical consulting services in support of CITY's Urban Run-Off/Coastal Remediation Action Plan; CONSULTANT has completed the Phase I study and other tasks and has been paid for its work; On March 15, 2001, CONSULTANT submitted to CITY a Budget Status Update for groundwater investigation in the vicinity of downtown Huntington Beach; and CITY and CONSULTANT now wish to amend certain sections of the Original Agreement to incorporate CONSULTANT's March 15, 2001 budget update and to authorize additional related work. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: SECTION 1. The first paragraph of Paragraph I "WORK STATEMENT" of the Original Agreement shall read as follows: 200 lfagrec. Knmex3!4.;'20�0 I CONSULTANT shall provide all services as set forth in the documents attached hereto as exhibit A, which includes but is not limited to that certain document, dated March 15, 2001, and entitled "Budget Status Update Groundwater Investigation in the Vicinity of Downtown Huntington Beach, California;" (the "PROJECT"). Exhibit A is hereby incorporated by reference into this Amendment to Original Agreement. SECTION 2. Paragraph 4 "COMPENSATION" of the Original Agreement shall read as follows: In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed One Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand, Nine hundred Seventy Four Dollars (S 197,974) as previously authorized by City Council. SECTION 3. Paragraph 3 "TIME OF PERFORMANCE" of the Original Agreement shall read as follows: Time is of the essence of this Agreement. The services of CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this Agreement and all tasks specified in Section I shall be completed no later than ninety (90) days from the date of this Agreement. These times may be extended with the written pen-nission of CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Section I are generally to be shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. REAFFIRMATION Except as specifically modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 2 200 1 lagree.,Kornex3/4/20101 TIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to Original Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officers as of the day, month and year first above written. KOMEX H20 SCIENCE, ENC., a California corporation By: '4AnAny Brown, President — ND Vili I A A B y: _'21fm4. 4LV V V I ;kndr'ew GrayjSecretary REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Rdministrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California Mli(yor ATTEST: re V� ot 0 r6 " I P - City Clerk OT-D-0 / APPROVED AS TO FORM: V1,4 'City Attorney 01 D APPROVED: < 200 liagree.. KonieO �4!20:'O 1 EXHIBIT A 441211k I RZ4 71, KK0MA4EX - H20 SCIENCE - INC ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES 15 March 2001 City of Huntington Beach Water Operations Building 19001 Huntington Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 A tt i r � _-V4r. Dennis MacLain — Interim �'Vlater Operations Director R E C E I V E D DEPT OF Pl:�':`VJORKS I � -, �_. - MAR 19 2001 P�)' D'PVi6i0N HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Re: Budget Status Update For Groundwater Investigation In The Vicinity Of Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Dennis: As rioted in recent correspondence from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), several additional requirements have been imposed upon the City of Huntington Beach with regards to the groundwater investigation in the vicinity of downtown Huntington Beach. Some of these have included the following: 0 Eight groundwater monitoring wells were initially proposed for installation as part of the original investigation. The RWQCB has ordered that two additional wells be added to that pro -ram. One 0 additional well will be installed near the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. 'The tenth well will not be installed, but the existing 11-inch (28 centimeter) diameter well at the Atlanta storm water pump station wilt be sampled as part of this investigation; The groundwater monitoring program initially consisted of one sampling event. The RWQCB has ordered that the program be expanded to include five groundwater sampling events at one week intervals; 'The RWQCB has asked that the list of analytes be expanded to include nia le -specific bacteriophage to 1 0 be used in conjunction with the fecal coliform, and enterococci bacterial indicators. As a result of these changes to the investigation program, the analytical costs (for laboratory analyses) have more than quintupled due to the increase in sampling events and the additional analytes. The associated labor costs to collect those samples have increased correspondingly. Additionally, groundwater monitoring well installation labor and equipment costs (as a result of the need for the ninth well) have increased. And finally, the costs to interpret and report the additional data for the expanded program have increased. As such, the budget that was initially approved by Huntington Beach City Council is clearly inadequate. The following table summarizes the budget items by task for the expanded program required to satisfy the RWQCB. Revised Budget For Downtown Groundwater Investigation Task 1 Prepare Work Plan $4,150 Task 2 Nlodif-,, Existing HASP, SAAP And QAAP $2,300 Task 3 Obtain Permits $1,750 Task 4 Mobilize For Field Program - Drilling And Installation S3,550 Task 5 Field Program - Drilling, Installation And Development S53,350 Task 6 Mobilize For Field Program - Water Levels And Sampling 55,400 Task 7 Field Program - Water Levels And Sampling $76,300 Task 8 Data Interpretation And Compilation S8,000 Task 9 Reporting - Draft And Final $19,400 Task 10 Project Management $8,130 Task 11 Public Information Brochures And Television Interview $10,000 TOTAL $192,350 This is significantly more than the $90,000 approved by the Huntington Beach City Council for the investigation that was proposed by us on September 22, 2000. We would ask that you please get this revised budget amount on the City Council agenda as soon as you can so that the expanded scope budget can be approved. U DM MarC, 15. 2001 Bidgw.doc KOMEX USA CANADA UKANDVV0RLDvVDF It As discussed recently, this budget amount is related only to the groundwater investigation in downtown Huntington Beach and is separate from the additional budget request related to the Phase I and 11 Investigations as part of the Urban Runoff I Coastal Remediation Action Plan project. If you require additional detail on the budget amounts noted above, or if you have any comments or questions, please contact this office at (714) 379-1157. Respectfully, KOMEX 1�'"'v" /Anthonv Brown I President Wade Major Project Manager L: :)M Ma,ui 15. 2001 Bidge-.--Oc KOMEX USA CANADA WAND-AORLDOADE 'APR-24-22el 12:30 P.01/03 A 126w, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE MAR 9 01 PRODUCER TKIS CERTIFICATE 13 ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND JGF/0"EY & LARSON INS. SERVICES/SWANK INS. SERVICES ICONFERS NO AIGMTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE 26 .,%MICIiELSON DR., SUITE 120 DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFOADED BY THE 10�--NE CA 926612 POLICIES BELOW. Ptf�IYE: 949-8624900 - FAX: W-261-0-535 Agen�y Uo#' 0662658 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE 14SuF(ED iCO.MPANYA: GREENWICHINSCO KOMEX H20 SCIENCE, INC. :.COMpANy& AMERICAN MOTORIST INS CO 5S00 BOLSA AVE. STE, 105 cm COMPAINYC: HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 v M I COMPANY 0- �COMPANYE: F 7,.'319 TO CCATIFY THAT T,1E POLICIC3 OF INSURANCE LJSTCD BELOW HAVE SITEN ISSUED TO T?4E INSURED NAMED ABOV6 XOA THE PWCY PEAIOD "VO)CATED. NOTWITHSTANDIING ANY Az!QUIRVJeNT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY OONTAACT OR OTMER OCCUMErIT wrTm RESPECT TO WrjjCrI TmLS CERTIFICATE MAY RZ ISSUED 0.9 MAY PERTAIN. YHE INSURANCE AFFOADED 8v THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HC:AE[N IS SUGUECT TO ALLTIiE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS Ov SUCH POUCtES. LIMIT$ SkOM MAY HAVE BEEN REDuCED BY PAID CLAIMS. rfP6E 0 rFFE=1Vf POLICY FXPIRAVIC* r NSLIFIANCE POLICY NUMB n&TE .�nbhffl TR. - --- �g I UFAITS L EFO.L LLMMI.rry GEC000149.q-01 MAR 10 01 mAR 1 a o2 EACH 00CLOMENCE 2,000,000 X.LC��MMEFIOA� GENERA:- L,ABIUIV FIRE DAMAGE (Any One Fire) S 50,000 I— CLAIMS MADE OCCUR "E", - - , I r S EXP (Any Oro Por-aft) 1 10000 A PERSONAL A ADY INJURY is 1,000,ow GgNERALAWDECATE S GfiN-L AGQ.REGAE Li LAIT APPLLE!� PEMj j PPODuvs-compicip AAG. S 1,000,000 POLICY F1 -7 LD . �AU . TOMOBILE LABILITY AEC000145"l MAR Ill Ol MAR 1 12 OOMBINIED SINIGLE UMIT 1,000,000 X ANY AUTO ji (EA amiSdani) ALL OWNED AU-Oq BODILY I.-.UUFIY iper palan) SCHEDULED AUTOS A AL KREDAUTOS � 0OD!j-Y I�LUIPY --XX' N014-OWNEO AUTOS I (par a=;dqm) PROPERTY OAAAAZ39 GARAGE UAPAUTY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT 13 ANY AUTO ':.k LL T T OF OTh!Fj THAN EA AC-- S TY A TORNEY iAUTO ONLY: AW S LIAEMLITY Dy: EACri OCCUARRNCE 5 OCCUR C6XMS MADE City Attor6aY L: �FIVCJ;i�C 7 DEDUCTIBLE !s RFrEN'ION $ WORKERS COmPeNSATION AND 7CW305118903 S EP 1 DO SEP 1 01 EMPLOY EAS' U&BJUTY E.1_ EACH ACCIDENT I 1,000.0no FE.L. WSEAS&EASLIPLOYEIE S 1,000,0130 E,L DISFASE-FIOLICY LIMIT is 1.000,000 OTHER: PROFESSIONAL p1dodal(51-01 MAR 10 01 MAR 10 02 IPER CLAIM: 3100000 A LIABtAUTY/ AGGREGATE: S1000000 CONTRACTORS POLLUTION LIABILITY DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIO.'4SiLOCA-lOk4S/VEHICLES/SFECIAL ITEMS ALL OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED GENERAL LIABILITY ONLY: ADDtrIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT ATTACHED- GC 20 10 03 97 ULM tIVIUATE HOLLILK I AUU511UNPA, 1NU4JKLJ; INSUKrN L&TTLH; NUELLATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SHOh= ANY OP THE AaOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCALLED BEFORETWE -LAXON DATE TWEREOF THE ISSMNG COMPANX WILI. MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN 2000 MAIN STREET EI(PLr HUNTINGTONaEACH CA 9260 NOTICE TO THE CEATirrC�� HOLDER FAAM�O TO -THE LEFT. ATN KEN DILLS AUTHON REPRESIENTATIVE Aftantlan: ACORD 25-S (7/97) Conificate # .5587 APR-24-2001 12:39 P.01 PPR-24-2001 12:31 P. 02/03 POLICY NUMBER: GECO001499-01 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COMPANY: GREENWICH INS CO CG 20 10 03 97 THIS ENDORSEMEMT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULY. ADDITIONAL INSUREO — OWNERS, LESSEES OR COMTRACTORS — SCHEDULED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION This Endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization — 03-10-01 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH It's Officers, Agents & Employees I (If not entry appears above, information required to cor�plete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) Who I An Insured (Section 11) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability -arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that insured. CG 20 10 03 97 Page I Of 1 Copyright- Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1996 APR-24-2001 12:301 ge% P-02 .,APR-24-2001, 12:31 P. 03/23 Z cit� IMPORTANT IT \k ON If the cerlificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such enclorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subjed to the terms and conclitions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on th's certificate does not confer righis to the certificate holder in lieu of su& ondorsement(s). DISCLAIMER The Cortificate, of Insurance an the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s). authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmativefy o, negative�y amend, extend or after the coverage afforded by tie policies thereon. 0 ACORD 2-5-S (7t97) APIR-24-2001 -12:39 Ceff-cate #*6570 TOTAL P.03 99% P.Z3 .ATTACHMENT #2. 5.-Er.'21 1: 36Fr-' KONEx H20 NO.383 F.2/7 r ME)( xm EN viR oNmEN r A NO W4 TER R ESOUR CLES October 11, 2000 105-OOIA Mr. Dennis Macl-ain Interim Water Operations Director City of Huntington $each Water Operations Building 19001 Huntington Street KOHLX-rizO SCIMU-MC =0 Bom Avenus, SWe 205 KmPngw Rewh, CA 92649, U-SA Tel.: (714) 37S-1257 Fax.: (714) 379-1160 Frnfll: irfno�=Dgell& KWR)L Can Web SIM: WWW.kW.".WM RE: Status of Urban Runoff / Coastal Rer�edlatlon Action Plan Project Budget Dear Dennis - Over the past three months we have indicated to; you on severa� occasions that we are over -budget on t�e work that we have Implemented as part 01 the Urban Runoff / Coastal Remediation Ac�ton Nan project. At our luncheon meeting on Wednesdal, August 16, 2000, we also informed Bob Beardsley of these add!tlonal costs. As we have disci4ssed while working on the project, Komex has provided consulting services for items beyond the bi.idgeted scope of our (nvesvqation. In addition to those services, several items within the budgeted sco e reqqlred a significanCy greater level of effort to complete due to regulatory requirements and co dltlons encountered in the field, Details on specific budget overruns are summarized below, Rather han submit multiple change orders for smaller dollar ariounts over a three-month period, you as�ed hat we wait L:ntil the Project is comp"ete, and then submit one change order for the entire amoLint. Now that the project is complete, we have cak �120,000, or approximately 23% of the oI1gIr Justification for the cost ov6rruns below. IdE amount. However, we understand that any cl when they are justifiable. In addition, KomeX Beach and we do value the excellent, and hap, developed with City staff. Therefbre, we are I over -budget amount; that, is, bill the additional total cost overrun to approximately $100,000. ited that the over -budget amount 'is approximately budget of. $51,1,000, We �ave provided detailed V, we wowid flike to �e reimbursed for the en"Ire t does not like to pay for over -budget costs, even performing other work for the City of Huntington 1!,y long-term, working relationship that Komex has pared to waive oQr Dotential profit Included In the )rk at cost less a 20% reducton, This reduces the E:M0-109\105001\Ward'%LT DM ha B4dpt5td�1UJ.dQC I I 0 KOKO( LfS:q. CANAiX WAND WROKOf F ?14 37? 11SO r-IAP. S. 222-JI 1-: ___-5PN k01"_7X H20 Sr-'-ENCE N0.383 P.3/7 JI- MAP-05-200! PHASE T HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION TASKS Expenditures for this project phase are $19,7. 2 over the $150,000 buclget. These expenditures were a resu It of ,he following; Task 5 - Hydraulic Chararterization A total of $26,000 was budgeted for Task S. xpenclitures for Task 5 were approximately $29,656. The overrun of approx"im4tely 12AS6 was a res of the following additional task Items: a Two meetings were held with Orange Count . Y Sanitation District (OCSD) staff and additional effort was expended to identiify ultahle locati ns wittin OCSD Plant No, 2 to conduct intrusive Inv6stigations (i.e. well, drilling). These eetings and'tie additional effort were the result of concerns regarding the location of buried 14kility lines at the site tiat could Dossibly conflict with the drilling program. 0 Obtaining encroachmeril, permits from thle:�tare or L:al!fcrn'ia to conduct intrusive investigatiors .I within I. -he park[.,)g lot of Huntington SWC'e Soach required efort beyond -the budgeted amount. Tasks 8, 9 and 10 - Salt Water IntrusI011 lid S4;wage Plume Mapping, Buried Utility and Leaking Underground Pipe Identificati A ',QtAl of $30,000 was budgeted for these tree tasks as part of the geophysical inveoga�ton program, Expenditures for Tasks 8, 9 and !10 were approx'rnately �35,935. The overrun of approximately $5,935 was a result of the followljng additional items: • Additional pre -field preparation for the geoP 'I hYsica! prograrn was needed to characterize the study 'i area prior to cornrnercing rield wor)c. 7 • Several additional short EM31 and EM61 liMes were run across the beach, perpendicular to the shoreline, to determine the optimal locatio I -for the planned two-mile (3.2 kilometer [krn1) long EM line r-inning parallel to the loepch, Thes, short, transverse EM lines were beyond the scope of the initial budget but were deerned necessa In order to determine the best location for the main EM line. • Based on the resqlts oF the transverse EM ne surve ys, an additional two-mile (3.2 �m) long EM line was added to the field program, Th�e two long 5M lines were ,un parallel to each other along the beach approximately 300 feqt (9�! meters [m]) apart. The a0ditional long EM line was necessary to provide a more complete und�rstalnding of subsurface geophysical conditions in the beach area, I Task 12 - Mpetings and Miscellaneous Ite A total of ;8,000 was budgeted for this task. nd!Wres fol, Tas� 12 were approximately ;17,891. The overrun of approximately $9,891 was a resTit:F the following aidditIonal task [Lcms,, OM MB PAW Sta-VAOC 411 2 J110MEX uA rAN.4a4, uoemo WADW6 F Fl. e3 NAP. 5. _221--11 I -' 37PI'l K"D.'-EX H20 SCIErICE N0.383 P.4/7 • Lengthy progress meetings with t�e st4ff fr M the OCSD, City, Coqnty of Orange and State of California Deciartment of Parks and Recrea I tion (State Parks), This included significant pre - meeting preparatlor. • Preparadon and presentation to the Urban Runoff Peer Review Panel convened by the Natjoval Water Research Institute (NWRI). Attendance at City Courcil meetings. j: Preparation of a deta?led PowerPoint slide presentation of Phase I results and a br[eF!ng to the City, County ard.00SD, PHASE 11A HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATZON TASKS Expenditures for this projeci­ pf�ase are approxi ately $99,000 over the $364,000 bL.,dget for the 'Phase Ila Hydrogeologic Assessment. The pendItures detailed below total over $114,000; however, approximately $15,000 remains In the budget for sorne tasks that have been completed. The expenditures were a result of the following: Task I - Work Plan A total of $9,000 was budgeted for Task 1. Expenditures for Task 1 were $10,DJ3, The overrun of $1,043 resu!ted from additional effort revising th� work plan to accommodate comments provided by the OCSD. Task 2 - Pre -Field and Permitting A total of $12,SOO was budgeted for Task 2. ll! $15,282 was a result of the following additional Locating underground utilities prior to comrr more effort than was foreseen when the bud the large amount of subsurface infrastructi Identified and marked. Locating underground utilities along Huntingi a level of effort not foreseen when the Phase As with the previous Phase I investiligaition, Californizi to conduct intrusive Investigations and beyond the budget allocated for this task In addition, significant effort was also requirc condt4ct intrusive investigations In the flood a ditures for Task 2 were $27,782. The overrun of items: mding Intrusive Investigations required sIgnificantly let was developed. This was primarily attributed to re present at OCSD Plant No. 2 that had to be State Reach and Huntington City Bagch required bwdget was developed. Vning encroachment permits from the State of iln Huntington Stzite Beach required effort above to obtain approval and access from the Coun:y to trol (ight-of-way. D4 HB Udger gtatus.aac '1 3 _41D KOMEX US4, CA N4 D4, UY A AID WORL 0 k*TD LF F MP.R-05-2001 13:34 ?14 3?9 1160 9?% P. M4 r_1P3. S. 212al '_ - 3 7 F .'"i KONEX H20 SCIENCE �-10. 393 Task 3.2 - Geophysics Program., Push A totail oF $25,000 was buOgeted For Task 12. E the data analysis and interpretation !included in Report, and additional field work was also billed Work, 7nerefore, the true expenditure for I approximately $13,000 was a result of the follpyv !ndltures For Task 3.2 were $23,092.36. However, geophysical prograrn was lailled to Task 7: Final an undesignated Task 9, Additional OuP.-of-Scclzie task was closer to $38,000. The overrun of addftlonzl task iterns: • Kornex. Mff were reqwired to hand -auger alil, push probe locations to a depth of five feet (1,5 rn) pr�ar to utillfzing the push probe rfg. This w4s necessary to ensure that s.�ajjow UtIt"Ves were not present at the desired push probe location" This additional level of effort was rct anticinated I when the budget for the Phase ITa program was developed. I • Additional time for the push probe contrador �Vironex) to complete the field program was reqt4ired. Prog.ress at various locations �as slower than anticipated wher, the �udget was developed, I - Task 3.3 - GeophVsics Program, Groundw4e'r Sampling at Probes A total of P9,00 was budgeted fo"Task 33, 9xpepd,;tqres for Task 3.3 were $37,296,6A. However, as with Task 3.2, the data analysis and interprelaition included in the geophysical program was billed to Task 7,. Final Report, and additional field work was also billed to an unoesignated Task 9., Additional Out -of -Scope Work. Therefore, t.je &up expenditure for this task was closer to $55,000, The overrun of approximately $16,000 was a respll, of the following additional task items- 11 • AddItioral time was required for Karnex cornPlete the field program. Progress com; Slower thar, fore5eer� when the budget was • Acleitfonaf charges from the analytical labor and scope of analyses were underestimate were slightly higher than those obtained fri develop the budget), Other members of thi Sierr4, and for the sake of uniformity of anal staff and t.�e push probe contractor (VIronex) to gting groundwater sampling at various locations was leveloped. itory (Slerm Analytfcal) were Incurred as the number in the budget. In addition, Sierra's analytical costs rn Truesdail' LaOratorles (whose costs were used to -multi-conswltant team decided to send all samp�es to (sis, Kamex did the same. Task 4 - Grouridwater Monitoring and Samoling at Existing Wells A total of ;38,000 was budgeted for Task 4. �xpenditures for Task 4 were $36,009.30, However, additional field work was also billed to Task 9:", Additional Otit-of-scope Work. Therefore, the true expenditure for this task was closer to $42,0001 The overrwn of approximate!y $4,000 resulted from additional field work to collect groundwater levels and samples at multiple locations. it was hoped that all water leve!s and samples could be coll+ed during one contAnuous period. However, due to access limitations, this tas'k had to be bra in down Into three pe6ods, resulting in additional mobil'-Zation Urre and rmid tIme. �AM-109\1050CI\Word\LT OP. No Budget SMa.doc G; KO,4fEX Ld�, MACK VirAtWO "ADMACE F F�R'R-215-200i 13:34 ?14 3?9 97% P. 3.5 KOMEX H20 SCIENCE Task 7 - InteriM / Final Report A total of $32,000 was budgeted far TaW,7. Expenditures fw, Task 7 to date are $121,417. However, the&e costs include approximately-414,000 for data analysis and interpretation for the 1, geophysical program (see above), In addition , Komex internally dec!ded to spend additional time at our cost (approximately $20,000) ,,o provide a more detailed, comprehens'Ye report than was env],sloned when the bwdget was developed. 1, Therefore, the true exper.cill.-ures to date cn this task are closer to $87,000. In addidon, approximaltely �18,000 was billed for data analysis 110 Task 7 that should have been billed to the respectlye fiield� task (notably sediment sampling). It is estimated that an additional $10,000 will be required In 0 ober to complete the final report. The overrun of approximately $47,000 resulted from the folloting additional task items: ;oF The arnourt of data generated @& part the Phase Ila investigation was gr6ater than that envisioned when the budget was ' prepAre Kornex colleaed 111 groundwater samp'es, 2130- soil alnd sedlMent sarniates, 23 surf�ce watqr samples, 1-3 vegetatlan sampIC5, 11-17 grou!-jdwater levels, and Qpprc)ximale!y 73 mlles (12-,4!.km) of ceo.physlcal data. T�e call.adicin, cuality control /qualltY assqrance checks, tabulation, surn'matlon, depiction and descriPtIor. of this data required I a significant amoqnt of effort, With so (nuch data, the analysis and interpretation of the datg required more time than was foreseen wh r. the budget was prepareO. The level of effort required to produce �'Ie draft report, palrticularly the 88 color figures, was significantly greater than an�ci ' pated when the Phase Ila budget was developed, When results from the fleld prograrn were �elng corr piled and analyzed, it became clear �hat In order to present the findings in a manner thbt was complete, accuralte, scient-fically valid and understandable, the body of the text and ,he accompanying explanatory figures would be more signilcant than those PrevloL4sly envIsIone d. We wderstclod that several copies of the draft report wowid be required. However, fifteen copies 'ners (URS Greiner, were eventually provided to the C4, 0 D, County, and other research iart Moffatt and Nichol Engineers, and Univer N. of California at Irvine rucq), Each of these copies contained 88 color figures that hqd to b� reproduced by an outside vendor. Each report costs 0 0 approximately $500 to photocopy, collate assernble, bind and mall; that is, approximately $7,500 In report producdon alone, A su�stantial amount of time was reqwire'd to address comments provided by UCI and OCSD on the draft report, These comments were Inot directed to the substance of the repo-t - the data, analysis, and i riterpretation; but rather, tl�,e format and presentation. In par�cular, 0050 needed clarification or quallflers for some sectl6ns of the report, and wanted the report to be wea focused rather than technique focuse . I I addition, they wanted a section adcle� that dealt, il a narrative way, with each area oil conc ri and Its potential contribution to IndIcator bacteria concentration$ 'in near shore ocean wat s; that Is, P why or why not summary explaining the potential QontribqVon, or lack therefore, fTr e 4ch jarea of concern. Once all OCSD and UCI comments had . een addressed, preparaflon of the final re.port took a sLibstantfai amount of time. E.).'CQ-tQ9\1Q5001\Wor6\LT 0M. i�,B 0-aiign SrAi:us.doc — 51 5 KOMEX C4NALK brAM vWRIDIV70f 13:34 'P'-4 379 116SO 9?% P. 06 I - =—I, rlft, ML_ir1,'_r_ I 1�d . JC :' r- . ! . , New copies of tl�e final report w3ll be reqi4irecl (r the par*les ment`crea above. In addition, it 's estimated that an extra ter copies of the re ' p t will be needed for e'ected offlcia,s, the NWRI Urbpn Runoff Peer Review Panel, and the gen ' al public. Thus, reproduction OF the final report Is eXpected to cost approximately $1Z,500. Task 8 — Meetings and Miscellaneous Iterns A total of �118,500 was budgeted for Tas� 8. Expf nditiures rcir Task 8 to date are $26,624.68. It is e0mated that an additional $10,000 wilf Itie requ red in October to complete all work for this task. The overrun of approxirnate!y $18,OCO reswlted fro the fo'lowing additional task Items: '-anSthy progress meetings (including sign"Ifii ant pre -meeting preparation) with City, County, QCSD and State Parks staff. Preparation and presentaition to the second NWRI Urban Runoff Peer Review Panel In June 2000. An upcomirg presentation to the third NWRI LJOrban Rwnoff Pee, Review Panel in Oc-nber 2000. 4 Preparaticin of a Summary Report that synthe�izes the data from the Komex study in conjunction with tl�e URS Greiner, Moffatt & Nichol EngIrreers, and University of Southern Ca.11fornia (USC) studies. Preparaticr, of this summary re.port '�Ivas not lnclude�. in the original sco.pe of wnrx flor the Phase Ila investigation. CONCLUSIONS • Kornex has provided consulting services !or itrzms neyor.d. the budgeted scope of our Phase I and Ila Invesitgations. • We have expended adoltional effort ro co�p,lete tasks due to regulatory requirements and condi�ions encountered ii the field. • The level of effort required 116-o compile and an4lyze the results from the field program and prepa�e the draft report in a manner that was complete, acci4rate, scientffKally valid and understandabia I was substandallty greater than anflc)pated wher the Phase Ila budget was deve)aPed. • Additional expenditures will occur during the orith of October as the draft report is finalized, the summary report of al! consultants work;s pre7; I ared, and the results a�e presented to the City, t�e County of Crance, the OCSD and the NWRr Ur r n Runoff Peer Review Panel. We hope that this let�.er has provided suffIcient detail as to why we 'nave exceeded the budgets of the Phase I and Phase :Ia Investigations. Should �ou have any questions or cornMents, or require acIdItforial deta if, p(ease contact the undersigned il: (714) 379-1157. Sincerely, KO Anthony Brown Brandol, Eisen President Groundwater Engineer DtA. �-!h StorL;L40C NAAR-05-2001 -13:34 714 3"r9 11GO 97% a KOMFXIC USA rX#4DA, UKAIVP WORLDW06 P. 07 Re: RLS #2001-0225 Komex H20 Science — work perforined over and above original scope of Phase I and 11 Phase I • Two additional meetings with OCSD and additional work to identify suitable locations within OCSD Plant for monitoring wells • Obtained encroachment permits from the State • Additional Electromagnetic lines added to the surface geophysics program • Additional Progress meetings • Presentation to National Water Research Institute (N-WRI) • Presentation of Phase I results to the City, County and OCSD Phase II • Additional utility location investigations • Obtained additional encroachment permits and approval to conduct investigations in the flood control right-of-way • Hand augering around shallow utilities • Additional time at several push probe locations • Additional laboratory charges • Additional samples and sample analysis • Response to comments on first draft made by UCI and OCWD • Additional level of detail and additional copies of final report • Additional progress meetings • Second and third presentation to NWRI • Preparation of summary report with other consultants Re: RLS 14-2001-0207 Komex H20 Science — work performed over and above downtown sewer study (2 d amendment to contract) Additional work as ordered by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: o Two additional monitoring wells o Four additional sampling events o Expanded list of analytes Komex Extra Work Request Nts Komex Phase All Extras 032601 requested recommended Phase I Task 5 $ 3,656.00 2500 Tasks 8,9 & 10 $ 5,935.00 5000 Task 12 $ 9,891.00 $ 9,891.00 sub -total S 19,482.00 $ 17,391.00 Phase IIA Task 1 $ 1,043.00 $ 1,043.00 Task 2 $ 15,282.00 $ 6,000.00 Task 3.2 $ 13,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Task 3.3 S 16,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Task 4 S 4,000.00 S 4,000.00 Task 7 $ 47,000.00 S 47,000.00 Task 8 $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 less unspent fujids $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 sub -total S 99,325.00 S 78,043.00 Total $ 118,807.00 $ 95,434.00 Nts Komex Phase Mi Extras 032601.xis RPR-20-2001 16:09 WATER OPERATIONS ±04ft KKOMEX 172N APR 20 R 4- 12 ENVIRONMEN'rAND WATER RESOU'RGESRECIE IV ED CiTy ATTORNEY HUFVTINGTO�4 SE�.C[j MA LIM 12 January 2001 City Of Huntington Brach Water Operatiems Build;mg 19001 Huntington Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 rat ::S'" ( KOMEX HaO SCISNCR - AC 5500 130ted Averias, Sake JaS muntinsqW Beach, CA 92049, U.S.A. Tel (714) 379-1157 FOX: t714) 37S- I 160 eMaij,)MIb &lam nQ6106.knTy4K-caM wao Site: wwwAc.rnax.carn dith; My. Dnmij; MagLpill —1mieriM WgLer QMadM Dirrehor Re: Budget for Preparation Of Materials For TV Pro&= Utl)an Runoff / Coastal Raynediation Adion Plart Gyoundwater Investigation In The Virinity Of Dc1W-ntDWM HUZI tinglOn Beaeb Dear Dennis: Mr. Richard Tlarrwd of the City of 1juntingron Ben oh has requested that I be part of a 30 minute televWan Frogram with the b4ayor of Huntington 3each sometime next week. M part of that program, Mr. Barnard hets requested that kornex prepare specific materials far presentati= during the tel evision program. T heze materials are to include a PowerPoint priesenta lion and rwo glossy handouts that stimmarize, (in laymzn's terms) the following. * Work Kornex hAs completed for the County of Orange, ffie OCSD and the City of Huntington Beach ralated to the Urban Runvff / Coastal Rernediati6n Attiorn Plan; and * Upcoming work for the City of Hunrington Beach in the downkown / old town areas related to assesGing; potenriAl impacts to groundwater resources caused by !ealcing sewers. As this meetins Car%d the preparation of the presentatiok, materials) are beyand the scope of the recently completed work 4rtd he upconling wailk, we reqUESt that a budget at approximately $10,000 be alblocated for the completion of this tAsk. 19: 1Z —il � ETZF1 i -�7 � 99% r-Q., 0 M 1) P. 0-1 RFR-20-2001 16:10 WRTER OPERPTIONS 7148471067 P.02/02 I if you have any questions or comments, or rNuire addi6anal information, please coniact Lhe undersigned at (714) 379-1157. Respectfully aubmdtted. KOMEX -5 Anth=y Brown Piesidextt . TOT:;'- P. 02 APR-20-20CI !6:14 714947267 99% P.@2 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: Authorize Execution of Third Amendment to Agreement with Komex H20 Science for Studies Related to Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May_7, 2001 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City A ttomey) Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by C�� Attomey) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable L Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEV D VE RETURNED FORWARDED Staff &�Q .Administrative . City Administrator (IrAial) .Assistant City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ffJ!WA/A#—JWWMerN FANIN M My CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK LETTER OF TRANSAlITTAL OF ITENI APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOP'.\IENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MITI TO: Komex H20 Science, Inc. Name 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 City, State, Zip ATTENTION: DEPARTNIENT: REGARDING: Amendment No. 2 Ground Water Investigation — Prof. Serv. Con -tract See Attached Action Agenda item E-10 Date of Approval 12-18-00 Enclosed For Your Records Is -An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item. Remarks: Connie Brockway City Clerk Attachments: Action Agenda Page X CC: R. Beardsley Name K. Dills Name Name Name C. Mendoza Agreement X Bonds RCA Deed DPW X X Department iC A Agreement DPW -Water X X Department RCA Agreement Department �CA Agreement RCA AgTeement Department X X X Risk Management Dept. Insurance X Other X Insurance Other X Irsurance Other Insijrance Other Insurance OT'-er X Insurance (Telephone. 714-536-6227) *ju@o)qsll� -tl — np� Council/Agency Meeting Held: 00 Deferred/Continued to: '�(Approved 'J Conditionally Approved 0 Denied Ewa, 1'-0 yCi y Clerk'—s Signature Council Meeting Date: DECIEf-TER 18, 2000 Department ID Number: PW 00-108 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR "-P WPIREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH KOMEX H20 SCIENCE FOR STUDIES RELATED TO URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) I I Statement of Issue: A second amendment to an agreement with Komex H20 Science is requested for urban runoff/coastal remediation studies. Funding Source: Funds in the amount of $89,810 are budgeted in the General Fund, Urban Runoff Program, account number 10086001.69365. Recommended Action: Motion to: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 2 to the professional services contract with Komex H20 Science for consulting services for Groundwater Investigation in the Vicinity of Downtown Huntington Beach. Alternative Action(s): Do not authorize execution of the amendment and instruct staff on how to proceed. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-108 Analysis: On January 3, 2000 and August 21, 2000, the City Council approved a contract and first amendment, respectively, to Komex H20 Science (Komex) for Phase I and Phase 11 studies relating to urban runoff/coastal remediation. A second amendment is proposed at this time to provide further consulting services for a groundwater investigation in the vicinity of downtown Huntington Beach. Specifically, the purpose of the proposed study is to determine if groundwater quality in the downtown and "old town" areas has been impacted by releases of untreated wastewater from cracked or broken sanitary sewer lines. The work will include drilling and installation of monitoring wells, sampling and analysis, data interpretation and compilation, and draft and final reports. In addition, revisions to the Health and Safety Plan, Sampling and Analysis Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan that were prepared for the Phase I and Phase 11 studies will be performed. The additional cost of the expanded scope of work is $89,810. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachment(s): RCA Author: 00-108 Nov 20 Dills.doc -2- 12107100 3,43 P M A A'':C TTI H-M..ENT.:#-l.. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH AND KOMEX H20 SCIENCE INC. FOR GROUND WATER INVESTIGATION IN THE VICINITY OF DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment to Original Agreement") is made and entered into this 18th day of December 32000, by and between the CITY OF HUNTfINGTON BEACH, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as -CITY," and KOMEX H2O SCIENCE INC., a California corporation, hereinaftef referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2000, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that certain written agreement entitled "Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Komex Fl,,O Science Inc. for Geologic, Hydrogeologic and Geophysical Consulting Senices" (the "Original Agreement"), pursuant to which CONSULTANT was to perforrn certain"Phase I" geologic, hydrogeologic and geophysical consulting services in support of CITY's Urban Run-OfPCoastal Remediation Action Plan; CONSULTANJ has completed the Phase I study and has been paid for its work: On October 9, 2000, CONSULTANT submitted to CITY a Work Plan proposal for groundwater investigation in the vicinity ofdowntown Huntington Beach, and CITY and CONSULTANT now wish to amend certain sections of the Original Agreement to incorporate CONSULTANT's October 9, 2000 proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: SECTIQN I - The first paragraph of Paragraph I "WORK STATEMENT" of the Original Agreement shall read as follows: CONSULTANT shall provide all services as set forth in that certain document, dated October 9, 2000, and entitled"'Work. Plan Groundwater Investigation in the Vicinity of Downtown Huntington Beach, California." a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference (the "PROJECT"), which document is incorporated by reference into this Amendment to Original Agreement. 2000agree/Komex/l 0:30iOO 2. SECTION 2. Paragraph 4 "COMPENSATION" of the Original Agreement shall read as follows: In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed Eighty Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred Ten Dollars (S89,8 10.00), unless a greater amount is authonized by City Council. If it appears that the cost of CONSULTANT's services will exceed S89,810.00, CONSULTANT shall notify CITY as soon as practicable in advance of its occurrence. 4. SECTION 3. REAFFIRMATION Except as specifically modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. rN. wrrNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to Original Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officers as of the day, month and year first above written. KOMEX H20 SCIENCE, fNC., a California corporation "0 By: th ':Oa y Brown, President Anthon AND By: Andrew Gray ecretary REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City'Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of Califor-nia M,for ATTEST: dmw,� a4-�11 t7 City Clerk I Z. i6- ; APPROVED AS TO FORM: J7_1� ity Attorney DRTtA-ND AND APPROYI�b: / c 61 — -- 1 1% -11, 1- N--Director of Public Works 2000agree/Komex-11 217/60 EXHIBIT #A ANIN 6 SWAS lzqv KK04MEX ENVIPONMENTAND WATER RESOURCES September 22, 2000 P0937 Mr. Dennis MacLain Interim Water Operations Director City of Huntington Beach Water Operations Building 19001 Huntington Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 KOMEX - H20 SCIENCE - INC 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach. CA 92649, U.S.A. Tel.: (714) 379-1157 Fax.: (714) 379-1160 email: info@losangeles.komex.com web site: www.komex.com Re.: Proposal To Provide Consulting Services For A Groundwater Investigation In The Vicinity Of Downtown Huntington Beach Dear Mr. MacLain: Komex-H20 Science, -Inc (Komex) is pleased to provide you with our proposal to undertake a groundwater investigation in the vicinity of downtown Huntington Beach. The purpose of the investigation is to determine if groundwater quality in the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach has been impacted by releases of untreated wastewater from cracked or broken sanitary sewer lines. Untreated wastewater releases are known to have occurred from cracked or broken sewer lines within the study area. INTRODUCTION Information obtained from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department (Krieger, 2000) shows that approximately 154,000 linear feet (46.9 kilometers [km]) of sanitary sewer line was installed in the downtown and "old town" areas of Huntington Beach from 1914 to 1966, with additional sewer lines being installed from 1967 to present day. Internal pipe inspections conducted by the Public Works Department have shown that the aging pipe infrastructure has several (if not many) locations that are cracked and/or potentially leaking. The cumulative, long-term effect of these numerous potential sewage leaks on the quality of the local groundwater is unknown. Ah MV /Proposal/P09371,P0937 Proposaijevisecr.doc KOMEX ok U-St C40VADA, VICAND OTHER Df)-7= WORLDW.M.1 K-� -EY.1 1) f? I\Tr PROGRAM OBJECTIVE The objective of the scope of work proposed by Komex is to determine if leaking sanitary sewer infrastructure has impacted local groundwater quality. If the investigation confirms that leaking sanitary sewer infrastructure has impacted local groundwater quality, additional investigation and remedial measures may be required. Figure 1 shows an aerial photograph of downtown Huntington Beach with an overlay of the locations of known sanitary sewer leaks. Also shown on the figure are the eight locations at which Komex proposes to install groundwater monitoring wells. Details on the location of each of the eight proposed groundwater monitoring wells are included in the table shown below. Well Identifier Location PMW-1 On Memphis Avenue near Lake Street PMW-2 In an alley between 13th and 14th Streets and Acacia and Palm Avenues PMW-3 In an alley between 10th and 11th Streets and Walnut and Olive Avenues PMW-4 On 3rd Street near Walnut Avenue PMW-5 On Huntington Street south of Atlanta Avenue PMW-6 In an alley between Geneva and Frankfort Avenues and Delaware and Hill Streets PMW-7 In an alley between Huntington and California Streets and Joliet and Knoxville Avenues PMW-8 In an alley between Acacia and Palm Avenues and 7th and 8th Streets The proposed groundwater monitoring wells have been located to ensure that representative and complete investigation within and around the perimeter of the downtown / old town area occurs. These wells have also been co -located in areas where several known sanitary sewer leaks have occurred. PROJECT EXECUTION The proposed groundwater investigation has been divided into the following ten tasks: 1. Prepare work plan; 2. Modify existing HASP, SAP and QAPP; 3. Obtain Permits; 4. Mobilize for field program — drilling, installation and well development; 5. Field program — drilling, installation and well development; 6. Mobilize for field program — water levels and groundwater sampling; 7. Field program — water levels and groundwater sampling; /PropmVP0937\PO937 PropmIjevisw.doc 2 KOMEXI< UA C4 WaA, UK AND 0 7HER OFRCES RVRL D WDE 8. Data interpretation and compilation; 9. Reporting — draft and final; and 10. Project management and meetings. Prepare Work Plan A site specific work plan will be prepared for this project that will include information on the investigation objectives, the scope of work (including pre -field, field and post -field activities) and the schedule. The work plan will be prepared and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach for review and approval prior to commencing field work for this project. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will be advised of the work to be performed prior to commencing field work for this project. Modify Existing HASP, SAP And QAPP The existing Health and Safety Plan (HASP), Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that were prepared for the Phase I and IIa Hydrogeologic Assessments conducted for the City of Huntington Beach during the spring and summer of 2000 will be modified as necessary for this project. The HASP, SAP and QAPP will be prepared and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach for review and approval prior to commencing field work for this project. Obtain Permits All of the proposed work will be performed within the City of Huntington Beach in the downtown and "old town" areas. Permission and/or permits may be required from the City of Huntington Beach to perform the work noted in this proposal. Additionally, traffic control permit requirements will be established for the work proposed. Well permits will be obtained from the County of Orange prior to commencing field work. Underground utilities will be located and marked prior to commencing intrusive investigations. Mobilize For Field Program — Drilling, Installation And Well Development Prior to commencing field work, all field equipment will be assembled, checked for proper 0 JPrDposaVP0937kR937 Propomi_mvised.doc 3 KOMEX US4, CANADA UKAND 07HER OFFICES WORLDWIDE F operation and packed for transport. All necessary project documentation such as permits, engineering plans, maps, air photos, as well as the HASP, SAP and QAP will be assembled and stored securely with the other field equipment. Notification of the project stakeholders will occur before intrusive investigations begin to communicate the field schedule as well as discuss any last minute changes to the field program and/or scope of work. Field Program — Drilling, Installation And Well Development Komex proposes to utilize Apex Environmental Drilling of Huntington Beach, California to drill the boreholes, install the groundwater monitoring wells and develop the wells. Eight groundwater monitoring wells will be installed at the proposed locations shown on Figure 1. The borings will be drilled using 8 inch (20.3 centimeter [cm]) diameter hollow stem augers (HSA) to a maximum depth of approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters [m]) below ground surface (bgs). The groundwater is expected to be found at a depth of less than 50 feet (15.2 m) bgs within the study area. The soil borings will be completed as groundwater monitoring wells constructed using 2 inch (5.1 cm) internal diameter (ID) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casing and screen. The groundwater monitoring wells will be screened in the first groundwater unit identified at each location. After construction, the completed groundwater wells will be surveyed relative to an established benchmark by a State of California licensed land surveyor. The survey will provide horizontal location and vertical elevation of each groundwater monitoring well. After well completion, the wells will be fully developed by surging and purging using a surge block and bailer suspended from the development rig winch line. Groundwater will be removed until clear of suspended fine-grained material, and the hydro-geochemical (pH, temperature and electrical conductivity) parameters have stabilized. Mobilize For Field Program — Water Levels And Groundwater Sampling After the groundwater monitoring wells have been constructed and prior to commencing field work for measuring water levels and obtaining water samples, all field equipment will be assembled, checked for proper operation and packed for transport. All necessary project documentation such as permits, engineering plans, maps, air photos, as well as the HASP, SAP and QAP will be assembled and stored securely with the other fleld equipment. Notification of the project stakeholders will occur before sampling begins to communicate the field schedule as well as discuss any last minute changes to the field program and/or scope of work. /ProposalIP0937P0937 ProposaLreviseed-doc 4 KOMEX UA CUADA Uk-AND OTHER OFFICES WORLDWIDE Field Program — Water Levels And Groundwater Sampling To estimate the hydraulic gradient of the shallow groundwater system, water levels must be measured in each of the eight groundwater monitoring wells. This information will be used to estimate the groundwater flow direction and velocity. Water levels will be measured using an electronic water level measuring tape. Each groundwater monitoring well will be purged prior to sampling the groundwater. A total of 18 samples will be required for laboratory analysis as shown below: 1. Eight groundwater samples, one from each of the groundwater monitoring wells; 2. Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) samples consisting of the following; Three field blank samples, one for each sampling day; Three equipment blank samples, one for each sampling day; Three trip blank samples, one for each sampling day; and One duplicate sample. Komex proposes to utilize Sierra Analytical of Laguna Hills, California for laboratory analytical services for the groundwater samples. Each of the groundwater samples and the QA/QC samples submitted to Sierra Analytical will be analyzed for the following parameters: 1. Fecal Coliform bacteria; 2. Enterococci bacteria; 3. Organic Nitrogen; 4. Ammonia; 5. Nitrate; 6. Nitrite; 7. Organic Phosphorus; 8. Inorganic Phosphorus; and 9. Total Organic Carbon. Data Interpretation And Compilation The survey data, water level data, water quality field parameter data and laboratory analytical data will be interpreted and compiled into tabular summaries for the project report. These tables will form the basis for the conclusions and recommendations of the project report. (D JftposaVP0937�PID937 Pmpomijw1sed doc 5 KOMEXIC LNA 04AWDA WAND 07HER ORMES W0R1DKq,0F Reporting — Draft And Final A draft report will be prepared for the City of Huntington Beach and submitted for review and comment prior to finalization and issue. The report will include a tabular summary of all relevant field and analytical data, figures showing well locations, groundwater flow directions, borehole logs, and text detailing the project methodology, results, and conclusions and recommendations. Project Management The Project Manager and Project Hydrogeologist will be responsible for ensuring that the project is carried out in a timely and economical manner, and as such, a portion of the budget has been allocated for resource management throughout the duration of this project. One meeting (including preparation time) has been included in the budget amount for the project management task. PR03ECT COST AND SCHEDULE SUMMARY As shown in the attached Table 1, the estimated budget for this project is approximately $89,810. Table 1 summarizes the labor and expense totals for each of the project tasks described above. If authorized to do so by the City of Huntington Beach, Komex is prepared to initiate work on this project by October 2, 2000. The estimated time to completion for the project is approximately ten weeks. CLOSING We hope that this proposal meets your requirements. Should you have any questions or comments, or require additional detail, please contact Brandon Eisen at (714) 379-1157. Respectfully submitted, ;KOMEX*H2 SCIENCE*INC I J , I'll, Anthony Brown President ED JProposaVP0937\P0937 Proposaijevised.doc 6 KOMEXIC U-54 CWD4 WAND OTHER OFFICES WORLDKIDE TABLE 1 ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION IN DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH THE CITY OF HUN77NGTON REACH P0937 20-Sep-00 Task Description Labor Total Expense Total Task Total 1 Prepare Work Plan $4,800 $0 $4,137 2 Modify Existing HASP, SAP And QAPP $2,700 $0 $2,300 3 Obtain Permits $2,000 $0 $1,743 4 Mobilize For Field Program - Drilling, Installation And Well Development $3,300 $0 $2,909 5 Field Program - Drilling, Installation And Well Development $11,600 $23,800 $34,878 6 Mobilize For Field Program - Water Levels And Groundwater Sampling $1,300 $0 $1,334 7 Field Program - Water Levels And Groundwater Sampling $4,700 $12,900 $17,183 8 Data interpretation And Compilation $6,300 $0 $5,476 9 Reporting - Draft And Final $16,800 $0 $14,200 10 Project Management And Meetings $6,500 $0 $5,650 PROJECT TOTALS $60,000 $36,700 r J Certificate of Insurance I of I # 14467 Agency Name and Address: I, THIS ERTIFICATE IS ISSUED ASA MATTER OF Professional Practice CTJ cj�iv; INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON Insurance Brokers, Inc. NO, Iq THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES 2244 West Coast Highway, Suite 200 NOT AMEND. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE Newport Beach, CA 92663 AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW. Insureds Name and Address: Kornex H20 Science, Inc. 5500 Balsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Companies Affording Policies: A -Greenwich InSuranCe Company e. American Motorists Insurance Company C. 0. E. F. COVIEPAO15S: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POI�ICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDiCATED. NOTWITHSTANOING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCjMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CER9FICATE MAYBE ISSUED OR — —ni—N. in � —aui—Nuc irru—cu DT 1— lulr,� wt:.—Ior;Ij "mr1r IN lo ;iunjirl, I I U — I r1M i-0, AN10 LU— I 1UN—r Q— --i- 7TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EFF.DATE EXP.DATE POLtCY LIMITS • GENERAL LIBILITY GEC0001499 03110100 03110101 [R) Commercial General Liability 11 Cairns Made 91 Occurence F1 Owner's and Cortractors Protective • AUTO LIAB;LITY ABC0001450 03110/00 03/10/01 ox Any Automob:le El All Owned Aulos 21 Scheduled Autos 161 Hired Aulos 10 Non-ownea Autos 1�?-21. El Garage Liabil;ty El EXCESS LIABILITY El Umbrella Form El Other thar. Umorefla Form WORKERS' 7CW30568902 (19/01199 139/0 1/00 COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY A PROFESSIONAL PEC0003451 03110100 03110101 LIABILrrY* I I General Aggregate: 32.000,000 Prod ucts-CofTdOps Aggregate: $2,000,000 Personal and Adv. Injury: $1 .000,000 Each Occurreqce: $1,000,000 Fire Dmg. (any one fire): 550,00C Combined S'ngle Limit: $1,000,000 Bodlly Injurylpersor.' $0 Bodily Injurylaccident: $0 Property Damage: $0 Each Occurrence: Aggregate: Statutory Limits Each Accident: $1,000,000 Disease/Policy Urnit. S1,000,000 DisaaWEmployee: S1.000,000 Per Claim $1,000,000 Aggregate $1.000,000 $0 Description of Opera tio n sll-ocationsNehicles/Re s triction s/S pec ial items: ALL OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED. ADOITIONAI- INSURED ENDORSEMENT ATTACHED - GENERAL LIABILITY ONLY. IT is AGREED THAT SUCH INSURANCE AS AFFORDED 13Y THIS POLICY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSURED SHALL BE PRIMARY INSURANCE AS RESPECTS ANY CLAIM, LOSS OR LIABILITY ARISiNG DIRECTLY FROM THE NAMED INSURED'S OPERATIONS AND ANY OTHER INSURANCE MAINTAINED BY THE ADDITIONAL INSURED SHALL BE EXCESS AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY WITH THE INSURANCE PROVtDED HEREUNDER *Vdri++i3n -nt nnnrarinfa limite nf linhilitu nt%f Imee thnn nm^, int ehriwn Certificate Holder: THE AGGREGATE LIMIT 15 THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE !NSURED. CANCELLATION: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION City of Huntington Beach DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY. ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30 2000 Main Street DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TmE EVENT OF CANCEL LATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PRE MIUM IN WHICH CASE 1. 0 DAYS NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN. Authorzed Repr" 07/14100 cc: lm)Bvwf�.IL C�� CA& L vp'v�T ENDORSEMENT#010 This endorsement, effective 12:01 a.m., (231110t20013 forms apart of Policy No. PECO001451 Issued to KOMEX H20 SCIENCE, iNC- AND PCT. INC. AND SOLARREM by Greenwich Insurance Company. THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY - ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) - SCHEDULED This endorsement modifies insurance providod under the following: CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILrTY POLICY The following enfity(les) isfare) included as Additional INSURED(S). but solely as respects liability arisfng out of PROFESSIONAL OR CONTRACTING SERVICES stated in Item 6. of the Declarations and rendered by or on behalf of the NAMED INSURED(S) under the following contract only: AQQLQ2NXL INSUREDfSl Additional Insured Name Contract Number THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, IT'S OFFICERS, AGENTS & TO BE DETERMINED EMPLOYEES All other terms and conditions remain the same. (Authorized Representative) C ELEI I 9a (7199) Zl-TT 04117/200D f Insureds Name and Address: Komex H20 Science, Inc. 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Certificate of Insurance I of I #S17400/M17396 Companies Affordin Policies: A American Motorists Insurance Eompany B. C� 0. E. P UUVEKAGES: THIS IS TUC ERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSUREONAM513 ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD IND;CATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY RFQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERnFICATE MAYBE ISSUED OR murUMUCU OT I nIM I-IJUk.&CO uratMIOCL, rlcnr IN a autlim- I I UAJ_J_ I "t I UKMb, L�ALA.UWUNZI. A NU LUNUILILYNO Ur ZU6" VULIU11 PE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EFF.DATE EXP. DATE POLICY LIMITS GENERAL LIBILITY Commercial Ganoral Liability Claims Made Occurrence E] Owner's and Contractors Protective gilITON i AUTO LIABILITY Any ALitornobile (;ITY AT All Owned Autos BY' 0 Scheduled Autos D t)) c1tr El Hired Autos Non -owned Autos Garage LiabiRy In EXCESS LIABILI TY El Umbrella Form C Other than Umbrella Form A WORKERS' 7CW30569903 091GI/00 091011ol COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY' General Aggregate: Products-Corn/Ops Aggregate: Personal and Adv. Injury: Each Occurrence: Fire Dmg. (any one fire): Combined Single Limit: Bodily Injury/person: Bodily Injurylaccident: Property Damage: Each OccurrencB.* Aggregate: S,B,U tory Limits Each Accident; DIsease/P61icy - Giiuit $1,000.000 DiseasefEmployea: $1,000,000 Per Claim A regale so Description of Op arations/Locat ion sNeh icl e s/Restrictio ns/Special items: ALL OPERATIONS CF THE NAMED INSURED. EVEDENCE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE RENEWED - ONLY. All other certificates / coverages / limits / Endorsements previously issued remain unchanged. *Writfpn nt nneirpnnfrk limi+c nf linh;l4w nnt lAce thinn nr'n^l Int CHMAJI11 Certificate Holder: THE AGGRECIATE LINT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED WITHINTHE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OFTHE INSURED. CANCELLATION - City of Huntington Beach SHOULD ANY OF TH E ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY. ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30 2000 Main Street DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAM90 TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN Huntington Beach, CA 92648 THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WH ICJA CASE 10 DAYS NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN. AuMonzed RopmaenIoNve: cc: Insureds Name and Address: Komex H20 Science, Inc. 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Certificate of Insurance I of I #S17402/M17396 A -American M B. C. o. E. COVEKAUES: THIS 15 TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUEDIDTHE INSURED NAMED A BOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. N07WITFSTANDINGANY_REQUIRE%IE�NT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OROTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHtCH THIS CERTIFICATE MAYBE ISSUED OR U-0 DT [UM 1-UL-11,�rQ L4rQUMItJrLJ rlrmr IN I a 0IJt1jtJ' I I LJ Al" 1Nr rrKma, LAk.LLJZI,UN.$. ALNIJ UUNIJI I IUNZ5 Ur' NUL.P1 rIJLI1,Ir,1. TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EFF.DATE EXP.DATE POLICY LIMITS GENERAL LIBIL17Y Commercial General Liability Clalms.Made Occurrence Owners and Contractors Protec'Jve El AU 1-0 LIABILITY EJ Any Adtomob;le D All Owned Autos 11 Scheduled Autos El Hired Atos El Non -owned Autos G2raga Liability El EXCESS LIABILITY El Umbrella Form El Other than Umbrella Form Al WORKERS' 7CW30568903 09/01/00 09101/01 COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY* General Aggregate: Products-CorrI/Ops Aggregate: Personal and Adv. Injury: Each Occurrence: Fire Dmg. (any one fire): Combined Single Limi!: Bodily hjurylpersor: Bodily Injurylaccident: Property Damage: Each Occurrenre: Aggneg2te: Statutory Limits Each AccIdent: Dlsailselftlfcy Limit-.— t1,000,000- Diseww"Employee: $1,000,000 Per Claim Aggregate $0 Description of 0 pe ration s/Locatio nslVe hicies/Resi rict ion s/S p ecial items: ALL OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED. EVIDDENCE OF WCRKERSI COMPENSATION COVERAGE RENEWED — ONLY. All other certificates III coverages / limits / Endorsements previously issued remain unchanged. Certificate Holder: City of Huntington Beach Board of Harbor Comm. Attn: Linda P.O. Box 151 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 THE AGGREGATE LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILA13LE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED WITH:N THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED - CANCELLATION: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEIZORE THE FXPI RATION DATE THEREOF. TiHE ISSUING COMPANY. ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATVVES WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE 10 DAYS NOTICE WILL SE GIVEN. Authodzed Representalivo: 09115100 . IV/ u, RCA ROUTING SHEETI Ok INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: Authorize the Second Arn.endment to Agreement with , . -Kornex H20 Science for S tudies Related t6 Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation L COUNCIL MEETING DAT —November-�, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) --(Signed Ln full by the City Attomey) Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomey) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (if applicable) Not Applicable Report (If applicable) Not Applicable ---Staff Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Find ings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIF-WED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff � L-C, Assistant City Administrator (initial) City Administrator (Initial) rCity Cler .EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: AL.- -d .4M n19 e0%7tJ eLA2V5WXte_,-f4eVJ lb RCA Author: K Dills x 5055 W - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORN IA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF ITEM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: September 8, 2000 TO: Komex H20 Science, Inc. ATTENTION: Anthony Brown, President Name 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 DEPARTMENT: Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REGARDING: Amendment No. I to Prof. City, Stale, Zip Services Contract / Consulting Services re: City's Urban Run—off/Coastal Rem. Plan See Attached Action Agenda Item B-16 DateofApproval B-21-00 Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item. Remarks: d-�V� owo�wy-- Connie Brock-Nv.ay City Clerk Attachments: Action Agenda Page x Agreement x Bonds Insurance x RCA Deed Other CC: R. Beardsley DPW X X x Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other K . Dills DPW X X X Name Department iFCA— A—greement Insurance Other Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other Name Department RCA AFeement Insurance Other C . Mendoza X X Risk Management Dept Insurance &Follow-up..'Lettemicoverlir (Telephone: 714-536-5227) Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: )I,Af proved J ConditionIlly Approved 0 DenIP4 br-)- City Clrk'� Signature Council Meeting Date: AUGUST 21, 2000 I Department ID Number: PW-00-083 I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTEDBY: RAY SILVER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR eY �( 0 PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE AND KOMEX H20 SClENCE FOR STUDIES RELATED TO URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMIEDIATION IStatement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) I Statement of Issue: Amendments to the agreements with URS Greiner Woodward Clyde and Komex H20 Science are requested for urban runoff/coastal remediation studies. Funding Source: General Fund, Urban Runoff Program, AA-PW-101-3-90-00, Contract Services, totaling $892,000. Funds we're appropriated April 17, 2000 Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $528,000 to the existing contract with URS Greiner Woodward Clyde for Phase 11 Engineering Services in Support of Identifying and Eliminating Bacteria in Urban Runoff Discharges to Huntington Beach. 2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $364,000 to the existing contract with Kornex H20 Science for Phase 11 Geologic, Hydrogeologic and Geophysical Consulting services. Alternative Action(s): Do not authorize execution of the amendments and instruct staff on how to proceed. C=2 CZ C-) - 7 . REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW-00-083 Analysis. On April 17, 2000, the City Council authorized the preparation of amendments to the existing agreements with URS Greiner Woodward Clyde (URS) and Komex H20 Science (Komex) for studies relating to urban runoff/coastal remediation. An additional budget appropriation of $950,000 was also approved. The Phase 11 studies were necessary to continue the City's efforts in identifying and eliminating the source(s) of bacteria that led to the recent surf zone closures. At the time of contract preparation approval, the scope of work was under review and an estimated additional cost of $385,000 was approved. Upon further discussion and review of the scope of work, it was determined that certain hydrodynamic data would be necessary to perform a comprehensive study. The Phase I study by Komex in the amount of $150,000 was approved on January 3, 2000. The Phase 11 amendment is for an amount of $364,000 as presented to Council on April 17, which brings the total contract cost to $514,000. The Phase I study by URS in the amount of $399,000 was approved on January 28. 2000. The Phase 11 Amendment is for an amount of $528,000. The additional cost of the expanded scope of work is $143,000 bringing Amendment #1 costs to $528,000 and the total contract amount to $927,000. Fieldwork by both firms is now complete. Draft reports are currently under review and should be finalized by October, 2000. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachae_nt(s): RCA Author:geng/dills... RCA for Komex and URS amendments.doc -2- 08/11/00 1:56 PM ATTACHMENT #2 AMENDMENT NO. I TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND KOMEX H20 SCIENCE INC. FOR GEOLOGIC, HYDROGEOLOGIC AND GEOPHYSICAL CONSULTING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY'S URBAN RUN-OFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION ACTION PLAN THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment to Original Agreement") is made and entered into this 21st dayof August -, 2000, by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and KOMEX H20 SCIENCE INC., a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as"CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2000, CITY and CON�ULTANT entered into that certain -v,.Titten agreement entitled "Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Komex H-,O Science Inc. for Geologic, Hydrogeologic and Geophysical Consulting Services" (the "Original Agreement"), pursuant to which CONSULTANT was to perform certain "Phase I" geologic., hydrogeologic and geophysical consulting services in support of CITY's Urban Run-Off/Coastal Remediation Action Plan; CONSULTANT has completed the Phase I study and has been paid for its work; On April 6,2000, CONSULTANT submitted to CITY a proposal to provide Phase Ila consulting services in connection with CITY's Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan, CITY is desirous of utilizing CONSULTENG senlices for the Phase Ila study, and CITY and CONSULTANT now wish to amend certain sections of the Original Agreement to incorporate CONSULTANT's Phase Ila study. gfwheelerij il-1`2 OOOaLyree.:.'Kome.x...-'8;::7.'00 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: SECTION 1. The first paragraph of Paragraph I "WORK STATEMEN'r of the Original Agreement shall read as follows: CONSULTANT shall provide all services as set forth in that certain document, dated April 6, 2000, and entitled "Proposal to Provide Phase Ila Hydrogeologic Consulting Services to the City of Huntington Beach for the Urban I- Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan-," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A'" and incorporated herein by reference (the "PROJECT"). In addition to the aforesaid April 6, 2000 proposal, CONSULTANT shall also perform the PROJECT in accordance with a "Work Plan," dated May 8, 2000, prepared by CONSULTANT and submitted to CITY; which document is incorporated by reference into this Amendment to Original Agreement. 2. SECTION 2. Paragraph 3"TIME OF PERFORMANCE", of the Original Agreement shall read as follows: CONSULTANT shall complete each phase of the PROJECT in accordance with the schedule set forth on Page 9 of Exhibit "A". SECTION 3. Paragraph 4 "COMPENSAnON" of the Original Agreement shall read as follows: In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed Three Hundred Sixty-four Thousand Dollars (S364,000), unless a greater amount is authorized by City Council. If it appears that the cost of CONSULTANT's services will exceed $364,000. CONSULTANT shall noti�y CITY as soon as practicable in advance of its occurrence. 2 g/whee le r/j n/2 000ag ;8 vee/Kamex' /T00 4. SECTION 4. REAFFIRMATION Except as specifically modified herein, all other terins and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to Original Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officers as of the day. month and year first above written. KOMEX HO SCIENCE INC., a California rpo tion B v:: . - ANTHONY BROWN President AND By: 4' 3A —R, W G I(A Y Secretary F- REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ���2 va� - CKAdministrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, A municipal corporation the State f Califiamia Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: do� ow-044tt - City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM. A 41� City Attorney ��U3 4 f96 - 0 6 TIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works G" g/wheeler,'jtif'2000agree,:'Komey-.18�/�7/'00 EXHIBIT A KKOMEX - H20 SCIENCE - INC ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES April 6, 2000 105-001 Mr. Dennis Macl-ain Interim Water Operations Director City of Huntington Beach Water Operations Building 19001 Huntington Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 5500 BOLSAAVENUF-, SUITE 1CS HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649, U.S.A. TEL.: (714) 379-1157 FAX.: (714) 379-1160 91nail: k0Mexh20@komexh2o.ccm web site: www.komexh2o.corn Re.: Proposal to provide Phase IIa Hydrogeologic Consulting Services to The City of Huntington Beach for the Urban Runoff /Coastal Remediation Action Plan Dear Mr. Macl-ain, Submitted with this letter is the Proposal to provide Phase IlaHydrogeologic Consulting Services to The City of Huntington Beach for the Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan. If you have any questions regarding these documents please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 379-1157. Sincerely, KOMEXoH20 SCXENCE#XNC Brandon Eisen Groundwater Engineer Attachments: Proposal for Phase Ila Hydrogeologic Investigation lk..k10500 1\Wcrd\phaseiia_proposal_"nsrriittal-be P'l V. KOMEX LS4, CA NA 04, UK A NO C THER OPp7LIrS WORLD WIDE U.S A. CANADA. U.k4iTFD KINGDOM AND OTHEP OrFICES VVCFk'-�1VV:0E 0. .0 EXHIBIT A 44 KKOMEX - H20 SCIENCE - INC ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES 5500 80LSA AVENUE, SUITE 105 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649, U.S.A. TEL.: (714) 379-1157 FAX: (714) 379-1160 email: komexh2o@komexh2o.corn web site: www.kamexh2o.com Proposal to Provi.de-Phase 1Ia Hydrogeologic Consulting Services to The City of Huntington Beach for the Urban Runoff/Coastal Rernediation Action Plan Prepared For: The Qty of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared By: KOMEXOH20 SCIENCE*INC 5500 Bolsa Avenue,, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, California 92649 April 5, 2000 C:kWIND0WSVI7EMP\Phase11a—Pro (1).doc KO,4fEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER OF�ICES WORLDWIDE *,& US A.. CANADA. UN)TEM KINGDOM. AND OTHER OFFICES WORLCWJOC- q. .11 TABLE OF CONTENTS L. INTRODUC77OLY .................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 PRELIMINARY PHASE I INVESTIGA-RON RESULIS . ................................................................ 2 ,L1. 1 gasis of Additional inveggative Tasks ............................................................................. 2 1.1.g hase I b��eo�lica / rn Mgti a tio .............................................................................. 2 L__ _q_ 1.13 Phase I 5-mmh mLcml in mg1g-a Lio ................................................................... I .......... 3 2t 06.7EMVES AND SCOP .................................................................................................... 4 2 j GEOPHYSICAL PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 4 2.Z GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND SAMPLING PROGRAM ................................................... S 2.3 SE01MENT SAMPLING PROGRAM ....................................................... I ........................ ........ 6 2.4 INTERIM/FINAL REPORT ......................................................................................... I ........... 7 2.5 MEETINGS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS � .................. I .... I .... - I ................................... 7 3. PR03ECT COST AND SCHEDULE SUL4MAR .................. I ..................................................... 9 j.. CLOSING ........................................................................................... ............................... 10 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Appendix A: Schedule of Fees Phaseltajro (1).doc KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER WCES WORLDWIDE 1. INTRODUCTION On December 21, 1999, Komexel-120 Science*Inc. (Komex) submitted a proposal to the City of Huntington Beach (City) for a Phase I geologic, hydrogeologic and geophysical investigation. The following were the three principal objectives for the Phase I investigation: • To determine the feasibility of bacterial transport in groundwater to surface water receptors by evaluating the mass flux of groundwater into adjacent ocean water and the Talbert Creek/Marsh; • To identify geo(ogic controls on groundwater transport through a review of background geologic and hydrogeologic information, and collection of subsurface geologic data using geophysical mapping techniques and installation of additional monitoring wells; and • To identify possible electrically conductive anomalies in groundwater that could be indications of contaminant plumes by conducting geophysical mapping in key areas. 1.1 PRELIMINARY PHASE I INVESTIGATION RESULTS 1.1.1 Basis of Additional Investigative Tasks In our original proposai, we described a second phase of tasks for the characterization of potential sources of bacterial contamination in groundwater and transport processes. This work would be implemented if any of three conditions were met during the Phase I investigation. The Phase I investigation is currently being completed and the data is being summarized, analyzed and interpreted to address the above objectives. Based upon our initial review of the Phase I investigation data, It is clear that the following two conditions have currently been met: • Bacterial contamination is seen in groundwater samples taken (or identififed) during the course of the Phase I tasks; and, • Geophysical anomalies are detected during the geophysical program that would require further intrusive investigation. 1.1.2 Phase I Hydrogeologlicall Investigation During'the investigative work completed during the summer of 1999 by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), a groundwater sample was obtained from the combined'outfall of the Hilton Grand Resort construction activities on September 14, 1999. This sample.was reported to have a concentration of 16.9 maximum probable number per 100 milliliter (M.PN/100 ml) of enterococcus. Analytical results such as this could also result from quality Phaseua_pro M.doc 2 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTEER OFtCES WORLDWIDE assurance/quality control (QA/QC) problems in the field or laboratory (e.g. improper sampling handling). However, enterococcus was confirmed at a concentration of 6.3 MPN/100 ml in a second groundwater sample collected the following day (September 15, 1999). Due to intra- and inter -well dilution it Is likely that groundwater in the vicinity of the dewatering operations may be potentially impacted with much higher concentrations of enterococcus. The actual concentration in groundwater, the spatial location of any impacted groundwater with respect to the individual dewatering wells or surface water receptors, and the potential source of the enterococcus are currently unknown. The additional investigative tasks described in this proposal will be required to address these uncertainties. The analytical results for groundwater samples obtained from groundwater monitoring well PW- I on March 24, 2000 by Komex indicate the presence of enterococcus at this location. This groundwater monitoring well is located in the southwest portion of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Plant Number 2, The reported value for enterococcus from this well was 40.8 MPN/100 ml and 31.3 MPN/100 ml for a duplicate sample. The concentrations of enterococcus observed to date in local groundwater systems are below the regulatory limit of 104 MPN/100 ml, as defined in Assembly Bill 411 (AB411). However, the extent and magnitude of enterococcus at this area are unknown and much higher concentrations may be present. The additional investigative tasks described in this proposal will be required to further investigate the presence of enterococcus in groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well PW-1. 1.1.3 Phase I Geophysical Investigation Preliminary results from the geophysical investigation completed by Komex during the Phase I investigation indicate the following potential subsurface anomalies: 1. Seven locations along the beach directly opposite the AES power plant. 2. Seven locations along the west bank of the Santa Ana River, 3. Twelve locations areas along the north bank of the Talbert Channel The exact nature of these anomalies is currently unknown, and further investigative tasks (Phase Ila) are required to define their nature and the possible presence of bacterial contamination. Phasella_pro (1)-doc 3 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER OFMCES WOPLDWIDE 2. OBJECTIVES and SCOPE The objectives of this investigation are to identify, confirm, and investigate (Phase lIa).potential sources of bacteria[ contamination in groundwater using supplemental geophysical mapping and collection of field data through the installation of groundwater monitoring locations. Should bacteria[ concentrations be identified at any of the Phase IIa investigation locations then supplemental work (Phase Ilb) will be necessary to delineate the magnitude and extent of these bacterial concentrations. This will be addressed in a possible future proposal. 2.1 GEOPHYSICAL PROGRAM The following work is recommended to investigate the existing geophysical anomalies: • Push probe conductivty measurements (35 locations) at geophysical anomalies described above to confirm the surface geophysical readings and locate possible monitoring wells; and • Installation and sampling of small -diameter monitoring wells at selected push probe locations. The push probe conductivity measurements will provide a real time, vertical conductivity profile at each anomaly location and at selected background locations, This data will be used to essentially ground -truth the surface geophysical mapping. The surface geophysical mapping (e.g. the electrical resistance tomography [ERT]) provides 'an interpreted, two-dimensional terrain conductivity image of the subsurface, whereas the push probe provides an actual measure of terrain conductivity at one specific location. At each push probe conductivity location a groundwater sample will be obtained from within the push probe rods. In addition, selected push probe conductivity locations will be converted to small diameter (0.75 to 1.0 inch (1.9 to 2.5 cm]) groundwater monitoring wells. These groundwater monitoring wells will be utilized to obtain groundwater samples for bacteriological and geochemical analysis, Bacteriological analyses would include the bacterial indicators total coliform, total fecal coliform, Eschedchia Coli (E. Coli], and enterococcus. Geochemical analyses would include the field analysis for pH, temperature, fluid conductivity and turbidity. In addition, selected groundwater samples will also be analyzed for major cations and anions, and general water quality parameters. It is anticipated that no more than twelve small -diameter groundwater monitoring wells would be constructed during this geophysical investigation. If the push probe conductivity measurements confirm the subsurface geophysical readings at the above anomalies and bacterial contamination is identified in the subsequent monitoring PhaselIa_pm (1).doc 4 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER OPMCES WORLDWIDE wells, we would recommend that the geophysical investigation be expanded to cover the following locations: • Extended point conductivity and poine'magnetic surveys (EM-31 and EM-61, respectively) from Beach Boulevard to the Huntington Beach Pier; • EM-31 and EM-61 surveys along the Santa Ana River between OCSD Plant #1 and Plant #2; • EM-31 and EM-61 surveys along the Santa Ana River on the eastern bank between Pacific Coast Highway and Victoria (Hamilton) Avenue; • Two-dimensional electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys in locations along the Santa Ana River identified from the EM surveys as requiring further investigation; • EM and ERT in areas of old town Huntington Beach; • Intersecting 2-D electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys in areas where a three- dimensional representation would aid in subsurface interpretation; • Push probe conductivity measurements at any geophysical anomalies identified in the expanded geophysical investigation. Subsequent geophysical investigations may be required at additional locations 'identified in the sanitary survey currently being conducted by URS Greiner (URS). This will be addressed in possible future correspondence. 2.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND SAMPLING PROGRAM Monitoring wells at the two clusters installed by Komex during the Phase I investigation are too close together to determine the direction of groundwater flow at the Beach and adjacent to the Talbert Channel because the hydraulic gradient is extremely flat. Therefore, to estimate the direction. of grou'ndwater flow across the entire investigation area, the measurement of the groundwater elevation at all available groundwater and sufface water measuring points is required. In addition, we would recommend that groundwater samples for the analysis of bacterial indicators (total coliform, total fecal coliform, Escherichia Coli [E. Coll], and enterococcus) be obtained from each of the available groundwater monitoring wells. Existing groundwater monitoring wells located at the following facilities would be of beneficial use: • OCSD Plant Number 2; • Ascon-Nesi landfill; 0 AES Power Plant; 0 Construction clewatering wells at the Hilton Grand Resort; • Construction clewatering wells at the City and County lift statlion.s; • Those constructed by Komex during the Phase I investigation; and • Those constructed by OCSD during the 1999 beach closure investigation. Phaseffa_pra (1).doc KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER drACES WORLDWIDE Subsequent groundwater. monitoring and sampling may be required once the Phase Ua geophysical and sediments sampling (below) programs have been completed, and at'additional locations identified in the sanitary survey being conducted by URS Greiner (URS). This will be addressed in possible future correspondente". 2.3 SEDIMENT SAMPLING PROGRAM Various parties have raised the issue of sequestration of bacterial populations in beach sand within the tidal zone and sediments within the Talbert Marsh. As an estimate of the capacity of the Talbert Marsh and beach sand in the tidal zone to retain viable bacterial organisms within the sediments, it would be beneficial to obtain relatively undisturbed soil samples from each of these areas to be submitted for bacterial analysis. We would recommend that sediment samples be collected along the northeastern and southwestern banks of the Talbert Channel opposite selected geophysical anomalies and other locations of concern identified during the sanitary survey being conducted by URS. Sediment samples would be collected at the surface, and depths of 6-inches (15 cm), two and five feet (0.6 and 1.5 m) at the mean high water (MHW), mean sea level (MSL), mean low water (MLW) and channel bottom locations. We would also recommend that sediment samples be collected along the unlined portion of the Huntington Beach Channel opposite selected geophysical (EM) anomalies and other locations of potential concern identified during the sanitary survey conducted by URS. The sample depths and sample points would be the same as described above. In addition, we would also recommend that sediment samples be collected within the surf zone at Huntington State Beach. , These samples would be collected opposite the geophysical anomalies in the vicinity of the AES power plant (three transects), opposite the Talbert Marsh (three transects), in the area where the highest enterococcus concentrations were detected in the surf zone clurling the summer of 1999 (three transects), opposite the Hilton Grand Resort development (two transects), and opposite the Huntington Beach old town and down town areas (three transects). These sediment samples will be collected at the surface, and depths of 6-Inches (15 cm), two and five feet (0.6 and 1.5 m) at the mean high -high water (MHHW), mean high water (MHW), mean sea level (MSQ, mean low water (MLW), mean low -low water (MLLW), and if possible, 100 feet (30.5 m) offsh.ore beyond the MLLW point. The sediment samples will be analyzed for bacterial indicators (total coliform, total fecal coliform, Escherichia Coll [E. Colij, and enterococcus). Selected sediment samples will also be analyzed physio-chemical properties. Phasella_pro (1).doC 6 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER OFMCES WORLDWIDE Subsequent sediment sampling may be required once the Phase Ila geophysical, groundwater monitoring and sampling, and above sediments sampling programs have been completed, and at additional locations potentially identified in the URS sanitary survey. This will be addressed in possible future correspondence. 2.4 INTERIM/FINAL REPORT Should the results of the Phase Ha investigation indicate that subsequent Phase Ilb investigation is NOT required, then Komex will prepare a final report describing all tasks performed for the Phase I and IIa investigations. The final report will provide the results of P hase I and II investigations, and will include: • All data generated from previous investigations; • General field informadon; • Geophysical mapping results; • Borehole geophysical data; • Push probe conductivity results; • Sediment sampling activities; • Sediment sample chemical and bacteriological analyses; • Well permit records; • Soil boring logs and lithologic interpretation; • Groundwater elevation, flow direction and gradient; • Groundwater sample chemical and bacteriological analyses; • Well construction design; • Aquifer pumping test analyses; • Hydrogeologic and bacterial contaminant interpretation; and • Waste disposal manifests. In the event that bacterial contamination is identified in the subsurface as part of the Phase Ila investigation, a Phase lIb investigation may be required. In this case, the resutts of the Phase Ila investgation will be provided verbally along with any recommendations for subsequent Phase IIb work. The final report may then be prepared upon completion of the Phase IIb activities. 2.5 MEETINGS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Regular progress meetings. to discuss objectives, scope and work status of the Phase I investigation being conducted by Komex and the work proposed by URS have occurred on a weekly, and on occasion, serni-weekly basis. This frequency of these meetings substantially PhaSella-pm (1).doc 7 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER OFMCES WORLDWIDE exceeds that anticipated by Komex in our original proposal. The current meeting schedule is projected to continue through the completion of the Phase Ha investigation. Therefore, the funds allocated to this task have been increased for this phase of work. Pha�e[la_pro (1).doc KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER O�ftCES WORLDWIDE 3. PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULE SUMMARY A summary of the anticipated completion date and the estimated costs for each task yvfthin the scope of work are provided below. Due to the uncertain nature of the scope, all work will be performed on a Time and Materials basis (T&M). SCOPE COMPLE-1-ION COST Work Plan April 2000 $6,000 Pre -Field And Permit Affivities April 2000 $12,000 Geophysical Investigation Confirmatory May 2000 $37,000 Monitoring Well Installation May 2000 $48,000 Expanded (contingent) June 2000 $56,000 Hydrogeologic Investigation May 2000 $42,000 Sediment Sampling June 2000 $115,000 Interim/Final Report June 2000 $30,000 Meetings And Other Miscellaneous Items June 2000 $18,000 TOTAL $308,000 $364,000 As part of our ongoing commitment to the environment, Komex will donate 3% of its pre-tax profit from this work to the Komex Global Foundation. The foundation provides grants to environmental, educational and children's charities selected by Komex clients. If agreeabJe, this donation would be made in the client's name to local charities, including, but not limited to: Bolsa Chica Conservancy; Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy; and CoastWatch Phasella_pro (1).doc 9 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER OFFtES WORLDWIDE 4. CLOSING Komex appreciates this opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Huntington Beach. We look forward to performing the proposed scope of work and being of assistance to the City. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact the undersigned at (714) 379-1157, via facsimile at (714) 379-1160, or via email at albrown@llosangeles. komex.com. Sincerely KOMEXoH20 SCIENCE@XNC Anthony Brown Principal Hydrologist Phasella—pro (1).dor- 10 KOMEX USA, CANADA, UK AND OTHER OFFTCES WORLDWIDE KOMEXeH20 SCIENMPINC Schedule Of Fees Dated January 3, 2000 1. TeChnical Services Technical Services performed by personnel of KOMEXeH20 SCIENCE (Komex) for hours actually spent on project activity, including office, field and travel time, will be charged as follows (in U.S. Dollars): Professional Personnel Includes geologists, hydrogeologists, hydrologists, civil and other engineers, environmental and other scientists. Principal $155 Associate $135 Project Manager/Senior $115 Project $100 Senior Staff $ 85 Staff $ 70 �tudent Assistant $ 55 Support Personnel Administrative Manager $75 Project Accountant $ 75 Word Processor $45 Senior Draftsperson $15 Draftsperson $60 Field Services Manager $80 Senior Technician $65 Technician $50 Clerical Assistant $40 Under certain conditions or for specialist services the following rate multipliers will be applied to the individuals hourly rate: • Special accounting and financfa[ services (all staff) - 1.25 times • Overtime (hourly or non-professional support staff) - 1.25 times • Night work or weekend work requested by the client (all staff) - 1.5 times • Work in support of littgation (all staff, including percipient witness) - 1.25 times • Declarations, deposition and trial preparation (expert witness) - 1.5 times • Trial testimony (expert witness) - 2.0 times • Consulting boards, advisory panels or similar specialist consultation (all staff) - 1.5 times 2. 5ubsistence and Expenses Living and travel expenses incurred by personnel of Komex associated with a project will be charged at cost plus fifteen percent (1511%). I Materials, Subcontract!� and EquIpment Rental Direct material, equipment, outside services, and other expenses contracted or incurred by Komex on behalf of a project will be charged at cost plus fifteen percent (15%). These disbursements include, but are not limited to: Field Equipment (e.g. field vehicles, sampling equipment, safety equipment, field instruments); Subcontractor Services (e.g. drilling, laboratory analyses, construction, waste disposal and subcontracted professional services); Materials and Supplies (e.g. well construction materials, sampling supplies, construction supplies, vehicle rental); and Other expenses (e.g. insurance, permits, licenses, and bonds), Postage, shipping charges, telephone charges, cellular charges, fax. costs, in-house reproduction and miscellaneous office suppifes will be billed as an administrative fee of five percent (5%) of project personnel billings. 4. Billings Statement.7 noirmally will be issued every two weeks, monthly, or at the compleUon of the project, and are payable upon receipt, unless otherwise agreed in wiriting by Komex. Interest, at the rate of one and one half percent (1.5%) per month, not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by law, will be payable on any amounts not paid within thirty (30) days; payment thereafter to be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid amount. J:\Applications\FORMS\WORD\KH20\FEES-hb_2000.doc KOMEX-H20-60ENCL5-INC Certificate of Insurance CAV\ I or I ff 14140 Agency Name and Address: THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF Professional Practice INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON Insurance Brokers, Inc. THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES 2244 West Coast Highway, Suite 200 NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE Newport Beach, CA 92663 AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW. Insureds Name and Address: Komex H20 Science, Inc. cq�lk VA�V 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 00. Companies Afforaing Policies: A Greenwich Insurance Company s.American Motorists Insurance Company C. D. E. COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELO'W HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NO-rAATP.STAKD:NG ANY R=_Q-JIREMENT. TERM OR CONDIIION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER COCUME.NT WITH RESPECT To WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR kl�T I­M�'�11%. in � iiiou�Num �r�v�umu D, I-M '�LII­1=3 1 10 �L_ In= -MmNla. MA—U4 TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EFF.DATE EXP.DATE A GENERAL UBILITY GECO001499 03110i00 03110i0l Commercial General Liability C:aims Made Occurrence El Owner's anc Contractors ProlecIve El A AUTO LIABILITY ABC0001450 03j10100 01:10;:M Any Automobile El All Owned Autos Scheduled Autos I E :1! Hired Autos r LL' Non -owned Autos Garage Uability El EXCESS LIABILITY Umbrella Form JE: Other than urnoreiia Fo.m WORKERS' 'CW30568902 09i01199 09101;00 COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY A PROFESSIONAL PECO001451 03,10100 03110.101 LIABILITY' �Imu �Vimu I I .. 14 a or a �m I­U!_-�-CO POLICY LIMITS FGeneral Aggregate: S2,000,000 Prod ucts-CorTVOps Aggregate: S2.000,000 Personal ana Adv. Injury: S1,000,000 Each Occurrence: S1,000,000 Fire Dmg. (any one fire): S50,000 Combined Sing!e Limit: $1,000,000 Bodily lrjuryiperson: $0 Bodily Injury/accident: so Property Damage: so Each Occurrence: Aggregate: Statutory Limits Each Accident: S1,000,000 Disease/Policy Limit: S1.000,000 1 Disease/Employee: S1.000,000 Per Claim �1.000,000 ggregate sl.oft000 so Description of Operations/Locations/Vehicles/Restrictions/SpeciaI items: A _L C-PERAT!ONS OF THE NAMED INSURED. ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT AT7ACHEC - G�NERAL LiABEL.-Y ONLY. IT IS AGREED -t-A- SUCH :NSjRA.%CE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSURED SHA�L BE PRIMARY INSURANCE AS RESPECTS ANY CLAW, LOSS OR LIABILITY ARISING DIRECTLY FROM THE NAMED INSURED'S OPERAT!ONS AND ANY OTHER INSURANCE MAINTAINED BY THE ADDITIONAL INSURED SHALL BE EXCESS AND NON-CONTRIBuTORY WITH THE INSuRANCE PROVIDED HEREUNDER gate limits ot iiaouity not I Certificate Holder: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 THE AGGREGATE 'IMIT IS 7rIE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS PRESENTED WIT'HIN THE POLICY FOR AL_ OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED. CANCELLATION: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPAATION DATE THEREOF, THE iSSUiNG COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOT:CE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. EXCEPT IN THE EvENTOF CANCELLA7104 FOR NON-PAYNIENTOF PREMIUM NWHICH CASE '0 DAYS NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN. 5E Aamonzee RecreSITNr,�,-- 07/14"00 VAW;� Q71 FJO W� �0 600, 10 ENDORSEMENT #0110 This endorsement, effec!lve 12:01 ;a.m.. 0311012000 forms a part of Policy No. PECO001451 issued to KOMEX H20 SCIENCE. INC. AND PCT, INC. AND SOLARREM by Greenwich Insurance Company. THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY - ADDITIONAL INSURED(S) - SCMEDULEO This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following. CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY POLICY The following entity(ies) is(are) included as Addlijonal INSURED(S), but solely as respects liability arising out of PROFF'SSIONAL OR CONTRACTING SERVICES stated in item 5. of the Declarations and rendered by or on behall' of the NAMED INSURED(S) under the following contract only: ADDITIONAL INSURF-D(SI Additional Insured Name Convect Number THEE CITY CF HUNTINGTON BEACH., IT'S OFFICERS, AGENTS & TO BE DETERMINED EMPLOYEES X'. other terms and conditions remain the sarne. fl- tl�l . . ?&11444-11 (Authorized Representative) CELE1 I 9a (71139) ZITT 04/17/"4000 ()1Z 157 -f 1/1)-A 1-44,4-- � RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: Authorize Execution of Amendments to Agreements with URS Greiner Woodward Clyde and Komex H20 Science for Studies Related to Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation COUNCIL MEETING DATE: I Au2ust 21, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Coritract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Si,qned Ln full by the City Attomey) Aftached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomg) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomeyy Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (if applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Find i ngs/Cond itions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk EXPLANATION FQ"ETURN OF ITEM: I �1110 I I MOIFIIIIMMMA��� RCA Author: K Dills 01 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAU� N)01) WV-4 MEETING DATE: 4/1 1/00 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-35 Council/Agency Meeting Held: 0-0 3 -;to - Is Deferred/Continued to: )(Approved Ll Conditionally Approved Ll Denied w1axiv-00 :77-0D W City Clerk:s Signature Council Meeting Date: 4/17/00 1 - I Department ID Number: PW 00-35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION :71 -1 SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL --7 SUBMITTEDBY: RAY SILVER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR tf PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS'. -- ..0 1-; SUBJECT: APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION; DIRECT PREPARATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACTS WITH KOMEX H20 SCIENCE AND URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE; AUTHORIZE ADDITION OF ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR URBAN RUNOFF/NPDES PROJECT MANAGEMENT Statement of issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: As part of the ongoing Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Plan, the City has retained firms to perform subsurface and surface studies in support of identifying and eliminating bacteria in urban runoff discharges to the ocean. The preliminary results of these studies indicate the need for expanding the scopes of work. A permanent staff position is being requested to manage the urban runoff and NPDES programs. Additional funds are required to continue the program. Funding §ource: Unappropriated General Fund Balance. It is likely that these funds could be reimbursed through the recently approved State Water Quality Proposition 13. The City of Huntington Beach may be eligible for several millions of dollars for water quality control projects by way of this measure. Recommended Action: Motion to: Appropriate $950,000 from the unappropriated General Fund Balance to the Urban Runoff Program. 2. Authorize the preparation of an amendment to the existing contract with Komex H20 Science, to continue Geologic, Hydrogeologic and Geophysical Consulting Services in RCA for urban runoff.doc -2. 04113/00 3:55 PM tic — / REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 4117/00 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-35 Support of the Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan. Negotiations would be conducted immediately for these additional services for an amount not to exceed $364,000. 3. Authorize the preparation of an amendment to the existing contract with URS Greiner Woodward Ciyde, to continue Engineering Services in Support of Identifying and Eliminating Bacteria in Urban Runoff Discharges to Huntington Beach. Negotiations would be conducted at the appropriate time in the consultant's work progress. An appropriation in the amount of $385,000 is requested from which the additional services would be negotiated. 4. Approve the addition of an Associate Civil Engineer to oversee the Urban Runoff and Non -Point Source Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs, at an annual cost of approximately $92,000. Alternative Actionis): 1) Do not appropriate funds to the Urban Runoff Program, and discontinue further studies at this time. 2) Do not authorize an amendment to the contract with Komex for an expanded scope of services. This will result in incomplete hydrogeological information regarding subsurface groundwater and sediment bacterial monitoring. 3) Do not approve an amendment to the contract with URS Greiner for an expanded scope of services. This action will result in incomplete oceanographic and surface water quality information. 4) Do not approve the addition of an Associate Civil Engineer to manage the programs. Without a position assigned to the program, urban runoff issues will be absorbed into existing staff priorities. Capital projects and construction project management will experience significant delays or deferrals to future years. Analysis: At its September 20, 1999 meeting, the City Council appropriated $925,000 to support the Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan. To date, nearly $900,000 of these funds has been expended to implement the plan. On January 3, 2000, the City Council approved a contract with Komex H20 Science in the amount of $150,000, for consulting services related to the remediation plan. Specifically, Komex is perfDTMing investigations on subsurface drainage. On January 28, 2000, the City Council approved a similar contract with URS Greiner Woodward Clyde in the amount of $399,000, for investigations of surface drainage. The County of Orange (County) and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) agreed to fund a portion of these contracts, in the respective amounts of $211,033 and $88,633. RCA for urban runoff.doc .3- 04113100 3:55 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/17/00 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-35 The preliminary results of the Phase 1 work indicates that further studies by both firms are necessary to develop conclusive data. It is the goal of the firms to have the Phase 2 studies completed before the summer beach season. LIRS Greiner proposes extensive oceanographic data collection and water quality sampling, dye studies and summary reports for a total fee of $385,000. Komex proposes additional geophysical and hydrogeological investigation, expanded testing and a final report for a fee of $364,000. In addition, staff estimates the cost of other required testing, incidental costs related to dry flow diversion of flood pumping stations and additional staffing at $200,000. The table below summarizes these costs. Additional Tasks URS Greiner Water Quality Monitoring $289,000 URS Greiner Open Ocean Dye Testing $96,000 URS Greiner Subtotal $385,000 Komex Phase 11 $308,000, Komex Expanded Geophysical Investigation $56,000 Kornex Subtotal $364,0001 Required water testing, incidental costs of flood station diversion & additional staffing $200,000: 1 Total $949,0001 It has become apparent throughout the past six months that the City must increase its involvement in urban runoff and NPDES issues. Notwithstanding the results of current studies, water quality control concerns must be a sustained program. A new staff position is requested for continued program administration. Due to the technical nature of diversion and runoff projects, a professional civil engineer position is recommended. The original budget appropriation of $925,000 has been expended on professional services, water quality testing, and diversion of the storm drain pump stations to the Orange County Sanitation District facilities. The expenses are summarized below - Urban Runoff Program Expenses IFY 99/00 URS Greiner $399,000 Komex H20 150,000 Water quality testing 75,000 Cleanout and diversion of pump stations 250,000 Total $874,000 Reimbursement by County & OCSD 299,666 City Costs $574,334 RCA for urban runoff -4- 4113/00 10:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 4117/00 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-35 Cooperative 5unding. The City is in the process of negotiating cost -sharing, supplemental agreements with the County of Orange and the Orange County Sanitation District. The City has taken the lead roie 'in retaining the necessary professional services; however, on -going side agreements for cost -sharing between the benefiting agencies has been, and will continue to be, an integral part of the Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan Program. Letters requesting support for additional cost sharing, supplemental agreements will be submitted to the County and OCSD. Because this entire public policy issue is so time critical, all aspects of the contract and cost -sharing process are being "fast -tracked" to the maximum extent possible. COUNCIL POUCY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS: As adopted by the City Council in March 1998, all requests for appropriation of funds must meet one of the following criteria: 1) The request is for an unanticipated emergency, 2) the request is required to implement labor negotiations, or 3) The request will be offset by related new revenues. The new appropriation being requested is for an unanticipated emergency. Environmental Status: Not applicable to studies. Attachment(s : RCA Author: Linda Daily :gc RCA for urban runoff -5- 4/13100 10:30 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICA TION To: Ray Silver, City Administrator From: John Reekstin, Director of Administrative Services Subject: FIS 2000-24 Approve Amendments to contracts with Komex H20 Science and URS Greiner Woodward Clyde. Date: April 11, 2000 As required by Resolution 4832, this Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for "Approve Amendments to contracts with Komex H20 Science and URS Greiner Woodward to provide additional funds for Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation." If the City Council approves this request (total appropriation $950,000), the estimated unreserved, undesignated General Fund balance at September 30, 2000 will be reduced to $7,951,493. , Z ��, �� % 10� John Reekstin, birector of Administrative Services ADOPTED BUDGE CURRENT ESTIMATE $ 6,676,000 $ 7,961,493 Fund Balance . General Fund ::: .. _: : Adopted Budget: Current:Estimate Beginning Fund Balance 10/1/99 (unaudited) S 11,734,000 $ 17.071,000 Plus: Estimated Revenue 114,110,841 114,110,841 Less: Estimated Expenditures (120,169:841) (120,169,841) Pending/Approved FIS's: (2,110, Less: FIS 2000-24 - (950,000) Estimated 9/30/00 Balance $ 5,675,000 1 $ 7,951,493 ESTIMATED GENERAL FUND BALANCE - $8,000,000 $79000,000 $69000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 ADOPTED BUDGET CURRENT ESTIMATE -V� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK CALIFORNIA 92648 LETTER OF TRANSNTITTAL OF ITEM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPENTENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EFUIN=GTON BEACH DATE: �,7a-)q u4A:�j 1,Z7, ,200c TO: J,1-4-9.n e f. ATTENTION: 474hOtW RK0 LoLj/,) N N?L�00 3ol,54,,o Z&,. &aejkt� ZQ�.� DEPARTINIENT: Pre 6' 1 de�4 Str t e— 921,117 REGARD19qr.' 4 A - City. S ta' te, zip/ ,�,4�7ftF See Attacbed Action Agenda Item Ir- 5 - Date of Approval Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item. 0 Remarks: 4?f-4�- Connie Brockway City Clerk Attachments: Action Agenda Page Agreement Bonds Insurance RCA Deed Other CC: Rwd 4/, L De Ftment ICA Atrccment Other Name Department ICA Agreement Insurance Other Name Department ICA AFeement Insumnce ZTC—r NaT. L IY7�e 7— lot Department ICA Agreement Insur7 Other Risk- Management Dept. Insurance G:17ollowupicoverltr Received by Name - Company Name - Date (Telephone: 714-536-62271 01/03/2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 11 F-4. (City Council) AdoRt Resolution No. 2000-4 to Modify Certain Benefits and Sala for the Elected Office of City Attorney for Calendar Years 2000-2001 (700.90) Communication from the City Attorney requesting that the City Council approve Resolution No. 2000-4 modifying certain benefits for the City Attorney as proposed for the city's appointed department heads for calendar years 2000-2001. City Council approval of the salary increase recommended for the City Attorney by the City Administrator and reflected in the same Resolution No. 2000-4 is also requested. Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve Resolution No. 2000-4 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Modifying Benefits and Salary for Calendar Years 2000 and 2001 for Elected City Attorney. " [Adopted 6-0-1 (Sullivan Abstain)] F-5. (Citv Councill A[)Drove the Selection of and Aareements with URS Greiner Woogy-aud Clyde and Komex H20 Science, Inc., to Provide Consultina Services in Support of the Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan (600.10) Communication from the Director of Public Works informing Council that the Urban RunofflCoastal Remediation Action Plan cannot be fully implemented without the support of consultants who specialize in geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, environmental science, water resources, civil engineering and oceanography. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. AP-. ve and authOFize the Mayof and City GleFk to exeGute the Profi�&� R;�,, ;es Contraot Bet#een the City of Huntington BeaGh and URS Greiner W-00 1ward GWe Corporation fbr Enginee&g Sewkes in Supped of kfentffiAg-and Eliminating BaGteda in Urban Remote Disrharges to Huntington BeaGh. [Defer approval of the URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Corpj and 2. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Kornex H20 Science Inc. for Geologic, Hydrugeologic and Geophysical Consulting Services in Support of the Urban Run-OfflCoastal Rernediation Action Plan. [Approved 7-01 [Mayor requested staff to draft letter to Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jim Silva requesting county support in funding $211, 000 for their share of study.] Bea,ed6led 1- PWO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH lyable - MEETING DATE: January 3,2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-003 Fj Council/Agency Meeting Held: jIg lana4L— Deferred/Continued to: Approved Con, pproved Q Denied' ClerWs Signature FCouncil Meeting Date- January 3, 2000 Department ID Number: PW 00-003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, CITY ADMINISTRATORRCdP PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC -WO K SUBJECT: Approve the selection of Kornex and-UFjrGt4Tff6FWZZdWardj=yde to provide consulting services in support of the Urban Run-off/Coastal Rernediation Action Plan. I Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The Urban Run-off/Coastal Remediation Action Plan cannot be fully implemented without the support of consultants who specialize in geology, hydrology, hydrageology, environmental science, water resources, civil engineering and oceanography. Funding Source: Funds in the amount of $549,000 are available in the General Fund Beach Closure Program. Discussions are on -going between the City, County and County Sanitation District regarding reasonable cost sharing based on relative benefits. Recommended Action: 1. Motion to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement between the City and Komex-H20 Science, Inc. APP(OVEO -7-0 2. Motion to defer approval of the URS Greiner Woodward Clyde pending receipt and review o F *he-,, of cost sharing commitments from other involvedWge cies. 4cr-e(' t"IePeOv- 2as Grzlnel- Z (71 0 1 tiVr 099Z 94 tj t e) Loa OIMAYO)t 9 vnw-F 7D 1) earr LcrrW j" eqoeHw norater-c"er4q t5oarO oP softEVi-Saf-S ernecliationActibnPlan.doc 04`141irfr" VrM.51"":2. 01103/00 4:12 PM f�frMA Coton Fo t 0'al 1 000 F01,4cjje;r- 6hewe 161 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: January 3, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-003 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: 0 Approved L3 Conditionally Approved L1 Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date- January 3, 2000 ___ Department ID Number: PW 00-003 I __ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: Approve the selection of Kornex and URS Greiner Woodward Clyde to provide consulting services in support of the Urban Run-off/Coastal Rernediation Action Plan. IStatement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The Urban Run-off/Coastal Remediation Action Plan cannot be fully implemented without the support of consultants who specialize in geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, environmental science, water resources, civil engineering and oceanography. Funding Source: Funds in the amount of $549,000 are available in the General Fund Beach Closure Program. Discussions are on -going between the City, County and County Sanitation District regarding reasonable cost sharing based on relative benefits. Recommended Action: 1. Motion to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement between the City and Komex-H20 Science, Inc. 2. Motion to defer approval of the URS Greiner Woodward Clyde pending receipt and review of cost sharing commitments from other involved agencies. * 94Qvi5 Lea _[h I'S i's *c- reuj- �seaL P (,O.Te niZd_ +0 C0064A:t 1�13 Ph= Rernediation Action Plan.doc -2- 01103/00 4:12 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 3, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-003 Analysis: During the summer of 1999, the near shore waters off the State and City beaches were sporadically posted and closed due to elevated levels of various bacteria. During these events, the County of Orange, the Orange County Sanitation District, and the City undertook a number of investigative and proactive measures to identify and correct the cause of the problem. While these measures may have alleviated the problem, they did not eliminate the bacterial contamination that still occurs on a sporadic basis. Most recently, City staff prepared a detailed Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan (Attachment 1). While numerous steps of the Plan have been accomplished or are on -going, a complete approach will necessitate professional support services to conduct additional technical investigations and feasibility studies, develop a detailed plan to implement the additional findings and oversee the completion of these efforts. On November 5, 1999, a team of representatives from the County of Orange, the Orange County Sanitation District, and the City met with eight consultants, at a pre -proposal meeting. By the November 22, 1999 deadline, four firms submitted proposals, as follows: FIRM LOCATION Holmes & Narver Orange, CA Komex 9 H20 Science, Inc. Huntington Beach, CA RS Environmental Engineering Huntington Beach, CA URS Greiner Woodward Clyde San Diego, CA On December 7, 1999, the team of agency representatives met and evaluated each proposal. Based on the outcome of this process, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde and Komex-H20 Science, Inc. were selected for further consideration and were interviewed on December 16, 1999. Although both firms were deemed qualified to do the entire scope of work, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde exhibited exceptional expertise through very relevant work in similar, previous projects. The agency team, however, also noted that Komex 0 H20 Science, Inc. demonstrated exceptional qualifications in subsurface geological science. Therefore, it is recommended that both URS Greiner Woodward Clyde and Komex 0 H20 Science, Inc. be retained to provide the complete scope of services desired by the agencies. The total, estimated cost for these services, based on the understanding of the problem to date, will not exceed $549,000. Copy of 99rca23.doc -3- 12/28/99 2:31 PM I -- REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 3, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-003 COSTSUMMARY FIRM SCOPE OF WORK AMOUNT UN 3 Greiner All tasks exclusive of subsurface geological $399,000 Woodward Clyde investigations. Komex * H20 Subsurface geological investigations. 150,000 Science, Inc. TOTAL $549,000 City staff has requested the County of Orange and the Orange County Sanitation District to provide their respective, recommended levels of support for the cost sharing of these contracts, These have been requested in writing and, if received prior to the City Council meeting, will be presented as.late communications. EnvironrLientall Status: N/A Public Works Commission Action: Review by the Public Works Commission not required pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.111.030. Atta:hrnqpA Us: Urban Runoff/Coastal Remediation Action Plan 2. 1 URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Agreement I Komex 9 H20 Science, Inc. Agreement RCA Author: Donald Noble:gc Copy of 99rca23.doc -4- 12128/99 3:17 PM Komex a H20 Science, Inc. 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RS Environmental Engineering 19201 Sherborne Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92108 Holmes & Narver 999 Town & Country Road Orange, CA 92868-4786 Y C! DEACH, J C A 1999 UP DEC 29 .4 T 00 ATTACHMENT #1 URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION ACTION PLAN Action Item City Action 1. Test three HB Pump Stations (P.S.) (Atlanta, Newland & Tier I — Immediate Begin End Banning) for bacteria levels 08.26-99 08.27.99 2. Clean and video inspect all HB sanitary sewer lines along entire beachfront, near coastal areas and in area bounded by PCH/Brookhurst/SA River/Banning 08.26.99 09.03.99 3. Temporarily divert all inflows to the three P.S. to OCSD 08.30.99 10.15.99 4. Clean and disinfect the three P.S. and dispose of semi -solid debris 09.03.99 09.05.99 5. Conduct daily bacterial and physical constituent testing of all inflows to the three P.S. 09.06.99 10.15.99 6. Test County and Fountain Valley P.S. along Talbert Channel for bacterial and physical constituents 09.09.99 09.09.99 7. Clean and disinfect the remaining four HB P.S. along Talbert Channel (Indianapolis, Adams, Yorktown and Flounder) and dispose of semi -solid debris 09-13.99 09.17.99 Other/Joint Agency Action 8. Clean OCFCD Adams P.S. along Talbert Channel and dispose of semi -solid debris by Cnty - - 9. Temporarily divert all inflows to OCFCD Adams P.S. to OCSD by Cnty - - 10. Clean and disinfect City of Fountain Valley P.S. along Talbert Channel and dispose of semi -solid debris by F.V. 11. Video inspect remainder of OCSD coastal trunk sewer (84") by HB 10.15.99 12. Coordinate with Local, State and Federal representatives for funding and emergency support 08-26.99 On -going included in estimated $250,000 aggregate amount expended as of 09.13.99 Subtotal Budget Status $ 250,000* Done $* Done S* Done $* Done $ 20.000 Done $* Done S 60,000 Done SN/A Done SN/A NIA — Using upstream evaporation ponding $N/A Deleted — Pumps groundwater only SN/A Done (H13 staff costs only) SN/A On -going in Tiers 11 and III $330,000 I of 6 Rev. 5 - 12/14199 URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION ACTION PLAN (cont'd.) Tier 11 — Mid -Term Action Item Begin End Budget Status City Action 13. Review video inspection records of 39" diameter and larger storm drains (S.D ) from 1993 survey 14. Repair defects (30 noted) identified in video inspection records of 39" diameter and larger S.D. from 1993 survey 15. Clean and video inspect S.D. lines 36" and smaller feeding all seven HB Talbert Channel P.S. 16. Repair defect (1 noted) identified in video inspection of 36" and smaller S.D. lines 17. Temporarily divert all inflows to the remaining four H13 P.S. to OCSD Other/Joint Agency Action 18. Retain professional support services ,/ Geology/hydrogeology (subsurface investigation) V Environmental/water resources engineering (urban runoff/ treatment/permitting/N P DES) V Civil engineering (pump station diversion design) V Oceanography (tidal and current effects) V Staff extension to oversee action plan and coordinate various professional services 19. Interagency cost -sharing MOA per 10.25.99 mtg 20. Obtain Co. PF&RD grant for low -flow diversion facilities 21. Coordinate with Local. State and Federal representatives for funding and emergency support 09.13.99 09.17.99 SN/A Done (HB staff costs only) 01-01-99 01.31-00 STBD Pending 10.04.99 11.08.99 S 50,000 Done (HB staff costs only) 11.08.99 11.30.99 $ 8,500 Done 11.03.99 11.15.99 $ 60.000 Pending further feasibility analyses 10.15.99 01.03.00 SNA 10.25-99 01.17.00 SN/A 10-25-99 01.01-00 S 150:000 On -going On -going SN/A Subtotal $268,500 Final Interviews set for 12.16.99 Possible HS lead Possible OC lead HB only Possible OCSD lead HB lead OC lead (Ruane) 50% match grant submifted On -going 2 of 5 Rev. 5 — 12/14/99 URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION ACTION PLAN (cont'd.) Tier III — Long -Term Action Item Begin End Budget Status Cily Action 22. Consultant mu Iti-discipli nary study/exp loration/re port 01.03.00 23. Eliminate outstanding items in vicinity of coastal"Hot Spot" 01.03.00 • Nesi-Ascon site • Cabrillo and H-B-T-S Trailer Parks sewer system V Abandoned 15-inch sewer line • HB and OCSD abandoned treatment and pumping facilities • OCSD Plant #2 on -site 24. HB P.S. low -flow diversion implementation"' • Identify Talbert Channel P.S. sites amenable to permanent low -flow diversion analysis 01.03.00 • PS&E for clarifier/filtration system and permanent low -flow diversion system 02.01.00 • Secure permits and environmental clearances (e.g. Coastal Commission, EIR, OCSD) 03.01-00 • Bid/construct initial permanent diversion projects 06.01.00 25. Develop cost estimate to slip line S.D. pipes deemed necessary from video inspection 01.01.00 26. Re -install temporary HB. P.S. low -flow diversion structures for 2000 beach season (9) 04.15.00 27. OCSD fees/charges for diverted storm water 04.15.00 28. Develop remediation plan for all remaining HB P.S. other than along Talbert Channel TBD 29. Add permanent. full-time staff for NPDES program 10.01.00 Other/Joint Agency Action 30. OCFCD Adams P.S. low -flow diversion implementation 31. Coordinate Talbert Channel investigation by UC Irvine++ 32. Develop regional response to urban runoff issue (adequacy of current programs and cost -sharing issues) 05.01.00 S500,000 02.15.00 STBD In discussion w1agencies Pending support services 02.01.00 S 35,000 06.01.00 S200.000 06-01-00 S 25,000 12.01.00 STBD 02.01.00 SN/A Pending (HB staff costs only) 12.D1.00 $135,000 12.01.00 $ 95,000 TBD N/A by Cnty - - 10.28.99 TBD TBD TBD STBD Pending support services S 90,000 Pending 00/01 budget so Done — Using upstream evaporation ponding STBD NWRI project underway Ruane drafting MOU per $TBD 3 of 5 Rev. 5 — 12/14/99 URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION ACTION PLAN (cont'd.) Tier III — Long -Term (cont'd.) Action Item Begin End Budget Status 33. Work with Local, State and Federal agencies in studying Talbert Channel remediation plan 34. Coordinate voluntary S.A. River investigation by UC Davis 35. Obtain and analyze UCLA study results 36. Coordinate with Local, State and Federal representatives for funding and emergency support TBD TBD $TBD TBD TBD so TBD TBD $TBD On -going On -going $N/A Subtotal $1,080,000 Grand Total $1,678,500 09.20-99 Council Appropriation $ 926,000 Pending Pending — Possible HB lead Pending On -going + OCSD treatment charge = S420/MG/Day (OCSD to waive additional S660/MG/Day Capital Facilities Charge from 11/11/99 - 11/1/00) ++ NWRI grant = $75k + S75k match to be spread to agencies via NPDES program 4 of 5 Rev. 5 — 12M4199 URBAN RUNOFF/COASTAL REMEDIATION ACTION PLAN SCHEMATIC SOLUTION Emergency Response (Multi -Agency EOC) Potential Source Sampling/Lab Testing Infrastructure Inspection/Repair Temporary Pump Station Diversions -' Data Gathering/Studies �/ Ocean Currents[Tides V Channel/Ocean Bacteria Levels -/ Pump Stations Water Quality V OCSID Outfall Testing Note: Bold -face, underlined text indictates areas of desired consultant support services Permanent Pump Station Diversions Design/Permitting Enhanced Testing/investigations - Subsurface Ground Conditions - Oceanographic Conditions V Enhanced long-term studies UCl/NWRl UCID UCLA Construct Permanent Pump Station Diversions �' Program Manaaerne.nt r- — -j— J\ V Permanent City Staffing V Environmental Engineering Regional NPIDES EnhancernenVIRegional Drainage Issues 5 of 5 Rev. 6 - 12114/99 ATTACHMENT #2 PROPOSAL . ii ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF IDENTIFYING AND ELIMINATING BACTERIA IN URBAN RUNOFF DISCHARGES TO HUNTINGTON BEACH Submlttedto: Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Silbmittedby.- URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 1615 Murray Canyon Road, Sufte 1000 San Diego, CA 92108-4314 Phone. (619) 294-9400 Fax: (619) 293-7920 November 22, 1999 URS Reference No. 975800290002 F -15 tk-WNckeNT 10- 2- C-XIA191T iN-, COO "'Tle eWAIV iT atq Fo-E It, m),,. oT-f j&- of Ivr.- cq� cLegk P R 0 P 0 S A L I I I I I I I I I I F I I I GINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF IDENTIFYING AND ELMINATING BACTERIA IN URBAN RUNOFF DISCHARGES TO HUNTINGTON BEACH Preparedfor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 URS WC Reference No. 975800290002 November 22, 1999 as arviver irevenforar e/ira 1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92108-4314 619-294-9400 Fax: 619-293-7920 I I 16'!5 MurayCanycn Road. Suite 1000 URS Greiner Woodward Clyde San Diego. CA 92109 A Division of URS Corporation Tel 619.294 9420 November 22, 1999 Fax: 619.293.7920 offices Mr. Robert F. Beardsley Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Subject: Proposal to Provide Engineering Services in Support of Identifying and Eliminating Bacteria in Urban Runoff Discharges to Huntington Beach LTRS Greiner Woodward Clyde Reference No. 975800290002 Dear Mr. Beardsley, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde (URS) 'is pleased to submit our proposal to provide engineering servicos in support of identifying and eliminating bacteria in urban runoff discharges to Huntington Beach. We have assembled an experienced team of experts who have extensive, recent experience working on this issue in southern California. In addition to LTRS, we have included Moffatt & Nichol to provide oceanographic services, and Dr. Mansour Samadpour of the University of Washington for specialized DNA ribotyping, should it be required for this project. We have developed a proposal that responds to your requests described at the November 5, 1999 pre -proposal meeting. Our proposal includes several tasks designed to build on the Agencies' efforts to date in identifying sources, tracking transport, and eliminating bacteria in the surf zone. We have structured our proposal as a "menu" of options that the Agencies can select, as appropriate, to address the contamination issue. We anticipate a large amount of communication and coordination with the Agencies throughout the duration of the project. We have identified a management team and staff resources that have direct experience working together on similar projects. Our Project Manager, Ms. Nancy Gardiner, is known statewide for her work on coliform issues associated with urban runoff. Ms. Gardiner has managed and directed the technical work on three urban runoff bacteria projects in southern California, including those for the cities of San Diego, Coronado, and Santa Barbara County. All of these projects included elements that are directly relevant to the Huntington Beach project. Ms Gardiner will have the senior management support of Carol Forrest, P.E., as her Principal -in -Charge. Ms. Forrest, like Ms. Gardiner, has managed bacteria studies and treatment feasibility studies designed to eliminate coliform problems. We have included Dr. Revital Katznelson and Mr. Allen de Steiguer, P.E. as senior advisors to the project. Both Dr. Katznelson and Mr. de Steiguer have served in this capacity on other urban runoff bacteria studies. I I I URS Grainer Woodward Clyde I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I We are aware of the Agencies' desire to fast -track this effort. All staff proposed for this project are available and committed to working on this project immediately upon receipt of the Notice -to -Proceed. It is our understand' ng that the Agencies plan to review proposals during the week of November 22 and intend to schedule interviews soon thereafter. The reviewers should be aware that our proposed Project Manager, Ms. Nancy Gardiner, wil I be out of the country until December 5. Given her key role and interest in this project, URS would appreciate any consideration that can be given to scheduling interviews the week of December 6 th to enable her to participate. During the time she is away, please direct your correspondence or questions to Ms. Carol Forrest. We are excited to have this opportunity to assist the Agencies with this assignment, and look forward to working with you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE CA_d"-%A-- 'A�� cy- E_.,9 Nancy E. Gardiner Project Manager Enclosure Carol L. Forrest, P.E. Vice President I I SECTIONONE lntfoducUon Section1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1.1 Section2 Scope ot Work .............................................................................................. . ............................. 2-1 2.1 Task 1. Develop Workplan ................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Task 2. Review Existing Information ................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Task 3. Conduct Sanitary Surveys .................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Task 4. Conduct Focused Source Testing ......................................................... 2-2 2.5 Task 5. Latent Groundwater Quality Evaluation .............................................. 2-3 2.6 Task 6. Conduct Oceanographic Studies to Deterrnine Offshore Movement of Pollutant Plumes ......................................... ................................ 2-3 2.7 Task 7. Conduct Feasibility Study of Alternatives ........................................... 2-5 2.7.1 Task 7a. Investigate Dry Weather Diversion Feasibility ..................... 2-5 2.7.2 Task 7b. Investigate End -of -Pipe Treatment Feasibility ...................... 2.7.3 Task 7c. Investigate Feasibility of Using Constructed Wetlands 2-5 for Removal of Bacteria ........................................................................ 2-6 Section 3 Project 2.7.4 Task 7d. Outfall Extension Feasibility Study ...................................... Management and Staffing .............................................................................................. 2-6 3-1 3.1 3.2 Project Manager, Ms. Nancy Gardiner ............................................................... Principal -in -Charge, Ms. Carol Forrest, P.E . ..................................................... 3-1 3-3 3.3 Technical Advisor, Revital Katznelson, Ph.D .................................................... 3-4 3.4 3.5 Technical Advisor, Allen de Steiguer, P.E ......................................................... Project Staff Resources ...................................................................................... 3-4 3-4 Section4 Relevant Experience ................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 URS Corporation ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Relevant Projects ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2.1 Coronado North Beach Outfall Bacteriological Characterization and Engineering Feasibility Study ........................................................ 4-1 4.2.2 San Diego Co-Permittees' Agua Hedionda Lagoon Bacteriological Study ............................................................................ 4-2 4.2.3 South Coast Watershed Characterization Study ................................... 4-4 4.2.4 Nationwide Urban Runoff Program ...................................................... 4-5 4.2.5 Municipal Storm Water Experience, California .................................... 4-5 4.3 Moffatt & Nichol Engineers ............................................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration, Orange County, CA ...................... 4-7 4.3.2 2-D Flow & Water Quality Modeling for Los Angeles International Air -port (LAX) Master Plan, Santa Monica Bay, LosAngeles, CA ................................................................................... 4-8 4.3.3. IQC — Coastal Engineering, Los Angeles County, CA ........................ 14-9 Section5 4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................. Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 4-9 5-1 I Appendices Appendix A Resumes of Key Staff Appendix B Schedule of Fees and Charges oNsomimtiroommanow W.'PRGPOSAL',975i3OO2900C.2tPROP-AR.DOC',22-NOV-99'.SDG i I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTIONONE Introduction URS Greiner Woodward Clyde (URS), In association with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers and Dr. Mansour Samadpour of the University of Washington (the URS Team), is pleased to present our proposal to assist the City of Huntington Beach, the Orange County Sanitation District, and the County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department (the Agencies) in better understanding and controlling the sources of coliform and enterococcus bacteria that have impacted beach usage in the Huntington Beach area for the past several months. We understand that the City of Huntington Beach (City) experienced problems with high total and fecal coliform and enterococcus levels in the surf zone along the beach beginning in April, 1999. The high bacteria levels resulted in posting and closing of the beach for most of the summer, causing severe economic impact to local businesses and disappointment to many prospective beach -goers. Because a sewage source was suspected, an Interagency Task Force was formed to conduct studies to identify the source of the bacteria. These studies included extensive physical and CCTV inspections of the sewer system, investigations of beach restrooms, monitoring of bacteria levels in adjacent discharge streams (e.g., Santa Ana River), offshore outfall studies, groundwater monitoring, and subsurface investigations using remote sensing to locate buried pipes and conduits. These efforts identified only minor problems; no significant sewage source was found. Yet, the bacteria levels in the surf zone remained high. Subsequent monitoring studies were conducted due to the fact that total to fecal coliform ratios suggested a potential tirban runoff source. These studies led to the discovery of elevated levels of coliform in dry -weather urban runoff collecting in two pump stations adjacent to Talbert Marsh. Flows from these pump stations were subsequently diverted to the sanitary sewer. In addition, portions of the sewer were sliplined to correct minor leakages. While these effects resulted in lowering the surf zone contamination levels for a period of time, they have risen again. This discovery has prompted the Agencies to suspect that other sources of coliform in the watershed are causing the problem. The Agencies wish to hire a consultant to further study urban runoff to identify and ultimately eliminate the source(s) of the contamination. Based on our experience, we are aware that contamination from urban runoff sources may be diffuse and may originate from multiple sources, rather than from one single location or activity. The URS team has significant recent project experience on closely related studies, state-of-the-art capabilities, and intense interest in providing these services to the Agencies. Our involvement in several similar projects statewide will enable us to provide cost-effective services without "learning curve" delays. In addition, this enables us to be consistent with and build upon the knowledge gained from previous work. This proposal outlines potential approaches to identify the sources of the bactaria, possible alternatives for controlling the problem, our proposed project management and staffing team, and our experience that makes us uniquely qualified to provide these services. In addition, we are aware that the Agencies are interested in conducting this project as soon as possible. Our proposed staff are committed to commencing work immediately upon receipt of a Notice -to -Proceed. #FS 8191BOt JVMgWf# C108 W.TROPOSAL�97580029000ZPROP-AR-DOCk22-NOV-97SOG I - I I I SECTIONTWO Scope of Work This section describes the proposed technical approach for this project. However, there are many ways to approach such a problem and the technical approach outlined below may be modified as a result of detailed discussions with the Agencies. In addition, we will continue to communicate frequently with you throughout the duration of the project in order to provide updates on progress and to modify the investigative approach as more is leamed about the nature of the contamination. 2.1 TASK 1. DEVELOP WORKPLAN Our first task will be to develop a detailed Workplan for the project. In consultation with key staff from the three Agencies, we will identify the storm drain outfalls, pump stations, and natural drainageways that discharge into Talbert Marsh or directly onto the 41/2 mile segment of beach that has been impacted by high coliform levels. Most of these drains and pump stations discharge into Talbert Marsh or the Santa Ana River. however, there may be additional smaller catchments that discharge directly onto the beach. We will obtain topographic, drainage and land use maps of the catchment area for each of these storm drains or creeks in order to define the details of investigation in subsequent tasks. We will also evaluate other potential pathways for transport of bacteria to the surf zone (e.g., from offshore sources), building upon the work already conducted by the Agencies. At this stage, we will also prioritize the various discharges according to their contamination potential and consideration of previously collected data. A detailed schedule for completing the project will also be developed with the main objective of identifying the contamination source as soon as possible. 2.2 TASK 2. REVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION As mentioned above, we are aware that the Agencies have already conducted a great deal of work to identify the sources of bacteria. To understand fully what has been accomplished to date and avoid repetition of effort, we will consult extensively with the Agencies and review the previous work. This will include meetings with key staff and reviewing data collected from risk -based investigations including. 0 Total and fecal coliform and enterococcus monitoring data, 0 State Beach restrooms and local sewer surveys, - Onshore sewer line investigations, Groundwater monitoring, Unmapped pipe surveys, Radar/sonar investigations, and Storm drain and pump station investigations. These data will help us appreciate the overall bacteria levels in the area and will help to prioritize the geographic areas where the investigation should be focused. We will also communicate WiLh University of California — Irvine (UCI) research scientists who are �rforrning the Coastal Runoff 2-1 F1 I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTIONTWO Scope of Work Impact Study (CRIS) to model transport of bacterial indicators from Talbert Marsh and the Santa Ana River watersheds to review relevant data from their research. 2.3 TASK 3. CONDUCT WATERSHED SANITARY SURVEYS The objective of a watershed sanitary survey is to identify the potential sources of pollution (in this case, coliform bacteria and enterococcus) within a watershed. The Agencies have already conducted element of the sanitary survey through detailed sewer inspections. The next task in performing the sanitary survey will be to focus on more diffuse, urban runoff sources of contamination located throughout the drainage areas that discharge to the beach. We will build upon what the Agencies have developed to date using a variety of assessment methods. The first ;tep will be to consult with and/or conduct telephone interviews with appropriate staff from the Agencies to discuss the sources and suspected sources of contamination identified through the initial investigations. Using the maps obtained in Task 1, we will evaluate any potential source areas associated with each of the creeks or storm drains that discharges onto the beach. We will define and plot the watershed for each discharge point. Using walking surveys, drive -by ("windshield") surveys, and examination of land use maps and aerial photographs, we will overlay information onto watershed maps. These data may include land use information, locations of any areas served by septic systems, locations of homeless encampments, agricultural and animal operations, kennels, horse facilities, landfills, and other activities that could potentially contribute fecal coliform to the storm drain system. We will communicate closely with UCI researchers on the CRIS study to avoid duplication of effort and incorporate relevant results they obtain from the source investigation portion of their study. 2.4 TASK 4. CONDUCT FOCUSED SOURCE TESTING A more focused method of monitoring worth considering is DNA ribotyping of fecal coliform from discrete locations within the system. This type of monitoring is relatively new and is intended to speciate the sources of bacteria in any given water sample (e.g., differentiate between human and animal sources). However, this methodology is neither widely available nor inexpensive. URS has employed this methodology on other similar projects (e.g., San Diego Co- Permittees; City of Coronado) by teaming with Dr. Mansour Samadpour of the University of Washington. Dr. Samadpour is included on our team to provide this specialized service if required. Dr. Samadpour has developed a methodology for separating the DNA from E. coh, conducting an electrophoresis separation and comparing the DNA "fingerprint" to a library of known types that have been determined to be "resident" in one particular species of animal. This methodology can be used as a diagnostic tool to assist in determining whether a suspected source is the primary contributor at a given point in the system. For example, samples could be collected immediately upstream and downstream of an equestrian facility that borders on a creek. This task would also involve a certain amount of local fecal source sampling to enhance Dr. Samadpour's ability to correlate matches of coliform types to local animal species. ONSSIVIRMNOWNWelive W:I.PFIOFIOSAU-,97580f-1290002'PROP-AR.DOC'..22-NOV-99�,SDG 2-2 I SECTIONTWO Scope of Work If it is decided to conduct DNA ribotv ing, careful consideration should be given to determine � p the locations that should be tested. With such a new analytical method, it is common that a certain percentage of the coliforms are unmatched to an animal source. There are approximately 200,000 varieties of E. coli in nature, however only 29,000 that have been matched in the University of Washington reference library. In addition, the Agencies should be aware that if human sources are identified, it could raise certain expectations regarding elimination of the source, with potentially high cost implications. In some areas of California, this knowledge has resulted in regulatory agencies requiring additional investigations and mitigation. 2.5 TASK 5. LATENT GROUNDWATER QUALITY EVALUATION Groundwater re-emergence in the shallow nearshore area may potentially introduce bacteria into the surf zone. If deemed appropriate after consideration of previous monitoring, URS will perform a groundwater quality evaluation that will include a review of existing data and a field program to collect and analyze groundwater samples. URS proposes to review existing groundwater data collected by the Agencies during the earlier phases of work to date. Evaluation of groundwater quality may require additional groundwater sampling and analyses. Options for that monitoring include one-time groundwater sampling using an in -situ sampling device (hydropuTich) along the beach, or installing and sampling monitoring wells. It may also be pertinent to conduct some groundwater sampling and analysis between areas of suspected sewer leaks and storm water conveyance systems that potentially receive infiltration from groundwater. For cost estimating purposes, we have assumed that hydropunch in -situ sampling will be conducted in one day and well installation and sampling will be conducted for one day. For the City of Coronado, URS performed this type of a latent groundwater study that proved beneficial in ruiling out widespread leakage of the sanitary sewer system. 2.6 TASK 6. CONDUCT OCEANOGRAPHIC STUDIES TO EVALUATE OFFSHORE MOVEMENT OF POLLUTANT PLUMES The objective of this task is to evaluate the transport pathways of bacteria] pollutants once they enter the ocean, and track how concentrations in the surf zone change spatially and temporally. Moffatt & Nichol will perform this hydrodynamic modeling and coastal analysis. The oceanography task is intended to define and quantify the existing ocean conditions in terms of currents, contaminant levels and distributions for each season over time. This information will then be used in a two-dimensional numeric model to predict the likely effects of proposed solutions. The niodel output and 'what -if' type scenario testing will allow modifications to the potential solutions or mitigation measures to be recommended. To develop a realistic hydrodynamic model of ocean conditions in the Huntington Beach area a number of steps are required. Below are descriptions of the individual subtasks that will be performed. I Ogg Grainer JV060WAY Clyde - W.�PROPOSAU,975BOD29DDOMPROP-AR.DOC*2-NOV-97-'-DG 2-3 I I I F1 H I 11 I I I I I I I I 11 I I SECTIONTWO Scope of Work Collect and Review Existing Oceanographic Data To support the development of a realistic model the following data will be collected and reviewed: • Bathymetry data, • Ocean waves and currents from the Huntington Beach array, offshore buoys and the Agencies' collected data, • Talbert Marsh tidal flows, storm flows (including the UCI study) and contaminant concentrations (or bacteria levels), • Santa Ana River tidal flows, storm flows, and contaminant concentrations (or bacteria levels), • Existing drogue study data by the Agencies (floats released at Talbert Marsh to track currents) collected in the summer of 1999, • Existing readings of contaminant concentrations measured by the Agencies as part of their on -going programs, and • Dispersion patterns in summer and winter of effluent from the outfall based on existing monitoring studies by the Agencies. Replicate Existing Ocean and Contaminant Concentrations using Two-dimensional Models The existing ocean conditions near the Huntington Beach area will be modeled and the model calibrated so it replicates the existing ocean conditions. The steps to perform this include: • Run the wave transformation model, • Use analytical methods to develop the longshore current profile as input to the hydrodynamic model, • Generate an appropriate 20-square mile grid centered on the "hot spot" for each modeling alternative, • Calibrate the modeling parameters for the two-dimensional hydrodynamic model with conditions recorded in July to August of 1999. Wave data recorded at the Huntington Beach Array will be used. Directional wave characteristics will be verified with one other -age or buoy, • Perform a parametric study by running the hydrodynamic and water quality models while varying contaminant concentrations at various source locations to attempt to replicate the conditions of high bacteria (enterococcus. and coliform) recorded at the beach between Magnolia Avenue and Newland Street. This may help to identify a possible contamination source, but such an indication cannot be guaranteed due to the complexity of the system. It is assumed that the OCSD outfail is not a contributor, and • Summarize and present the results to the project team and the Agencies in a meeting with animations. Predict Ocean and Beach Contaminant Conditions for Potential Solutions The most feasible solution to the contamination is unknown at this time, but when some potential solutions are identified two examples will be evaluated using the model. One is likely to be ONS $I Vifter wo WNW C/o# W:%PROPOSAL:G7582-029,DO02%PROP-AR. D0022-NOV-99-SOG 2-4 I ---I Ll I SECTIONTWO Scope of Work diversion of the runoff to sanitary sewer, which is included here for quotation purposes. One other alternative will also be evaluated with the numeric model. • Diversion of runoff to the sanitary sewer. Contaminant concentrations at the offshore model boundary from outfall effluent will be quantified using analytical methods and the results will be input into the numerical water quality model. • One additional alternative will be provided by URS after their investigative work. A place - holder has been included in the project budget for this purpose. If analyzing the alternative requires more effort than anticipated, the budget will have to be revised. Present the Results This will include two presentations with animations to the project team and the Agencies. Prepare Draft and Final Reporls of the Results The reports will present the background work for the recommendations how the recommendations modified potential solutions to improve their effectiveness or mitigation to offset impacts. 2.7 TASK 7. CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES Once preliminary studies have been completed and most likely source(s) of contamination have been identified, a range of options for reducing the coliform, levels in one or more of the discharges onto the beach will be evaluated. The following sections outline several options for treatment and diversion for control of bacterial contamination that may be applicable in Huntington Beach. URS conducted a very similar feasibility study to evaluate options for controlling bacterial contamination for the City of Coronado. 2.7.1 Task 7a. Investigate Dry Weather Diversion Feasibility The URS team will investigate the feasibility of diverting all dry weather flow from the selected pump stations, creeks, or storm drains to the sanitary sewer system. This task will include the preparation of a preliminary engineering study addressing the required upgrades to the existing sanitary sewer and storm drain systems. URS will identify permitting requirements and other requirements for the increased flows that are non -sewage. URS will prepare a cost estimate for the construction cost of the system and the annual increase in sewage treatment fees for the diversion-, review the proposed project with the RWQCB, if desired, and report their comments to the Agencies. URS will prepare a written report of this concept. We assume that that the Agencies will provide copies of its Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, computer models or other pertinent documents. 2.7.2 Task 7b. Investigate End -of -Pipe Treatment Feasibility URS will investigate the feasibility of end -of -pipe treatments for dry weather flows and first I flush flows from storm events. Possible treatment alternatives to be evaluated include flow- Yost/p/mrilKNOW19008 W;%.PROPOSAU,-q75801,29COOT.-PROP-AR.DOC.22-NOV-99'SDG 2-5 I SECTIONTWO Scope of Work through systems (such as ozonation, ultraviolet radiation, and hypochlorination) and batch treatment alternatives (such as passive or active evaporation and solids separation through settling tanks, cyclones or chemical precipitation). Discharge and/or treatment by irrigation will also be evaluated. Treatment alternatives will be conceptualized and evaluated in a -one -day workshop that will include engineers and scientists experimced in wastewater process design. constructability, water quality, and permitting. Alternatives to be considered will be based on the results of regulatory treatment requirements and water quality data. URS will prepare a preliminary engineering study to address the feasibility of various options, including implementability, permitting requirements, as well as capital and O&M costs. We will prepare a written report summarizing the findings of the evaluation. 2.7.3 Task 7c. Investigate Feasibility of Using Constructed Wetlands for Removal of Bacteria URS will evaluate the feasibility of reducing coliform levels in the flows using a wetland treatment system. This type of treatment may be possible for discharges into Talbert Marsh or in other areas where there is sufficient land to accommodate wetland construction. We will build upon similar work done for the City of Coronado (San Diego area) in investigating the use of constructed wetlands for coliform bacteria treatment. We will identify the most appropriate type of wetland treatment system (such as a salt water marsh type wetland) to use in this application, by calculating the range of removal efficiencies expected, comparing it with discharge requirements, and identifying other critical wetland design issues, such as infiltration/exfiltration. Additionally, we will estimate the acreage required for a wetland treatment system to reduce bacteria] and evaluate the availability of potential sites. URS will prepare a report on the feasibility of a wetland treatment system as a possible environmental solution. 2.7.4 Task 7d. Outfall Extension Feasibility Study In the event that one definitive discharge is determined to be the primary source of the problem, the Agencies may consider construction of an ocean outfall to remove the contamination from the surf zone for the ultimate discharge. This option is expensive and complex, but may be appropriate under certain conditions. If this option is selected, URS would work cooperatively with Moffatt & Nichol to perform a feasibility study ("paper study") for the construction of an outfall extension that would discharge directly'offsho're. For the feasibility study we wiH perform a site reconnaissance and photo document existing conditions. We will research and review existing available information that may be relevant to the outfall extension. Reviewed information may include but not be limited to coastal, and geotechnical reports; geologic, topograph;�, and bathymetric maps; aerial photographs, and existing design drawings. In particular, we will review relevant coastal information. The purpose of the feasibility study will be to address: - Coastal, geotechnical, structural, and hydraulic design requirements, 0 Means and methods of onshore and offshore construction including horizontal directional drilling, as si vloof wo va wfo ea wi? W:�PROPOSALW75800290002,PROP-AR.DM%22-NOV-W..SDG 2-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTIONTWO Scope of Work • Construction materials, including reinforced concrete, rock, and geotextiles, • Backflow prevention devices including Tideflex TM valves, • Shoreline processes, including beach accretion/eros 'on and wave/interaction, • Permit requirements of reviewing agencies, and • Rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates. The intent of the feasibility study and ROM cost estimate is to provide sufficient information to determine the feasibility of constructing an outfall extension offshore. Following our analysis of the feasibility of these various options, we will summarize our findings and recommendations in a written report to the agencies. OBS81VIIAVwwommionyde W:�PROPOSAL:�97580029OW2'-PROP-AA D0C---,22-N0V-9T.SDG 2-7 I I I SECTIONTHREE Prolect Manavement and Staffing The proposed organization for the project is shown in Figure 1, Project Organization. We have selected a management team and key personnel who have direct experience working on urban runoff bacteria studies in southern California and who are available and willing to commit to working on this project on an urgent basis. Full resumes of key personnel are included in Appendix A. 1 3.1 PROJECT MANAGER, MS. NANCY GARDINER Our proposed Project Manager is Ms. Nancy Gardiner. Ms. Gardiner has more than 13 years of consulting experience performing and managing water quality and water resource projects in California. She will serve as the principal point of contact for the Agencies, and will contribute to the source identification tasks and oversight of DNA testing (if it is performed). Her practice is focused specifically oil storm water monitoring, NPDES permitting, management, and training. For the past two year-,;, she has managed and provided technical input on Southern Califomia projects involving significant coliform bacteria issues. Three of these projects involved identification of bacterial sources including the use of DNA fingerprinting. Ms. Gardiner is also the Chair of the Statewide Storm Water Quality Task Force Subcommittee on Beach Closures and participates in the State Water Resources Control Board's working group on AB411 implementation. Since 1995, Ms. Gardiner has managed the field storm water quality monitoring program on behalf of the City of San Diego and 19 other municipal NPDES storm water co-permittees. She is responsible for directing and supervising field teams in collecting flow -weighted composite samples at 12 locations in San Diego County equipped with automated samplers, during 3 storm events at each station per year. The program is designed to characterize storm water quality and pollutant loading from urban runoff to local receiving waters. Beginning in wet -weather season 1998-99, the study included an extensive coliform bacteria source identification study in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed of Northern San Diego County. Part of the study involves DNA ribotyping of coliform bacteria to match it with a library of known animal sources. The study is being performed in coordination with Dr. Mansour Sarnadpour of the University of Washington. In addition, Ms. Gardiner provides as -needed assistance to the City of San Diego for investigating incidences of illegal dumping to the storm drain system. This involves collecting samples of suspected discharges, coordinating sample analysis, and development of an opinion as to the composition and likely sources of the discharge. This information frequently serves as the technical basis for prosecution. Ms. Gardiner provided assistance to the City of Coronado for identifying the sources of fecal coliform in discharge from a groundwater dewatering system. The project included reviewing system -wide data on total and fecal coliform levels collected from storm drain pipes, the dewatering perforated pipe, a wet well, outfall discharge pipe and the sur-f zone. Ms. Gardiner also contracted and provided oversight to Dr. Mansour Sarnadpour to conduct DNA ribotyping to identifv the animal source origins of the bacteria. Because these results indicated a significant human component, the City has conducted sewer investigations to try to locate the source of the human contribution. #9S 81vtoff JV88AW19 ell* W:",PROPOSAU-..9758OC290002!PROP-AFI.DOC.22-NOV.99-..SDG 3-1 = m =111 mm m am M� as m " = M� m mmm 0 CD C%1 0 W, 0 cc CL SUBCONTRACTORS M&N: Moffatt &Nichol Engineers UW: Univers" of Washington Figure 1. PROJECT ORGANIZATION URS Greiner Woodward Clyde LF� SECTIONTHREE Prelect Management and Staffing For the County of Santa Barbara, Ms. Gardiner provided technical review of total and fecal coliform and enterococcus data collected by the county's Project Clean Water program. Ms. Gardiner assisted the County in correlating the data, which was collected along seven streams, with potential source areas. Sources that were identified included homeless encampments, areas served by septic systems, agriculture, and improper discharges to the creeks. As part of this project, Ms, Gardiner conducted a planning -level feasibility study to explore engineering options for treatment and diversion of dry -weather flows in Arroyo Burro Creek. She also provided input and data review related to DNA fingerprinting of fecal coliform in Rincon Creek (the microbiological work was conducted by Dr. Mansour Samadpour). 3.2 PRINCIPAL -IN -CHARGE, MS. CAROL FORREST, P.E. Ms. Carol Forrest, Vice President of URS, will serve as the Principal -in -Charge for his project. Ms. Forrest's role on this project is to ensure that the appropriate staff resources are made available to the Agencies for completing this project on the aggressive schedule that has been set forth. Ms. Forrest has over 24 years experience in watershed management urban runoff and storm water pollution. She is nationally known expert in erosion and sediment control. is twice past President of the Intemational Erosion Control Association JECA) and is currently President of the Westem Chapter of the rECA. Ms. Forrest has published numerous articles on storm water permitting, erosion and sediment control, and post -fire hazard mitigation in national publications, and frequently teaches seminars and workshops. She teaches continuing education courses for the American Society of Civil Engineers on "How to Prepare an Effective Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" and "Urban Watershed Management," and she teaches courses for the Interriational Erosion Control Association on "Design Procedures for Channel Protection and Streambank Stabilization," and "Cutting Edge Developments for Stormwater Management." Ms. Forrest is a registered Civil Engineer (PE), a registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE). a Certified Professional Erosion and Sediment Control Specialist (CPESC) and a Certified Storm ater Quality Specialist (SQS). She has been involved in projects related to erosion control, water quality, and resource management throughout the United States and overseas. Ms. Forrest W has considerable experience in evaluating water quality problems and the cost-effectiveness of a wide range of Best Management Practices. Her projects range from feasibility and modeling studies to design plans and specifications for construction. Recent studies also include research projects to advance the state of knowledge in effective erosion control and storm water quality. Ms. Forrest was the Project Manager of the City of Coronado's North Beach Outfall Characterization Project. This project involved the evaluation of high total fecal coliform levels in discharges from the City's groundwater dewatering system, which flowed across a public beach. Ms. Forrest directed the collection and analysis of field samples, provided oversight to a source identification effort, designed and managed a comprehensive engineering feasibility study to examine available options available to treat the water to reduce coliform levels or to divert the discharge off the beach, and provided oversight to development of enhanced BMPs and an in -line UV treatment system. The project included use of DNA ribotyping through a contract with Dr. Mansour Samadpour of the University of Washington. IIRS SIVIIxf ffWd"Id VIOL? W:\PROPOSA12,97580029OD02-PPtOP-AR.DOCI,22-NOV-99',SDr, 3-3 LF-1 SECTIONTHREE Frolect Management and Staffing Ms. Forrest has managed major municipal NPDES storm water permitting projects including the City of Phoenix, Arizona; El Paso, Texas, Riverside County, California (20 co-permittees), and Los Angeles County, Califomia (88 co-permittees), and non -point source pollution studies of Santa Monica Bay, California for the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Lake Mathews for the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles, California. These projects all involved the evaluation of water quality problems in watersheds and the development of pollution control strategies. Ms. Forrest has provided technical guidance for many other storm water pollution or permitting projects across the country, including Beaumont, iexas, and Scottsdale, Arizona. Some of the industrial clients Ms. Forrest provided storm water permitting assistance to include the Navy Public Works Center and the Navy SWDIV in San Diego, California, and the Arizona Public Service in Phoenix, Arizona. 3.3 TECHNICAL ADVISOR, REVITAL KATZNELSON, PH.D. Dr. Katznelson has more than 25-years of experience in performing and interpreting laboratory analyses of chemical, biological and bacteriological water quality parameters. She 'is also familiar with the quality assurance procedures associated with these analyses. Dr. Katznelson, who has a background in microbiology, will serve as a Technical Advisor on this project. She recently served as the Technical Advisor for the San Diego Co-Permittees' Agua Hedionda Bacteria Study and to the County of Santa Barbara. Dr. Katznelson has performed toxicity tests on a variety of samples, including storm water samples, using freshwater and marine test organisms. She has also participated in toxicity testing of pore water from polluted San Francisco Bay sediments. This hands-on experience has been applied to several tasks of environmental toxicity testing, combined with creation of data management tools and database structures for toxicity test results. Dr. Katznelson has also performed special research studies to evaluate the effectiveness of various storm water BMPs. 3.4 TECHNICAL ADVISOR, ALLEN DESTEIGUER, P.E. Mr. deSteiguer is a registered civil engineer with 30 years experience in water and wastewater treatment planning, design, and construction. Mr. deSteiguer provided assistance to the City of Coronado in performing an engineering feasibility study to evaluate several treatment options for reduction of coliform. Based on his input and recommendations. the City selected, procured. and installed an in -line, packaged UV treatment system. 3.5 PROJECT STAFF RESOURCES We have assembled a team of experts who collectively provide a tremendous capability to meet the critical timing and resource demands of this contract. We expect that staff loading for a contract of this magnitude will vary considerably from one month to the next depending on C completion of specific assignments and initiation of new assignments. Multiple simultaneous assignments will require more resources during peak periods, and lower Staffing levels can be expected during other periods. I ' I0S I & VIRef I VMd"Iff Clyde W:IPROPOSALla7580029"2'PROP-AR.DGCI,22-NOV-99,,SDG 3-4 I 11 L� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTIONFOUR Relevant Experience 4.1 URS CORPORATION As the Agencies may be aware, on June 8, 1999, URS Corporation merged with the Dames & Moore Group. The result of this merger is a global engineering powerhouse of more than 15,000 professionals in more than 38 countries. On a more local level, this merger will directly benefit the Agencies: URS and Dames & Moore have been fully integrated and their California resources can offer the largest, most diverse and experienced group of urban runoff professionals to serve on this project, URS provides comprehensive professional services in planning, engineering, architecture, environmental and applied sciences, and program and construction management to a diverse group of public and private clients worldwide. We provide services for infrastructure projects involving air and surface transportation systems; institutional, industrial, and commercial facilities; water resources; and pollution control and hazardous waste management programs. We serve national and local government agencies and ministries, multilateral development banks and international lending institutions, as well as private clients in the chemical, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, forest products, mining, oil and gas, water supply, commercial development, and utilities industries. URS is a publicly held company listed on the New York Stock and Pacific Exchanges under URS. URS is widely recognized as one of the pre-eminent U.S. consulting firms in the area of nonpoint source pollution and storm water pollution assessment and control. Since the early 1970s, our staff has defined and significantly advanced the state-of-the-art, through major applied research assignments with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in source characterization, transport studies, impact analyses, and control measure evaluations. Since the late 1980s we have been extensively involved in the design of practical monitoring, research, and management programs for private and public clients who are now regulated under the Clean Water Act NPDES requirements. More recently, in the 1990s, we have been asked to assist our clients in the implementation of the planning, research, and monitoring aspects of storm water management. This combination of applied research. permitting, and implementation experience provides URS with the perspective to develop and implement cost-effective projects, studies, and strategies that will meet the diverse storm water monitoring and your research needs. 4.2 RELEVANT PROJECTS 4.2.1 Coronado North Beach Outfall Bacteriological Characterization and Engineering Feasibility Study Client. City of Coronado Engineering and Development Department Contact: Mr. Tom O'Toole (619) 522-7383 In 1996, the City of Coronado finished construction of a combined ground water dewatering and storm drain system in the Southwest Quadrant of the City to eliminate high ground water problems and to reduce flooding. Durin dry weather the system discharged 0.54 million gallons 9 C #NS RIVINAF MWANIV SAINd W.IPROPOSAL1975800290002%PROP-AR.DOCI,22-Nov-g!?lsc>G 4-1 I I I SECTIONFOUR Relevant Experience per day onto North Beach. Since that time, the City has experienced high coliform levels in the discharges from the storm drains that discharge at North Beach, which have resulted in long term beach postings and closures. In an effort to mitigate the problem, the City implemented increased source control Best Management Practices as part of its municipal NPDES storrn water management program. This included increased street sweeping and catch basin cleaning. Despite these efforts, the coliform levels in the continuous flow across the beach continued, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued the City a Cleanup and Abatement Order followed by a Cease and Desist Order. The City retained URS to take a five -pronged approach to the problem to achieve compliance with the water quality standards and to comply with the terms of the Cleanup and Abatement Order and the Cease and Desist Order in a cost-effective manner to regain the City's positive environmental image.. The study included: (1) source identification studies (groundwater quality evaluation, outfall discharge characterization, DNA analyses of the flow, CCTV and visual inspections of the storm drains and sewer lines, and leak testing of the systems); (2) BMP evaluation of the effectiveness of the City's non-structural control measures; (3) identification of an interim solution, which entailed design and installation of an in -line modular UV treatment system; and (4) evaluation of long-term solutions. In addition to Identification and elimination of & source, the long-term solutions evaluated included permanent diversion of the flow to the sanitary sewer, discontinuation of the groundwater dewatering system, construction of a wetlands treatment system, extension of the outfalls to the surf zone or offshore, or permanent end -of -pipe treatment for dry weather flows. URS assisted the City by presenting the study approach and progress to the RWQCB. An interim solution was developed and brought on-line quickly and cost-effectively to meet regulatory deadlines- An enhanced BMP program was developed for immediate implementation by the City. The source identification work provided insightful information on where the City should focus its efforts to eliminate the source and potentially save money on the long-term solution. At present, the City Is still in the process of achieving compliance wiih the enforcement orders. 4.2.2 San Diego Co-Permiftees'Agua Hedionda Lagoon Bacteriological Study Client., City of San Diego Transportation Department Contact. Mr. Kirk Whitaker (619) 533-3660 URS has been providing storm water quality characterization monitoring to the San Diego municipal co-permittees since 1995. This work has been conducted in support of the San Diego Co-Permittees' NPDES storm water permit. The lead agency for this project is the City of San Diego Transportation Department. The County of San Diego, San Diego Unified Port District, and 17 other municipalities in San Diego County are co-permittees jointly funding the project. Beginning in wet -weather season 1998-1999, URS successfuliy negotiated with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on behalf of the co-permittees to make technical changes to the monitoring program. The changes involved reducing the number of routine c haracterization monitoring stations from 12 to 5 and redirecting the funding toward a bacteriological characterization study. The study was selected because of the following factors: WAPR0P0SAL'%975aW290G0ZPR0P-AR DOCU2-NOV-991SUG 4-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I SECTIONFOUR Relevant Experience The results of the DNA analysis indicated that the storm water runoff contains coliform originating from numerous sources (e.g., wildlife, birds, pets, humans). Notably, pets (dogs and cats) constituted the largest source type, followed by birds and humans. Fecal coliform bacteria is considered to be a good indicator of human pathogens when the source of the coliforms is human. It is not known to what extent high coliform counts translate to human health risk when the sources of the coliform are non -human in origin. This result suggested that additional research is needed to determine whether domestic pets are contributing known human pathogens to receiving waters during rain events. Follow-up research will be conducted during the 1999- 2000 wet -weather season to obtain a better understanding of known human pathogens associated with these animal sources and storm water transport mechanisms. 4.2.3 South Coast Watershed Characterization Study Client. Santa Barbara County Contact. Mr. Dan Reid (805) 681-4927 In 1998, URS was retained by the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services (County) to conduct the South Coast Watershed Characterization (SCWC) Study to characterize the water quality of several South Coast streams. The SCWC Study included the following creeks: Arroyo Burro, Mission, Carpinteria, and Rincon creeks. The study was undertaken because elevated coliform bacteria levels in some of the creeks had resulted in long-term beach closures, and because local agencies were interested in characterizing storm water and dry - weather flow water quality. Funds and technical assistance for the study were provided through a cooperative effort among the County, City of Santa Barbara, City of Carpinteria, and the County of Ventura. The SCWC Study involved the collection of water samples from ten locations along each creek during four sampling events. The first sampling events occurred in August and October 1998, and represented a dry weather sampling. The second round of sampling occurred after the first rainfall in November 1998 to capture the first flush. The last two sampling events occurred in the middle and end of the winter runoff period, January and March 1999, respectively. The levels of coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococcus were measured at ten locations along each creek, while general mineral constituents and physical parameters were measured at three of the ten locations. The study results indicate elevated levels of bacteria in all watersheds that exceed state health standards for water contact beaches in 30 to 90 percent of the samples. Arroyo Burro Creek exhibited the greatest frequency of exceedances, while Carpinteria Creek exhibited the lowest relative frequency. The frequency of exceedances along Mission and Rincon creeks was intermediate. There was a notable increase in bacteria concentrations after the first flush rainfall of the winter. Concentrations of total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococcus increased several orders of magnitude for all watersheds. The concentration of bacteria varied considerably from station to station within each watersl�ed due to site -specific variability in bacteria sources, creek conditions, and possible sampling errors YNS sm/flar JVNA019 UP/Ma W:IPROPOSALla75800290002',PROP-AR.DGCQ2-NOV-99%SDG 4-4 I I 11 I Fi I I I 11 I I I I I I SECTIONFOUR Relevant Experience or contamination. Arroyo Burro Creek exhibits a distinct pattern of high bacteria concentrations, possibly indicating specific sources of contamination. Mission Creek exhibits increasing bacteria concentrations from the top to the bottom of the watershed. URS reviewed information collected as part of another program called Project Clean Water. This effort included detailed field investigations and creek walks to identify possible sources of bacteria pollution. The identified sources included storm drains, homeless encampments, and lagoon fauna. In addition, URS assisted the County in retaining the services of Dr. Mansour Samadpour of the University of Washington to provide DNA ribotyping of E. coli from Rincon Creek. URS provided technical input to the County for designing the sample collection program and sample handling protocols in order to be consistent with other programs in southern California in which DNA ribotyping has been performed (e.g., San Diego, Coronado). 4.2.4 Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Client. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Assessment, Watershed Protection Division Contact. Mr. Carl Meyers (202) 382-7043 Between 1978 and 1984, URS provided technical assistance to the EPA by conducting the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). In this program, 28 monitoring studies were conducted throughout the United States at a total cost of approximately $31 million. URS assisted in site selection, equipment selection, design of the monitoring plans, data analyses. and reporting formats. Much of the work involved the development of guidance manuals for standardizing field procedures, data management, and quality assurance. Critical insights gained from these studies were presented in several reports to USEPA/Headquarters and a report to Congress. 4.2.5 Municipal Storm Water Experience, California Starting in the late 1980s, URS has assisted numerous municipal and private clients in complying with the Clean Water Act NPDES requirements. As part of this work, we have conducted numerous storm water monitoring and research projects, especially in the western United States. Our clients we have provided monitoring and research services to include Santa Clara Valley, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Fresno, Los Angeles County and San Diego in California; Portland, Eugene, Washington County, Gresham, and Oregon Department of Transportation in Oregon; Ada County Highway District, Boise, Idaho, and Phoenix and Scottsdale, Arizona. This monitoring has focused primarily on land use characterizations, receiving water impact assessments, and BMP evaluations. In the latter category we have conducted monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of constructed wetlands, retrofitting flood control basins, street sweeping, storm drain inlet cleaning, and catch basin inserts. We have also designed and conducted numerous BMP evaluations including street sweeping effectiveness, catch basin effectiveness, parking lot BMP testing, and large detention basin performance. We have also INS 8108F W00011d 0#8 W %PROPOSAU-..9758OC-29CO02%%PROP-AR.DOC',22-NOV-99'.SDO 4-5 I I I I I SECTIONFOUR Relevant Experience developed numerous guidance documents, including a monitoring guidance document and Three - Year Monitoring Action Plan for Caltrans and the State of Washington Department of Ecology. URS has developed and conducted toxicity testing methods, both for screening level evaluations as well for identifying the sources of toxicity (Toxicity Identification Evaluations). URS also has conducted extensive sediment sampling and is testing immunoassay methods as a means of more cost-effective sediment sampling. 4.3 MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS In 1945, John G. Moffatt and Frank E. Nichol formed partnerships in California and Oregon to provide engineering design services to private clients and governmental agencies as well as engineering support services to construction contractors. Initially, the firm concentrated on harbor works and waterways, bridges, buildings, industrial facilities, military installations, and public works. Later, services were expanded to include coastal and oceanographic engineering, port planning, and construction management. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers has completed feasibility and modeling studies, cost estimates, and preliminary and final designs for more than 2,500 waterfront projects worldwide. These projects have included commercial marine facilities, mooring systems, harbors, marinas, dredging, bulkheads, shore protection, breakwaters and jetties, recreational beaches, causeways, wetland restoration, artificial islands and sand bypassing. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers has written design and planning manuals for the U.S. Government that have become standards for drydocks, moorings, port facilities, coastal protection, ship support services, and small craft harbors, Our successful technical expertise on coastal processes has also set the standards in coast engineering worldwide and won industry wide acclaim. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers has served governmental agencies, corporations, and private clients in over thirty countries. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers offers clients a professional and experienced support staff of 300 design related individuals who specialize in coastal, civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, and construction engineering disciplines. The staff includes specialists in marine structures and harbor engineering, as well as water quality, wetland designs and coastal sedimentology. Since ail key engineering de,,;ign disciplines are represented on our staff, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers is able to maintain the level of quality that has been its history for more that 50 years and allows the staff to meet the clients needs with thorough ly-i ntegrated projects completed under exacting quality control standards. The headquarters of Moffatt & Nichol Engineers is in Long Beach, California with branch offices in Long Beach, Santa Ana, Ontario, Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Walnut Creek, California; New York, New York; Raleigh, North Carolina; Baltimore, Marvland; Richmond, Virginia, Tampa, Florida and Seattle, Washington. The following paragraphs illustrate Moffat & Nichols' experience on recent relevant projects. INS 71 viflef wwdwfd C/00 W:APROPOSAL\975900290002%PROP-AR DOC%22-NOV-99,SDG 4-6 I I SECTIONFOUR Relevant Dwerlence I I I I I I I I I The horizontal distance between gage locations was approximately 3 nautical miles. Both gages were moored in approximately 60 feet (ft) of water. The calculated directional wave properties at two locations provide the spatial variations of wave climate in the nearshore region of Santa Morlica Bay. The year -long deployment also provides information about seasonal changes in wave conditions. 4.3.3 lQC — Coastal Engineering, Los Angeles County, CA Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contact. Stephen Fine, (213) 894-5400 Santa Monica Bay (SMB) Capping Study — M&N conducted an analysis of Santa Monica Bay's coastal processes to develop a preliminary design of a capping site within the Bay. We prepared a feasibility report consisting of an annotated bibliography of geotechnical, oceanographic, and dredging/capping technology and regulations, data analysis of plume dispersion, design criteria, preliminary designs and drawings, and general cost estimate and schedule considerations for construction. Capping in the bay is being considered for a long term method of managing contaminated dredged sediments. The feasibility report was to identify areas as potential Contained Aquatic Disposal (CAD) and Level Bottom Capping (LBC) sites. 4.4 SUMMARY In summary, URS will provide the Agencies with the highest quality services for this project. We bring the following advantages to you: > Extensive directly relevant experience > Excellent field program management > Experienced monitoring staff in investigations, solution design, and implementation > Clear and precise field standard operafing, procedures (SOPs.) > Carefully designed and implemented field and laboratory QA/QC programs > Thorough field documentation > Training for crews on specific project needs/procedures > Specifically storm water experienced laboratories Comprehensive storm water sampling in Eugene and Poriland, Oregon led to data that was useful for management decision making. IINS 8191fiff WN09100de W:kPROPOSAL197580029DOD21PROP-AR.DOCX22-NOV.99%SDG 4-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTIONFIVE Cost Estimates Our approximate costs to conduct the scope of work described in Section 2 are presented below. Given the evolving nature of this project, these costs are approximate, and may need to be adjusted as more information about the likely sources of contamination is gathered. However, they are based on our experience performing similar work. In addition, we recognize that the Agencies may wish to only select some tasks, therefore, our costs are estimated on a task -by -task basis, rather than an overall cost for the entire project. Task 1. Develop Work Plan (URS) S 6,000 Task 2. Review Existing Information (URS) $ 10,000 Task 3. Conduct Watershed Sanitary Surveys (URS) $ 30,000 Task 4. Conduct Focused Source Testing (URS) $ 35,000 Task 5. Latent Groundwater Quality Evaluation (URS) $ 18,000 Task 6. Conduct Oceanographic Studies (M&N)* $214,000 Task 7. Conduct Feasibility Studies (URS) 7a. Dry Weather Diversion 7b. End -of -Pipe Treatment 7c. Constructed Wetlands 7d. Ouffall Extension S 20,000 S 32,000 S 20,000 S 32,000J *M&N = Moffatt and Nichol Engineers lffftlflff JIMPNORWANO W:IPROPOSAL:0758,10290002,PROP-AR 00C'%22-Nov-!;g-,sDG 5-1 I APPENDIX A m m m m m m m m m m m = m = = = m m = I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXA ONS OMNI woor"100/01? Resumes of Key Staff W:'JIROPOSAL%97580r,29OW2kPROP-AR. DOCI,22-Nov.SeSDG I Nanev E. Gardiner Senior Project Scientist AREAS OF EXPERTISE REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE I 0 Watershed Bacteria Ms. Gardiner has more than 13 years of consulting experience Studies performing and managing surface and groundwater quality and Storm Water NPDES water resources projects. In recent years, her practice has focused on storm water pollution control, watershed Permitting/Compliance management, and NPDES permitting, for a variety of Watershed municipal and private clients. Her present and recent major Management projects are described below. • Hydrogeology Water Ouality Monitorin • Project Management San Diego Co-Permittees Storm Water Monitoring. Since 1995, Ms. Gardiner has managed the storm water quality EDUCATION monitoring program on behalf of the City of San Diego and 19 other municipal NPDES storm water co-permittees. She is University of Wisconsin, responsible for directing and supervising field teams in Madison- M.S. collecting flow -weighted composite samples at 12 locations in Hydrogeology, 1988 Smith College: A.B., San Diego County equipped with automated samplers, during 3 storm events at each station per year. Ms. Gardiner also Geology, magna cum manages several subconsultants, including two laboratories. laude, 1986 The program is designed to characterize storm water quality and pollutant loading from urban runoff to local receiving PROFESSIONAL waters. During wet -weather season 1998-99, the study HISTORY includes an extensive coliform, bactefia. source identification study in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed of Northern LTRS Greiner Woodward I San Diego County. Part of the study involves DNA nibotyping Clyde, Senior Project I Scientist, 1995-date. I I of coliform bacteria to match it with a library of known animal sources. The study is being performed in coordination with CR2M HILL, Inc. Dr. Mansour Samadpour of the University of Washington. In Oakland, CA. Senior addition, Ms. Gardiner provides as -needed assistance to the Water Resources Scientist, City of San Diego for investigating incidences of illegal 1994-1995. dumping to the storm drain system. This involves collecting samples of suspected discharges, coordinating sample analysis, Woodward -Clyde Consultants, Oakland, CA. and development of an opinion as to the composition and Sr. Staff to Sr. Project likely sources of the discharge. This information frequently Scientist, 1989-94 serves as the technical basis for prosecution. Naval Station — San Diego Storm Water Monitoring. As a Warzyn Engineering, subconsultant to Radian International, Ms Gardiner was the Madison, W1. Project Hydrogeologist, 1988- project manager of storm water monitoring and visual 1 observations program at the Naval Station -San Diego and the 1989 j Point Loma Magnetic SHencing facility for two years. The project University of Wisconsin - involved collecting storm water grab samples at 27 outfall Madison. Teaching i locations and performing visual observations at a total of 92 Assistant, 1986-88 locations. Because the sampling had to be conducted within the first hour of each ston -n event, Ms. Gardiner developed strearrilined mobilization and data collection procedures using two -person field crews. 91 NS Iffelflff J ra odmi 9 ely#49 %kSDG1\SHARCC)\NancykHuntington%gardiner oocQ7-Aor-98\S0G 1180CV E. Gardiner Senior Project ScienUst AFFILIATIONS City of Coronado, North Beach Outfall. For the City of American Water Works Coronado, California, Ms. Gardiner developed and managed a Association coliform bacteria source identification study. The study j involved collecting water samples and conducting DNA American Public Works analysis of fecal coliforms present in the discharge from Association combined groundwater dewatering and storm drainage system. Phi Beta Kappa Ms. Gardiner provided coordination with and oversight of Dr. I Mansour Samadpour of the University of Washington for Sigma Xi DNA ribotyping analysis. San Diego Bay, PAH Waste Load Determination Study.. Ms. Gardiner was the Project Manager of a waste load determination study of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon inputs to San Diego Bay (Bay). The study evaluated and quantified loadings of PAHs from various environmental pathways to the Bay, including urban runoff, sediment flux, atmospheric deposition, creosote pier piling leaching, dry weather flows, and oil spills. She also developed estimates of copper in urban runoff flows to the Bay as part of a parallel wasteload determination study for copper. The two studies will likely form the basis for one of the first Total Maximum Daily Load (TN4]DL) studies conducted in the State of California. ! I 11 I I I Storm Water Mannement Caltrans. Districts 8, 11, and 12, Storm Water Management Plan. Ms. Gardiner was the primary author of a comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the portions of Caltrans Districts 8, 11, and 12 that fall within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sections of the SWMP address Caltrans legal authority; illicit discharge identification and elimination; Best Management Practices Program; training and public education and participation-, monitoring and reporting; and Fiscal Resources and Analysis. Confidential Municipal Client, Storm Water Management Plan. For a confidential municipal client, Ms. Gardiner served as the task leader for the development of the municipal storm water activities program. Her work included reviewing records and interviewing staff to evaluate existing programs related to street and road maintenance, storm drain facility maintenance, parks and recreation department operations, wastewater treatment system operations, commercial and industrial site inspections, and new development and redevel- opment oversight and inspection. Following this evaluation, Ms. Gardiner recommended modifications to the existing programs to enhance compliance with the client's municipal NTDES storm water permit. These sections were IANS 191moff J VW" " C108 %�SE)Gl%SHAREDINancy%HLintingtortgaro-ner aoc%27-Apr-98VSOG 2 I Nanev E. Gardiner Senior Project Scientist incorporated into a comprehensive storm water management implementation manual being developed internally by the client. Fresno/Clovis Areawide Storm Water Management Program, Project Manager of storm water NPDES permit compliance program for the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Implemented comprehensive area -wide PDES Storm Water Management Plan, including conducting N1 permit negotiations, developing a master storm water model ordinance, supervision of water quality monitonng, and developing guidance materials for industrial and construction activities throughout the Fresno -Clovis area. Ms. Gardiner was the primary author of a Model Industrial Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for use by industries throughout the PPP is designed to Fresno Metropolitan Area. The Model SW apply to all industries, and provides user-fiiendly guidance to assist with completing the paperwork required under the California NPDES General Industrial Storm Water Permit. 1 3 1 The format of the Model SWPPP uses simple checklists and worksheets and includes stand-alone instructions that are separate from the SWPPP document. I Santa Clara Valley, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Assistant Project Manager and Technical Task Leader for Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program. Played major role in landmark storm water program that has become a model for municipal storm water programs throughout the United States. Program won EPA award for excellence in municipal storm water pollution control in 1993. Coordinated a variety of innovative tasks aimed at characterizing, quantifying, and controlling urban runoff pollution to South San Francisco Bay. Assisted with development of comprehensive area -wide Storm Water Management Plan which focused on reducing pollutants from industrial discharges, municipal maintenance activities, illicit connections and illegal dumping, construction and new development. Developed creative guidance materials for industry, including comprehensive industrial outreach manual. Author of "Blueprint for a Clean Bay," a 15-page Best Management Practices guidance manual and six accompanying brochures aimed at helping the development community reduce pollutants in discharges from construction sites. Presented workshops to hundreds of industrial facility operators and contractors working in the Valley. Developed industrial inspection program and Sterm Water Pollution Prevention Plan checklist to assist local industries in complying with the requirements of the California NPDES storm water OBS OrNaff Nodwrd Ali 0 %�SDGlkSHAREDV4ancMuntington%gardiner cJcc%27-Apr-98%SDG 3 I Nom E. Gardiner Senior Project ScienUst general permit. Authored three technical papers and presented them at national conferences. San Mateo, County -wide Storm Water Management Program. Project Manager of the NPDES storm water public information/participation program for the San Mateo Countywide Storm water Program. Responsible for the coordination and completion of technical fact sheet, public information brochure, educational videotape, and a series of workshops for department heads and elected officials in the member cities. City of Arcadia, Storm Water Compliance Audit. Ms. Gardiner conducted a comprehensive storm water compliance review for the City of Arcadia, California. This project involved interviewing staff and reviewing files of all work completed by the City as part of compliance with the Los Angeles County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit. Ms. Gardiner prepared a detailed evaluation report and provided recommendations for compliance under the pern-ft. Sea World, Water Quality Best Management Practices Plan. Ms. Gardiner developed a Water Quafity Best Management Practices Plan for Sea World of Caffornia. The Plan was prepared for compfiance %krith a California Coastal Commission Special Development Permit needed for expansion of the park. The BMP plan addressed specific practices and activities currently performed and planned for future implementation at the San Diego park. These included wastewater and storin water treatment, street sweeping, spill response and control, proper aquaria draining procedures, matenial storage and management, waste management and recycling, food grease management, and ston-n drain stenciling. Oceanside Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Ms. Gardiner was the primary author of a comprehensive Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for a large, controversial commercial development project in Oceanside, California. The product was actually three Plans in one, addressing conditions during grading, construction, and post -development activities. Tinker AFB, Storm Water Management Program. Ms. Gardiner developed a Base Policy Letter for the management of storm water quality at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Base Policy letter outlines general policies related to storm water management and permit compliance at the Base. Water Ouality Training IIBS 81 9/fiff Wbodnrd Clydo %XSDGI%SHARED'Nanc-,AHuntington%garo.nor a0cQ7.ADr-98%SDG 4 I Noncy E. Gardiner Senior Project Scientist Caltrans Planning and Design Staff Training Program. Ms. Gardiner provided training to Caltrans planning and design staff in implementing storm water quality controls throughout the development process from project conception through construction and over the life of the project. Ms. Gardiner participated in developing the curriculum and content of the 6-hour PowerPoint training program and presented ten sessions, to over 300 participants, including sessions in the cities of San Diego, Santa Ana, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, and Eureka, California. Port of Long Beach, Storm Water Quality Training Program. For the Port of Long Beach, California, Ms. Gardiner developed a Model Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Training Program for the Port of Long Beach, California. This work was conducted 'in partial fulfillment of a settlement agreement between the Port of Long Beach and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The Model SWPPP was developed to assist some 50 Port tenant facilities to develop standardized storm water compliance documents. The Training Program was developed to assist the tenants to conduct annual employee training on storm water quality management, control, and permit compliance. Santa Clara/Contra Costa/Sacramento/Fresno Training Programs. For the Counties of Santa Clara and Contra Costa and the Cities of Sacramento and Fresno, California, Ms. Gardiner developed and participated in comprehensive training workshops for industrial representatives whose facilities are required to seek coverage under the State of California's Gene�al Industrial Storm Water permit. The training workshops, which ranged in duration from two hours to one full day, included comprehensive discussion of the regulatory framework, preparation of SWPPPs, selection and evaluation of Best Management Practices. monitoring, record - keeping, and reporting. Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Nationwide Water Quality Training Program. Developed and conducted cost- effective nationwide training program in storm water monitoring for member metal and paper scrap recycling facilities of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI). Wrote comprehensive, step-by-step manual describing manual grab and flow -weighted composite sampling under a vaniety of possible flow regimes. Provided training to facility personnel (both in the classroom and the field) at 8 facilities. Trained in- house staff to assist in the large-scale training program, Xs offlffiffirbodmilefte %%SDG1%SHAREDNanWHuningtonlgardine,.docX27-Ap,.98%Sr-G -1) Nancv E. Gardiner Senior Project SdenUst Watershed Management Lower Colorado River Watershed Sanitary Survey. Ms. Gardiner was Project Manager of the Lower Colorado River Watershed sanitary survey. The study area extends from Parker Dam to Imperial Dam in Southern California and Arizona (a watershed of approximately 8,000 square miles). The project, which involved 46 water purveyors, was conducted for compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Specific tasks included developing detailed watershed and water supply system descriptions, evaluating source water quality, prioritizing contaminant sources and impacts, and developing treatment controls and watershed management practices to address those treatment contaminants. West Maui Watershed Management Plan. Ms. Gardiner developed a Watershed and Drainage Management Plan for the urbanized areas of West Maui, Hawaii. The Plan addressed flooding issues and sources of runoff pollutants (particularly sediments and nutrients) to coastal nearshore waters. Sources included runoff from roads, resorts, commercial and industrial facilities, construction sites, golf courses, and improper disposal to the storrn drain system. The Plan, which was coordinated with the State of Hawaii's Draft Coastal Zone Management Act Section 6217 Requirements, specified control measures and programs emphasizing source controls to minimize or eliminate pollutant sources. Industrial Storm Water Permittinz and Water Oualiry Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans. Developed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, monitoring programs, training seminars, and Best Management Practices (BIAP) guidance materials for over 40 industrial and construction clients. Spoke on panels and at state and national conferences regarding storrn water permitting and compliance, and selection, implementation, and evaluation o f B N/fP s. Representative clients include. — Chem Tronics — Solar Turbines — Plavan Petroleum — Del Monte Foods — General Electric Company — The Quaker Oats Company — Owens -Brockway Glass Contamers — Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. FRSRM&ff WPAmildelyde %%SDG1 I.SHAREDNarc-e."antingtonkgara ner doc'27-Apr-9-MSZ)G 6 Nancy E. Gardiner Senior Project Scientist Contra Costa Water District (Los Vaqueros Dam Project) LFC Power Systems Corporation The Marin Independent Journal Criterion Cata!ysts Company United Musical Instruments U.S. DOE - Western Area Power Administration Monterey County Public Works Department Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries Lockheed Storm Water Compliance. Project Manager of storm water compliance program for Lockheed Missiles and Space Company's Sunnyvale, Milpitas, and Palo Alto facilities. Responsible for conducting annual inspections, updating storm water pollution prevention plans, and evaluating the effectiveness of Best Management Practices. Conridential Shipyard Client. Ms. Gardiner completed a comprehensive water supply, wastewater, and storm water compliance audit for a with facilities in San Diego, San Pedro, and San Francisco. This project involved records review, staff interviews, site field evaluations, and preparation of an audit report including recommendations. Exnert Witness[LitiLzation SUDDort Caltrans District 11. Ms. Gardiner provided litigation support to Caltrans District 11 (San Diego region) in response to two lawsuits filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)/San Diego Baykeeper, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The causes of action involved noncompliance with the Clean Water Act from Caltrans' storm water discharges to local receiving waters, and noncompliance with the State of California NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Dis-charges Associated with Construction Activity. Ms. Gardiner assisted with development of the settlement agreement and provided technical support in settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. Ms. Gardiner also assisted Caltrans negotiate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to draft changes to the regional (District 11) NPDES storm water permit language I I I%ISDG1%SHAREERNancy%Huntingtonigara,ner dacQ7-Apr-W%SDG 7 Nancy E. Gaf dinef Senior Project Scientist Other Water Qualily Studies Pacific Gas & Electric AFC. For Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Ms. Gardiner developed the Water Resources Section of the Application for Certification (AFC) required in order to construct a new power generating facility on Otay Mesa, San Diego County. The AFC fulfills the CEQA compliance evaluation required by the California Energy Commission. The scope of work included evaluating potential environmental impacts of providing water and wastewater service interconnects, and construction of a new sewer line to service the needs of the new facility. East Contra Costa Water Supply Management Study. Evaluated water demands and supply options for the East Contra Costa County Water Supply Management Study. Project involves water supply planning for rapidly urbanizing Bay Area county through the year 2040. Conducted literature review and developed criteria for evaluation of numerous options. Fort Ord Reuse Infrastructure Study. Project Manager of storm water and water reuse programs of the Fort Ord Reuse Infrastructure Study (FORIS) associated with the closure and realignment of Fort Ord, Monterey County, CA. Served as URS Greiner Woodward Clyde's project manager on a multi - firm consulting team. Responsible for assessing nonpoint sources of pollution, con -ducting inventory and assessment of storm drainage sys-tem condition, and evaluating future permitting and compliance needs under NPDES, CZARA, and NOAA Mon-terey Bay National Marine Sanctuary requirements. Evaluated alternative water reuse, treatment, and distribution strategies using tertiary treated wastewater and storm water. Conducted planning -level siting studies and cost estimates for siting and installation of water storage ponds and water treatment systems. Hazardous Waste Prooects Confidential Client — East Oakland. Project Manager for evaluation of alternative site closure options at former diesel tank site in East Oakland (confidential client). Conducted comprehensive literature review and hydrogeologic assessment and evaluated possible options to achieve closure through the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. Options included recent proposed use of Non -Attainment Areas for sites which meet certain geologic/hydrogeologic conditions. IBM — San Jose RCRA Pipeline Inspection. Project I[INSOMINefivomfir"0148 IkSDG I tSHAREDU4ancy%Huntingtonlg2rdirer aock27-Apr-98%SDG 8 I NancV E. Gardiner Senior Project Scientist M anager of IBM -San Jose RCRA pipeline inspection program for compliance with 40 CFR Section 264.19 1. Supervised in- house staff and two outside subcontractors in performing visual evaluations, closed-circuit television inspections, and hydrostatic pressure testing of hazardous waste pipelines and storage tanks at major manufacturing facility. Caltrans District 4 ESAs. Conducted Phase I environmental site assessments associated with land acquisition for construction of proposed Caltrans District 4 highway interchange expansions in Oakland and Windsor, California. Assessments included records search and review, field inspection, preparation of Caltrans checklists, and a final report. Unocal — San Francisco aod Land Use Permit Application. Project Manager and author of detailed geologic and hydrogeologic report submitted as part of Land Use Permit Application for expansion project at Unocal's San Francisco Refinery in Rodeo, California. Report discussed general geologic setting, structural geology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology underlying the site. Chevron USA RCRA Part B Closure Plan. Developed Closure Plan for Chevron U.S.A.'s Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility in Richmond, CA. This document was prepared as part of a RCRA Part B permit application's Operations Plan for this facility. West Bend Landfill RUFS. Project Hydrogeologist for RJIFS at combined municipal and industrial waste landfill near Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Supervised drilling and well installation, directed groundwater quality monitoring program, analyzed hydrogeologic and chemical data, and prepared report to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Investigations. Project Manager of several petroleum hydrocarbon investigations at active and former service stations in Southern Wisconsin and California. Supervised tank removal contractors, directed field observations, collected and analyzed soil and groundwater samples, and designed hydrocarbon product recovery wells and remediation systems. I I I=S19MIM *VAftWfflJVV %ASDG I XSHARECANaneykHuntingtonkgardiner.dmU7-Apr-981SW 9 I Nancv E. Gardiner Senior Project Sciengst Gardiner, N. E. and Jennifer A. Cohen. 1995. Storm ff"ater Publications Trials and Tribulations: Industry Impressions. Environ- mental Protection. May. Boyd, G.B. and N.E. Gardiner. 1990. Urban Storm Water: An Overviewfor Municipalities. Public Works. December. Technical Papers Gardiner, N.E. 1993. How to Implement BMPs. Proceedings of Hazardous Materials and Environmental Management Conference West/Spring '93. Long Beach, California May 4-6. Gardiner, N.E. 1993. The Santa Clara Valley Nonpoini Source Pollution Control Program: Case Study. Proceedings of Hazardous Materials and Environmental Management Conference West/Spring'93. Long Beach, California. Gardiner, N.E. 1991. Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program, Santa Clara County, California. ASCE Water Resources Planning and Management Symposium on Urban Water Resources. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference and Symposium. New Orleans, Louisiana. May 20-22. Gorczyca, Nancy E. (maiden name). 1988. Effects of Gaso- line on Atterberg Limits and Permeability of Unconsolidated Sediments. Abstracts, American Water Resources Associa- tion. Wisconsin Section Twelfth Annual Meeting. Presentations Gardiner, N.E. 1999. Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Moving Targe t. Association of Environmental Professionals, San Diego Section. October 28. Gardiner, N.E. 1999. Why Worry About Yhe Quality) of Your Storm Water Discharge? San Diego's Experience. American Public Works Association Conference on Water Issues. June 15. Gardiner, N.E. 1999 Wet -Weather Storm Water Bacteria Study. International Erosion Control Association 30" Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN. February 22. Gardiner, N.E. 1999. Santa Monica Bay Catch Basin Retrofit Study. International Erosion Control Association 30th Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN. February 22, Gardiner, N.E. 1994. Industrial Storm Water Pollution Pre- vention Plans. Considerations for Designing an effective Employee Training Program. Air & Waste Management Association, 97th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 19-24. Gardiner, N.E. 1994. 7i7king Stock: Eiziluating Storm Water BMP Effectiveness. Proceedings of Hazardous Materials and Environmental Management Conference West/Spring '94. Long Milviffff JVWdWWX08 %%SDGl�SHAREDNar.cy',Huntingtor.kgard nef dom', 7.Nov.WS1>G 10 Nancv E. Gardiner Senior Project Scientist Beach, Califomia. April 26-28. Duke, L.D. and Gardiner, N.E. 1993. IndustrialStorm Water Pollution Prevention: A Regional Program for the Santa i Clara Valley, California. Air & Waste Management Asso- ciation, 86th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado. May 2-22. Uss aminff XfoodwaN AW \%SDG I %SHAREDV4 a ncylH u r tin glo nkg a rdi n er. d oc' 17 -Nov-99',SDG I I Carol L Forrest, P.E., G.E. Principal AREAS OF EXPERTISE REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE 0 Erosion control studies, Ms. Forrest has nearly 25 years of experience in erosion designs, repair protection, flood control, flood plain management, surface recommendations water hydrology, hydraulics, sediment transport, urban runoff, and non -point source pollution, and water quality. Ms. Forrest o SWPPP and NPDES is a nationally-Icnown expert in erosion and sediment control. permit application She is twice past President of the International Erosion preparation Control Association (IECA), current President of the Western 0 Streambank stabilization Chapter of the IECA, and Vice Chair of the Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC) Council. She Ls on the Technical Advisory Board of Erosion EDUCATION Control Magazine, the City of San Diego's Land Development Advisory Board, the Water Environment Federation's Urban M.S., Civil Engineering, San Diego State Runoff Task Force, and the American Society of Civil University, 1982 Engineers Sedimentation Conu-nittee. Ms. Forrest has published numerous articles on erosion and sediment control, B.S., Civil Engineering, storm water permitting, and post -fire hazard mitigation in San Diego State national publications. She teaches continuing education University, 1977 courses for the American Society of Civil Engineers on "How B.A., Anthropology, to Prepare an Effective Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" University of California, and "Urban Watershed Management," and she teaches courses Berkeley, 1971 for the International Erosion Control Association on "Design Procedures for Channel Protection and Streambank Stabili- REGISTRATIONS zation," and "Cutting Edge Developments for Stormwater Civil Engineer: California, Management." She has been involved in projects related to No. 31670, 1980 erosion control, water quality, and resource management throughout the United States and overseas. She was the Civil Engineer: Arizona, erosion and sediment control specialist in charge of developing No.19039,1985 the post -fire erosion and sediment control measures following the 1991 Oakland firestorm, the 1993 Southern California Geotechnical Engineer- California, CA, No. 317, fires, and the 1996 Harmony Grove Fire. Ms. Forrest was 1987 asked by the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services to prepare a Guidance Manual on Post - Certified Professional Fire Hazard Mitigation for use by public agencies. She also Erosion and Sediment, Control Specialist: U.S., prepared the Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual currently in use by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, No.665,1991 San Francisco Bay Region. PROFESSIONAL Ms. Forrest has managed major municipal NPDES storm wa- HISTORY ter permitting projects in Phoenix, Arizona and Riverside County, California, and nonpoint source pollution studies of URS Greiner Woodward Santa Monica Bay, California for the Regional Water Quality Clyde, Senior Consulting Control Board, and Lake Matthews for the Metropolitan Wa- Engineer, 1977-present ter District in Los Angeles, California. These projects all in - volve the evaluation of water quality problems in watershed% Scripps Institution of and the development of pollution control strategies. Ms. S.1rommFo,resl master resume doc',17-No�99SM I Carol L Forrest P.F, G.E. Principa) Oceanography, La Jolla, Forrest has provided technical guidance for other storm water California, 1973-1975 poflution or permitting projects in Scottsdale, Arizona and throughout California. Some of the industrial clients Ms. AFFILIATIONS Forrest provided storm water permitting assistance to include the Navy Public Works Center in San Diego, California, and American Society of Civil the Arizona Pubfic Service in Phoenix, Arizona- Her relevant Engineers project experience includes. Society of Women SDG&E Access Road Erosion Studies, San Diego, CA. Engineers Managed erosion studies for 300 miles of access roads and S.D.S.U. Engineering transmission towers. Evaluated effectiveness of alternative Council Outreach erosion control techniques. Completed cost -benefit analy- Committee ses and developed construction specifications for mitiga- tion measures. International Society for Caltrans Erosion Control Experts Team, Statewide, Soil Mechanics and CA. Developed and provided training program on specific Foundation Engineering erosion and sediment control problems to all Caltrans dis- American Shore and Beach tricts. Since transportation routes are constructed through Preservation Association variable terrain, Caltrans has created extensive cut and fill slopes that require both short-term and long-term soil sta- Soil and Water Conser- vation Society of America bilization. Long-term soR stabilization measures include vegetation and runoff management facilities, such as Society for Marketing ditches and diversions, and provide the dual benefits of re - Professional Services ducing erosion and sedimentation as well as enhancing International Erosion highway aesthetics. Control Association Tecolote Canyon Watershed Study, San Diego, CA. City of San Diego Land Under contract to the City of San Diego, evaluated Development Advisory sources of accelerated erosion and sediment transport into Board Mission Bay. Evaluated alternative design recommenda- tions and completed cost -benefit analyses for alternative California Watershed mitigation measures. Developed watershed mnagement Management Council plan. Developed plans and specifications for erosion con - Water Environment trol measures in 30 areas of watershed and for the design Federation of access road and bicycle path system. First San Diego River Improvement Project, San Di- ego, CA. Studied the geotechnical and constructibility fac- ets of proposed river channelization with crossings at three locations. Each river crossing is designed as a drop struc- ture or spillway incorporating low flow (up to 10-year storm) box culverts to allow traffic to cross the river ex- cept for flooding from heavier storms. Drop structures permit low velocity flow in the grass -lined channel. De- signed and prepared plans and specifications for three river crossings. Oversaw excavation of river mud and other un- suitable materials from dike foundations and placement of select fill soils in the embankments. Monitored post - construction settlements and developed additional stability YNS "nor WOO&WId Saftl 9 S:vot)ir."-Forrest masier resume doc%l 7-Nm-99GDG I I Carol L Forrest, F.E, III I I I ri I I I I E I ! I I F_ I I I 11 I and long term settlement calculations of the dikes to sup- port a request to FEMA to realign the previous flood plain map for the channefized reach of the river. Rams Hill Country Club Flood Control Facilities De- sign, Borrego Springs, CA. Completed hydraulic design for the perimeter flood control faciEties for a 1,000-acre country club situated on the upper flanks of an alluvial floodplain. The flood control facilities had to divert sedi- n-rent-laden flood waters around the development and re- introduce these flood waters back into their respective water courses downstream of the project. Evaluated the various stream's transport mechanisms as they cross the desert floor. The perimeter flood control facilities utilized soH cement fining for high velocity channels; and gabion mattresses and riprap underlain by a woven geotextfle were utilized for bank protection on the slopes subject to ero- sion. 0 Erosion Ordinance and Training Program, Maui County, HI. Revised existing grading ordinance to ad- dress erosion and sediment control problems, including establishment of minimum best management practices. Preparation and implementation of countywide training progran-L Southern California Fires Emergency Hazard Mitiga- tion Plans, Los Angeles, CA. Prepared post -fire emer- gency hazard mitigation plans for areas, including mitiga- tion measures for flooding, mud, and debris flows. Pre- pared post -fire hazard i�nitigation guidance document for public agencies. Erosion Control Plans for Oakland Firestorm, Oak- land, CA. Prepared post -fire erosion and sediment control plans, and oversaw plan implementation. • NPDES Parts I and 2 Storm Water Permit Applica- tions, Phoenix, AZ. Managed comprehensive municipal storm water permit application process including facilities mapping, discharge characterization, rainfall analysis, dry weather sampling, development of sampling plan, wet weather sampling, legal authority review, review of fund- ing mechanisms. poflutant loads analysis, and preparation of storm water management program. • Navy NPDES Storm Water Permitting Project, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division (SWDIV), San Diego, CA. Served as Project Manager for this $7.4 m9lion storm water permitting project for 28 IIRSOVIMPfffmAwrdelao SArOb-ni-Forrest rnaster resume oact! 7-N0-.4i9;-SDG 3 Carol L Forrest, P.E., G.E. Principaj Navy bases for the which received an "Exceflent" rating from the Navy. Prepared Storm Water Discharge Man- agement Plans with site characterization, non -storm dis- charge elimination program, best management practices plans, monitoring plans, and compliance with standard provisions. Storm Water Quality Management Program, Los An- geles County, CA. Prepared implementation manual, monitoring program, and comprehensive model county- wide storm water management plan for 96 permittees. Storm Water NPDES Permit Compliance Program, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Fresno, CA. Implemented and managed comprehensive areawide Storm Water Management Plan. Program included conducting NPDES permit negotiations, developing a master storm water model ordinance, supervising water quality monitoring, and developing guidance materials for industrial and construction activities throughout the Fresno -Clovis area. Provided over- sight for development of Basin Management Plan for moni- toring and control of pollutant accumulation in groundwater recharge basins located throughout the District's jurisdiction. Storm Water and Water Reuse Program of the Fort Ord Reuse Infrastructure Study (FORIS) Monterey County, CA. Assessed nonpoint sources of pollution, conducting in- ventory and assessment of storm drainage system condition, and evaluating future permitting and compliance needs. Evaluated alternative water reuse, treatment, and distribution strategies using tertiary treated wastewater and storm water. Conducted planning -level siting studies and cost estimates for siting and installation of water storage ponds and water treat- ment systems. 0 NPDES Part I Storm Water Permit Application, El Paso, TX. Prepared municipal storm water permit apphca- tion, including facilities mapping, discharge characteriza- tion, dry weather sampling, legal authority review, devel- opment of wet weather sampling plan, and rainfaH analysis. 0 Yuma Crossing Park Hydraulic Feasibility Study, Yuma, AZ. Completed hydraulic feasibility study on the Colorado River to evaluate several methods of increasing the water depth by means of dredging, a deflatable dam, and other flood control facilities. Used USACE HEC-6 computer program to evaluate the alternatives' impacts on the river system's hydraulic regime-, sedimentation, flood- ing, groundwater, and water quality. 0 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Santa Monica, S:' robin! r-WrOst masler rosume doc'.17-Nov-99-SM 4 I I I 11 I I ri L_j I I I I I I I 11 I I Carol L Forrest P.E, 111 Principal CA. Assessed the magnitude of nonpoint source contanii- nation from the Los Angeles Basin to Santa Monica Bay, one of the most heavily used water bodies in California. Performed pollutant loads analysis and developed an early action BMP Prograrri. 0 Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plan, Riverside County, CA. Developed a Drainage Area Man- agement Plan for county area, including 17 cities and flood control district in compliance with storm water permit re- quirements. Includes mnual for new developments as well as best management plans for existing developments, pub - He education and participation, and coordination of co- perrr&tees. Lake Matthews Water Quality Study, Riverside County, CA. Evaluated effectiveness of proposed dam and detention basin alternatives in removal of poflutants in urban runoff entering water supply reservoir from devel- oped watershed condition. • Farmington Canal Design, Stockton, CA. Completed hydraulic design for a new water conveyance system in- cluding: design of modifications to an existing dam, design of a flow diversion structure, design of gauging stations and a low-water crossings, evaluation of existing creek ca- pacity. • Eastside Reservoir, Riverside County, CA. Completed hydrologic evaluation of probable maximum precipitation and probable maximum flood for 14 dam sites for the Met- ropolitan Water District of Southern California. FORIVIOff MWANIONNO S 1.robin%ForTO5t master resume do6l 7-N��WSDG 5 I I AREAS OF EXPERTISE * Water quality 0 Urban storm water management 0 Storm water poflution treatment measures 0 Water monitoring and reporting EDUCATION I 11 I I L�_ I Ph.D. (Environmental En- gineering), 1997, Univer- sity of Melbourne, Austra- lia Bachelor of Engineering with Honors (Civil), 1993, University of Adelaide, Australia PROFESSIONAL HISTORY URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Environmental Engineer, 1999-Present Woodward -Clyde, Melbourne, Australia, Environmental Engineer, 1998-1999 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia, Research Fellow 1997-1999 Environmental Protection Authority, Storm Water Project Manager, 1997 University of Melbourne, Casual Lecturer, Environmental Engineering and Geography, 1993-1998 Robin Allison, Ph.D. Assistant Proiect Manaaer REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Dr. Aflison has seven years of water quality research experience, with an emphasis in urban storm water and rural streams and rivers. He has experience in designing and carrying out environmental monitoring projects and has extensively published the results, particularly for gross pollutants and storm water Best Management Practices (BMP) effectiveness. Dr. Allison also has experience in preparing implementation plans for water quality improvement works. He developed Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Storm Water as the principal editor of the recently released Guidelines for Victoria, Australia. He also developed a decisio n- support- system for choosing appropriate BMPs for urban storm water installations. Since relocating to San Diego, Catifornia, he has provided technical overview and advice on a Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study in the Los Angeles area. His representative project experience includes: Technical Advisor, Caltrans Litter Management Pilot Study, Los Angeles, CA. Provides technical oversight of the project and is involved with the data interpretation and reporting for the multi-trifflion dollar study. The study investigates a range of BMPs for reducing the quantity of litter discharged from highway drains.. 0 Project Manager, Litter Trapping Action Plan for a Local City, Australia. The project involved field inspections, identification of pollutant sources, and recon-u-nended BMPs for implementation throughout the city. Principal Editor, Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater, Melbourne, Australia. Developed storm water management guidelines for improved management for cities, regional authorities and consultants in Australia. The guidelines define environmental requirements, provide a range of management tools and guide the selection and applications of these tools for improved urban storm water management. IH:"-JO'3UMe5'-Allisonmastardockl7-Nov-gg%Code I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Robin AIIISon, PhA Assistant Project Manager AWARDS • Sen-ii-finalist, Young Australian of the Year a Project Engineer, Waterway Activity Plans, Awards — Victorian Melbourne, Australia. Assessed water quafity and likely Environment category, pollutant sources in Australian urban waterways, and 1997 recommended remedial action and prioritized improvement works such as bank stabilization, weed removal and • Guy Parker Award for structural BMP implementation. best paper in Water (journal of the 0 Project Manager, BMP Decision -Support -System, AWWA) for Australia. Managed extensive field monitoring of storm 1996-1997 water pollutants and BMP effectiveness. Results were extensively published and developed into a software • Best student paper dec ision- support- system for selecting appropriate BMPs presentation award, for gross pollutant (litter and debris) reduction. International Hydrology and Water 0 Researcher, Storm Water Gross Pollutant Monitoring Resources Symposium, Techniques, Australia. Developed new techniques for 1994 monitoring Etter and debris in urban storm water and methods for assessing the performance of litter trapping • Special Postgraduate BMPs. Published the results at numerous international research studentship, conferences and journals. University of Melbourne, 1993-1997 Water Quality Monitoring, Australia. Monitored environmental condition of alpine streams, involved • HFN Hodgson Award assessing existing data, selecting appropriate sites, for excellence in water - installing monitoring equipment, maintaining equipment in related studies, 1992 remote alpine area and reporting results. • Invited speaker at: Na- tional Conference of Gross Pollutant Trap- ping Guidelines, Aus- tralia (1997); Storm - water and Soil Erosion Conference, Australia (1997); "Do Your Lit- ter Bit" Conference, Australia (1998); and Storm Water Manage- ment in the Southwest Conference, Long Beach, CA (1998). PUBLICATIONS Allison R.A. (1999) "Innovative technology reduces storm - water trash". Public Works 130(2): 28-32. I Hiresumes'.A:"isonMaS[&Fdoc%l7.t4o�gg...cc4a 2 I 11 I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I Roble Allison, Ph.D. Assistant Proiect Manam Allison, R.A., Chiew F.H.S. & McMahon, T.A., (1998) "'Nu- trient Contribution of Leaf Litter in Urban Stormwater", Jour- nal of Environmental Management. Allison R.A. and Chiew, F.H.S., (1997) "Leaf fitter in storm - water: A major source of nutrients?", Water, 24(t): 19. Allison R.A., Wong, T.H.F. & McMahon, T.A. (1996) "Field trials of the Pollutee stormwater poflution trap", Water, 23(6): 29-33 (won best paper for 1996/97). CONSULTING AND RESEARCH REPORTS Walker T.A., Allison R.A, Wong T.H.F. and Wootton R.M. (1999) "Removal of suspended solids and associated pollut- ants by a CDS gross pollutant trap", Research Report for the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Aus- traEa, 38 pp. Allison R.A., Chesterfield, C., Lopreiato, B. and Johnstone P. (1998) "Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater — Draft", for the 'Stormwater Corn- niittee', Victoria, Australia. Allison, R.A., Walker, T.A., Chiew, F.H.S., O'Neill, I.C. & McMahon, T.A. (1998) "FROM ROADS TO RIVERS - Gross pollutant removal from urban waterways", Research Report for the Co-operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Australia, 98 pp. Allison, R.A., Chiew F.H.S. & McMahon, T.A. (1998) "A de- cisio n- support- system for determining effective trapping strategies for gross pollutants", Research report for the Co- operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Allison, R.A., Chiew F.H.S. & McMahon, T.A. (1997) "Stormwater Gross Pollutants", Industry Report Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Allison R.A. & Grayson R.B. (19940 "Mt. Stirling Strearn Monitoring Program - Final Report", submitted through the Centre for Environmental Applied Hydrology to the Alpine Resorts Commission, Victoria. Allison R.A, Grayson R.B. and Campbell I.C. (1993) -Mt Stirling Stream Monitoring program — Existing data investiga- tion", A report to the Alpine Resort Commission, Victoria, Australia. CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS I Kves.mesWhsonmasler doo I 7-Nov-991-code 3 I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I �j I Robin Allison, Ph.D. Assistant Proiect Manaw Allison R.A. and Seymour S. (1998) "Can we afford fitter free waterways'? —working with best practice", managing Litter '98 conference, EcoRecycle Victoria, Australia.. Allison R.A., Rooney G.R., Chiew F.H.S. and McMahon T.A. (1997) "Field trials of side entry pit traps for urban stormwater pollution control", 9'h National Local Government Engineering Conference, Melbourne, August, pp 9-14. Affison R.A., Chiew, F.H.S., O'Neifl, I.C., Essery, C.I. and McMahon T.A., (1996) "A storm event perspective of gross pollutant and stormwater quality characteristics in Australian urban catchments", 6h International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, Hannover, Germany. Allison R.A. and Chiew F.H.S. (1995) "Monitoring of storm - water pollution from various land uses in an urban catchment", 2 d International Symposium on Ur ' ban Stormwater Manage- ment, Melbourne, Institution of Engineers, NCP 95/03, Vol. 2, pp 511-516, Allison R.A., Essery C.I. and McMahon T.A. (1994) "How Gross is Pollution? - its occurrence and measurement in stormwater channels within two Australian cities", 22 d Inter- national Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium 1994, Adelaide, (won best student paper presentation). I �:4egurres'A.-gorimaster dcc!'. 7-NOV-991-CM64 James G. Ashcraft P.E. —FREPRESENTATIVE Managing Principal AREAS OF EXPERTISE EXPERIENCE 0 Water Systems Mr. Ashcraft has more than 26 years of experience in the Engineering planning, design and construction of water, wastewater and * Water Reclamation water reclamation systems, including treatment plants, pump stations, force mains and water distribution pipelines. He has * Wastewater also been in responsible charge of several groundwater Engineering management studies, including the investigation and development of resource recovery programs for groundwater EDUCATION University of Washington, basins within San Diego County. Mr. Ashcraft's broad technical and managerial skills are demonstrated by the Seattle: M.S., Sanitary following representative projects: Engineering, 1972 Provided design services to the City of San Diego under a University of California, design/build contract agreement for a new $4.5 million Berkeley: B.S. Civil dernineralization facility at the 30-MGD North City Water Engineering, 1966 Reclamation Plant. Major components included variable speed feed pumps, cartridge filters, flow and conductivity REGISTRATIONS meters, and a chemical storage and feed system using hydrocholoric acid and caustic. Civil Engineer: California, No-22642,1973 Project Engineer for the design of the 7.0 MGD (expandable to 14 MGD) South Bay Water Reclamation PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Plant for the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Managing Principal, HYA Department (in progress). Project responsibilities include Consulting Engineers, design of the headworks, primary sedimentation, and flow 1987 — present equalization facilities. Key areas of involvement include Chief Engineer, Miramar bar s i creens, screenings, washers and compactors, screenings washer and hopper, grit basins, grit pumping, Eng"ineerinIg Associates, grit classifying and dewatering, grit storage, scum 1982 —1987 concentrator and odor control. Sanitary Engineer, State of Design Engineer for the Robert A. Weese Water California, Bureau of Treatment Plant disinfection system for the Citv of Sanitary Engineering, 1970-1971 Oceanside. Treating raw water from the San DIC010 0_ County aqueduct, system design met the requirements of Civil Engineer, State of the Surface Water Treatment Rule and stopped the California, Division of formation of disinfection by-products to meet the Safe Highways, 1969-1970 Water Drinking Act. AFFILIATIONS Principal -in -Charge for the expansion of the 120 MGD Alvarado Water Treatment Plant to 170 MGD for the City American Society of Civil of San Diego. Facilities were designed for an ultimate Engineers plant expansion to 212.5 MGD. The assignment included California Water Pollution preliminary and final design for three 48-foot gravitv t� I Control Association thickeners to concentrate sludge from the sedimentation basins. ONS smiffef woodmi 9 e/yod WAre5umes'--AsncraV.2 doW8-Nov-WSDG I James 8. Ashcraft P.L I I I I I I I ['I I 11 I I I I I I I Chemical Engineering Institute, Process Equipment Selection Committee Water Pollution Control Federation Team Member for review of the Groundwater Recovery Program for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califomia (MWD) service area. Developed evaluation criteria and reviewed groundwater recovery projects submitted by member agencies for inclusion in the program. Evaluated each project by confirming groundwater contamination, groundwater management practices, CEQA, project yield, and economic analysis. Developed methods for tracking and projecting future costs to MWD by participating member agencies. 0 Principal -in-Charge for the San Pasqual Strategic Plan for the City of San Diego. The Plan identified the water resource assets and stakeholders, including water customers, municipalities, environmental groups, and regulatory agencies in the basin. Strategies developed for review included development of three alternative reclaimed water distribution systems, development of a groundwater management plan, and identification of competing interests for the available water resources. The San Pasqua] Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in the County of San Diego. 0 Principal -in -Charge for the Brine Management Feasibility Study for the City of Escondido. The purpose of the study was to assist the City by identifying and controlling brine discharge into the wastewater stream tributary to the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility. Recommendations set forth in the Brine Management Study will be implemented in conjunction with the City's on -going development of its Water Reclamation Program. • Principal -i n-Charge of the preparation of a Water Reclamation Master Plan for Unincorporated Areas on behalf of the County of San Diego. The objective of the Master Plan was to develop an implementation plan for water reclamation by multiple agencies in unincorporated areas of San Diego County, most of which had not previously been included in other master planning efforts. The study area encompassed 13 sanitation districts, three County -owned wastewater treatment plants, and six water districts. • Design Engineer for two wastewater reclamation plants whereby effluent is utilized for irrigation within residential developments and open space areas. Due to space limitations at one of these facilities. the activated sludge IOSOVINAPNOVAN199/08 W:Vo9umes1AsncraV.2 aoc%o8-Nov-99!1SDG 2 James 0. Ashcraft P1 Managing Principal process was combined with biofilters to obtain secondary treatment. Principal-i n -Charge for the preliminary design of a 11,000 gpm reclaimed water pump station and modification to an existing potable water reservoir for the Orange County Water District Orange/Santa Ana Reservoir, a prestructured concrete tank which required substantial modification to meet code requirements. 0 E n gineer-in -Charge for modifications to the Galloway Pump Station for the City of San Diego. Design included replacement of three existing constant speed raw sewage P umps with two variable speed pumps and motors, increasing capacity to 1,400 gpm. Variable speed was accomplished utilizing variable frequency drives. In addition, the design incorporated a 92,500-gallon, buried emergency storage reservoir. Project Manager and Design Engineer for the conversion of a 1.0 mgd extended aeration plant into a 13.0 mgd regional treatment facility for the South East Regional Reclamation Authority. The conversion was accomplished in expansion increments of 5.0, 3.0 and 4.0 mgd. In the 4.0 mgd increment, filter belt presses were field-tested for sludge dewatering and, based on test findings, belt presses were first utilized in Southern California. A fine bubble jet aeration system was also used in the activated sludge system and the existing sludge thickening process was modified by combining primary and waste activated sludges and thickening them by dissolved air flotation. This unique approach not only substantially reduced the hydraulic loading to the anaerobic digesters, but also reduced the plant's power consumption by 25 percent. Prior to completion of the final 4.0 mgd expansion, the plant consistently produced an effluent of less than 5 mg/1 BOD and 10 mg/1 suspended solids while operating at 90 design capacity. percent • Conversion of four primary sewage treatment plants to secondary treatment facilities utilizing trickling filters and wastewater treatment plant expansion, from 1.0 MGD to 2.0 MGD, utilizing a two -stage trick -ling filter system,, Camp Pendleton, California. • Expansion of a domestic sewage collection system and design for a new industrial sewer system with ;1ned evaporation ponds for waste disposal. China Lake Naval OBS 81 Wei WROA 019 9/1 We W:`-,reSL.M85`AShc�a't2 a0e,1 8-N0V-W-SDG 3 Mies G. Ashualt P.E. Managing Pfincipal Weapons Center, Ridgecrest, California. 9 Principal -in -Charge for the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Facility Design and Construction Management for the City of Escondido. The RO system, located at the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility, has a capacity of 16,000 gpd. The unit was designed to operate with minimal pre-treatment for treating chlorinated filtered secondary effluent (SE). The product water is blended with SE and used for irrigation water for the Avocado Pilot Study. * Principal -in -Charge for the Point Loma Annual Meter Certification Report for the City of San Diego. This project involved certifying the accuracy of the influent parshall flumes for the 200 MGD Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. 0 Principal -in -Charge of the Pump Station I I Odor and Noise Mitigation Study for the City of San Diego. Tasks included reviews of the odor and noise complaint history and design of the odor scrubber and pump station; on -site, 24-hour sulfide gas emission monitoring.of the scrubber system exhaust-, and, recommendations for mitigation measures. 0 Project Manager for the construction management of the $7 million award -winning and nationally recognized water reclamation plant expansion and upgrade for the Fallbrook Sanitary District. The project encompassed reinforced concrete structures, a masonry block operations center, mechanical process equipment, valves and piping, and 480-volt power system. * Chief Engineer in responsible charge of field construction management services for a variety of multi -million dollar water and wastewater projects (prior to joining HYA), including: — Expansion of the Luis Rey Wastewater Treatitient Plant, City of Oceanside. — Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, Lake Elsinore Municipal Water District. — Bueno No. 10 pressure reducing and disinfection station that takes off high pressure Tri-Agency L_ - Pipeline of the San Diego County Water Authority. Raw Sewage Pump Station No. 2. Oceanside — INS offl/fier JF080VIV 930? W:Vftsjmas'.Asn0rat.2 drCM 8-NOY-97SDO 4 I I I I I I I I I I .� IL I I I I I I I MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS CHIMIN CHIAN Coastal Engineer EDUCATION MS & CE, Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT, 1993 BS, Marine Engineering, Shangai Maritine Institute, China, 1977 MS, Ocean Engineering, University of Hawaii, 1999 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Registered Environmental Assessor (REA), California EPA, 1996 Registration No.: REA-06555 EXPERIENCE Mr. Chian joined Moffatt & Nichol Engineers in 1993 and has since participated in a wide range of coastal and envirorunental engineering projects including reconnaissance study of coastal watershed contamination, coastal stabilization analysis, feasibility study of dredging and disposal of contaminated materials, harbor response analyses, design of shallow water habitats, tidal hydraulics and water quality studies, and coastal storm damage analyses. Prior tojoining Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Mr. Chian had participated in a variety of research projects in coastal, oceanographic and environmental engineering at MIT, and conducted a dredgig./disposal study for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Los Angeles River Watershed, Los Angeles, California Conducted study and prepared report fr the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Distirct, on conditions of the Los Angeles River Estuary and Watershed. The study involved analysis and determination of existing channel shoaling rates and patterns.. watershed sediment production and coastal yield, dredgeability and disposability of estuary deposits, estuary flow and sedimentation conditions using RMA2/SED2D models, traffic conditions, and channel alignment, configuration and advance maintenance alternatives based on costs and potential local impacts. Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, Calfironia Performcd study and prepared report on sediment budget, transport and shoreline evolution along the Santa Monica Bay coast and the potential shoreline impacts of expanding the airport runways into the ocean. The studv involved analvs1s and determination of current patterns and water quality parameter distributions n Santa Monica Bay using the R-MA2 and RMA4 models. ort of Los Angeles Batiquitos Lagoon, Carlsbad, California Conducted study for the Pon of Los Angeles on the post -construction circualtion patterns and water levels in Batiquitos Lagoon as part of the Batiquitos Lagoon Restoration Project. The study involved numerical modeling and analysis of la-oon tidal hydraulics using the RMA2 model. Laguna Canyon Channel, Laguna Beach, California Performed channel and coastal hydraulic analyses and provided conceptual design for a storm drain ocean outlet scour protection system. The study involved beach behavior analysis, scour potential analysis for storm flows and extreme waves, rock sizing, and outlet alternative development. Los Angeles Harbor Channel, Los Angeles, California Conducted special studies and prepared reports on potential impacts of the channel deepening project. The studies involved analvses and impact assessment of the existing and post -project conditions of surge, tsunami effects- channel navigability safety in support of LAHD Environmental Management Division EIR. I ­-96! I MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS CHIMIN CHIAN Coastal Engineer Page 2 Wave Agitation Study, S"ta Barbara, California Studied wave agitation in Santa Barbara Harbor for the City of Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Harbor - Marina One Expansion project. The study involved finite element modeling of harbor oscillation under both extreme storm w-ave conditions and operational wave conditions using the HARBI) model, and evaluation of hydrodynamic loads on manna structures. Queensway Bay, Long Beach, California Performed wave climate and harbor oscillation analvses and modeling for the City of Long Beach Queensway Bay harbor development project. The study involved finite element modeling of wave penetratioil/oscillation in eritire Queensway Bay including the project harbor using the HARBD model for both storm waves and long waves. Harbor responses and surging velocities at project berthing areas were obtained and analyzed, which provided design basis for project harbor structures. Pier J Breakwater, Port of Long Beach, California Conducted wave climate and breakwater design optimization studies and co -prepared design basis report for Port of Long Beach for the design and construction of the Pier J breakwater. Wetlands Restoration, Bolsa Chica, California Studied, and prepared report on, potential impacts of elevated bacterial levels associated with proposed inlet plans on beach water -contact recreational use for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project (EIR/EIS). The study involved bacteriological data reduction. fate and transport modeling and statistical compliance analysis ior existing and future conditions at the Biolsa Chica coast as compared to conditions at the Gabriel River mouth and the coasts of Seal Beach and Surfside/Sunset Beach. Mitigation Measure, North Island Naval Air Station, California Conducted assessment and prepared report for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Navy, on the stability of a proposed shallow water habitat at the North Island Naval Air Station as a mitigation measure for channel maintenance dredging. Marina del Rey/Ballona Creek Watershed, California Performed reconnaissance study and prepared report for the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District on contamination of Niarina del Rey Harbor and water quality'/sediment contamination in Ballona Creek Watershed. The studv involved analyses of contaminant hydrology/hydraulics.. urban stormwater runoff quality, sedimentation and sediment quality, and coastal processes. Contaminated sediment management measures including capping, containment, habitat and wetland creation, geocontainment, chemical/biological treatment and landfill options were developed, based on which contaminated sediment management plans were formulated and presented to a multi -agency task force. Pebble Beach Golf Links, Pebble Beach, California Performed analyses of coastal conditions and prepared a coastal analysis report for the coastal bluff stabilization and erosion control pr ject at the PBGL. The study involved analyses on major aspects of 0j environmental exposure of the bluff coastline, which provided a basis for assessing coastal stabilization and erosion control alternatives. Small Craft Berthing Basin, Port Hueneme, California Performed a study on wave climate, harbor response and structural loads for the Navy small craft berthing basin at Port Hueneme including analyses on wave statistics, wave transformation, basin response, wavc ninup/overtopping and design dock loads. I I I I I I I I I I I I I �1 I MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS CHIMIN CHIAN Coastal Engineer Page 3 Capped Contaminated Dredged material Disposal, Santa Monica Bay, California Conducted feasibility study and preliminary design of capped contaminated dredged material disposal site in Santa Monica Bay. Prepared report covering oceanography, sedimentation, pollutant disposal, water quality impacts, site selection and design, dredging and disposal, chemical testing procedure, legal framework. cost estimate, and operations scheduling. Wetlands Restoration, Bolsa Chica, California Assisted in tidal hydraulics and water quality studies for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project. Coastal Engineering, Oceanside, California Participated in beach erosion, storm wave runup, and coastal inundation analyses. Performed storm damage cost estimation for the site. Shallow Water Habitats, Los Angeles/Long Beach, California Provided viability assessments for constructing shallow water'llabitats as dredging mitigation measures for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Boston Lightship, Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts Prepared feasibility study and impact assessment of open -water disposal and capping of contaminated dredged material at the Boston Lightship site in Massachusetts Bay providing technical criteria for reviewing federal permitting actions. MEMBERSHIPS American Society of Civil Engineers American Water Resources Association Sigma XI, National Scientific Research Honorary Society PUBLICATIONS Chian, C. and Mel, C.C., "Effects of Coastal Topography on the Dispersion of Heavy Particles in Weak Tides, " Journal of Physical Oceanography (to appear). Mel, C.C. and Chian, C., "Dispersion of Small Suspended Particles in a Wave Boundary Lc�yer. Journal of Physical Oceanography , Vol.24 (12), 2479-2495. Chian, C. and Pederson, J., "Open- Water Disposal and Capping Qf Contaminated Dredged iWaterial at the Boston Lightship Site. " Tech, Rept., Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 1993. Mel., C.C. and Chian, C., "Dispersion of Heavy Suspensions in Wave Boundary LaYers. " Proc. 23rd Int. Conf. on Coast. Eng., Venice. Italy, f992. Vol. 3 pp 3189. Chian, C. and Ertekin, R.C., "Diffraction of Solitary Waves by Submerged Horizontal CYlinders. "Wave Motion, Vol. 15, 1992, pp 121-142. Chian, C. and Gerritsen, F., "Dvnamic Stahilitv ofArmor Units. " Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Coast. Eng.. Delft, The Netherlands, 1990, Vol 2. pp 1270. Ertekin. R.C. and Chian, C., "Numerical Solution o Some Solitaq- Wave and Submerged- !f Obstacle Interaction Problems, " Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mech. and Arctic Eng., Houston, Texas, 1990, Vol. I -A, pp 255-262.94 I W-%6) Francesca C. Bemoan Senior Project Scientist AREAS OF EXPERTISE REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE 0 Wetlands Treatment Ms. Derrigen has been a biologist since 1976 specializing in Wetlands Mitigation wastewater wetlands, wetland tyiitigation, water quality field research, wetland designs, and feasibility studies. At URS Water Quality Greiner Woodward Clyde she has been involved in the Wetland Impact Hayward Marsh Evaluation, the Alameda County Urban Analysis Runoff Clean Water Program, and the Peyton Slough wetland study. These projects concern wastewater wetlands, EDUCATION stormwater wetlands, and wetlands enhancement. Representative projects include- Washington State U niversity: M. 11 ' 0 Project manager for the Hamilton Army Airfield Wetland Environ ntal Science, Z Restoration Project. Developed conceptual restoration 1976 plan for 914 acres of tidal and seasonal wetland. comparing use of dredged material with natural Colby College, Maine: sedimentation processes. Worked with large advisory B.A., Biology, 1973 group to refine plan. PROFESSIONAL Project Manager for the Oliver Brothers Wettand HISTORY Enhancement Project. Evaluated existing biological and hydrologic conditions and developed an enhancement plan URS Greiner Woodward for 4 adjacent wetlands. Plan integrates endangered Clyde, Project Scientist, species habitat enhancement with protection and 1990-date interpretation of cultural resource values and public access. Derngen Aquatic Biology, Developed plan in consultation with interagency task 1979-1990 force. Mt. View Sanitary District, 0 Assisted the FAA and the Port of Oakland with the 1976-1979, Wetland interpretation of wetland boundaries and preparation of an Biologist, Water Quality Historic Section 10 permit application to the U.S. Army Chemist Corps of Engineers AFFILIATIONS 0 Performed Habitat Surveys and participated in fishery Society of Wetland resources on 6 Oakland creeks. Evaluated canopy cover, substrate, aquatic invertebrates and water quality on over 5 Scientists miles of creeks and assisted with fishery sampling using Society for Ecological electrofishing. Restoration 0 Project manager for wettand treatment/detention basin for Aquatic Habitat Institute, stormwater runoff from a 25-acre parking lot, developed Board Member 1982-1990 design and secured permits. Save San Francisco Bay 0 Project manager for the Hayward Marsh, 145-acre Association, Board wastewater wetland, metal research study. The study Member 1995-1986 includes analysis of samples of water, sediment, plants, fish, and bird eggs for 10 metals. Prepared a wetland San Francisco Bay Institute revegetation plan for habitat enhancement and nitrification- dentrification. Provided emergent vegetation planting URS Greiner Woadmrd We S.!rDbin"jdBMgenOOl.dc�cl.11-jar.-99!GAK I I I I I 7 L I I I I I I I I I I I I Francesca C. Demen Senior Proiect Scientist plans and construction oversight on a project designed to enhance ammonia removal in the wetland. Modeling metal concentrations based upon changing hydrology and vegetation coverage to predict potential impacts to biota. Prepared wetland mitigation feasibflity analysis for San Francisco Airport Runway Reconfiguration Project, mapping potential mitigation sites for more than 1000 acres of bay fill. Prepared biological sections of an Environmental Impact Study for the expansion of the Port of Le Havre France, evaluated potential wetland mitigation sites and conceptual designs. 0 Designed and contributed all the biological criteria for the expansion of the Mt. View Sanitary District wastewater wetlands creation expansion to 20 acres for habitat enhancement. Researched the biological communities, physical conditions and chemical properties within the 20- acre wetland. Wrote vegetation management plans, mosquito larval control plans, botulism prevention plans and wetland operation guidelines. • Wrote the biological sections of the operations and maintenance manual and contributed to the design for the 20-acre wastewater wetland for Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. Continue to conduct semi-annual monitoring on the biological conditions within the wetland. These reports began in January 1986, and include vegetation mapping, vegetation transect analysis, observations of aquatic invertebrates, birds, fish, and analyses of water quality data results. • Provided biological input on the design of a 30-acre wastewater wetiand for the City of Arcata and vegetation design input to the City of Cannon Beach wastewater wetland for advanced secondary treatment. Completed feasibility studies for wastewater disposal/reuse in created wetlands for the following; the City of Palo Alto's flood control basin and antenna farm; the community of Roseville; the feasibility of converting an oxidation pond to a treatment wetland for the City of Ukiah, the feasibility of disposing of treated effluent in a created wetland adjacent to Bataquitos Lagoon, for Luecadia County Water District. participated in the reuse and disposal feasibility study for Carson City. IURS Greiner Woo6ard C"s S:',c,b-,n!em-ger 00 1.dov 1 I.-Jan.99.OAK 2 I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I Francesca 9. leingen Senior Proiect Scientist • Biological design of a 19-acre freshwater wetland and a 3.5-acre tidal wetland located along the Napa River in American Canyon. Developed a vegetation planting program, target flora and fauna species, and a monitoring progran-L Monitored the site monthly for 3 years. The wetland serves as mitigation for the expansion of the Vallejo City Marina and Marine World. • Evaluation and conceptual restoration plan for a tidal pickleweed marsh on the Richmond shoreline. Evaluation of potential sediment contamination and vegetative comparison with a control site. • Developed maintenance and operation guidance manual to improve water quafity in flood control channels. • Conducted wetland evaluation at Hamilton Army Airfield for chemicals of concern in seasonal and tidal wetlands. Sampling soils, fisheries and invertebrates, monitoring special status species. Conducted contaminant distribution assessment of 100-acre tidal wetland in San Pablo Bay. Sampled and analyzed sediment at multiple depths and plant tissues for metals and organics. • Task leader for two years of DUST Marsh field work researching the concentrations of lead, zinc, and copper in sediments and vegetation of a creek marsh system which receives urban runoff. a Conducted vegetated channels study comparing copper, lead, and zinc concentrations in 4 flood control channels. Estimated metal mass removal potential from dredging. Differentiated enriched and soil lattice metal contributions to sediment metal load. Project manager of study of sod/water/salt relationships which determine plant species distribution in the brackish Peyton slough wetlands system. Modeled hydrologic scenarios to predict plant community response. Task leader for conducting evaluations of nearly 200 acres of salt marsh in Palo Alto. Evaluated conversion from tidal salt marsh to brackish marsh using global positioning system generated mapping on a 46 acre site adjacent to the discharge channel of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Evaluated health of the muted tidal 150 acre Renzel salt marsh using measurements of cover, height and biomass. Reports submitted to the RWQCB to satisiy NPDES permitting requirements. I' URS Greiner Woodward Clyde S I-robini.d9mgen 00! domi 1-Jar-99 -OAK 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Francesca C. lemgen Senior Project Scientist Task leader for the ripar'an/wetlands impact assessment on the Littlerock Dam and Reservoir Restoration Project EIS, the U.S. Army Corps Section 404 permit and the California Department of Fish and Game Stream Alteration Agreement application. 0 Wrote biological portions of the operations and maintenance manual for a 390-acre wastewater wetland in the Carson Valley, Nevada. Gave input into the vegetative design of the wetland. Assisted with public education during project feasibility stages. An analysis of 18 rr�tigation sites associated with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission permits granted since 1973. These sites were located around San Francisco Bay from Suisun Marsh to Alviso. Exarriined biological, physical, and hydrological characteristics at each site and thoroughly analyzed whether the project met its permit conditions. Conducted a I -year research study on Peyton Slough, Hastings Slough and Grayson Creek comparing water quality, fisheries and benthic invertebrates. Peyton Slough receives wastewater wetland effluent and the other two sloughs were controls. Monitoring monthly bird usage on high and low tide cycles and semi-annual vegetation transect analysis on a brackish water mitigation site on the Napa River for 3 years. Wetlands delineation and analysis using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Classification System was applied to the Crane Valley hydroelectric system wetlands, in the Sierra foothills. Provided biological input to the design of a 60-acre multiple habitat type wetland using seasonal rain water and runoff for the City of Eureka. 0 Project Manager and lead investigator for the Alviso Ring Levee Mitigation and Restoration Project for the City of San Jose's salt marsh creation and enhancement project. The plan was written in compliance with a Consent Decree. Pern-dts obtained include: Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits from the RWQCB and the U.S. Corps of Engineers, respectively. and a Section 1601/1603 Stream Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and Section 7 IURS Greiner Woodward C&de S.voo-Ncernger, DOI.dod%l i -Jan-99.-OAK 4 Francesca C. Demen Senior Project Scientist consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. Plans and specifications were prepared and construction is scheduled for fafl 1996. Conducted water quality problem solving on the City of Orland's oxidation pond and Lake Tyson. Ms. Derngen was a peer reviewer for the National Science Foundation's wastewater wetlands projects proposals in 1980, 1981, 1983, and 1984. I I I 1.1 I I I I I I I I IUN GIVIner Woodmrd We S.%.rob'n'demgen 001 aocl I-Jar'-99%OAK 5 I I I PUBLICATIONS i I 11 I I I I I i I I I I I Francesca 0. lemen Senior Project Scientist Ms. Demgen has had nurnerous technical papers published as well as speaking engagements nationwide at symposia and workshops. PUBLICATIONS LIST Derngen, FC. Monitoring Metals and Biota at Hayward Marsh to Meet Expanded NPDES Requirements. IN Proceedings of the Society of Wetland Scientists - Western Chapter. 1994 Western Wetlands Conference. In press. Demgen, F.C. Copper, Lead, and Zinc Concentrations in the Sediments, Water and Plants of the Crandall Creek -DUST Marsh System. IN Proceedings of the Society of Wetland Scientists - Western Chapter. D.M. Kent, Editon 1993 Western Wetlands Conference. In Press. Demgen, F and S. Vastano. Copper, lead, and zinc in sediment and vegetation of an urban creek and marsh treatment system. Presentation at Intecol's IV International Wetlands Conference. Columbus, Ohio. 1992. Demgen, Francesca. Successful Use of Treated Sewage for Wetland Habitat. California Waterfront Ag . Spring 1989, pp. 8-15. Derrigen, F.C. Creating Wetland Habitat Using Secondary Treated Effluent. IN Proceedings of the Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Enhancement Conference, Arcata, CA. CLH. Allen and R.A. Gearheart Editors. 1988. Derngen, F.C. A Review of 18 Wetland Mitigation Sites in the San Francisco Bay Region. IN Proceedings of the Wetlands '88 Urban Wetlands and Riparian Habitat Symposium. Oakland, CA. June 1988. Derngen, Francesca C. and Robert Coats. Analysis of 18 Wetland Mitigation Sites. For: The Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 1987. Hagar, J. and F. Demgen. Biological assessment of the Mt. View Sanitary District Wetlands Enhancement Program. 1987. Citizens'Report on the Diked Historic Baylands of San Francisco Bay. Prepared by the Bay Institute of San Francisco. Francesca Demgen, Contributing author of four sections. 1987. Demgen, Francesca C. Review of "A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment Volumes 1 and 2 bv Paul R. Adarnus IUNS Greiner Woodwrd Cfyde S %robinidem9en 001 doc'l 1-�ar--9910AK 6 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I Francesca C. Damon Senior Project Scientist and L.T. Stockwell with regard to its applicability to Pacific Coast Wetlands concerning water quality. IN Proceedings of Pacific Regional Wetland Functions workshop, April 1985. Sponsored by the National Wetlands Technical Council. Demgen, Francesca C. An Overview of Four New Wastewater Wetlands Projects. IN Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium Ili, Future of Water Reuse, San Diego 1984. Sponsored by the American Water Works Assoc. Hyde, Henry C., Roanne S. Ross, and Francesca Demgen. Technology Assessment of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA-600/2-84-154. September 1984. NTIS publication PB85-106896. Demgen, Francesca C. Enhancing California's Wetland Resource - Using Treated Effluent. Report to the California Coastal Conservancy. September 198 1. Derngen, Francesca C. Wetlands Creation for Habitat and Treatment - at Mt. View Sanitary District. CA. IN Proceedings of the Seminar on Aquaculture Systems for Wastewater Treatment. Davis, CA. September 1979. Demgen, Francesca C. and J. Warren Nute. Wetlands Creation using Secondary Treated Wastewater. In Proceed-Ings of Water Reuse Symposium 1. Washington D.C. March 1979. Sponsored by the American Water Works Assoc. Derrigen, Francesca C. "Treated Wastewater for Wildlife." Outdoor California. March 1979. Demgen, Francesca C. Biological Monograph: Containing supplementary biological data of the Mt. View Sanitary District Wetlands system as related to literature search findings. October 1989. Demgen, Francesca C. and J. Warren Nute. Wetlands Enhancement Using Secondary Effluent. IN Proceedings of National Conference on Environmental Engineering. Kansas City, July 1978. Derngen, Francesca C. "The Ducks Like Us." Journal of the California Water Pollution Control Association. January 1978. Demgen, Francesca C. and Barbara Blubaugh. Mt. View Sanitary District Marsh Enhancement Pilot Program Progress Report No. 3. June 1977. IURS Gfelnef ftodwafd Clyde S irce.riderrgen 00' aoc%.4, I -Jan-99;OAK 7 Allen L do Steiguer Project Director AREAS OF EXPERTISE REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE • Water Quality Mr. de Steiguer has 30 years of experience in the planning, Planning design, value engineering and construction administration of 0 Wastewater Treatment civil and sanitary engineering projects. These projects include stormwater and water quality planning for lakes and rivers, • Sanitary Engineering lagoon and mechanical wastewater treatment plants, mechanical and sanitary engineering design of pumping EDUCATION stations, pipelines, and disinfection facilities. Georgia Tech: M.S., In the past fifteen years, Mr. de Steiguer has managed projects Sanitary Engineering, 1976 totaling over $150M in the United States, Canada, Colombia Texas A & M University: and Taiwan. Typical management duties have included M.S., Civil Engineering, technical supervision of large project teams of six to twelve 1969 separate firms, preparation of contracts for both consulting and construction, quality control, value engineering, daily Virginia Military Institute, financial and resource project direction and tracking, financial B.S.C.E., Civil planning and reporting for the projects to the clients and Engineering, 1967 owners, assisting owners in meeting project budgets, preparing project reports and budgets for owners' internal REGISTRATION needs, and briefing owners' elected officials. Civil Engineer: Throughout his career, Mr. de Steiguer has taken on unusual Washington, Alaska, assignments in planning, design, and construction. Projects North Dakota have included construction of large water siphons in wi-lderness areas of Alaska; design of low technology sewage PROFESSIONAL treatment plants in Colombia, South America; take restoration HISTORY using water treatment technology; large floating water URS Greiner pumping stations; and water reclamation plants. Woodward Clyde, Project Mr. de Steiguer is a Diplomate of the American Academy of Director, Environmental Engineers. 1996 to present KCM, Senior Project Managerial Experience Manager, 1994-1996 Public Works. Mr. de Steiguer was a civil engineering Camp Dresser & McKee manager for the U.S. Air Force for six years, 1969-1974. Inc., Associate, During two assignments, in Florida and the United 1989-1994 Kingdom, he directed the activities of 20-30 technical personnel and tradesmen in maintenance and repair of Howard, Needles, U.S. government facilities, and conceived, designed, and Tarnmen & Bergendoff, managed capital improvements projects worth several Environmental Manager, million dollars. 1985-1989 Brown and Caldwell, Private Practice. Mr. de Steiguer has served in a variety of managerial roles as a consulting engineer in private Sanitary Engineer, practice with five firms over an 24-year period. At Brown 1978-1985 and Caldwell (1978-1985), he was responsible for business development of stormwater and wastewater IUBS Srainer MwWkwW Qjib S.1 ROBIN! DES TF GuE R. DOM 1 G-AUG-99,-CO DE I I Reid Middleton, Sanitary Engineer, 1976-1978 U.S. Air Force, Civil Engineering Manager, 1969-1974 AFFILIATIONS Water Environment Federation WEF Reuse Committee AWWA Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Association, Reuse Committee LANGUAGES Spanish I I I I I I I Allen L do Steiguer Project Director projects, and he directed a project design office in Colombia, S.A. for design of several wastewater treatment plants. At Howard, Needles, Tarnmen & Bergendoff (1985-1989), he directed the business development and technical activities of the Environmental Services Group of the Bellevue office, and he served on HNTB's firm - wide Practice Conu-nittee which provided strategic planing in wastewater services. At Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (1989-1994), he was responsible for establishment of the firm's Pacific Northwest operations and guiding strategic business development efforts in Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska. At KCM, he led major design projects in the United States and Taiwan. At URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, he is engineer -of -record, assistant office manager, business development manager for water and wastewater, and project manager for a variety of environmental, water, and wastewater projects. Water Quality Planning 0 Solids Processing Alternatives Study, King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington. Technical manager for an evaluation of market alternatives for an existing privatized biosofids drying process at the West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant. The work included a nationwide survey and evaluation of solids processing technologies to reduce biosofids volumes leaving the treatment plant, resulting in working directly with the King County Executive to formulate a recommended plan for ternii-nation of the privatized facility and assumption of the function by the County. Green Lake Water Quality Project, Seattle Parks Pepartment, Seattle, Washington. Project manager for a unique water quality planning project to restore a large urban lake in Seattle that drains to the Lake Washington basin. The project included planning, pilot study and detailed design of a $3M water treatment plant to rernove phosphorus from the lake water. Chester Morse Lake Temporary Pumping Plant No. 2, Seattle Water Department, Seattle, Washington. Project manager for an environmental impact analysis, water quality investigation, design, permitting and construction of two unique modular floating 120-mgd water pumping stations, underwater piping, 10,000 sf warehouse and vehicle fueling station. I= &81=r VAMUZW cb* S %ROBN%3�-S-EGUER. DOC116-AUG-99ACOCE 2 Allen L. do Steiguer Pr*ct Director South Everett Stormwater Planning Study, City of Everett, Washington. Project manager for a cornprehens ive planning study for water quality improvements in 30,000 acres of urban, suburban, and rural land in the Puget Sound Region of Washington State, tributary to Puget Sound and Lake Washington. • Thornton/Pipers Creeks Stormwater Management Plans, City of Seattle, Washington. Project engineer for modeling, planning, and costing for capital improvement plans for reducing runoff, siltation. and erosion and enhancing anadromous fish runs in two urban streams in Seattle. 9 Chester Creek Pumping Station/Forcemain Project, Anchorage Water/Wastewater Utility, Anchorage, Alaska. Project manager for a pumping station and pipeline project, which included environmental impact analysis of the project's impact on a sensitive beach and water course, as well as design of wildlife nesting areas as part of the project's mitigation of impacts. • Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Project team member for planning evaluation and site layout alternatives for 169 treatment plant arrangements for five potential locations throughout the Seattle area. • Composted Biosolids Program Review, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Provided assistance to Seattle Metro in technical review of proposals from three biosolids composting companies to accept and compost 25,000 wet tons of biosolids annually from Seattle Metro's two major treatment plants. • New Technologies Assessment Program, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Project manager for technical assessment of six emerging wastewater technologies for this regional agency. Environmental Quality Enhancement 0 Longfellow Creek Habitat Improvement Project, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington. Project manager for fast -track design for restoration of 3,000 feet of an urban stream to improve fish passage for salmonid species. Work included in -stream structures, public access amenities, art and habit features. Project was a highlight of the Mayor of Seattle's Millennium Project. Ima awkwir wwward cifflo S %ROB NiDESTEGUER DOC1,16-AUG-99--CODE 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Allen L do Stelgoor Project Director Wastewater/Reclamation And Reuse Seattle Metro Water Recycling Project, Seattle Metro and Seattle Water Department, Washington. Project engineer/ manager for design and construction of a $1.2M, 0.75-mgd water reclamation plant for Seattle Metro. Reuse Facilities Plan, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Provided conceptual plan, marketing analysis, and survey and cost analysis for assessment of the market and costs for distribution of reclaimed wastewater for nonpotable uses in the Metro service area of King County, Washington. 0 Union Sanitary District Master Plan, Oakland, California. Project leader for analysis of conveyance and treatment system alternatives for 50-mgd reclaimed water system consisting of five major pumping stations, forty n-ffles of force mains, and two treatment plants. Reclaimed Water Regulations, Department of Health, State of Washington. Project manager for preparation of interim guidelines and new state regulations for the use of reclaimed wastewater for nonpotable uses. Wastewater/Reclamation Treatment Plants West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Processing Modifications, King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington. Technical lead for modifications of the solids processing system for a 133-mgd wastewater treatment plant. The work included design for relocation of high solids centrifuges and modifications of plant piping to allow isolation of a digester for a recuperative thickening demonstration project. Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, Gobierno de Sabana de Bogota, Colombia, South America. Project engineer for design of facultative, aerobic, and anaerobic lagoon systems using water plants and minimum levels of technology for seven towns in the Sabana de Bogota region, ranging from 3,000 to 32,000 in population. Designs concentrated on low technology and low maintenance operations. Technologies included use of facultative/anaerobic ponds with water hyacinths for wastewater treatment. Contract drawings and specifications were prepared in Spanish by and under Mr. de Steiguer's direction. IL41S Webw VAwdward C&* S %.ROB WDES77-: GUE R DOC, 16-AUG-99%-CO0:-: 4 Allen L do Sloiguer Project Director 0 Stanwood Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Stanwood, Washington. Project engineer for improvements to headworks and aeration basins for an aerated I -mgd lagoon treatment plant. a Snoqualmie Wastewater Treatment Plant, Snoquahnie, Washington. Project engineer for design of headworks and site pumping stations for a 10-mgd activated sludge treatment plant. e Othello Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Othello, Washington. Project engineer for design of a 3.5-mgd facultative lagoon with recirculation and two -stage polishing, chlorine disinfection, and dechlorination provisions. * Goldendale Wastewater Treatment Plant, City of Goldendale, Washington. Project engineer for design of facultative, recirculating lagoon wastewater treatment plant of 5.0-mgd capacity. a Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant and West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Project Manager for studies to determine best way to achieve Class A (pathogen free) wastewater sludge quality meeting new federal regulations. Investigations included a thorough review of sludge practices at Metro's two major treatment plants, a creative workshop involving 20 Metro staff and sludge experts from the U.S. and U.K., and an economical and technical evaluation of sludge composting proposals by private companies. 0 Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant, Phase 11, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Project team member responsible for hydraulics predesign of expansions to secondary aeration and sedimentation tanks. Water Treatment Plants • Judy Reservoir Modifications, Skagit County PUD. Mount Vernon, Washington. Technical lead for design of raw water intakes and alternative drain lines for the PUD's main reservoir. • Green Lake Water Treatment Plant, Seattle Parks Department, Seattle, Washington. Project manager for process evaluation and predesign of a 3-rngd direct filtration plant to provide phosphorus removal to 5 micro grams/1 Iter as part of a lake rehabilitation project. IM &Bbw ftodwwd &jib S:%R0G1N-.DESTEr3UF=R DOC% 5 Allen L de Steiguer Project Director Work included pilot plant, process evaluation, siting, predesign, EIA, and permitting evaluation for the plant. 0 Sitka Water Treatment Plant Evaluation, City of Sitka, Alaska. Evaluation of the 30-mgd rapid sand filtration plant at the Sitka Pulp Co. mill for potential conversion to a municipal water treatment plant. * Ketchikan Water Treatment Plant Evaluation, Louisiana Pulp Co., Ketchikan, Alaska. Evaluation of existing 30-mgd rapid sand filtration plant for improvements in filter backwash system and conti-ols. Pumping Stations * Upper Pony Creek ReservoiT Improvements, Coos Bay North Bend Water Board, Oregon. Design of I lefs water pumping station and transmission main for raw water transmission. * North Creek Diversion Project, Seattle Metro (King County), Washington. Project design leader for a 36-mgd sewage pumping station and 5 miles of twin large diameter force mains. 0 Sapperton Pumping Station Upgrade, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Project manager for Canadian -based team to upgrade GVRD's largest sewage pumping station with addition of one 55-mgd high head sewage pump, valves, controls and piping. di York Pumping Station, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Project manager/lead designer for 68-mgd, 200-ft head sewage pumping station. • Sunset and Heathfield Pumping Stations, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Project engineer for modification of two existing 5-mgd pumping stations in series (300-ft total head) to add pumps. • Everett Homeport Sewage System, U.S. Navy, Everett, Washington. Project manager for design of unique sewage pumping station (5-mgd, 160-ft head) for a new U.S. Navy base. The main base station includes variable speed drives, dual wetwells and associated I -mile force main. The station serves daily base and provides a storage tank for periodic discharges of saltwater sewage from aircraft carriers. The pile -supported station features an aeration system for mixing and maintaining aerobic conditions and a chlorine injection system for hydrogen suffide control. M Oebw VA*Nwwd C&* S %.HoB NOES TE GUE R DOC% 1 641,G-991CC DE 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Allen L do Steiguer Project Director Pipelines Lake Perseverance Siphon, Louisiana Pulp Co., Ketchikan, Alaska. Design and field construction of a 2,000 foot 24-inch diameter high density polyethylene pipe siphon. The pipeline was conceived, designed and constructed in a four -week period, including coordination with U.S. Forest Service, on whose land the project was constructed. The pipeline was unique in that it was constructed on the surface of a creekbed and in a pristine lake in a manner that would have minimal impact on the environment and so that it could be removed after its temporary use. All material, equipment and personnel were delivered to the site by air. The pipeline delivered 20-mgd of process water to the pulp mill during an unusual drought in Ketchikan. Eklutna Water Supply Project, Pipeline P-2, Anchorage Water/Wastewater Utility, Anchorage, Alaska. Project engineer for design of 9 miles of 54-inch diameter pipeline and valve vaults for the 70-mgd Eklutna Water Project in Anchorage, Alaska. South Mercer Island Force Main Analysis, Seattle Metro, Seattle Washington. Project manager for forensic review of pipeline failure, and analysis and evaluation of alternatives for future new pipelines. Work focused on application of reliability engineering principles to conceive and select viable alternatives to obviate future failures. York Force Mains, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Project manager for facility plan, EIS, and design of two miles of 30-inch and 48-inch twin sewage force mains to serve the York Pumping Station. North Creek Diversion Project, Seattle, Washington. Project team leader for twin 30-inch, 24,000-foot sewage force mains including river crossings and railroad jacked sections. Chester Creek Force Main, Anchorage Water/Wastewater Utflity, Alaska. Project engineer for design of 1.5 miles of 42-inch sewage force main of ductile iron pipe to replace a failing 30-inch concrete cylinder pipe. Work included forensic evaluation of pipe failure (combination of water hammer, installation and corrosion), route selection and negotiation, design of pipe, and supports along a route on a beach and creek estuary. I= am-aff Wmkwd 0�* StROB.-NiCESMr,LIER!)CC%16-AU-3-99.CC!);-: 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Allen L do Steiguer Project Oirector Eastgate Trunk Sewer, Seattle Metro, Bellevue, Washington. Project engineer for design of 3 miles of 42/48-inch gravity pipelines, a 78-inch tunnel bore adjacent to a closed landfill and pile-supponed beam pipe through a peat bog. Cascade Siphon Replacement Project, Seattle Metro, Renton, Washington. Planning, design, and permit coordination for the replacement of an inverted siphon under the Cedar River with a new, long -span pipe bridge. The unique pipe bridge, consisting of an over/under tube and plate design has a 200-foot span 30 feet above the Cedar River, and is supported on three auger -cast pile structures. • Capital Campus Water System Replacement, State of Washington, Olympia, Washington. Design of a new water distribution system located in service tunnels, for the central campus of the State of Washington Capitol in Olympia. • Hydraulic Transient Analysis, Milwaukee Deep Tunnel System, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Hydraulic transient analysis to determine causes of severe reverse rotation on three 2,500 hp stormwater pumps used to empty a combined sewer overflow storage tunnel, 350 feet below street level. Hydraulic Transient Analysis, various clients, Washington and Canada. Hydraulic transient analyses for design and evaluation of several sewage force mains and associated pumping stations in Washington and Canada. Odor and Corrosion Control Studies and Design, various clients, Washington and Alaska. Study and design of eighteen odor control and corrosion control systems for several sewage pumping stations, force mains, and gravity pipelines of concrete, composite, and ductile iron pipe In Washington and Alaska. Sewage Flow Monitoring Network, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Technical assistance and selection of equipment for the initial four sites of sixty for permanent flow monitoring in large diameter sewers. Sites included the major interceptors entering Vancouver's Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant; work included an extensive survey of other major flow monitor equipment throughout North America, a workshop to assist the client in equipment selection, hydraulic analysis of flow data and the sewerage, and selection and specification of equipment. IM &Vhw wmfawd cylk SAROBINDESTE GUGR DOC%, S-AUG-97COCE 8 I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I L� I I Allen L de Steiguer Project Director Solid Waste Projects Solid Waste Bating Facility, City of Bismarck, North Dakota. Project manager and design leader for planning and design of a 300-ton/day solid waste bating facility for the City of Bismarck. Project includes landfill planning for bale -filling, permitting, siting, predesign, financial analysis and detailed design of a 30,000 sf building, and associated equipment to convert solid waste operations from bulk fill to a bale -fill. Landfill Closure, Ketchikan Pulp Company, Thorne Bay. Alaska. Project design leader and engineer -in -charge for closure of a combined municipal solid waste and woodwaste landfill covering 44 acres in Thorne Bay, Prince of Wales Island. The design -build project included hazardous materials handling, final cover, gas collection, leachate collection and surface water control conveyance systems, and wetland leachate, stabflization. Landfill Closure, Ketchikan Pulp Company, Ward Cove, Ketchikan, Alaska. Design leader and engineer -in -charge for closure of a woodwaste, boiler ash and fly ash landfill. Work included management of design -build plans, as - built plans and post closure certification for cover, leachate and gas collection and leachate treatment for a 20-acre site, as well as design of a leachate treatment system using aeration and constructed wetlands. Landfill Closure and Surface Use Design, City of Burlingame, California. Performed landfill closure for a municipal solid waste landfill near San Francisco. This final closure design for a previously partially closed 50- acre municipal solid waste landfill included cover design for multiple surface. Keller Canyon Landfill New Cell Design, confidential client, Pittsburg, California. Design leader for fast -track design for 65-acre municipal refuse cell expansion in a canyon. Homeport Methane Remediation Project, U.S. Navy, Everett, Washington. Project engineer for coordination of geotechnical evaluation, review of data, compilation of remediation alternatives and design of methane collection system as part of site development for a new U.S. Navy Homeport base. IURS Ovk7er Wwdward C4* S�ROBINi-DES;-�iGuEFiCOCI'.6-A�,'G-99%.CODE 9 Allen L do Stolgoor Project Director Value Engineering * Alki WWTP Stormwater Conversion Value Engineering Seattle, Washington. Team member at predesign stage for conversion of the Atki treatment plant from secondary wastewater treatment to stormwater treatment with low flow transfer. Project includes 2-rftile tunnel, force mains, and gravity sewerage. 0 University Regulator CSO VE Project, Seattle, Washington. Value engineering team member for a $15 million project to separate stormwater from an urban lake and a combined sewer, and convey it to a new outfall. 0 Martinez Pumping Station Upgrades Value Engineering, Contra Costa County, California. Team member for analysis of plans to upgrade and replace two 10-mgd wastewater pumping stations for an area in the San Francisco Bay Area. 0 Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Value Engineering, Metropolitan Wastewater Department, San Diego, California. Value engineering team member for analysis of headworks, grit removal and odor control for a 100-mgd advanced primary wastewater treatment plant at Point Loma. Aquariums Construction and Design, National Marine Museum of Biology and Aquarium, Kaoshiung, Taiwan, ROC. Project assistant manager for coordination of construction detailing and exhibit design for a $160M (US) marine aquarium. Responsible for coordination of five U.S. and five Taiwan design fir ms on the team covering architectural, engineering and exhibit design disciplines. General Engineering Services Multidisciplinary On -Call Engineering Services, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington. Project manager for a two- year multi -disciplinary on -call services contract for Seattle Metro. This project involved rapid response to a multitude of engineering assignments, ranging from utility design to structural and electrical engineering to sanitary engineering for all of Metro's wastewater and transit facilities. Notable projects included a fast -track design for a 0.75-mgd wastewater reclamation plant (Seattle/Metro Water Recycling Project, 1992); a unique pipe bridge IURS awmvr V/DK%wd C&* S�RORMADESTEGL;ER D0Cs16-AUG-99,.00D;_: 10 Allen L do SteIguer Project Director across the Cedar River to carry water and sewer lines; replacement of transit D.C. power substations; general civil engineering for park and ride lots; and evaluation of alternatives for replacing large diameter pipelines in the urban core. 0 Open Space Project, Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle, Washington. Site evaluation, design, construction assistance for building demolition, asbestos removal, underground storage tank removal, and renovation of six parcels of land in support of the City's Open Space Acqu isition Program. Sites included five residences and one twenty -unit motel. 0 Homeport Methane Remediation. Project, U.S. Navy, Everett, Washington. Project engineer for coordination of geotechnical evaluation, review of data, compilation of remediation alternatives, and design of methane collection system as part of site development for a new U.S. Navy Homeport base. The site is underlain by over 30 feet of sawdust from 19th century sawmills and by 10 feet of hydraulic dredge fill from a nearby bay. Decomposition of these materials required a system to release trapped methane gas, similar to a landfill systerrL 0 Cedar Falls Storage Facility and FueHng Facility, Seattle Water Department, Cedar Falls, Washington. Project Manager for design of a 10,000-sf structural steel building for vehicle storage and garaging and part storage in support of the Morse Lake Pumping Plant No. 2 Project. Design of a diesel and gasoline filling station and associated site work in support of the same project. 0 Ephrata Geothermal Heating Project, Ephrata, Washington. Project manager for design and construction administration of a 30-ton water -to -water heat extraction process using low temperature geothermal potable water as a heat source for a county courthouse and jail. Project was the first use in Washington of a single -wall heat exchanger using potable water which was then returned to the distribution system. 9 Solar -Heated Building, Othello and Goldendale, Washington. Project for concept, architecture, design and construction assistance for two laboratory/admi nistrat ion/ operations buildings for the cities of Othello and Goldendale, Washington. Located in arid climates with extreme summer and winter conditions, these buildings featured solar energy -heated air collectors and extensive earth sheltering for energy conservation purposes. I= &Bhw ftadward C&* S AROB IN -DE STE QJE R DOC\ I 6-AUG-99TO DE I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I Allen L do Steiguer Project Director PUBLICATIONS A list of selected publications is available upon request. Im &mwr wwdwatd C4* S:!R0B1N%j[)GSTr=1GUER COC%,.6 AUC,99--COGE 12 I I I I I MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS WEIXIA JIN, Ph.D., P.E. HydrauliclCoastal Engineer EDUCATION Ph.D., Hydraulics & Water Resources, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 1997 M.S, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, China, 1988 B.S., Navigation and Ocean Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, China, 1985 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION CIVAI Engineer, State of California, C059026, 1999 IEXPERIENCE I I I I Dr. Jin joined Moffatt & Nichol Engineers in 1997 and has since participated in a wide range of coastal and environmental engineefing projects including coastal watershed contamination studies, flood control and protection planning analyses, coastal stabilization analyses, tidal hydrod-parnic modeling and water quality studies, and wave transformation and coastal storm damage analyses. Prior to joining Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Dr. Jin had participated in a variety of research projects in river and reservoir hydrodynamic modeling, model evaluation and testing, and sediment and velocity measurement. Furthermore, she brings more than five years experience in numerical modeling of wave refraction and diff�action and shoreline evolution-, as,%N!cll as design wave calculations for harbors and breakwaters. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration, California State Coastal Conservancy, California Task manager for tidal and river flood hydrodynamic modeling of a coastal wetlands restoration project. This p 'ect involved tidal and river hydraulic modeling with the RMA-2 finite element, hydrodynamic r0i model, which accounts for tidal wetting and drying of the model domain. The results provided the flow field conditions for *vater quality modeling, habitat design, and tidal inlet design. Dr. lin conducted a numerical %vater quality study using the RMA-4 model to predict the potential impacts of total coliform and heavv metal level increases associated on beach .vater-contact recreational use. The study involved prediction of residence time, total coliform levels, and heavv metal concentrations under vanous storm events for each of the proposed conceptual designs. The predicted contaminant constituent levels in the wetlands and coastal waters were compared with water quality criteria of the California Ocean Plan and the National Toxic Rules. Dr. Jin performed a tidal hydraulic modeling study to estimate the effects of tidal muting associated with ebb bar and flood shoal formation on the newiv created salt marsh habitat. This task involved numerical modeling of various ebb bar and flood shoal configurations using RMA-2 to predict the tidal response within the wetlands, which was used to calculate the frequency of inundation. The elevations corresponding to various frequencies of inundation were then used to estimate the habitat area distribution for a given grading plan. In addition, the results of the tidal muting study were used to estimate the stable inlet configuration for each of the proposed conceptual designs. Flow Diversion Analysis of East Garden Grove Wintersburgh (EGGW) Flood Control Channel, California State Coastal Conservancy, California The project involved total coliform levels, heav�, metal constituents and salinity concentration dilution and recovery modeling for the Bolsa Chica. Wetland's Restoration Project under various magnitude flood flows from the EGGW Channel for all diversion scenarios. Dr. Jin conducted hydrodynamic modeling with RMA-2. water quality modeling with RMA-4, and hydraulic routing through the EGGW Channel with HEC-RAS. In addition, an iterative hydraulic routing analysis was conducted to provide the water surface