Ex A: Treatment Wetland IS/MND — San Leandro City Council, April 2, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

I. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
Completion Date of Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD):

ORM Number: SPN-2019-00477
Associated JDs: N/A or ORM numbers and identifiers (e.g. HQS-2020-00001-MSW-MITSITE) Review Area Location1:

State/Territory: CA City: County/Parish/Borough: Alameda County Center Coordinates of Review Area: Latitude 37.714689 Longitude -122.197708 II. FINDINGS
A. Summary: Check all that apply. At least one box from the following list MUST be selected. Complete the corresponding sections/tables and summarize data sources.

The review area is comprised entirely of dry land (i.e., there are no waters or water features, including wetlands, of any kind in the entire review area). Rationale: N/A or describe rationale.

There are “navigable waters of the United States” within Rivers and Harbors Act jurisdiction within the review area (complete table in section II.B).

There are “waters of the United States” within Clean Water Act jurisdiction within the review area (complete appropriate tables in section II.C).

There are waters or water features excluded from Clean Water Act jurisdiction within the review area (complete table in section II.D).

B. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Section 10 (§ 10)2
§ 10 Name § 10 Size § 10 Criteria Rationale for § 10 Determination 2019-00477-
ow10

2.17 acres (a)(1) Water is also subject to
Sections 9 or 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act - RHA Tidal water is
subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide
Waters below MHW (5.75 feet NAVD88)
C. Clean Water Act Section 404
Territorial Seas and Traditional Navigable Waters ((a)(1) waters)3 (a)(1) Name (a)(1) Size (a)(1) Criteria Rationale for (a)(1) Determination 2019-00477-ownon10 0.09 acres (a)(1) Territorial Seas Subtidal area above MHW and below HTL 2019-00477-
ow10

2.17 acres (a)(1) Water is also subject to
Sections 9 or 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act - RHA Tidal water is
subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide
Waters below MHW (5.75 feet NAVD88)
Tributaries ((a)(2) waters):
(a)(2) Name (a)(2) Size (a)(2) Criteria Rationale for (a)(2) Determination

N/A N/A N/A N/A
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

REGULATORY PROGRAM

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM (INTERIM)

NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION RULE
1 Map(s)/Figure(s) are attached to the AJD provided to the requestor. 2 If the navigable water is not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide or included on the District’s list of Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 navigable waters list, do NOT use this document to make the determination. The District must continue to follow the procedure outlined in 33 CFR part 329.14 to make a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 navigability determination. 3 A stand-alone TNW determination is completed independently of a request for an AJD. A stand-alone TNW determination is conducted for a specific segment of river or stream or other type of waterbody, such as a lake, where independent upstream or downstream limits or lake borders are established. A stand-alone TNW determination should be completed following applicable guidance and should NOT be documented on the AJD form. 4 Some excluded waters, such as (b)(2) and (b)(4), may not be specifically identified on the AJD form unless a requestor specifically asks a Corps district to do so. Corps Districts may, in case-by-case instances, choose to identify some or all of these waters within the review area. 5 Because of the broad nature of the (b)(1) exclusion and in an effort to collect data on specific types of waters that would be covered by the (b)(1) exclusion, four sub-categories of (b)(1) exclusions were administratively created for the purposes of the AJD Form. These four sub-categories are not new exclusions, but are simply administrative distinctions and remain (b)(1) exclusions as defined by the NWPR.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Lakes and ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters ((a)(3) waters):
(a)(3) Name (a)(3) Size (a)(3) Criteria Rationale for (a)(3) Determination

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Adjacent wetlands ((a)(4) waters):
(a)(4) Name (a)(4) Size (a)(4) Criteria Rationale for (a)(4) Determination 2019-
00477_wet10_404

0.03 acres (a)(4) Wetland abuts an (a)(1)-(a)(3)
water
Wetland abuts San Francisco Bay
2019-
00477_wet-404

0.13 acres (a)(4) Wetland abuts an (a)(1)-(a)(3)
water
Wetland abuts San Francisco Bay
D. Excluded Waters or Features
Excluded waters ((b)(1) – (b)(12))4:

Exclusion Name Exclusion Size Exclusion5 Rationale for Exclusion Determination 2019-00477-owb12exempt 6.9 acres (b)(12) Waste treatment system Basin has been used continuously as part of the waste water treatment plant and is cited in NPDES permit for
the San Leandro WPCP
III. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
A. Select/enter all resources that were used to aid in this determination and attach data/maps to this document and/or references/citations in the administrative record, as appropriate. _x_ Information submitted by, or on behalf of, the applicant/consultant: Technical Memo: Request for Verification of Jurisdictional Delineation, Water Pollution Control Plant Project Study Site, City of San Leandro, Alameda County, California, prepared by LSA and dated April 7, 2020, updated October 1, 2020, is sufficient for purposes of this AJD.

Rationale: N/A or describe rationale for insufficiency (including partial insufficiency). _x_ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: September 17, 2020 _x_ Photographs: (NA, aerial, other, aerial and other) Technical Memo, . _x_ Corps Site visit(s) conducted on: September 17, 2020 ___ Previous Jurisdictional Determinations (AJDs or PJDs): ORM Number(s) and date(s). ___ Antecedent Precipitation Tool: provide detailed discussion in Section III.B. _x_ USDA NRCS Soil Survey: accessed through ORM
_x_ USFWS NWI maps: accessed through ORM.
___ USGS topographic maps: Title(s) and/or date(s).

Other data sources used to aid in this determination:

Data Source (select) Name and/or date and other relevant information USGS Sources N/A.

USDA Sources N/A.

NOAA Sources N/A.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

REGULATORY PROGRAM

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM (INTERIM)

Page 3 of 3 ends

USACE Sources N/A.

State/Local/Tribal Sources N/A.

Other Sources N/A.

B. Typical year assessment(s): N/A
C. Additional comments to support AJD: A copy of the Water Board NPDES Permit (No. CA0037869) for the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) that includes this project site is in the project folder.

Appendices
San Leandro Treatment Wetland
IS/MND
February 2024
APPENDIX F: CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT

CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92614 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net January 8, 2021
Mr. Hayes Morehouse
City of San Leandro
Public Works – Water Pollution Control Plant
3000 Davis Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Subject: Negative Cultural Resource Survey Report for an 11.8‐acre portion of the Water Pollution Control Plant at 3000 Davis Street, San Leandro, Alameda County, California (TER2001) Dear Mr. Morehouse:

This letter presents the results of the cultural resource survey conducted by LSA for an 11.8‐acre portion of the City’s Water Pollution Control Plant in San Leandro (City), Alameda County (County), California. All work herein has been completed per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements (as amended January 1, 2021); Public Resources Code (PRC) Division 13 (Environmental Quality), Chapter 2.6, Sections 21083.2 (Archaeological Resources) and 21084.1 (Historical Resources); and the State CEQA Guidelines (as amended December 1, 2020), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources). Sites determined important under CEQA are eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. No cultural resources were identified during the survey for this project.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project area consists of an 11.8‐acre portion of the City’s Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) that encompasses a 4.3‐acre basin that will be converted from a wastewater storage basin into a multi‐benefit treatment wetland in order to improve operational capacity of the WPCP, anticipate future nutrient regulations, enhance habitat quality, and adapt to rising seas. For this conversion, the project proposes to divert a portion of the WPCP effluent for denitrification prior to release into a shallow wetland treatment basin. The treatment wetland will be bermed and lined with geotextile or similar material to maximize retention time and minimize flow in order to enhance denitrification and photolysis of organic contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Afterward, the denitrified wastewater will discharge into the San Francisco Bay (Bay) at the existing outfall located at the western edge of the basin.

An existing basin at the western edge of the WPCP is proposed for use in creating the new bermed and geotextile‐lined treatment wetland. The project area is on the east side of the Bay, east of Oakland International Airport and south of the Lew Galbraith Golf Course (Figure 1). The project area is just north of Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, which itself is just north of Mulford Landing and San Leandro Marina.

Project Area
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topo Quads - San Leandro, Calif. (1993).

I:\TER2001\GIS\Maps\Delineation\Figure 2_Study Area.mxd (3/5/2020) FIGURE 1
San Leandro Treatment Wetland Project
City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant
San Leandro, Alameda County, California
Project Area
0 1000 2000
FEET
1/7/21 «C:\Users\ivan\OneDrive ‐ LSA Associates\Documents\TER2001 ‐ San Leando WPCP\Report\2021 01‐08 San Leandro WPCP Svy Rpt.docx» 3 The project area is situated at the northwestern corner of the San Leandro city boundary adjacent to the Oakland city boundary. Specifically, the project is on the north side of Davis Street near its western terminus, and is 2,000 feet (ft) west of the junction of Davis Street and Doolittle Drive, and

1.0 mile west of Davis Street and Interstate 880. The project is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Leandro, California, 7.5‐minute quadrangle map (USGS 1993) in Township 2 South, Range 3 West, Section 33, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian, on what was once the northwestern portion of the Rancho San Leandro land grant (Beck and Haase 1974:30) (Figure 1). Project elevations are less than 15 ft above sea level.

METHODOLOGY
Record Search
On December 9, 2020, a record search to identify previously recorded prehistoric and historic cultural resources and prior cultural resource surveys within 0.25 mile of the project area was conducted by Jessika Akmenkalns at the Northwestern Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Sonoma.

Native American Consultation
LSA assisted the City by initiating Native American consultation for this project. On November 10, 2020, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) and a list of Native American contacts for the area. It is the City’s responsibility to continue consultation per Assembly Bill 52, as necessary for CEQA‐level projects.

Field Survey
On November 13, 2020, LSA senior archaeologist Andrew Pulcheon conducted a pedestrian survey of accessible portions of the project area. Accessible areas were traversed by walking intuitive linear transects separated by 5–7 meters (m). Inundated areas covered with effluent were not surveyed.

RESULTS
Record Search
The record search identified no previously recorded cultural resources in or within 0.25 mile of the project area (refer to Attachment C). The record search indicated that four prior cultural resource studies included at least a portion of the current project area within their boundaries. All of these studies were surveys (Chavez 1990; Marlow et al. 2004; Billat 2006; Lenzi et al. 2018). Chavez (1990) and Marlow et al. (2004) both cover a large area including the entire current project area, large portions of the golf course to the north, and Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline to the south. Billat (2006) covered just a small area of the southwest corner of the current WPCP project area, while Lenzi et al. (2018) surveyed the WPCP area that now contains solar panels just north of the current project area. Notably, Lenzi et al. (2018) provide an excellent prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic context for the area, and analyze historic maps identifying the disturbed intertidal nature of the area at the western terminus of Davis Street. This research shows that the current project area was surveyed for cultural resources at least twice in the past. 1/7/21 «C:\Users\ivan\OneDrive ‐ LSA Associates\Documents\TER2001 ‐ San Leando WPCP\Report\2021 01‐08 San Leandro WPCP Svy Rpt.docx» 4 The record search also shows that another eight cultural studies occurred outside but within 0.25 mile of the current WPCP project area. These eight studies include survey (6), monitoring (1), and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence studies. Another 28 overview studies provided by the NWIC are also listed in Table A. All studies are listed by S Number in Table A while the record search is provided as Attachment C
Table A: Results of Record Search
Reference S No.1 Type of Study
Previous Studies in the Project Area
Chavez (1990) 12439 Survey
Marlow et al. (2004) 29589 Survey
Billat (2006) 31316 Survey
Lenzi et al. (2018) 50779 Survey
Previous Studies within ½ Mile of the Project Area
S‐1786, 15786, 33293, 33293a, 33293b, 33293c, 33293d, 52020 Overview Studies
S‐848, 1784, 2458, 2458, 2458a, 2458b, 2458c, 2458d, 2458e, 7903, 9462, 9583, 9795, 14621, 15529, 16660, 17773, 17835, 18217, 20395, 30204, 32596, 33239, 33600, 48927, 49780, 49780a, 52028 1 S is the Information Center code for “Study.” References are listed in the References section and by S number in Attachment C.

Historic maps depicted in Lenzi et al. (2018:10‐13) clearly show the portion of the WPCP with solar panels and the current WPCP project area to have been situated within what was once a broad marshy area, or intertidal mudflat, which existed around the edge of the Bay long ago. These maps indicate that the current landform is higher in elevation than the original intertidal mudflat because it has been elevated with fill sediment.

Aerial photos available online (NETROnline 2021) clearly show that the western portion of the current project area where the entire pond exists was covered by water in a 1946 aerial photograph.

This intertidal inundation covered almost all of the area that is currently the golf course southeast of the airport and north of the current project area. In the 1946 photograph, only the easternmost narrow linear part of the current project area was out of the water. A 1958 aerial photograph shows the area was still below water, although a berm had been extended westward through the bay in a nearly linear extension of Davis Street, with what appears to be the Bay on the south of the berm and an intertidal area on the north of the berm where the golf course and WPCP pond area were later constructed using fill. Thus, the current pond portion of the project area has been created entirely of fill material in what was originally subtidal marshland, while the eastern portion of the current project area is located at the edge of the marsh within what was once an intertidal area.

Native American Consultation
After being contacted by LSA, the NAHC responded on November 18, 2020, stating that the SLF contained no specific site information for the project area. The NAHC also provided a list of Native American contacts with knowledge of cultural resources in the area and suggested that they be contacted for information. The NAHC response and list of contacts is provided as Attachment D. 1/7/21 «C:\Users\ivan\OneDrive ‐ LSA Associates\Documents\TER2001 ‐ San Leando WPCP\Report\2021 01‐08 San Leandro WPCP Svy Rpt.docx» 5 Survey
On November 13, 2020, the project area was surveyed with the result that no cultural resources were found. Selected photographs of the project area during the survey are provided (Attachment B). A description of existing project area conditions follows.

Leading west from the western terminus of Davis Street, the eastern portion of the project area is a dilapidated asphalt road that runs between an existing solar panel area on the north and what is now a narrow arm of the Bay. This narrow tidal inlet is the easternmost extent of the Bay in this area. The road appears to have been graveled prior to having once been paved with asphalt. The asphalt is heavily weathered with moderate to dense introduced grasses and ruderal (weedy) vegetation along both sides, and large shrubs and trees growing along the south side.

The road leads west to the eastern portion of the project area that is a bermed basin (pond) proposed for the converted treatment wetland. The basin contains shallow water that appears to be plant effluent. The edges of the basin are bermed with a moderate growth of introduced grasses, ruderal plants, and some shrubs, as well as a few trees. The largest tree on the basin is a conspicuous 40 ft tall eucalyptus that is growing along the middle of the northern berm. As determined from historic maps and aerial photographs, the entire pond area was once subtidal bay and has been created by bulldozing bay sediment and likely dumping some fill. For this reason, a few naturally occurring marine shells are visible in the completely disturbed sediment.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A cultural resource record search and survey of an approximately 11.8‐acre area was conducted within and adjacent to a wetland basin (pond) within the San Leandro WPCP on the east side of the Bay just east of Oakland International Airport. An NAHC search of the SLF was negative for the project area. A record search, conducted at the NWIC for the project on December 9, 2020, showed that while the current project area was completely surveyed at least twice in the past, no cultural resources have been recorded. Prior reports and review of historic aerial photographs show that the project area is within what was historically intertidal marsh. Aerial photographs taken in 1946 and 1958 show that what is now the pond area was completely under water during that time, indicating that the current pond area is now highly disturbed fill sediment.

On November 13, 2020, a pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted. No cultural resources were found in the project area during the survey. The results of this research and survey indicate that intact cultural resources are highly unlikely to exist within the project area. As such, no additional cultural resource work is recommended for this project.

If archaeological resources are found during project construction, construction activities in the vicinity of the find shall be halted until a professional archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. If the find is determined to be significant, additional archaeological work, including data recovery, may be necessary to record the scientifically important aspects of the resource. Once the scientifically important aspects of the resource have been recorded, construction in the vicinity of the find can resume.
1/7/21 «C:\Users\ivan\OneDrive ‐ LSA Associates\Documents\TER2001 ‐ San Leando WPCP\Report\2021 01‐08 San Leandro WPCP Svy Rpt.docx» 6 If human remains are encountered at the project areas, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) state that no further disturbance shall occur to the area of the find until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the human bone pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately and shall make a determination within two working days of being notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the NAHC by phone within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall then immediately determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.

If you have any questions concerning the content or intent of this letter, please contact me at (949) 553‐0666 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
LSA Associates, Inc.

Ivan Strudwick, RPA
Associate/Archaeologist
cc: Justin Jenson, Plant Manager, City of San Leandro
Lucas Paz, Principal Hydrologist, Terraphase Engineering, Inc.

Dan Sidle, Associate/Senior Biologist, LSA
Attachments: A:  References
B:  Survey Photographs
C:  Results of Record Search:  Confidential – Not for Public Distribution D:  Native American Consultation

C ULTURAL RESOURCE S URVEY
J ANUARY 2021

WATER P OLLUTION C ONTROL P LANT

T REATMENT WETLAND P ROJECT

S AN L EANDRO , ALAMEDA C OUNTY , C ALIFORNIA
C:\Users\ivan\OneDrive ‐ LSA Associates\Documents\TER2001 ‐ San Leando WPCP\Report\2021 01‐08 San Leandro WPCP Svy Rpt.docx «01/07/21»

ATTACHMENT A

REFERENCES
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press.

Billat, Lorna
2006 New Tower (“NT”) Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, San Leandro Water Control Plant, BA‐12476A.  Earth Touch, Inc.  On file, Northwestern Information Center, California State University, Sonoma.  [Accession No. S‐131316]
Chavez, David
1990 Cultural Resources Investigations for the Port of Oakland Phase I Dredging, Cultural Resources Evaluation.  David Chavez & Associates.  On file, Northwestern Information Center, California State University, Sonoma.  [Accession No. S‐12439] Lenzi, Michael, Dina Ryan, Montse Osterlye, and Barb Siskin 2018 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant Solar Project, Alameda County, California.  Garcia and Associates.  On file, Northwestern Information Center, California State University, Sonoma.  [Accession No. S‐50779] Marlow, Adam, Allen Estes, and James Allan
2004 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed San Leandro Recycled Water Master Plan, San Leandro, Alameda County, California.  William Self & Associates.  On file, Northwestern Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.  [Accession No.S‐50779] National Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETROnline) 2021 Available at: https://www.NETROnline.com/viewer (accessed January 5, 2021).

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1993. San Leandro, California, 7.5‐minute quadrangle map.

C ULTURAL RESOURCE S URVEY
J ANUARY 2021

WATER P OLLUTION C ONTROL P LANT

T REATMENT WETLAND P ROJECT

S AN L EANDRO , ALAMEDA C OUNTY , C ALIFORNIA
C:\Users\ivan\OneDrive ‐ LSA Associates\Documents\TER2001 ‐ San Leando WPCP\Report\2021 01‐08 San Leandro WPCP Svy Rpt.docx «01/07/21»

ATTACHMENT B

SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS
Linear eastern portion of project area with solar panel area on right (north). View to west.

November 13, 2020.

Existing WPCP basin (pond) from northeast side. View to southwest. November 13, 2020.

San Leandro – Water Pollution Control Plant Treatment Wetland Project Survey Photographs – 1
Western portion of existing WPCP basin (pond) from middle of north side. View to southwest.

November 13, 2020.

Existing WPCP basin (pond) from eastern side. View to west. November 13, 2020.

San Leandro – Water Pollution Control Plant Treatment Wetland Project Survey Photographs – 2

C ULTURAL RESOURCE S URVEY
J ANUARY 2021

WATER P OLLUTION C ONTROL P LANT

T REATMENT WETLAND P ROJECT

S AN L EANDRO , ALAMEDA C OUNTY , C ALIFORNIA
C:\Users\ivan\OneDrive ‐ LSA Associates\Documents\TER2001 ‐ San Leando WPCP\Report\2021 01‐08 San Leandro WPCP Svy Rpt.docx «01/07/21»

ATTACHMENT C

RESULTS OF RECORD SEARCH
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

C ULTURAL RESOURCE S URVEY
J ANUARY 2021

WATER P OLLUTION C ONTROL P LANT

T REATMENT WETLAND P ROJECT

S AN L EANDRO , ALAMEDA C OUNTY , C ALIFORNIA
C:\Users\ivan\OneDrive ‐ LSA Associates\Documents\TER2001 ‐ San Leando WPCP\Report\2021 01‐08 San Leandro WPCP Svy Rpt.docx «01/07/21»

ATTACHMENT D

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

November 18, 2020
Andrew Pulcheon, AICP, CEP, Principal
LSA Associates
Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: San Leandro Treatment Wetland Project, Alameda County Dear Mr. Pulcheon:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sarah Fonseca
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA, 94062
Phone: (650) 851 - 7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
[email protected]
Costanoan
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel
Tribe
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA, 91766
Phone: (909) 629 - 6081
Fax: (909) 524-8041
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024
Phone: (831) 637 - 4238
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD
Contact
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose, CA, 95122
Phone: (408) 673 - 0626
[email protected]
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Monica Arellano,
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 205 - 9714
[email protected]
Costanoan
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Katherine Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA, 95236
Phone: (209) 887 - 3415
[email protected]
Costanoan
Northern Valley
Yokut
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Timothy Perez, MLD Contact
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA, 95236
Phone: (209) 662 - 2788
[email protected]
Costanoan
Northern Valley
Yokut
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Andrew Galvan,
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont, CA, 94539
Phone: (510) 882 - 0527
Fax: (510) 687-9393
[email protected]
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Patwin
Plains Miwok
The Confederated Villages of
Lisjan
Corrina Gould, Chairperson
10926 Edes Avenue
Oakland, CA, 94603
Phone: (510) 575 - 8408
[email protected]
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Delta Yokut
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed San Leandro Treatment Wetland Project, Alameda County.

PROJ-2020-
006117
11/18/2020 12:06 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Alameda County
11/18/2020
Appendices
San Leandro Treatment Wetland
IS/MND
February 2024
APPENDIX G: RISK ANALYSIS FOR REUSE OF STOCKPILE MATERIAL 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1000 | Oakland, California 94612 | www.terraphase.com Technical Memorandum
To: Nick Thom
City Engineer
City of San Leandro
3000 Davis Street
San Leandro, California 94577
From: Kevin Long, Principal
Linda Logan, Senior Associate
Peter Zawislanski, Sr. Principal
Lucas Paz, Principal
Terraphase Engineering Inc.
cc: Hayes Morehouse
Water Pollution Control Plant Manager
City of San Leandro
3000 Davis Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Date: January 31, 2024 Project No.: 0364.003.001
Subject: Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant On behalf of the City of San Leandro, Terraphase Engineering Inc. (Terraphase) has prepared this Technical Memorandum to present a risk-based evaluation of the reuse of stockpiled material for the proposed treatment wetland project (the Project) at the City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). The goal of the Project is to add stockpiled soil to the existing wet-weather storage basin (former polishing pond) used by the WPCP to convert it into a wastewater treatment wetland for pollution reduction, habitat enhancement, and shoreline resiliency (LSA 2020a). This memorandum incudes a description of the site setting, an overview of the proposed project, a summary of the sampling performed to support the evaluation, and an evaluation of the potential for risks to human health and ecological receptors following construction of the proposed wastewater treatment wetland.

As presented in this memorandum, the concentrations of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) in both stockpiled soil and sludge from the storage pond, do not represent conditions that pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.

Site Setting
The WPCP is located at 3000 Davis Street, San Leandro, Alameda County, California. The former polishing pond basin is located at the western end of the WPCP and is bordered on the south and east by a tidal slough with a connection to San Francisco Bay (the Bay), and on the north by the Oakland International Airport and the Metropolitan Golf Links course. The 194-acre Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline Area is located immediately south of the tidal slough. The storage basin resembles an active January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 2 of 10 salt pond with little to no vegetation except for weedy plants along its banks that are typical of heavily disturbed sites along the Bay (LSA 2020b).

Proposed Project
The general proposed Project design is to add (or mix) stockpiled soil to the existing sludge in the storage basin, cover the soil/sludge with clean fill, and place an impermeable liner on top of the clean fill, which will become the bottom of the treatment wetland. As an additional measure, stabilization of the soil/sludge with cement to provide a stable construction foundation is also being considered. The goal of the treatment wetland is to reduce nitrogen (nitrate) and micro-organic constituents in the wastewater treatment plant effluent prior to discharge to the Bay. Upstream of the wetland will be an engineered membrane-aerated bioreactor designed to support nitrification of the ammonia in the wastewater plant effluent to nitrate. This water will then be conveyed through a hydraulic distribution system around the perimeter of the wetland basin. The open-water wetland and terraced bioreactors buried in the side slopes (filled with woodchips) will provide the carbon source to support denitrification (conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas) prior to discharge. The impermeable liner is expected to develop an algal mat to help support de-nitrification. The water depth of the treatment wetland will be maintained at a relatively shallow level (12-18 inches) and the treated water will be discharged through a one-way outlet pipe with a valve that will prevent any tidal water from entering the basin. The treatment wetland will only be planted with riparian/wet meadow vegetation on the side slopes and potentially along the base of the slopes. This vegetation will be mowed and maintained to minimize the development of habitat for birds (bird strikes are an issue at Oakland Airport, which is directly adjacent to the Project site). Open-water areas will not be planted with emergent vegetation and floating plants will be discouraged through routine maintenance to support denitrification and photolysis of microorganic contaminants.

Historical Investigations
Terraphase conducted a review of historical data for the stockpiled soil, the storage basin sludge, and groundwater, collected by others in 2014 to assist the City in developing an approach for the management of soil and sludge at the WPCP. Terraphase screened the data against applicable San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) screening guidelines. The maximum detected concentrations for select metals in samples collected from stockpiled soil and sludge were greater than the recommended sediment chemistry screening guidelines for beneficial reuse of dredged material (Wetland Foundation Material Concentration Guidelines; SFBRWQCB 2000). This included lead, silver, and zinc in the stockpiled soil and cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc in the sludge. Only four sludge samples had been previously collected for chemical analysis and all four samples were from the west end of the sludge pond. Therefore, because this information was insufficient to adequately characterize the nature and extent of COPC in sludge, Terraphase performed additional sludge sampling in other areas of the polishing pond for analysis.

January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 3 of 10 Additional Sludge Sampling
In October of 2023, Terraphase collected 10 sludge samples from the central and eastern portions of the polishing pond. The samples were collected on a grid, with five samples each in the central portion and eastern portions of the polishing pond. No additional samples were collected from the western portion of the pond. The samples were collected using a plastic tube, which was lowered from the side of a raft.

Depending on the substrate, approximately 6 and 12 inches of sludge was collected. Following sampler dewatering, each sludge sample was placed in a plastic tub, where it was manually homogenized using a stainless-steel trowel or similar tool. The samples were then placed in laboratory-provided jars. The jars were labeled and placed in a cooler for transport to the analytical laboratory, Enthalpy Analytical, under chain-of-custody procedures. Each of the samples was analyzed for:
• Title 22 Metals [United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 6010] • Deionized-water-extracted (DI-WET) metals [USEPA Methods 1311 modified and 6010] • Total petroleum hydrocarbons [USEPA Method 8015]
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) [USEPA Method 8082]
• Organochlorine pesticides [USEPA Method 8081]
• Moisture content [ASTM D2216]
Tables A-1 (stockpiled soil) and A-2 (storage pond sludge), which are provided in Attachment A, present the sampling results for each media. Each table provides a sample-by-sample comparison to the following potentially relevant generic screening levels:
• Wetland Foundation Material Concentration Guidelines (SFBRWQCB 2000) • Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs; SFBRWQCB 2019) for the following scenarios:
− Soil Direct Exposure [Construction Worker]
− Soil Leaching to Groundwater [Drinking Water]
− Soil Leaching to Groundwater [Non-Drinking Water]
− Aquatic Habitat Goal [Fresh Water Ecotox]
− Aquatic Habitat Goal [Saltwater Ecotox]
The identification of chemical concentrations above these screening levels does not necessarily mean that unacceptable risk could exist. Rather, screening levels help identify sampling results that may warrant additional evaluation. They provide a means for reviewing datasets by segregating concentrations that indicate a higher potential for health significance from those that indicate a low potential. In this case, they have been used to help understand the nature and extent of chemicals in stockpiled soil and sludge and determine which chemicals be considered site-related COPC.

Based upon this screening, the following chemicals were detected in one or more samples at concentrations greater than these generic screening levels and are considered to be COPC in this risk evaluation.

January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 4 of 10 Table: Chemicals of Potential Concern
Group Chemical Stockpile Soil Storage Pond Sludge
SVOCs Acenaphthene 
Benzo(a)anthracene 
Benzo(a)pyrene 
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 
Chrysene 
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 
Fluoranthene 
Naphthalene 
Phenanthrene 
Pyrene 
Chlordane (total) 
PCBs PCBs (total) 
PEST Dieldrin 
Endrin 
Heptachlor epoxide 
METALS Arsenic  
Cadmium  
Chromium (total)  
Chromium VI 
Copper  
Cyanide (total) 
Lead  
Mercury  
Nickel  
Silver  
Zinc  
Ecological Evaluation
The Project site, which includes the 4.3‐acre basin and the adjacent upland areas, is vegetated with trees and shrubs along the levee and access road around the basin (LSA 2020b). Due to the disturbed nature of the site and the presence of non-native plant species, it does not provide habitat for special‐status plants.

Birds such as the California towhee (Melozone crissalis) and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) have been observed on the Project site, as has the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis).

Burrows and/or tracks observed on the Project site suggest the presence of small mammals, such as the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).

Special-status species, such as the white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), have been observed on the site and other special-status species, e.g., California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 5 of 10 nivosus), and the salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans haliocoetes), are known to occur in the vicinity of the site but are unlikely to use it due to lack of suitable habitat (LSA 2020b). Several special‐ status fish species, such as longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) inhabit the Bay and could briefly forage in the tidal slough during high tide; however, spawning, or rearing habitat is not present in the tidal slough for these fish species (LSA 2020b).

The salt-pond-like habitat of the current storage basin is unlikely to support a balanced aquatic life community and is not likely to be used by waterfowl for foraging.

As described above, the goal of the proposed treatment wetland is to provide a facility that reduces nitrate and micro-organic constituents in the WPCP effluent prior to discharge to the Bay. The impermeable liner fitted to the bottom and sides of the treatment wetland is expected to develop an algal mat to help support de-nitrification. Given the relatively shallow water depth of the proposed treatment wetland, this algal mat has the potential to provide a dietary source for zooplankton, such as copepods and rotifers, and/or the larvae of insects such as midges, mayflies, and dragonflies that typically inhabit surface sediments where they feed on algae and detrital matter. However, the clean fill placed on top of the stockpiled soil and sludge and the presence of the impermeable liner will prevent the potential for exposure of these aquatic organisms to metals in the buried soil and sludge. As a consequence, potential exposure pathways to the sludge/soil beneath the liner for birds feeding on emergent insects or waterfowl foraging in the treatment wetland, are considered incomplete.

Furthermore, while the side slopes of the treatment wetland will be vegetated, they will be mowed to minimize the development of habitat that could be used by birds for perching, cover, or nesting, to ensure the insignificance of this exposure pathway for these receptors.

Although there is evidence for the presence of small mammals at the Project site, the wetland environment is not the preferred habitat for these species. For example, the California ground squirrel prefers open grassland, oak woodlands, agricultural lands, and tends to avoid water (Smith et al. 2016).

The pocket gopher typically occupies desert ranges with loose sandy soil for burrowing but can also be found in meadows and agricultural areas with cultivated soils. Distribution of this species is limited by hard soils and barriers, such as rivers and rock formations (Jones and Baxter 2004). Therefore, it is unlikely that these small mammals will be found burrowing or foraging close to the treatment wetland.

Given the habitat preferences for these species, along with the placement of clean fill over the stockpiled soil/sludge and the impermeable liner, the potential exposure pathway for such small mammals to metals in the buried stockpiled soil and sludge is considered incomplete.

A potential exposure pathway that could result in risk to ecological receptors is leaching of metals to groundwater. A distilled water waste extraction test (DI-WET) has been performed on the stockpile-soil samples and the recently collected sludge samples. The standard WET uses a dilute acid as the leaching medium to represent leaching of solids from landfill leachate, while the DI-WET is designed to represent leaching under natural field conditions. The DI-WET results showed the leachability of metals in stockpiled soil and sludge is very low, with DI-WET-extracted concentrations below or slightly above SFBRWQCB ESLs for fresh-water and salt-water habitats (SFBRWQCB 2019). The following table January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 6 of 10 summarizes the DI-WET soil and sludge data relative to Aquatic Habitat Goal ESLs. Only metals whose 95-percent upper confidence limit on the mean (UCLM) DI-WET concentration exceeded at least one of the ESLs are presented.

Table: Comparison of DI-WET Concentrations to Aquatic Life ESLs Metal
Fresh Water
(μg/L)
Saltwater
(μg/L)
95% UCL on the Mean
Stockpile Soil
(μg/L)
Storage Pond
Sludge (μg/L)
Cadmium 0.25 9.3 1.0 NC*
Copper 9 3.1 23.9 5
Lead 2.5 8.1 7.8 5.45
Mercury 0.025 0.025 0.12 NC*
Nickel 52 8.2 2.8 15.8
Selenium 5 0.5 2.1 3.30
Silver 3.4 0.19 NC* 0.732
Vanadium 19 NE 51.1 7.25
Notes: NE = ESL not established, NC* = UCLM not calculated because all results were non-detect.

The UCLMs were generally above one ESL but not the other, except for copper and mercury in the stockpiled soil, which were above both the fresh water and saltwater habitat ESLs. However, all of the exceedances were fairly minor. Given that the sludge is underlain by Bay mud, which has a very low permeability and is likely to attenuate the movement of metals, and that the pond is in an area where hydraulic gradients are due to be upward (i.e., in or near a groundwater discharge zone), it is unlikely that dissolved metals would migrate to the underlying groundwater.

This is borne out by historical groundwater data. Groundwater samples were collected in 2016 from three wells screened in shallow groundwater immediately next to the storage basin (Fugro 2016). The three wells were located between the storage basin and the tidal slough. The concentrations of dissolved metals detected in the groundwater samples were all below the fresh-water and saltwater habitat ESLs.

The potential stabilization of the pond sludge is still in its planning stages; however, it is likely that Portland cement (PC) will be used to stabilize the sludge, and/or sludge-soil mixture, to facilitate the construction of the Project. Mixing of PC with the sludge/soil will result in more alkaline conditions.

However, the impact of higher pH on the chemical composition of any potential leachate is considered to be minimal because the leachability of most metals is expected to decrease as a result of PC stabilization.1 An alkaline pH can potentially increase the solubility of arsenic, but the overall arsenic leachability is expected to decrease due to PC stabilization. Furthermore, leaching of COPCs from stabilized soil/sludge is highly unlikely given its placement below clean fill and the impermeable liner over the clean fill.
1 Solidification/stabilization are well-established technologies for reducing the leaching of contaminants, including metals, from soil and sediment (https://clu-in.org/techfocus/default2.focus/sec/SolidificationStabilization/cat/Overview/) January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 7 of 10 Therefore, metals in the untreated stockpile soil and sludge are unlikely to leach to groundwater, and by extension, also unlikely to reach the tidal slough, and the potential exposure pathway for special-status fish (and other marine life) in the tidal slough is therefore considered incomplete.

Human Health Evaluation
Based upon reasonably anticipated future use of the Project site, there will be no complete human exposure pathways to COPCs in stockpiled soil and storage pond sludge following the construction of the proposed treatment wetland. The stockpiled soil and sludge will be covered by clean fill, an impermeable liner, and 12-18 inches of water. Workers could be exposed to COPCs in the stockpiled soil and sludge during construction. Potential routes of exposure to COPCs in stockpiled soil and sludge would include incidental ingestion and dermal contact. Potential routes of exposure to COPCs in stockpiled soil would also include inhalation of volatiles and airborne particulates.

Cumulative cancer risk and noncancer HI for construction workers assumed to be exposed to COPC concentrations in stockpiled soil or sludge over the course of a 6-month construction project were calculated. Separate risk estimates were calculated for stockpiled soil and sludge using exposure concentrations calculated for each media. The exposure concentrations for each COPC were equal to maximum detected concentrations in each media, with the exception of benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs (total) and arsenic in stockpiled soil. The exposure concentrations for these three COPC in stockpiled soil were based upon UCLM2 because they were identified as chemicals that would contribute most to cumulative risk/HI. This approach (i.e., refining the exposure concentrations for only the chemicals contributing most to the cumulative risk) is efficient in that it avoids calculations that would not materially affect the cumulative cancer risk and/or HI estimates. This approach is also conservative, because it uses the maximum detected concentrations, rather than UCLM, for many chemicals.

Table: Refined Exposure Concentrations – UCLM (Stockpiled Soil) Chem
Group Chemical Max Detect
(mg/kg)
95% UCLM
(mg/kg)
SVOCs Benzo(a)pyrene 2.8 0.23
PCBs PCBs (total) 6.7 0.68
METALs Arsenic 20 7.1
Attachment B provides the input and output tables from ProUCL.

The risk and HI estimates3 use high-end exposure factors recommended by CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC 2019a) and USEPA (1991, 2011, 2014) for estimating reasonable RME (where 2 The UCLM calculations were performed using ProUCL (Version 5.2), including the Kaplan-Meier method for datasets with non-detects. 3 These risk and HI estimates conservatively assume that the measured concentrations of all COPC are entirely siterelated (e.g., metals concentrations are not associated naturally occurring levels).

January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 8 of 10 available and appropriate) and COPC-specific toxicity values (CalEPA DTSC 2019b)4. The cumulative cancer risk and noncancer HI were compared to the risk management goals of 1x10-6 and 1, respectively.

These risk management goals are used by CalEPA DTSC (2015, 2022a) and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA 2020) for determining whether risk management action is warranted.

Tables 1a and 1b present the cumulative cancer risk and noncancer HI calculations, respectively, for construction worker exposure to COPC in stockpiled soil. Tables 2a and 2b present the cumulative cancer risk and noncancer HI calculations, respectively, for construction worker exposure to COPC in sludge. As shown, the conservatively estimated cumulative cancer risk and noncancer HI for construction worker exposure to COPC in both media are less than or equal to the risk management goals. As a result, construction worker exposure to COPC in these media during the construction of the proposed treatment wetland does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health.

Table: Cumulative Cancer Risk and Noncancer HI
for Construction Worker Exposure to COPC
Exposure Media
Cumulative
Cancer Risk
Noncancer
HI
Stockpiled Soil 1x10-6 0.5
Storage Pond Sludge 7x10-7 0.3
Potential exposure of construction workers to lead in stockpiled soil and sludge is evaluated separately from the assessment for other COPCs because CalEPA DTSC (2022b) evaluates the significance of lead exposures using blood lead level as an index of exposure, rather than in terms of cancer risk or noncancer HQ. CalEPA DTSC uses a soil screening level of 500 mg/kg to evaluate the potential significance of occupational exposures to lead in industrial/commercial settings (CalEPA DTSC 2022b).

Exposure concentrations were calculated by estimating the UCLM lead concentrations in both media, considering construction worker exposure to lead in the stockpiled soil and sludge during construction of the treatment wetland. Because the Project may involve exposure to both media, an additional exposure concentration for lead was calculated for the combined dataset.

Table: Refined Exposure Concentrations - UCLM (Lead)
Exposure Media Chemical Max Detect
(mg/kg)
95% UCLM
(mg/kg)
Stockpiled Soil Lead 3,100 420
Storage Pond Sludge Lead 1,600 670
Stockpiled Soil + Sludge Lead 3,100 440
These exposure concentrations were compared to CalEPA DTSC’s soil screening level of 500 mg/kg. For soil, the lead exposure concentration is less than this screening level indicating that construction worker 4 Consistent with CalEPA DTSC Regulation “Toxicity Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment” (effective September 4, 2018) and USEPA's hierarchy of sources (USEPA 2003).

January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 9 of 10 exposure to lead in the stockpiled soil, alone, during construction of the treatment wetland would not result in blood lead concentrations that would exceed CalEPA DTSC’s risk management goal. The exposure concentration for sludge is slightly higher than this screening level indicating that construction worker exposure to lead in sludge, alone, during construction may result in blood lead concentrations that could exceed CalEPA DTSC’s risk management goal.

The exposure duration of the Project is assumed to be approximately 6 months. This corresponds to an exposure frequency of 125 days. As noted by USEPA (2016), a constant lead intake rate over a duration of 90 days is needed to achieve a blood lead concentration that is sufficiently close to steady-state.

Infrequent and non-continuous exposures to lead would not be expected to result in adequate exposure to attain blood lead concentrations that would be of concern. Given the specifics of this Project, it is reasonable to assume that only about half of a construction worker’s exposure will be to sludge (e.g., ~60 days of exposure). As a result, while the lead exposure concentration in sludge is greater than CalEPA DTSC’s screening level of 500 mg/kg, the exposure of a construction worker to this specificmedia would not be of a long-enough duration to result in a blood lead concentration that would be of concern. Further, the exposure concentration estimated assuming exposure to lead in both stockpiled soil and sludge (combined) is 440 mg/kg. This concentration is less than the screening level of 500 mg/kg.

Overall, these results demonstrate that lead concentrations in stockpiled soil and sludge will not pose an unacceptable lead exposure to workers supporting the construction of the Project.

References
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2015.

Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. October. _____. 2019a. Recommended DTSC Default Exposure Factors for Use in Risk Assessment at California Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities. April 9.
_____. 2019b. HERO HHRA Note Number: 10, Toxicity Criteria. February 25. _____. 2022a. HERO HHRA Note Number: 4, Guidance for Screening Level Human Health Risk Assessments.

March 29.
_____. 2022b. HERO Lead Spread 9 – Information for Users. March.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2020. Cancer Risk and Noncancer Hazard Index – Fact Sheet for Contaminated Sites in California. November.

Fugro Consultants, Inc. 2016. Water Quality Assessment, WCPC Contaminated Soil Relocation Project, San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant, San Leandro, California. May 19.

Jones C.A., and C.N. Baxter. 2004. Thomomys bottae (Rodentia: Sciurognathi). Mammalian Species. 742:1-14.

LSA. 2020a. Biological Assessment. San Leandro Treatment Wetland Project for Pollution Reduction, Habitat Enhancement, and Shoreline Resiliency. San Leandro, Alameda County, California. Submitted to City of San Leandro Public Works – Water Pollution Control Plant. Prepared by LSA, Pt. Richmond, California. Project No.

TER2001. March 2020.

January 31, 2024
Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant 20240131-Terraphase-SanLeandro-TreatmentWetland-Risk-TM-DRAFT.docx Page 10 of 10 LSA. 2020b. Biological Resources Habitat Assessment San Leandro Treatment Wetland Project, Alameda County, California. Letter to Hayes Morehouse, City of San Leandro Public Works – Water Pollution Control Plant, from Dan Sidle, LSA Associates, March 9, 2020.

Smith J.E., D.J. Long, I.D. Imani, K.L Newcomb, and V.D. Munoz. 2016. Otospermophiles beecheyi (Rodentia:

Sciuridae). Mammalian Species. 48 (939):91-108.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). 2019. Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs).

Interim Final. May.
_____. 2000. Beneficial reuse of dredged materials: sediment screening and testing guidelines. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Draft Staff Report, 35 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March.
_____. 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. OSWER Directive 9285.7-53. December. _____. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-090/052F. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. September.
_____. 2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February 6.
_____. 2016. Human Recommendations for Assessing Short-Term Exposure Scenarios Involving Lead at Superfund Sites. OLEM Directive 9285.6-54. August 2.

Attachments (6):
• Table 1a – Cancer Risk Calculations for Construction Worker Exposure to Soil • Table 1b – Noncancer Hazard Index Calculations for Construction Worker Exposure to Soil • Table 2a – Cancer Risk Calculations for Construction Worker Exposure to Sludge • Table 2b – Noncancer Hazard Index Calculations for Construction Worker Exposure to Sludge • Attachment A – Data Tables
− Table A-1 – Soil Sampling Analytical Results
− Table A-2 – Sludge Sampling Analytical Results
• Attachment B – Upper Confidence Limit Calculations – ProUCL Input and Output Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant Tables
1a Cancer Risk Calculations for Construction Worker Exposure to Soil 1b Noncancer Hazard Index Calculations for Construction Worker Exposure to Soil 2a Cancer Risk Calculations for Construction Worker Exposure to Sludge 2b Noncancer Hazard Index Calculations for Construction Worker Exposure to Sludge Table 1a:

Cancer Risk Calculations for Exposure of Construction Worker to Soil Waste Water Pollution Control Plant, Waste Water Treatment Wetland Project, City of San Leandro, San Leandro, California Soil Ingestion Soil Dermal Contact Soil Vapor Inhalation Soil Particulate Inhalation All Routes Chem
Group
Chemical CASRN
Csoil
(mg/kg) RBA
LADD
(mg/kg/d)
SForal
(mg/kg/d)‐1 Risk ABSderm LADD (mg/kg/d) SFderm (mg/kg/d)‐1 Risk Cair (mg/m3) URF (m3/mg) Risk Cair (mg/m3) URF (mg/m3)‐1 Risk Risk SVOC Acenaphthene 83‐32‐9 5.8E‐01 7.1E‐09 1.3E‐01 1.3E‐08 3.8E‐05 1.2E‐08 SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene 56‐55‐3 7.0E+00 8.6E‐08 1.0E‐01 8.6E‐09 1.3E‐01 1.6E‐07 1.0E‐01 1.6E‐08 1.0E‐05 1.1E‐01 1.8E‐09 1.4E‐07 1.1E‐01 2.5E‐11 2.6E‐08 SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene 50‐32‐8 2.3E‐01 2.8E‐09 1.0E+00 2.8E‐09 1.3E‐01 5.2E‐09 1.0E+00 5.2E‐09 1.2E‐07 1.1E+00 2.1E‐10 4.6E‐09 1.1E+00 8.3E‐12 8.2E‐09 SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205‐99‐2 9.8E+00 1.2E‐07 1.0E‐01 1.2E‐08 1.3E‐01 2.2E‐07 1.0E‐01 2.2E‐08 3.0E‐05 1.1E‐01 5.4E‐09 2.0E‐07 1.1E‐01 3.5E‐11 3.9E‐08 SVOC Chrysene 218‐01‐9 8.6E+00 1.0E‐07 1.0E‐03 1.0E‐10 1.3E‐01 1.9E‐07 1.0E‐03 1.9E‐10 4.5E‐05 1.1E‐03 8.0E‐11 1.7E‐07 1.1E‐03 3.1E‐13 3.8E‐10 SVOC Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53‐70‐3 7.6E‐01 9.3E‐09 1.0E+00 9.3E‐09 1.3E‐01 1.7E‐08 1.0E+00 1.7E‐08 5.6E‐08 1.1E+00 1.0E‐10 1.5E‐08 1.1E+00 2.7E‐11 2.7E‐08 SVOC Fluoranthene 206‐44‐0 8.1E+00 1.0E‐07 1.3E‐01 1.8E‐07 3.8E‐05 1.6E‐07 SVOC Naphthalene 91‐20‐3 1.1E+00 1.3E‐08 1.2E‐01 1.6E‐09 1.3E‐01 2.5E‐08 1.2E‐01 3.0E‐09 2.9E‐04 3.4E‐02 1.6E‐08 2.2E‐08 3.4E‐02 1.2E‐12 2.1E‐08 SVOC Phenanthrene 85‐01‐8 1.7E+00 2.1E‐08 1.3E‐01 3.8E‐08 3.9E‐05 3.4E‐08 SVOC Pyrene 129‐00‐0 9.4E+00 1.1E‐07 1.3E‐01 2.1E‐07 3.5E‐05 1.9E‐07 PEST Chlordane (total) 57‐74‐9 7.6E‐01 9.3E‐09 3.5E‐01 3.3E‐09 4.0E‐02 5.3E‐09 3.5E‐01 1.8E‐09 3.6E‐06 1.0E‐01 5.9E‐10 1.5E‐08 1.0E‐01 2.5E‐12 5.7E‐09 PEST Dieldrin 60‐57‐1 5.1E‐02 6.2E‐10 1.6E+01 1.0E‐08 1.0E‐01 8.8E‐10 1.6E+01 1.4E‐08 3.3E‐07 4.6E+00 2.5E‐09 1.0E‐09 4.6E+00 7.7E‐12 2.7E‐08 PEST Endrin 72‐20‐8 8.7E‐03 1.1E‐10 1.0E‐01 1.5E‐10 5.3E‐08 1.7E‐10PEST Heptachlor epoxide 1024‐57‐3 5.7E‐03 7.0E‐11 9.1E+00 6.4E‐10 1.0E‐01 9.9E‐11 9.1E+00 9.0E‐10 1.5E‐08 2.6E+00 6.6E‐11 1.1E‐10 2.6E+00 4.9E‐13 1.6E‐09 PCB PCBs (total) 1336‐36‐3 6.8E‐01 8.3E‐09 2.0E+00 1.7E‐08 1.4E‐01 1.6E‐08 2.0E+00 3.3E‐08 7.7E‐06 5.7E‐01 7.2E‐09 1.4E‐08 5.7E‐01 1.3E‐11 5.7E‐08 INORG Arsenic 7440‐38‐2 7.1E+00 0.6 8.7E‐08 9.5E+00 4.9E‐07 3.0E‐02 3.7E‐08 9.5E+00 3.5E‐07 4.3E+00 1.4E‐07 4.3E+00 9.9E‐10 8.4E‐07 INORG Cadmium 7440‐43‐9 2.1E+01 2.6E‐07 1.0E‐03 3.6E‐09 4.2E+00 4.2E‐07 4.2E+00 2.9E‐09 2.9E‐09 INORG Chromium III 16065‐83‐1 1.6E+02 2.0E‐06 3.3E‐06
INORG Chromium VI 18540‐29‐9 3.7E+00 4.5E‐08 5.0E‐01 2.3E‐08 2.0E+01 1.5E+02 7.4E‐08 1.5E+02 1.8E‐08 4.1E‐08 INORG Copper 7440‐50‐8 2.1E+03 2.6E‐05 4.2E‐05
INORG Cyanide (total) 57‐12‐5 9.1E+00 1.1E‐07 1.1E‐03 1.8E‐07 INORG Lead 7439‐92‐1 3.1E+03 3.7E‐05 6.1E‐05
INORG Mercury 7439‐97‐6 3.5E+00 4.3E‐08 2.0E‐04 7.1E‐08 INORG Nickel 7440‐02‐0 1.7E+02 2.0E‐06 2.6E‐01 3.3E‐06 2.6E‐01 1.4E‐09 1.4E‐09 INORG Silver 7440‐22‐4 4.8E+00 5.9E‐08 9.6E‐08
INORG Zinc 7440‐66‐6 2.1E+03 2.6E‐05 4.2E‐05
Cumulative Risk: 6E‐07 5E‐07 4E‐08 3E‐08 1E‐06
Notes:Exposure Concentrations:

Soil exposure concentrations (Csoil) based upon maximum detected concentrations in soil with the exception of the following chemicals which are based upon the 95% upper confidence limits (UCL) on the mean:

Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs (total), and arsenic.

Cr III concentration estimated using maximum detected Cr (total) and subtracting the estimated Cr VI concentration determined based upon the average ratio Cr VI:Cr (total) observed in soil sampling data.

Exposure Factors:

Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/d) = 200
Adherence Factor (mg/cm2) = 0.8
Skin Surface Area (cm2/d) = 3,527
Body Weight (kg) = 80
Exposure Frequency (d/yr) = 125
Exposure Time (h/d) = 8
Exposure Duration (yr) =1Averaging Time, cancer (d) = 25,550 Air Concentrations:

The concentration of chemicals in air due to vapor emissions based upon estimated normalized average vapor Flux (kg/m2‐s) form unsaturated soil using steady state model derived by Jury, Spencer, and Farmer (1983).

Disp.Factor C/Q (kg/m3)/(kg/m2‐s): 19.3
The concentration of particulates in the air is assumed to be no more than the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10 of 20 ug/m3.

Other Acronyms:

RBA ‐ Relative Bioavailabilty Adjustment FactorLADD ‐ Lifetime Average Daily Dose ABSderm ‐ Dermal Absorption Factor
Page: 1 of 1 Terraphase Engineering Inc.

Table 1b:

Noncancer Hazard Index Calculations for Exposure of Construction Worker to Soil Waste Water Pollution Control Plant, Waste Water Treatment Wetland Project, City of San Leandro, San Leandro, California Soil Ingestion Soil Dermal Contact Soil Vapor Inhalation Soil Particulate Inhalation All Routes Chem
Group Chemical CASRN
Csoil
(mg/kg) RBA
ADD
(mg/kg/d)
RfDoral
(mg/kg/d) HQ ABSderm ADD (mg/kg/d) RfDderm (mg/kg/d) HQ Cair (mg/m3) RfC (mg/m3) HQ Cair (mg/m3) RfC (mg/m3) HQ HQ SVOC Acenaphthene 83‐32‐9 5.8E‐01 4.9E‐07 2.0E‐01 2.5E‐06 1.30E‐01 9.1E‐07 2.0E‐01 4.5E‐06 3.8E‐05 2.4E‐01 1.8E‐05 1.2E‐08 2.4E‐01 5.5E‐09 2.5E‐05 SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene 56‐55‐3 7.0E+00 6.0E‐06 1.30E‐01 1.1E‐05 1.0E‐05 1.4E‐07 SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene 50‐32‐8 2.3E‐01 2.0E‐07 3.0E‐04 6.6E‐04 1.30E‐01 3.6E‐07 3.0E‐04 1.2E‐03 1.2E‐07 2.0E‐06 6.6E‐03 4.6E‐09 2.0E‐06 2.6E‐04 8.7E‐03 SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205‐99‐2 9.8E+00 8.4E‐06 1.30E‐01 1.5E‐05 3.0E‐05 2.0E‐07 SVOC Chrysene 218‐01‐9 8.6E+00 7.3E‐06 1.30E‐01 1.3E‐05 4.5E‐05 1.7E‐07 SVOC Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53‐70‐3 7.6E‐01 6.5E‐07 1.30E‐01 1.2E‐06 5.6E‐08 1.5E‐08 SVOC Fluoranthene 206‐44‐0 8.1E+00 7.0E‐06 4.0E‐01 1.7E‐05 1.30E‐01 1.3E‐05 4.0E‐01 3.2E‐05 3.8E‐05 1.6E‐07 4.9E‐05 SVOC Naphthalene 91‐20‐3 1.1E+00 9.4E‐07 2.0E‐01 4.7E‐06 1.30E‐01 1.7E‐06 2.0E‐01 8.6E‐06 2.9E‐04 3.0E‐03 1.1E‐02 2.2E‐08 3.0E‐03 8.4E‐07 1.1E‐02 SVOC Phenanthrene 85‐01‐8 1.7E+00 1.5E‐06 3.0E‐01 4.9E‐06 1.30E‐01 2.7E‐06 3.0E‐01 8.9E‐06 3.9E‐05 1.2E‐01 3.7E‐05 3.4E‐08 1.2E‐01 3.2E‐08 5.1E‐05 SVOC Pyrene 129‐00‐0 9.4E+00 8.0E‐06 3.0E‐01 2.7E‐05 1.30E‐01 1.5E‐05 3.0E‐01 4.9E‐05 3.5E‐05 1.2E‐01 3.3E‐05 1.9E‐07 1.2E‐01 1.8E‐07 1.1E‐04 PEST Chlordane (total) 57‐74‐9 7.6E‐01 6.5E‐07 6.0E‐04 1.1E‐03 4.00E‐02 3.7E‐07 6.0E‐04 6.1E‐04 3.6E‐06 7.0E‐04 5.9E‐04 1.5E‐08 7.0E‐04 2.5E‐06 2.3E‐03 PEST Dieldrin 60‐57‐1 5.1E‐02 4.4E‐08 1.0E‐04 4.4E‐04 1.00E‐01 6.2E‐08 1.0E‐04 6.2E‐04 3.3E‐07 2.0E‐04 1.9E‐04 1.0E‐09 2.0E‐04 5.8E‐07 1.2E‐03 PEST Endrin 72‐20‐8 8.7E‐03 7.4E‐09 6.0E‐04 1.2E‐05 1.00E‐01 1.1E‐08 6.0E‐04 1.8E‐05 5.3E‐08 1.7E‐10 3.0E‐05 PEST Heptachlor epoxide 1024‐57‐3 5.7E‐03 4.9E‐09 1.3E‐05 3.8E‐04 1.00E‐01 6.9E‐09 1.3E‐05 5.3E‐04 1.5E‐08 5.2E‐05 3.4E‐05 1.1E‐10 5.2E‐05 2.5E‐07 9.4E‐04 PCB PCBs (total) 1336‐36‐3 6.8E‐01 5.8E‐07 1.40E‐01 1.1E‐06 7.7E‐06 1.4E‐08 INORG Arsenic 7440‐38‐2 7.1E+00 0.6 6.1E‐06 5.0E‐03 7.3E‐04 3.00E‐02 2.6E‐06 5.0E‐03 5.1E‐04 1.5E‐05 1.4E‐07 1.5E‐05 1.1E‐03 2.3E‐03 INORG Cadmium 7440‐43‐9 2.1E+01 1.8E‐05 1.0E‐03 1.8E‐02 1.00E‐03 2.5E‐07 2.5E‐05 1.0E‐02 9.0E‐04 4.2E‐07 9.0E‐04 5.3E‐05 2.8E‐02 INORG Chromium III 16065‐83‐1 1.6E+02 1.4E‐04 1.5E+00 9.4E‐05 2.0E‐02 5.0E‐03 3.3E‐06 5.0E‐03 7.5E‐05 1.7E‐04 INORG Chromium VI 18540‐29‐9 3.7E+00 3.2E‐06 5.0E‐03 6.3E‐04 1.3E‐04 1.0E‐03 7.4E‐08 1.0E‐03 8.4E‐06 6.4E‐04 INORG Copper 7440‐50‐8 2.1E+03 1.8E‐03 4.0E‐02 4.5E‐02 4.0E‐02 4.2E‐05 4.5E‐02 INORG Cyanide (total) 57‐12‐5 9.1E+00 7.8E‐06 1.1E‐03 1.8E‐07 INORG Lead 7439‐92‐1 3.1E+03 2.6E‐03 6.1E‐05
INORG Mercury 7439‐97‐6 3.5E+00 3.0E‐06 1.6E‐04 1.9E‐02 1.6E‐04 2.0E‐04 3.0E‐04 7.7E‐02 7.1E‐08 3.0E‐04 2.7E‐05 9.5E‐02 INORG Nickel 7440‐02‐0 1.7E+02 1.4E‐04 2.0E‐02 7.1E‐03 8.0E‐04 1.4E‐05 3.3E‐06 1.4E‐05 2.7E‐02 3.4E‐02 INORG Silver 7440‐22‐4 4.8E+00 4.1E‐06 5.0E‐03 8.2E‐04 2.0E‐04 1.0E‐05 9.6E‐08 1.0E‐05 1.1E‐03 1.9E‐03 INORG Zinc 7440‐66‐6 2.1E+03 1.8E‐03 3.0E‐01 6.1E‐03 3.0E‐01 4.2E‐05 6.1E‐03 Hazard Index: 4E‐01 2E‐02 1E‐01 4E‐02 5E‐01
Notes:Exposure Concentrations:

Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs (total), and arsenic.

Exposure Factors:

Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/d) = 200
Adherence Factor (mg/cm2) = 0.8
Skin Surface Area (cm2/d) = 3,527Body Weight (kg) = 80
Exposure Frequency (d/yr) = 125Exposure Time (h/d) =8
Exposure Duration (yr) =1Averaging Time, noncancer (d) = 365 Air Concentrations:

Disp.Factor C/Q (kg/m3)/(kg/m2‐s): 19.3
The concentration of particulates in the air is assumed to be no more than the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10 of 20 ug/m3.

Other Acronyms:

HQ ‐ Hazard Quotient
RBA ‐ Relative Bioavailabilty Adjustment Factor
LADD ‐ Lifetime Average Daily Dose
ABSderm ‐ Dermal Absorption Factor
Page: 1 of 1 Terraphase Engineering Inc.

Table 2a:

Cancer Risk Calculations for Exposure of Construction Worker to Sludge Waste Water Pollution Control Plant, Waste Water Treatment Wetland Project, City of San Leandro, San Leandro, California Soil Ingestion Soil Dermal Contact Soil Vapor Inhalation Soil Particulate Inhalation All Routes Chem
Group
Chemical CASRN
Csoil
(mg/kg) RBA
LADD
(mg/kg/d)
SForal
(mg/kg/d)‐1 Risk ABSderm LADD (mg/kg/d) SFderm (mg/kg/d)‐1 Risk Cair (mg/m3) URF (m3/mg) Risk Cair (mg/m3) URF (mg/m3)‐1 Risk Risk INORG Arsenic 7440‐38‐2 4.7E+00 0.6 5.7E‐08 9.5E+00 3.3E‐07 3.0E‐02 2.4E‐08 9.5E+00 2.3E‐07 4.3E+00 9.4E‐08 4.3E+00 6.6E‐10 5.6E‐07 INORG Cadmium 7440‐43‐9 3.2E+00 3.9E‐08 1.0E‐03 5.5E‐10 4.2E+00 6.4E‐08 4.2E+00 4.4E‐10 4.4E‐10 INORG Chromium III 16065‐83‐1 4.2E+02 5.1E‐06 8.4E‐06
INORG Chromium VI 18540‐29‐9 9.5E+00 1.2E‐07 5.0E‐01 5.8E‐08 2.0E+01 1.5E+02 1.9E‐07 1.5E+02 4.6E‐08 1.0E‐07 INORG Copper 7440‐50‐8 2.0E+02 2.4E‐06 4.0E‐06
INORG Lead 7439‐92‐1 1.6E+03 2.0E‐05 3.2E‐05
INORG Mercury 7439‐97‐6 1.5E+00 1.8E‐08 8.5E‐05 3.0E‐08 INORG Nickel 7440‐02‐0 6.4E+01 7.8E‐07 2.6E‐01 1.3E‐06 2.6E‐01 5.4E‐10 5.4E‐10 INORG Silver 7440‐22‐4 2.0E+01 2.4E‐07 4.0E‐07
INORG Zinc 7440‐66‐6 6.0E+02 7.3E‐06 1.2E‐05
Cumulative Risk: 4E‐07 2E‐07 5E‐08 7E‐07
Notes:Exposure Concentrations:

Sludge exposure concentrations (Csoil) based upon maximum detected concentrations in sludge.

Exposure Factors:

Disp.Factor C/Q (kg/m3)/(kg/m2‐s): 19.3
The concentration of particulates in the air is assumed to be no more than the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10 of 20 ug/m3.

Other Acronyms:

RBA ‐ Relative Bioavailabilty Adjustment FactorLADD ‐ Lifetime Average Daily Dose ABSderm ‐ Dermal Absorption Factor
Page: 1 of 1 Terraphase Engineering Inc.

Table 2b:

Noncancer Hazard Index Calculations for Exposure of Construction Worker to Sludge Waste Water Pollution Control Plant, Waste Water Treatment Wetland Project, City of San Leandro, San Leandro, California Soil Ingestion Soil Dermal Contact Soil Vapor Inhalation Soil Particulate Inhalation All Routes Chem
Group
Chemical CASRN
Csoil
(mg/kg) RBA
ADD
(mg/kg/d)
RfDoral
(mg/kg/d) HQ ABSderm ADD (mg/kg/d) RfDderm (mg/kg/d) HQ Cair (mg/m3) RfC (mg/m3) HQ Cair (mg/m3) RfC (mg/m3) HQ HQ INORG Arsenic 7440‐38‐2 4.7E+00 0.6 4.0E‐06 5.0E‐03 4.8E‐04 3.00E‐02 1.7E‐06 5.0E‐03 3.4E‐04 1.5E‐05 9.4E‐08 1.5E‐05 7.2E‐04 1.5E‐03 INORG Cadmium 7440‐43‐9 3.2E+00 2.7E‐06 1.0E‐03 2.7E‐03 1.00E‐03 3.9E‐08 2.5E‐05 1.5E‐03 9.0E‐04 6.4E‐08 9.0E‐04 8.1E‐06 4.3E‐03 INORG Chromium III 16065‐83‐1 4.2E+02 3.6E‐04 1.5E+00 2.4E‐04 2.0E‐02 5.0E‐03 8.4E‐06 5.0E‐03 1.9E‐04 4.3E‐04 INORG Chromium VI 18540‐29‐9 9.5E+00 8.1E‐06 5.0E‐03 1.6E‐03 1.3E‐04 1.0E‐03 1.9E‐07 1.0E‐03 2.2E‐05 1.6E‐03 INORG Copper 7440‐50‐8 2.0E+02 1.7E‐04 4.0E‐02 4.3E‐03 4.0E‐02 4.0E‐06 4.3E‐03 INORG Lead 7439‐92‐1 1.6E+03 1.4E‐03 3.2E‐05
INORG Mercury 7439‐97‐6 1.5E+00 1.3E‐06 1.6E‐04 8.0E‐03 1.6E‐04 8.5E‐05 3.0E‐04 3.2E‐02 3.0E‐08 3.0E‐04 1.1E‐05 4.0E‐02 INORG Nickel 7440‐02‐0 6.4E+01 5.5E‐05 2.0E‐02 2.7E‐03 8.0E‐04 1.4E‐05 1.3E‐06 1.4E‐05 1.0E‐02 1.3E‐02 INORG Silver 7440‐22‐4 2.0E+01 1.7E‐05 5.0E‐03 3.4E‐03 2.0E‐04 1.0E‐05 4.0E‐07 1.0E‐05 4.6E‐03 8.0E‐03 INORG Zinc 7440‐66‐6 6.0E+02 5.1E‐04 3.0E‐01 1.7E‐03 3.0E‐01 1.2E‐05 1.7E‐03 Hazard Index: 2E‐01 2E‐03 3E‐02 2E‐02 3E‐01
Notes:Exposure Concentrations:

Sludge exposure concentrations (Csoil) based upon maximum detected concentrations in sludge.

Exposure Factors:

Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/d) = 200
Adherence Factor (mg/cm2) = 0.8
Skin Surface Area (cm2/d) = 3,527
Body Weight (kg) = 80
Exposure Frequency (d/yr) = 125
Exposure Time (h/d) =8
Exposure Duration (yr) =1
Averaging Time, noncancer (d) = 365
Air Concentrations:

Disp.Factor C/Q (kg/m3)/(kg/m2‐s): 19.3
The concentration of particulates in the air is assumed to be no more than the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10 of 20 ug/m3.

Other Acronyms:

HQ ‐ Hazard QuotientRBA ‐ Relative Bioavailabilty Adjustment Factor LADD ‐ Lifetime Average Daily Dose
ABSderm ‐ Dermal Absorption Factor
Page: 1 of 1 Terraphase Engineering Inc.

Risk-Based Evaluation for Reuse of Stockpile Material for the Proposed Treatment Wetland Project – City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant Attachment A
Data Tables
Attachment A
Table A‐1Soil Sampling Analytical Results
Waste Water Pollution Control Plant, Waste Water Treatment Wetland Project, City of San Leandro, San Leandro, California Location A EAST 1B A EAST 2B A EAST 2T A EAST 3B A EAST 4B A WEST 1B A WEST 2T A WEST 3B A WEST 4B Field Sample ID A EAST 1B BENCH A EAST 2B BENCH A EAST 2T BENCH A EAST 3B BENCH A EAST 4B BENCH A WEST 1B‐BENCH A WEST 2T BENCH A WEST 3B BENCH A WEST 4B BENCH Collection Depth (ft bgs) ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Sample Date 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 Comments
Physical Parameters
Organic Carbon (total) ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA pH (Laboratory Analysis) [SU] ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone ‐‐ 270000 0.92 0.92 ND (0.0605 J4) 0.091 J4 ND (0.0608 J4) 0.0622 J4 0.149 J4 0.0626 J4 0.0478 J; J4 0.0414 J; J4 0.0538 J; J4 Benzene ‐‐ 33 0.025 0.025 0.000575 J ND (0.00117) ND (0.00122) ND (0.00109) ND (0.00119) 0.000991 J 0.00084 J 0.00108 ND (0.00113) 2‐Butanone ‐‐ 120000 6.1 15 ND (0.121) 0.119 ND (0.122) 0.076 J 0.153 ND (0.104) ND (0.105) ND (0.103) ND (0.113) Chloroform ‐‐ 34 0.023 0.023 ND (0.00302) ND (0.00292) ND (0.00304) ND (0.00271) ND (0.00298) 0.0013 J ND (0.00262) ND (0.00258) ND (0.00281) Cumene ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.00302) ND (0.00292) ND (0.00304) ND (0.00271) ND (0.00298) ND (0.00261) ND (0.00262) ND (0.00258) ND (0.00281) p‐Cymene ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.00605) ND (0.00584) ND (0.00608) ND (0.00543) ND (0.00596) ND (0.00521) ND (0.00525) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00563) 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene ‐‐ 7800 1 1 ND (0.00605) ND (0.00584) ND (0.00608) ND (0.00543) ND (0.00596) ND (0.00521) ND (0.00525) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00563) 1,4‐Dichlorobenzene ‐‐ 280 0.2 0.2 ND (0.00605) ND (0.00584) ND (0.00608) ND (0.00543) ND (0.00596) ND (0.00521) ND (0.00525) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00563) 1,2‐Dichloroethane ‐‐ 45 0.007 0.031 ND (0.00302) ND (0.00292) ND (0.00304) ND (0.00271) ND (0.00298) ND (0.00261) ND (0.00262) ND (0.00258) ND (0.00281) Ethyl Benzene ‐‐ 540 0.43 0.43 ND (0.00302) ND (0.00292) ND (0.00304) ND (0.00271) 0.00116 J 0.00269 0.00331 0.00279 ND (0.00281) Methyl tert‐butyl ether ‐‐ 4100 0.028 2.5 ND (0.00121) ND (0.00117) ND (0.00122) ND (0.00109) ND (0.00119) ND (0.00104) ND (0.00105) ND (0.00103) ND (0.00113) Methylene Chloride ‐‐ 490 0.12 0.19 ND (0.0302) ND (0.0292) ND (0.0304) ND (0.0271) ND (0.0298) ND (0.0261) ND (0.0262) 0.00841 J ND (0.0281) Propylbenzene ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.00605) ND (0.00584) ND (0.00608) ND (0.00543) ND (0.00596) ND (0.00521) ND (0.00525) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00563) Tetrachloroethene ‐‐ 33 0.08 0.08 ND (0.00302) ND (0.00292) ND (0.00304) ND (0.00271) ND (0.00298) ND (0.00261) ND (0.00262) ND (0.00258) ND (0.00281) Toluene ‐‐ 4700 3.2 10 0.00167 J 0.00163 J ND (0.00608) ND (0.00543) 0.00358 J 0.00964 0.0103 0.0107 0.00225 J 1,2,3‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.00605) ND (0.00584) ND (0.00608) ND (0.00543) ND (0.00596) ND (0.00521) ND (0.00525) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00563) 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.00605) ND (0.00584) ND (0.00608) ND (0.00543) ND (0.00596) 0.00245 J 0.00226 J 0.00191 J ND (0.00563) 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.00605) ND (0.00584) ND (0.00608) ND (0.00543) ND (0.00596) ND (0.00521) ND (0.00525) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00563) Xylenes (total) ‐‐ 2400 2.1 10 ND (0.00786) 0.00144 J 0.00113 J 0.00109 J 0.0051 J 0.0105 0.0126 0.00958 0.0018 J Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Acenaphthene 0.5 10000 12 12 ND (0.00663) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00665) ND (0.00626) ND (0.00658) 0.00361 J 0.00531 J 0.00405 J ND (0.00638) Acenaphthylene 0.64 ‐‐ 6.4 6.4 ND (0.00663) 0.00321 J 0.00825 J 0.00291 J 0.00415 J ND (0.00613) ND (0.00615) 0.00274 J 0.00333 J Anthracene 1.1 50000 1.9 1.9 ND (0.00663) 0.00285 J 0.00971 J ND (0.00626) ND (0.00658) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00615) ND (0.0061) ND (0.00638) Benzo(a)anthracene 1.6 110 10 10 0.00575 J 0.0186 0.00916 0.00678 0.0137 0.0139 0.0109 0.00832 0.00418 J; J3 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.6 11 5.7 5.7 0.00702 0.0297 0.0136 0.00777 0.0164 0.0183 0.0132 0.00993 0.00565 J; J3 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ‐‐ 110 5.4 75 0.0119 0.0418 0.0186 0.0127 0.029 0.0267 0.0233 0.0174 0.00814 J3 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐‐ ‐‐ 27 27 0.00958 0.028 0.0162 0.00883 0.0142 0.0128 0.0102 0.0108 0.00742 J3 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ‐‐ 910 4.8 39 0.00356 J 0.0109 0.00572 J 0.00384 J 0.00501 J 0.00874 0.00668 0.00433 J ND (0.00638) Chrysene 2.8 9100 2.2 10 0.00656 J 0.0212 0.00981 0.00862 0.0153 0.0199 0.0147 0.00808 0.00435 J; J3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.26 11 29 390 ND (0.00663) 0.00524 J 0.00266 J ND (0.00626) 0.00548 J 0.00283 J 0.00189 J 0.0019 J ND (0.00638 J3) Fluoranthene 5.1 6700 86 86 0.0118 0.0273 0.0151 0.0176 0.022 0.0261 0.0363 0.0321 0.0117 J3 Fluorene 0.54 6700 6 6 ND (0.00663) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00665) ND (0.00626) 0.00227 J ND (0.00613) ND (0.00615) ND (0.0061) ND (0.00638) Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene ‐‐ 110 16 32 0.00681 0.024 0.0127 0.0067 0.00922 0.0119 0.00787 0.00816 0.0044 J; J3 1‐Methylnaphthalene ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) 2‐Methylnaphthalene 0.67 670 0.88 0.88 0.00685 J ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) 0.00708 J ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) Naphthalene 2.1 400 0.042 1.2 0.00526 J ND (0.0146) ND (0.0152) ND (0.0136) 0.00607 J ND (0.013 J3) ND (0.0131 J3) ND (0.0129 J3) 0.00461 J Phenanthrene 1.5 ‐‐ 11 11 0.008 0.0131 0.00921 0.0115 0.0202 0.00669 0.011 0.0132 0.00799 Phenol ‐‐ 98000 0.16 18 ND (0.736) ND (0.722) ND (0.369) ND (0.694) ND (0.365) ND (0.34) ND (0.683) 0.0421 J ND (0.708) bis(2‐Ethylhexyl)phthalate ‐‐ 950 190 640 ND (0.736) ND (0.722) ND (0.369) ND (0.694) ND (0.365) 0.165 J 0.385 J 0.204 J 1.33 Butylbenzylphthalate ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.736) ND (0.722) 0.0133 J ND (0.694) ND (0.365) ND (0.34) ND (0.683) ND (0.677) ND (0.708) Di‐n‐butylphthalate ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.736) ND (0.722) ND (0.369) ND (0.694) ND (0.365) 0.0603 J 0.122 J 0.053 J 0.0558 J Di‐n‐octylphthalate ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.736) ND (0.722) ND (0.369) ND (0.694) ND (0.365) ND (0.34) ND (0.683) ND (0.677) ND (0.708) Pyrene 2.6 5000 45 45 0.0148 0.0371 0.0205 0.0252 0.0398 0.0387 0.0553 0.0389 0.0186 J3 Pesticides
Aldrin ‐‐ 1 8.4 8.4 ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) Chlordane (total) 0.0048 14 23 23 ND (0.331) ND (0.325) ND (0.332) ND (0.313) ND (0.329) ND (0.306) ND (0.307) ND (0.305) ND (0.319) alpha‐Chlordane ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
4,4'‐DDD ‐‐ 81 65 65 ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) 4,4'‐DDE ‐‐ 57 29 29 ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) 4,4'‐DDT ‐‐ 57 5.6 5.6 ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) Dieldrin 0.0043 1.1 0.00046 0.0063 ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) Endosulfan II ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) Endrin ‐‐ 74 0.0076 0.0076 ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) Heptachlor epoxide ‐‐ 1.9 0.00018 0.006 ND (0.0221) ND (0.0217) ND (0.0222) ND (0.0209) ND (0.0219) ND (0.0204) ND (0.0205) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0213) Soil Direct
Exposure
Construction
Worker ESLs
Soil Leaching to
GW, Drinking
Water ESLs
Soil Leaching to
GW, Non‐
Drinking Water
ESLs
Wetland
Foundation
Material Conc
Guidelines

Page 1 of 22 ends

Attachment A
Table A‐1Soil Sampling Analytical Results
Waste Water Pollution Control Plant, Waste Water Treatment Wetland Project, City of San Leandro, San Leandro, California Location A EAST 1B A EAST 2B A EAST 2T A EAST 3B A EAST 4B A WEST 1B A WEST 2T A WEST 3B A WEST 4B Field Sample ID A EAST 1B BENCH A EAST 2B BENCH A EAST 2T BENCH A EAST 3B BENCH A EAST 4B BENCH A WEST 1B‐BENCH A WEST 2T BENCH A WEST 3B BENCH A WEST 4B BENCH Collection Depth (ft bgs) ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Sample Date 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 Comments
Soil Direct
Exposure
Construction
Worker ESLs
Soil Leaching to
GW, Drinking
Water ESLs
Soil Leaching to
GW, Non‐
Drinking Water
ESLs
Wetland
Foundation
Material Conc
Guidelines
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel Range Organics ‐‐ 1100 1100 7300 18.8 J 15.9 J 16.2 J 6.94 13 24.3 23.7 J3; J6 34.7 J 57.9 Gasoline Range Organics ‐‐ 1800 1100 4900 ND (0.11) ND (0.108) ND (0.111) ND (0.104) ND (0.11) ND (0.102) ND (0.102) ND (0.102) ND (0.106) Motor Oil ‐‐ 54000 ‐‐ ‐‐ 96 108 102 21.1 55.9 75.6 96.4 161 185 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Aroclor‐1254 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (0.0188) ND (0.0184) ND (0.0188) ND (0.0177) ND (0.0186) ND (0.0174) ND (0.0174) ND (0.0173) ND (0.0181) Aroclor‐1260 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.417 P 0.266 2.86 P 0.166 ND (0.0186) 0.23 P 0.43 P 0.464 J5; P 0.831 P PCBs (total) 0.18 5.5 330 330 0.417 P 0.266 2.86 P 0.166 ND (0.0373) 0.23 P 0.43 P 0.464 J5; P 0.831 P Metals
Antimony ‐‐ 50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (2.21) ND (2.17) 1.16 J ND (2.09) ND (2.19) ND (2.04) 0.611 J ND (2.03) ND (2.13) Arsenic 0.07 0.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.54 4.16 6.88 7.61 6.31 13.2 3.5 4.23 6.34 Barium ‐‐ 3000 ‐‐ ‐‐ 244 212 244 188 256 197 296 216 345 Beryllium ‐‐ 27 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.404 0.364 0.348 0.247 0.335 0.339 0.142 J 0.214 0.394 Cadmium 0.0096 51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.22 2.66 3.33 1.75 3.82 2.56 4.05 4.18 9.03 Chromium (total) 0.37 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 51.5 61.1 76 42.9 65.5 48.1 82.1 45.6 77.1 Chromium VI ‐‐ 2.8 ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (2.21 P1) ND (2.17) ND (2.22) ND (2.09) ND (2.19) ND (2.04) ND (2.05) ND (2.03) ND (2.13) Cobalt ‐‐ 28 ‐‐ ‐‐ 13.1 12.6 13.8 9.7 13.4 11.6 16.5 10.6 14.4 Copper 0.27 14000 ‐‐ ‐‐ 73.4 76.7 203 51.1 104 57.7 146 90.8 174 Cyanide (total) ‐‐ 22 0.0034 0.0034 0.172 J 0.346 0.207 J 0.143 J 0.227 J 1.29 0.665 P1 0.298 0.567 Lead 0.218 160 ‐‐ ‐‐ 161 166 167 97.1 189 98.4 130 179 327 Mercury 0.0007 44 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.138 0.222 0.351 0.137 0.369 0.19 0.23 0.217 0.721 Molybdenum ‐‐ 1800 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.75 0.646 2.06 0.435 J 1.04 0.713 0.737 1.23 1.87 Nickel 0.12 86 ‐‐ ‐‐ 60.6 68.9 89.7 53.1 79.7 70.4 92.4 55.5 80.1 Perchlorate ‐‐ 250 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.0337 J 0.0169 J 0.0199 J; P1 0.026 J 0.0332 J ND (0.0409) ND (0.041) ND (0.0406) ND (0.0425) Selenium ‐‐ 1700 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.24 J 0.893 J 1.31 J 1.77 J 1.54 J 1.1 J 2.47 1.45 J 1.38 J Silver 0.0037 1800 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.304 J 0.255 J 0.297 J 0.161 J 0.612 J 0.184 J 0.387 J 0.357 J 1.19 Thallium ‐‐ 3.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ND (2.21) ND (2.17) ND (2.22) ND (2.09) ND (2.19) ND (2.04) ND (2.05) ND (2.03) ND (2.13) Vanadium ‐‐ 470 ‐‐ ‐‐ 60.3 55 54.8 51.2 54.9 51.3 58.7 44.4 57.3 Zinc 0.41 110000 ‐‐ ‐‐ 209 243 281 152 259 144 228 221 399 Notes:123 #, B, C, and Y are unknown qualifiers.
4567Abbreviations:

ND ‐ Not DetectedNA ‐ Not AnalyzedJ ‐ Estimated Concentration V ‐ The sample concentration is too high to evaluate accurate spike recoveries.

P ‐ RPD between the primary and confirmatory analysis exceeded 40%.

P1 ‐ RPD value not applicable for sample concentrations less than 5 times the reporting limit.

J3 The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.

J4 The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for accuracy.

J5 The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is high.

J6 The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is low.

O1 ‐ The analyte failed the method required serial dilution test and/or subsequent post‐spike criteria.

These failures indicate matrix interference.

Blue boldfaced concentrations exceed the Soil Leaching to GW, Non‐Drinking Water ESLs.

All concentrations reported in mg/kg (ppm); detection limits in parentheses.

Only compounds with at least one detection are shown.

Underlined concentrations exceed the Wetland Foundation Material Conc Guidelines.

Double underlined concentrations exceed the Soil Direct Exposure Construction Worker ESLs.

Gray‐shaded concentrations exceed the Soil Leaching to GW, Drinking Water ESLs.

Page 2 of 22 ends

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.0491 J; J4 0.081 J4 0.04 J; J4 ND (0.0613 J4) ND (0.0553 J4) ND (0.0548 J4) 0.0513 J; J4 0.156 J4 ND (0.0562 J4)

0.000671 J ND (0.00111) ND (0.00107) ND (0.00123) ND (0.00111) ND (0.0011) ND (0.0013) ND (0.00113) ND (0.00112) ND (0.103) 0.143 0.119 ND (0.123) ND (0.111) 0.0731 B ; J 0.0853 B ; J 0.124 B 0.0814 B ; J ND (0.00258) ND (0.00278) ND (0.00267) ND (0.00307) ND (0.00276) ND (0.00274) ND (0.00325) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281) ND (0.00258) ND (0.00278) ND (0.00267) ND (0.00307) ND (0.00276) ND (0.00274) ND (0.00325) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00555) ND (0.00535) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00553) ND (0.00548) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00567) ND (0.00562) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00555) ND (0.00535) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00553) ND (0.00548) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00567) ND (0.00562) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00555) ND (0.00535) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00553) ND (0.00548) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00567) ND (0.00562) ND (0.00258) ND (0.00278) ND (0.00267) ND (0.00307) ND (0.00276) ND (0.00274) ND (0.00325) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281)

0.00152 J ND (0.00278) ND (0.00267) ND (0.00307) ND (0.00276) 0.000876 J ND (0.00325) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281)

0.000542 J ND (0.00111) ND (0.00107) ND (0.00123) ND (0.00111) ND (0.0011) ND (0.0013) ND (0.00113) ND (0.00112)

0.00729 J ND (0.0278) ND (0.0267) ND (0.0307) ND (0.0276) ND (0.0274) ND (0.0325) ND (0.0283) ND (0.0281) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00555) ND (0.00535) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00553) ND (0.00548) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00567) ND (0.00562) ND (0.00258) ND (0.00278) ND (0.00267) ND (0.00307) ND (0.00276) ND (0.00274) ND (0.00325) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281)

0.00637 ND (0.00555) ND (0.00535) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00553) 0.00254 J 0.00202 J 0.00153 J ND (0.00562) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00555) ND (0.00535) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00553) ND (0.00548) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00567) ND (0.00562) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00555) ND (0.00535) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00553) ND (0.00548) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00567) ND (0.00562) ND (0.00516) ND (0.00555) ND (0.00535) ND (0.00613) ND (0.00553) ND (0.00548) ND (0.0065) ND (0.00567) ND (0.00562)

0.00555 J 0.0013 J 0.0011 J ND (0.00797) ND (0.00718) 0.00243 J 0.00163 J 0.00139 J ND (0.00731)

0.00297 J 0.00265 J ND (0.00621) ND (0.00668) ND (0.00632) ND (0.00629) ND (0.0069) ND (0.0064) ND (0.00637)

0.00699 J 0.0025 J ND (0.00621) 0.00253 J 0.00235 J 0.00243 J ND (0.0069) 0.00382 J 0.00267 J ND (0.0061) 0.0028 J ND (0.00621) ND (0.00668) 0.00288 J ND (0.00629) ND (0.0069) ND (0.0064) ND (0.00637)

0.00635 0.0254 0.0101 0.0145 0.0203 0.01 ND (0.0069) 0.0043 J 0.00561 J

0.0082 0.031 0.0135 0.0182 0.0321 0.0147 0.00368 J 0.00739 0.00853

0.0131 0.0415 0.0182 0.0337 0.0437 0.0194 0.00628 J 0.0112 0.0132

0.00729 0.0245 0.0148 0.0364 0.0438 0.0158 0.00536 J 0.0122 0.00981

0.00382 J 0.0139 0.00578 J 0.00756 0.0121 0.00565 J ND (0.0069) ND (0.0064) 0.00363 J

0.00675 0.0299 0.0132 0.0189 0.0236 0.0126 ND (0.0069) 0.00465 J 0.00769 ND (0.0061) 0.00489 J 0.00311 J 0.0127 0.0093 0.00325 J ND (0.0069) 0.00247 J 0.00191 J

0.0185 0.0378 0.0175 0.02 0.0332 0.0178 0.00689 J 0.0114 0.0127 ND (0.0061) ND (0.00633) ND (0.00621) ND (0.00668) ND (0.00632) ND (0.00629) ND (0.0069) ND (0.0064) ND (0.00637)

0.00536 J 0.0219 0.0106 0.0145 0.0284 0.0101 0.00346 J 0.00702 0.00748

0.012 J ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) 0.0048 J ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) 0.00569 J

0.0181 J ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) 0.00684 J ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) 0.00541 J

0.00805 J 0.00432 J ND (0.0134) 0.00501 J 0.00655 J ND (0.0137 J3) ND (0.0163 J3) ND (0.0142 J3) 0.00464 J

0.0106 0.017 0.00983 0.0149 0.0142 0.00961 0.00418 J 0.0084 0.0137 ND (0.338) ND (0.703) ND (0.345) ND (3.71) ND (3.51) ND (0.698) 0.0674 J 0.0323 J ND (0.354)

0.0768 J ND (0.703) ND (0.345) ND (3.71) ND (3.51) ND (0.698) 0.16 J 0.156 J 0.07 J ND (0.338) ND (0.703) ND (0.345) ND (3.71) ND (3.51) ND (0.698) ND (0.766) 0.0372 J ND (0.354)

0.0397 J ND (0.703) ND (0.345) ND (3.71) ND (3.51) ND (0.698) 0.0367 J ND (0.71) 0.0221 J ND (0.338) ND (0.703) ND (0.345) ND (3.71) ND (3.51) ND (0.698) ND (0.766) ND (0.71) ND (0.354)

0.0282 0.0515 0.0229 0.0235 0.0413 0.0264 0.0107 0.018 0.0202 ND (0.0203) ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) ND (0.0211) ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) ND (0.305) ND (0.317) ND (0.31) ND (0.334) ND (0.316) ND (0.314) ND (0.345) ND (0.32) ND (0.319)

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ND (0.0203) ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) ND (0.0211) ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) ND (0.0211) ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) ND (0.0211) ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) ND (0.0211) ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) ND (0.0211) ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) ND (0.0211) ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) ND (0.0203) ND (0.0211) ND (0.0207) ND (0.0223) ND (0.0211) ND (0.021) ND (0.023) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212)

Page 3 of 22 ends

Attachment A
Table A‐1Soil Sampling Analytical Results
Waste Water Pollution Control Plant, Waste Water Treatment Wetland Project, City of San Leandro, San Leandro, California Location
Field Sample ID
Collection Depth (ft bgs)
Sample Date
Comments
Soil Direct
Exposure
Construction
Worker ESLs
Soil Leaching to
GW, Drinking
Water ESLs
Soil Leaching to
GW, Non‐
Drinking Water
ESLs
Wetland
Foundation
Material Conc
Guidelines
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Diesel Range Organics ‐‐ 1100 1100 7300
Gasoline Range Organics ‐‐ 1800 1100 4900
Motor Oil ‐‐ 54000 ‐‐ ‐‐
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Aroclor‐1254 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Aroclor‐1260 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
PCBs (total) 0.18 5.5 330 330
Metals
Antimony ‐‐ 50 ‐‐ ‐‐
Arsenic 0.07 0.98 ‐‐ ‐‐
Barium ‐‐ 3000 ‐‐ ‐‐
Beryllium ‐‐ 27 ‐‐ ‐‐
Cadmium 0.0096 51 ‐‐ ‐‐
Chromium (total) 0.37 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Chromium VI ‐‐ 2.8 ‐‐ ‐‐
Cobalt ‐‐ 28 ‐‐ ‐‐
Copper 0.27 14000 ‐‐ ‐‐
Cyanide (total) ‐‐ 22 0.0034 0.0034
Lead 0.218 160 ‐‐ ‐‐
Mercury 0.0007 44 ‐‐ ‐‐
Molybdenum ‐‐ 1800 ‐‐ ‐‐
Nickel 0.12 86 ‐‐ ‐‐
Perchlorate ‐‐ 250 ‐‐ ‐‐
Selenium ‐‐ 1700 ‐‐ ‐‐
Silver 0.0037 1800 ‐‐ ‐‐
Thallium ‐‐ 3.5 ‐‐ ‐‐
Vanadium ‐‐ 470 ‐‐ ‐‐
Zinc 0.41 110000 ‐‐ ‐‐
Notes:123 #, B, C, and Y are unknown qualifiers.
4567Abbreviations:

ND ‐ Not Detected
NA ‐ Not AnalyzedJ ‐ Estimated Concentration
V ‐ The sample concentration is too high to evaluate accurate spike recoveries.

P ‐ RPD between the primary and confirmatory analysis exceeded 40%.

P1 ‐ RPD value not applicable for sample concentrations less than 5 times the reporting limit.

J3 The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.

J4 The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for accuracy.

J5 The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is high.

J6 The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is low.

O1 ‐ The analyte failed the method required serial dilution test and/or subsequent post‐spike criteria.

These failures indicate matrix interference.

Blue boldfaced concentrations exceed the Soil Leaching to GW, Non‐Drinking Water ESLs.

All concentrations reported in mg/kg (ppm); detection limits in parentheses.

Only compounds with at least one detection are shown.

Underlined concentrations exceed the Wetland Foundation Material Conc Guidelines.

Double underlined concentrations exceed the Soil Direct Exposure Construction Worker ESLs.

Gray‐shaded concentrations exceed the Soil Leaching to GW, Drinking Water ESLs.

A WEST 5B B EAST 5B B EAST 6B B EAST 7B B EAST 8B B WEST 6B B WEST 6T B WEST 7T B WEST 8T A WEST 5B BENCH B EAST 5B BENCH B EAST 6B BENCH B EAST 7B BENCH B EAST 8B BENCH B WEST 6B‐BENCH B WEST 6T‐BENCH B WEST 7T BENCH B WEST 8T BENCH ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 8/4/2021

43.2 19.8 30.9 J 72.7 J 35.3 J 26 J 25.2 J 32.6 J 413
ND (0.102) ND (0.106) ND (0.103) ND (0.111) ND (0.105) ND (0.105) ND (0.115) ND (0.107) ND (0.106) 192 71.6 155 544 206 215 146 157 208
ND (0.0173) ND (0.0179) ND (0.0176) ND (0.0189) ND (0.0179) ND (0.0178) ND (0.0196) ND (0.0181) ND (0.0181)

0.604 P 1.67 P 0.316 P 0.99 P 0.937 P 0.212 P 0.411 P 0.239 P 0.246 P

0.604 P 1.67 P 0.316 P 0.99 P 0.937 P 0.212 P 0.411 P 0.239 P 0.246 P ND (2.03) ND (2.11) ND (2.07 J6) 18.8 0.681 J ND (2.1) ND (2.3) ND (2.13) ND (2.12)

15.6 7.56 3.72 13.4 5.29 4.65 5.18 7.8 4.69
238 223 177 O1 1290 303 196 199 255 264

0.288 0.365 0.116 J 0.296 0.281 0.241 0.284 0.41 0.176 J

3.25 5.94 2.84 O1 5.91 2.42 2.91 2.78 3.06 3.06

60.5 72 45.3 O1 67.5 76.9 53.3 168 61.1 55.5
ND (2.03) ND (2.11) ND (2.07 J3; J6; O1) ND (2.23) ND (2.11) ND (2.1 J3; J6) ND (2.3) ND (2.13) ND (2.12)

13.9 13.3 13.9 15.8 16.1 11.7 18 12.1 9.3485.3 86.3 59.5 257 82.5 67.9 70.5 80.7 83.1

0.252 J 0.579 ND (0.259) 0.307 J5 0.107 J 0.244 J 0.233 J 0.147 J 0.212 J 137 137 75.3 1780 257 87.1 124 332 142

0.388 0.681 0.189 0.3 0.225 0.246 0.259 0.298 0.1870.694 1.19 0.318 J 2.52 0.963 0.954 1.02 0.801 1.46

67.4 81.2 64.5 74.5 107 73.6 165 79 68.7
ND (0.0406) 0.026 J 0.031 J ND (0.0422) ND (0.0421) 0.0138 J; P1 0.0357 J ND (0.0427) ND (0.0425)

2.6 2.36 1.52 J ND (2.23) 1.23 J 1.36 J 1.72 J 1.65 J 1.25 J

1.76 0.478 J 0.158 J 1.16 0.328 J 0.212 J 0.319 J 0.291 J 0.396 J ND (2.03) ND (2.11) ND (2.07) ND (2.23) ND (2.11) ND (2.1) ND (2.3) ND (2.13) ND (2.12)

57.7 57 53.8 O1 63.7 73.6 67.5 71.4 58.7 48.3
172 199 133 J6; O1 587 289 221 186 164 182

Page 4 of 22 ends

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.066 J4 ND (0.0568 J4) ND (0.0592 J4) ND (0.057 J4) ND (0.0573 J4) ND (0.0551 J4) ND (0.0565 J4) 0.0444 J; J4 NA ND (0.0011) ND (0.00114) ND (0.00118) ND (0.00114) ND (0.00115) ND (0.0011) ND (0.00113) 0.000647 J NA

0.0712 J ND (0.114) ND (0.118) 0.0819 J ND (0.115) ND (0.11) 0.0938 J 0.0822 B ; J NA ND (0.00276) ND (0.00284) ND (0.00296) ND (0.00285) ND (0.00287) ND (0.00275) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281) NA ND (0.00276) ND (0.00284) ND (0.00296) ND (0.00285) ND (0.00287) ND (0.00275) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281) NA ND (0.00552) ND (0.00568) ND (0.00592) ND (0.0057) ND (0.00573) ND (0.00551) ND (0.00565) ND (0.00562) NA ND (0.00552) ND (0.00568) ND (0.00592) ND (0.0057) ND (0.00573) ND (0.00551) ND (0.00565) ND (0.00562) NA ND (0.00552) ND (0.00568) ND (0.00592) ND (0.0057) ND (0.00573) ND (0.00551) ND (0.00565) ND (0.00562) NA ND (0.00276) ND (0.00284) ND (0.00296) ND (0.00285) ND (0.00287) ND (0.00275) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281) NA ND (0.00276) ND (0.00284) ND (0.00296) ND (0.00285) ND (0.00287) ND (0.00275) ND (0.00283) 0.00141 J NA ND (0.0011) ND (0.00114) ND (0.00118) ND (0.00114) ND (0.00115) ND (0.0011) ND (0.00113) ND (0.00112) NA ND (0.0276) ND (0.0284) ND (0.0296) ND (0.0285) ND (0.0287) ND (0.0275) ND (0.0283) ND (0.0281) NA ND (0.00552) ND (0.00568) ND (0.00592) ND (0.0057) ND (0.00573) ND (0.00551) ND (0.00565) ND (0.00562) NA ND (0.00276) ND (0.00284) ND (0.00296) ND (0.00285) ND (0.00287) ND (0.00275) ND (0.00283) ND (0.00281) NA ND (0.00552) ND (0.00568) ND (0.00592) ND (0.0057) ND (0.00573) ND (0.00551) ND (0.00565) 0.00465 J NA ND (0.00552) ND (0.00568) ND (0.00592) ND (0.0057) ND (0.00573) ND (0.00551) ND (0.00565) ND (0.00562) NA ND (0.00552) ND (0.00568) ND (0.00592) ND (0.0057) ND (0.00573) ND (0.00551) ND (0.00565) ND (0.00562) NA ND (0.00552) ND (0.00568) ND (0.00592) ND (0.0057) ND (0.00573) ND (0.00551) ND (0.00565) ND (0.00562) NA ND (0.00718) ND (0.00738) ND (0.00769) ND (0.00741) ND (0.00745) ND (0.00716) ND (0.00735) 0.00507 J NA

0.0165 ND (0.00641) 0.00282 J ND (0.00642) ND (0.00644) ND (0.0063) 0.00231 J ND (0.00637) NA

0.00229 J 0.00536 J 0.00633 J 0.00728 0.00297 J 0.014 0.0119 0.00841 NA

0.0294 0.00364 J 0.0103 0.00615 J ND (0.00644) 0.00527 J 0.0111 0.00398 J NA

0.089 0.022 0.0382 0.0339 0.00995 0.0182 0.0366 0.014 NA

0.0916 0.0287 0.0467 0.043 0.0163 0.0293 0.0385 0.0151 NA

0.12 0.0411 0.0567 0.0569 0.0271 0.041 0.0468 0.0219 NA

0.0805 0.0316 0.058 0.0507 0.026 0.0289 0.0304 0.0139 NA

0.041 0.0129 0.0176 0.0178 0.00569 J 0.00834 0.0145 0.00645 NA

0.0844 0.0255 0.0358 0.037 0.0105 0.0228 0.0404 0.0155 NA0.0158 0.00581 J 0.00763 0.00919 0.00569 J 0.00668 0.00728 0.00272 J NA

0.218 0.0384 0.0914 0.0641 0.0186 0.0382 0.0623 0.042 NA0.018 ND (0.00641) 0.0032 J 0.00376 J ND (0.00644) 0.00295 J 0.00954 0.00491 J NA

0.0734 0.0258 0.0404 0.0371 0.0146 0.0225 0.0239 0.00948 NA ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) 0.00571 J ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) 0.0086 J 0.00736 J NA

0.00563 J 0.00506 J ND (0.0218) 0.00668 J ND (0.0215) 0.00472 J 0.0101 J 0.00673 J NA

0.00594 J 0.00837 J 0.00483 J 0.00724 J ND (0.0143 J3) 0.00559 J 0.00992 J 0.0092 J NA

0.141 0.0193 0.0547 0.0379 0.0123 0.0249 0.0746 0.0342 NA ND (3.5) ND (0.711) ND (3.64) ND (3.56) ND (0.357) ND (0.7) ND (0.709) ND (0.708) NA ND (3.5) ND (0.711) ND (3.64) ND (3.56) 0.0711 J ND (0.7) 0.326 J 0.372 J NA ND (3.5) ND (0.711) ND (3.64) ND (3.56) ND (0.357) ND (0.7) ND (0.709) ND (0.708) NA ND (3.5) ND (0.711) ND (3.64) ND (3.56) 0.0194 J ND (0.7) ND (0.709) ND (0.708) NA ND (3.5) ND (0.711) ND (3.64) ND (3.56) ND (0.357) ND (0.7) ND (0.709) ND (0.708) NA

0.177 0.0413 0.0904 0.0754 0.0256 0.0753 0.0833 0.0575 NA ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) NA ND (0.316) ND (0.32) ND (0.328) ND (0.321) ND (0.322) ND (0.315) ND (0.32) ND (0.319) NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) NA ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) NA ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) NA ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) NA ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) NA ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) NA ND (0.021) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0218) ND (0.0214) ND (0.0215) ND (0.021) ND (0.0213) ND (0.0212) NA

Page 5 of 22 ends