Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, June 28, 2022 (part 6 of 7)

Reading # Boring
Location
Depth
(feet bgs) Date Time Units Lead Concentration
15 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:07 PPM 19
16 1 8/2/2021 8:57:13 PPM 15
17 1.5 8/2/2021 8:59:15 PPM 11
18 2 8/2/2021 9:00:50 PPM 14
19 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:05 PPM 245
20 1 8/2/2021 8:56:26 PPM 125
21 1.5 8/2/2021 9:04:08 PPM 18
22 2 8/2/2021 9:06:58 PPM 16
23 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:54 PPM 519
24 1 8/2/2021 8:57:14 PPM 214
25 1.5 8/2/2021 8:59:37 PPM 211
27 2 8/2/2021 9:01:55 PPM 285
28 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:32 PPM 499
29 1 8/2/2021 8:57:22 PPM 370
30 1.5 8/2/2021 8:59:42 PPM 137
31 2 8/2/2021 9:02:53 PPM 48
32 8/2/2021 8:54:38 PPM 955
33 8/2/2021 8:56:37 PPM 725
34 1 8/2/2021 8:58:15 PPM 83
35 1.5 8/2/2021 8:59:57 PPM 39
36 2 8/2/2021 9:01:57 PPM 13
38 8/2/2021 8:54:40 PPM 1572
39 8/2/2021 8:56:27 PPM 1579
40 1 8/2/2021 8:59:00 PPM 78
41 1.5 8/2/2021 9:00:35 PPM 25
42 2 8/2/2021 9:04:54 PPM 64
44 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:14 PPM 687
45 1 8/2/2021 8:56:22 PPM 784
46 1.5 8/2/2021 8:58:09 PPM 48
47 2 8/2/2021 9:04:01 PPM 56
48 0.5 8/2/2021 8:55:04 PPM 810
49 1 8/2/2021 8:56:56 PPM 19
50 1.5 8/2/2021 8:58:53 PPM 11
51 2 8/2/2021 9:00:40 PPM 12
52 8/2/2021 8:55:15 PPM 1822
53 8/2/2021 8:57:17 PPM 1631
54 1 8/2/2021 8:59:12 PPM 485
55 1.5 8/2/2021 9:01:09 PPM 48
56 2 8/2/2021 9:03:27 PPM 147
T-1
EM-38
EM-39
EM-40
R-3
EM-34

0.5 EM-35

0.5 EM-36

0.5 EM-37

42.242
Data Acquisition: Olympus Vanta XRF Analyzer Instrument Serial Number: 800777

Page 2 of 3 ends

Reading # Boring
Location
Depth
(feet bgs) Date Time Units Lead Concentration
57 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:18 PPM 628
58 1 8/2/2021 8:57:32 PPM 540
59 1.5 8/2/2021 9:12:45 PPM 155
60 2 8/2/2021 9:15:07 PPM 290
66 0.5 8/2/2021 8:55:00 PPM 226
67 1 8/2/2021 8:57:04 PPM 57
68 1.5 8/2/2021 8:58:38 PPM 52
69 2 8/2/2021 9:00:09 PPM 131
71 8/2/2021 8:54:44 PPM 1302
72 8/2/2021 8:56:34 PPM 1027
73 1 8/2/2021 8:58:31 PPM 73
75 1.5 8/2/2021 9:01:32 PPM 16
76 2 8/2/2021 9:03:11 PPM 16
77 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:09 PPM 182
78 1 8/2/2021 8:56:07 PPM 31
79 1.5 8/2/2021 8:57:51 PPM 6
80 2 8/2/2021 9:00:58 PPM 11
81 0.5 8/2/2021 8:55:00 PPM 86
82 1 8/2/2021 8:58:21 PPM 23
83 1.5 8/2/2021 9:00:03 PPM 5
84 2 8/2/2021 9:03:53 PPM 3
85 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:04 PPM 93
86 1 8/2/2021 8:55:43 PPM 18
87 1.5 8/2/2021 8:59:13 PPM 6
88 2 8/2/2021 9:13:50 PPM 20
89 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:06 PPM 28
90 1 8/2/2021 8:55:48 PPM 21
91 1.5 8/2/2021 8:58:49 PPM 4
92 2 8/2/2021 9:01:29 PPM 4
93 0.5 8/2/2021 9:27:21 PPM 234
94 1 8/2/2021 9:29:32 PPM 49
95 1.5 8/2/2021 9:31:40 PPM 35
96 2 8/2/2021 9:33:26 PPM 18
97 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:43 PPM 23
98 1 8/2/2021 8:56:20 PPM 9
99 1.5 8/2/2021 8:57:51 PPM 5
100 2 8/2/2021 8:59:27 PPM 6
T-2

0.5 R-4
R-5
R-6
R-9
R-10
R-11
R-1
R-2

42.243
Data Acquisition: Olympus Vanta XRF Analyzer Instrument Serial Number: 800777

Page 3 of 3 ends

Reading # Boring
Location
Depth
(feet bgs) Date Time Units Lead Concentration
101 0.5 8/2/2021 9:08:27 PPM 384
102 1 8/2/2021 9:11:08 PPM 329
103 1.5 8/2/2021 9:13:31 PPM 31
104 2 8/2/2021 9:17:09 PPM 8
105 0.5 8/2/2021 8:56:16 PPM 67
106 1 8/2/2021 8:58:10 PPM 79
107 1.5 8/2/2021 9:05:33 PPM 98
108 2 8/2/2021 9:07:43 PPM 93
109 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:51 PPM 61
110 1 8/2/2021 9:07:26 PPM 19
111 1.5 8/2/2021 9:15:05 PPM 50
112 2 8/2/2021 9:18:11 PPM 28
113 0.5 8/2/2021 9:39:20 PPM 454
114 1 8/2/2021 9:40:44 PPM 151
115 1.5 8/2/2021 9:45:02 PPM 22
116 2 8/2/2021 9:46:36 PPM 33
125 0.5 8/2/2021 9:06:57 PPM 18
126 1 8/2/2021 9:08:54 PPM 7
127 1.5 8/2/2021 9:10:16 PPM <LOD
128 2 8/2/2021 9:12:09 PPM 3
129 0.5 8/2/2021 9:21:21 PPM 133
130 1 8/2/2021 9:23:22 PPM 6
131 1.5 8/2/2021 9:25:04 PPM 6
132 2 8/2/2021 9:27:18 PPM 5
133 0.5 8/2/2021 8:54:28 PPM 14
134 1 8/2/2021 8:56:10 PPM 3
135 1.5 8/2/2021 8:57:41 PPM 3
136 2 8/2/2021 8:59:18 PPM 3
137 0.5 8/2/2021 9:06:15 PPM 56
138 1 8/2/2021 9:08:22 PPM 19
139 1.5 8/2/2021 9:10:06 PPM 5
140 2 8/2/2021 9:11:40 PPM 4
141 0.5 8/2/2021 8:55:14 PPM 741
142 1 8/2/2021 8:57:51 PPM 69
143 1.5 8/2/2021 8:59:32 PPM 22
144 2 8/2/2021 9:00:46 PPM 17
145 8/2/2021 8:54:02 PPM 1075
146 8/2/2021 8:55:36 PPM 1038
147 1 8/2/2021 8:57:34 PPM 34
148 1.5 8/2/2021 8:59:48 PPM 6
149 2 8/2/2021 9:01:12 PPM 6
R-13

0.5 R-14
T-3
NO-13
NO-14
WM-16
WM-17
R-7
R-8
R-12

42.244
Reading # Boring
Location
Depth
(feet bgs) Date Time Units Lead Concentration
5 T-4 0.5 1/11/2022 8:25:03 PPM 48
6 T-4 1 1/11/2022 8:26:56 PPM 22
7 T-4 1.5 1/11/2022 8:29:12 PPM 16
8 T-4 2 1/11/2022 8:30:59 PPM 15
9 T-5 0.5 1/11/2022 8:56:43 PPM 160
10 T-5 0.5 1/11/2022 9:00:15 PPM 236
11 T-5 0.5 1/11/2022 9:02:45 PPM 64
12 T-5 0.5 1/11/2022 9:03:43 PPM 126
13 T-5 0.5 1/11/2022 9:06:10 PPM 99
14 T-5 1 1/11/2022 9:07:44 PPM 27
15 T-5 1.5 1/11/2022 9:09:21 PPM 25
16 T-5 2 1/11/2022 9:11:24 PPM 13
17 T-6 0.5 1/11/2022 9:19:05 PPM 282
18 T-6 0.5 1/11/2022 9:22:24 PPM 153
19 T-6 0.5 1/11/2022 9:26:33 PPM 185
20 T-6 0.5 1/11/2022 9:29:26 PPM 489
21 T-6 0.5 1/11/2022 9:32:27 PPM 91
22 T-6 1 1/11/2022 9:34:21 PPM 22
23 T-6 1.5 1/11/2022 9:35:43 PPM 17
24 T-6 2 1/11/2022 9:38:04 PPM 12
25 T-7 0.5 1/11/2022 9:48:16 PPM 107
26 T-7 0.5 1/11/2022 9:50:06 PPM 82
27 T-7 1 1/11/2022 9:52:29 PPM 54
28 T-7 1.5 1/11/2022 9:53:59 PPM 14
29 T-7 2 1/11/2022 9:56:12 PPM 33

42.245

APPENDIX E

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS

42.246

ANALYTICAL REPORT
August 13, 2021
RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA
Sample Delivery Group: L1387682
Samples Received: 08/06/2021
Project Number: 01-POG-001
Description: Pogonip Farm and Garden
Report To: Doug Whichard
1371 Oakland Blvd.

Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Entire Report Reviewed By:

August 13, 2021
[Preliminary Report]
Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace Analytical National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures ENV-SOP-MTJL-0067 and ENV-SOP-MTJL-0068. Where sampling conducted by the customer, results relate to the accuracy of the information provided, and as the samples are received.

Pace Analytical National
12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 615-758-5858 800-767-5859 www.pacenational.com 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 1 of 43 August 13, 2021
Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 1 of 43

42.247

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cp: Cover Page 1
Tc: Table of Contents 2
Ss: Sample Summary 3
Cn: Case Narrative 7
Ds: Detection Summary 8
Sr: Sample Results 9
EM-40-0.5' L1387682-03 9
EM-40-2' L1387682-04 10
EM-39-0.5' L1387682-05 11
EM-39-2' L1387682-06 12
EM-38-0.5' L1387682-07 13
EM-38-2' L1387682-08 14
EM-37-0.5' L1387682-09 15
EM-37-2' L1387682-10 16
EM-36-0.5' L1387682-11 17
EM-36-2' L1387682-12 18
EM-34-1' L1387682-13 19
EM-34-2' L1387682-14 20
EM-35-0.5' L1387682-15 21
EM-35-2' L1387682-16 22
R-3-0.5' L1387682-17 23
R-6-0.5' L1387682-19 24
R-6-2' L1387682-20 25
R-4-0.5' L1387682-23 26
T-3-0.5' L1387682-37 27
R-7-0.5' L1387682-43 28
R-13-0.5' L1387682-53 29
R-14-0.5' L1387682-55 30
Qc: Quality Control Summary 31
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 31
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 34
Gl: Glossary of Terms 36
Al: Accreditations & Locations 37
Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 38
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 2 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 2 of 43

42.248

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-40-0.5' L1387682-03 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 09:35 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 18:54 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-40-2' L1387682-04 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 09:40 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:12 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-39-0.5' L1387682-05 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 10:05 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:16 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-39-2' L1387682-06 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 10:10 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:19 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-38-0.5' L1387682-07 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 10:45 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:39 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-38-2' L1387682-08 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 10:50 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:42 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-37-0.5' L1387682-09 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 11:15 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:46 LD Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 3 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 3 of 43

42.249

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-37-2' L1387682-10 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 11:20 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:49 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-36-0.5' L1387682-11 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 12:15 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:53 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-36-2' L1387682-12 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 12:20 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721547 1 08/12/21 15:09 08/12/21 15:19 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 19:57 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-34-1' L1387682-13 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 12:45 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:00 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-34-2' L1387682-14 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 12:50 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:04 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-35-0.5' L1387682-15 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 13:40 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:07 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-35-2' L1387682-16 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 13:45 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 10 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:51 LD Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 4 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 4 of 43

42.250

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-3-0.5' L1387682-17 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 13:15 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:22 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-6-0.5' L1387682-19 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 14:30 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:26 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-6-2' L1387682-20 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 14:35 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:29 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-4-0.5' L1387682-23 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 09:00 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:33 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
T-3-0.5' L1387682-37 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 13:05 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:36 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-7-0.5' L1387682-43 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 14:40 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721548 1 08/12/21 14:54 08/12/21 15:04 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721876 5 08/12/21 08:22 08/12/21 20:41 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-13-0.5' L1387682-53 Solid B. Angulo 08/05/21 09:10 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721549 1 08/12/21 10:34 08/12/21 10:41 CMK Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721883 5 08/12/21 08:23 08/12/21 17:25 JPD Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 5 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 5 of 43

42.251

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-14-0.5' L1387682-55 Solid B. Angulo 08/05/21 10:20 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1721549 1 08/12/21 10:34 08/12/21 10:41 CMK Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1721883 5 08/12/21 08:23 08/12/21 17:42 JPD Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 6 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 6 of 43

42.252

CASE NARRATIVE
Unless qualified or notated within the narrative below, all sample aliquots were received at the correct temperature, in the proper containers, with the appropriate preservatives, and within method specified holding times. Where applicable, all MDL (LOD) and RDL (LOQ) values reported for environmental samples have been corrected for the dilution factor used in the analysis. All Method and Batch Quality Control are within established criteria except where addressed in this case narrative, a non-conformance form or properly qualified within the sample results. By my digital signature below, I affirm to the best of my knowledge, all problems/anomalies observed by the laboratory as having the potential to affect the quality of the data have been identified by the laboratory, and no information or data have been knowingly withheld that would affect the quality of the data. [Preliminary Report]
Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
The analyte failed the method required serial dilution test and/or subsequent post-spike criteria. These failures indicate matrix interference.

Batch Lab Sample ID Analytes
WG1721876 L1387682-03 Lead
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 7 of 43 Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 7 of 43

42.253

DETECTION SUMMARY
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilutio
n
Analysis Batch
Client ID Lab Sample ID Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time EM-40-0.5' L1387682-03 Lead 323 O1 0.123 2.49 5 08/12/2021 18:54 WG1721876 EM-40-2' L1387682-04 Lead 18.6 0.105 2.12 5 08/12/2021 19:12 WG1721876 EM-39-0.5' L1387682-05 Lead 504 0.106 2.14 5 08/12/2021 19:16 WG1721876 EM-39-2' L1387682-06 Lead 220 0.114 2.31 5 08/12/2021 19:19 WG1721876 EM-38-0.5' L1387682-07 Lead 490 0.111 2.25 5 08/12/2021 19:39 WG1721876 EM-38-2' L1387682-08 Lead 41.3 0.117 2.36 5 08/12/2021 19:42 WG1721876 EM-37-0.5' L1387682-09 Lead 571 0.102 2.07 5 08/12/2021 19:46 WG1721876 EM-37-2' L1387682-10 Lead 14.7 0.107 2.17 5 08/12/2021 19:49 WG1721876 EM-36-0.5' L1387682-11 Lead 2090 0.102 2.06 5 08/12/2021 19:53 WG1721876 EM-36-2' L1387682-12 Lead 28.6 0.106 2.14 5 08/12/2021 19:57 WG1721876 EM-34-1' L1387682-13 Lead 637 0.125 2.53 5 08/12/2021 20:00 WG1721876 EM-34-2' L1387682-14 Lead 37.9 0.134 2.70 5 08/12/2021 20:04 WG1721876 EM-35-0.5' L1387682-15 Lead 1800 0.105 2.12 5 08/12/2021 20:07 WG1721876 EM-35-2' L1387682-16 Lead 5810 0.210 4.25 10 08/12/2021 20:51 WG1721876 R-3-0.5' L1387682-17 Lead 1530 0.126 2.54 5 08/12/2021 20:22 WG1721876 R-6-0.5' L1387682-19 Lead 573 0.108 2.18 5 08/12/2021 20:26 WG1721876 R-6-2' L1387682-20 Lead 341 0.106 2.13 5 08/12/2021 20:29 WG1721876 R-4-0.5' L1387682-23 Lead 1600 0.123 2.49 5 08/12/2021 20:33 WG1721876 T-3-0.5' L1387682-37 Lead 474 0.111 2.24 5 08/12/2021 20:36 WG1721876 R-7-0.5' L1387682-43 Lead 456 0.127 2.56 5 08/12/2021 20:41 WG1721876 R-13-0.5' L1387682-53 Lead 686 0.102 2.07 5 08/12/2021 17:25 WG1721883 R-14-0.5' L1387682-55 Lead 1220 0.102 2.07 5 08/12/2021 17:42 WG1721883 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 8 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 8 of 43

42.254
SAMPLE RESULTS - 03
L1387682
EM-40-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 09:35
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 80.3 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 323 O1 0.123 2.49 5 08/12/2021 18:54 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 9 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 9 of 43

42.255
SAMPLE RESULTS - 04
L1387682
EM-40-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 09:40
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 94.3 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 18.6 0.105 2.12 5 08/12/2021 19:12 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 10 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 10 of 43

42.256
SAMPLE RESULTS - 05
L1387682
EM-39-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 10:05
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 93.3 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 504 0.106 2.14 5 08/12/2021 19:16 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 11 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 11 of 43

42.257
SAMPLE RESULTS - 06
L1387682
EM-39-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 10:10
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 86.6 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 220 0.114 2.31 5 08/12/2021 19:19 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 12 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 12 of 43

42.258
SAMPLE RESULTS - 07
L1387682
EM-38-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 10:45
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 89.1 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 490 0.111 2.25 5 08/12/2021 19:39 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 13 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 13 of 43

42.259
SAMPLE RESULTS - 08
L1387682
EM-38-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 10:50
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 84.7 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 41.3 0.117 2.36 5 08/12/2021 19:42 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 14 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 14 of 43

42.260
SAMPLE RESULTS - 09
L1387682
EM-37-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 11:15
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 96.8 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 571 0.102 2.07 5 08/12/2021 19:46 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 15 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 15 of 43

42.261
SAMPLE RESULTS - 10
L1387682
EM-37-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 11:20
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 92.3 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 14.7 0.107 2.17 5 08/12/2021 19:49 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 16 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 16 of 43

42.262
SAMPLE RESULTS - 11
L1387682
EM-36-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 12:15
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 96.9 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 2090 0.102 2.06 5 08/12/2021 19:53 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 17 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 17 of 43

42.263
SAMPLE RESULTS - 12
L1387682
EM-36-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 12:20
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 93.4 1 08/12/2021 15:19 WG1721547
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 28.6 0.106 2.14 5 08/12/2021 19:57 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 18 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 18 of 43

42.264
SAMPLE RESULTS - 13
L1387682
EM-34-1'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 12:45
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 79.1 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 637 0.125 2.53 5 08/12/2021 20:00 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 19 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 19 of 43

42.265
SAMPLE RESULTS - 14
L1387682
EM-34-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 12:50
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 73.9 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 37.9 0.134 2.70 5 08/12/2021 20:04 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 20 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 20 of 43

42.266
SAMPLE RESULTS - 15
L1387682
EM-35-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 13:40
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 94.4 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 1800 0.105 2.12 5 08/12/2021 20:07 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 21 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 21 of 43

42.267
SAMPLE RESULTS - 16
L1387682
EM-35-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 13:45
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 94.1 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 5810 0.210 4.25 10 08/12/2021 20:51 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 22 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 22 of 43

42.268
SAMPLE RESULTS - 17
L1387682
R-3-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 13:15
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 78.8 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 1530 0.126 2.54 5 08/12/2021 20:22 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 23 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 23 of 43

42.269
SAMPLE RESULTS - 19
L1387682
R-6-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 14:30
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 91.5 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 573 0.108 2.18 5 08/12/2021 20:26 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 24 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 24 of 43

42.270
SAMPLE RESULTS - 20
L1387682
R-6-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 14:35
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 93.8 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 341 0.106 2.13 5 08/12/2021 20:29 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 25 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 25 of 43

42.271
SAMPLE RESULTS - 23
L1387682
R-4-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 09:00
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 80.2 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 1600 0.123 2.49 5 08/12/2021 20:33 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 26 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 26 of 43

42.272
SAMPLE RESULTS - 37
L1387682
T-3-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 13:05
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 89.1 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 474 0.111 2.24 5 08/12/2021 20:36 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 27 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 27 of 43

42.273
SAMPLE RESULTS - 43
L1387682
R-7-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 14:40
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 78.1 1 08/12/2021 15:04 WG1721548
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 456 0.127 2.56 5 08/12/2021 20:41 WG1721876
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 28 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 28 of 43

42.274
SAMPLE RESULTS - 53
L1387682
R-13-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/05/21 09:10
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 96.8 1 08/12/2021 10:41 WG1721549
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 686 0.102 2.07 5 08/12/2021 17:25 WG1721883
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 29 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 29 of 43

42.275
SAMPLE RESULTS - 55
L1387682
R-14-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/05/21 10:20
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 96.8 1 08/12/2021 10:41 WG1721549
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 1220 0.102 2.07 5 08/12/2021 17:42 WG1721883
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 30 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 30 of 43

42.276
WG1721547 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 L1387682-03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12 Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3691588-1 08/12/21 15:19
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte % % %
Total Solids 0.00100
L1387682-03 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP)
(OS) L1387682-03 08/12/21 15:19 • (DUP) R3691588-3 08/12/21 15:19 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits
Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 80.3 79.4 1 1.07 10
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3691588-2 08/12/21 15:19
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 50.0 50.0 100 85.0-115
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 31 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 31 of 43

42.277
WG1721548 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 L1387682-13,14,15,16,17,19,20,23,37,43 Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3691583-1 08/12/21 15:04
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte % % %
Total Solids 0.000
L1387682-17 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP)
(OS) L1387682-17 08/12/21 15:04 • (DUP) R3691583-3 08/12/21 15:04 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits
Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 78.8 78.4 1 0.491 10
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3691583-2 08/12/21 15:04
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 50.0 50.0 100 85.0-115
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 32 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 32 of 43

42.278
WG1721549 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 L1387682-53,55
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3691553-1 08/12/21 10:41
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte % % %
Total Solids 0.000
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3691553-2 08/12/21 10:41
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 50.0 50.0 100 85.0-115
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 33 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 33 of 43

42.279
WG1721876 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 L1387682-03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,23,37,43 Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3691487-1 08/12/21 18:47
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Lead U 0.0990 2.00
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3691487-2 08/12/21 18:50
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte mg/kg mg/kg % %
Lead 100 105 105 80.0-120
L1387682-03 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1387682-03 08/12/21 18:54 • (MS) R3691487-4 08/12/21 19:05 • (MSD) R3691487-5 08/12/21 19:08 Spike Amount
(dry)
Original Result
(dry) MS Result (dry) MSD Result (dry) MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg % % % % %
Lead 125 323 467 452 116 103 5 75.0-125 3.36 20
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 34 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 34 of 43

42.280
WG1721883 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 L1387682-53,55
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3691431-1 08/12/21 17:18
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Lead U 0.0990 2.00
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3691431-2 08/12/21 17:21
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte mg/kg mg/kg % %
Lead 100 102 102 80.0-120
L1387682-53 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1387682-53 08/12/21 17:25 • (MS) R3691431-5 08/12/21 17:35 • (MSD) R3691431-6 08/12/21 17:39 Spike Amount
(dry)
Original Result
(dry) MS Result (dry) MSD Result (dry) MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg % % % % %
Lead 103 686 803 786 113 96.3 5 75.0-125 2.19 20
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 35 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 35 of 43

42.281

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Guide to Reading and Understanding Your Laboratory Report The information below is designed to better explain the various terms used in your report of analytical results from the Laboratory. This is not intended as a comprehensive explanation, and if you have additional questions please contact your project representative.

Results Disclaimer - Information that may be provided by the customer, and contained within this report, include Permit Limits, Project Name, Sample ID, Sample Matrix, Sample Preservation, Field Blanks, Field Spikes, Field Duplicates, On-Site Data, Sampling Collection Dates/Times, and Sampling Location. Results relate to the accuracy of this information provided, and as the samples are received.

Abbreviations and Definitions
(dry) Results are reported based on the dry weight of the sample. [this will only be present on a dry report basis for soils].

MDL Method Detection Limit.

MDL (dry) Method Detection Limit.

RDL Reported Detection Limit.

RDL (dry) Reported Detection Limit.

Rec. Recovery.

RPD Relative Percent Difference.

SDG Sample Delivery Group.

U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable).

Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes reported.

Dilution
If the sample matrix contains an interfering material, the sample preparation volume or weight values differ from the standard, or if concentrations of analytes in the sample are higher than the highest limit of concentration that the laboratory can accurately report, the sample may be diluted for analysis. If a value different than 1 is used in this field, the result reported has already been corrected for this factor.

Limits
These are the target % recovery ranges or % difference value that the laboratory has historically determined as normal for the method and analyte being reported. Successful QC Sample analysis will target all analytes recovered or duplicated within these ranges.

Original Sample The non-spiked sample in the prep batch used to determine the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) from a quality control sample. The Original Sample may not be included within the reported SDG.

Qualifier
This column provides a letter and/or number designation that corresponds to additional information concerning the result reported. If a Qualifier is present, a definition per Qualifier is provided within the Glossary and Definitions page and potentially a discussion of possible implications of the Qualifier in the Case Narrative if applicable.

Result
The actual analytical final result (corrected for any sample specific characteristics) reported for your sample. If there was no measurable result returned for a specific analyte, the result in this column may state “ND” (Not Detected) or “BDL” (Below Detectable Levels). The information in the results column should always be accompanied by either an MDL (Method Detection Limit) or RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) that defines the lowest value that the laboratory could detect or report for this analyte.

Uncertainty
(Radiochemistry) Confidence level of 2 sigma.

Case Narrative (Cn)
A brief discussion about the included sample results, including a discussion of any non-conformances to protocol observed either at sample receipt by the laboratory from the field or during the analytical process. If present, there will be a section in the Case Narrative to discuss the meaning of any data qualifiers used in the report.

Quality Control
Summary (Qc)
This section of the report includes the results of the laboratory quality control analyses required by procedure or analytical methods to assist in evaluating the validity of the results reported for your samples. These analyses are not being performed on your samples typically, but on laboratory generated material.

Sample Chain of
Custody (Sc)
This is the document created in the field when your samples were initially collected. This is used to verify the time and date of collection, the person collecting the samples, and the analyses that the laboratory is requested to perform. This chain of custody also documents all persons (excluding commercial shippers) that have had control or possession of the samples from the time of collection until delivery to the laboratory for analysis.

Sample Results (Sr)
This section of your report will provide the results of all testing performed on your samples. These results are provided by sample ID and are separated by the analyses performed on each sample. The header line of each analysis section for each sample will provide the name and method number for the analysis reported.

Sample Summary (Ss) This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and times of preparation and/or analysis.

Qualifier Description
O1 The analyte failed the method required serial dilution test and/or subsequent post-spike criteria. These failures indicate matrix interference.
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 36 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 36 of 43

42.282
Pace Analytical National 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05
Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN000032021-1
Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975
Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002
California 2932 New Mexico ¹ TN00003
Colorado TN00003 New York 11742
Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375
Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹ DW21704
Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³ 41
Georgia ¹ 923 North Dakota R-140
Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069
Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915
Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002
Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979
Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356
Kentucky ¹ ⁶ KY90010 South Carolina 84004002
Kentucky ² 16 South Dakota n/a
Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴ 2006
Louisiana LA018 Texas T104704245-20-18
Maine TN00003 Texas ⁵ LAB0152
Maryland 324 Utah TN000032021-11
Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006
Michigan 9958 Virginia 110033
Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847
Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233
Missouri 340 Wisconsin 998093910
Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA
A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789
A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵ 1461.02 DOD 1461.01
Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234
EPA–Crypto TN00003

ACCREDITATIONS & LOCATIONS
¹ Drinking Water ² Underground Storage Tanks ³ Aquatic Toxicity ⁴ Chemical/Microbiological ⁵ Mold ⁶ Wastewater n/a Accreditation not applicable * Not all certifications held by the laboratory are applicable to the results reported in the attached report. * Accreditation is only applicable to the test methods specified on each scope of accreditation held by Pace Analytical. 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:24 37 of 43 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1387682 08/13/21 13:55 37 of 43

42.283

42.284

42.285

42.286

42.287

42.288

42.289

ANALYTICAL REPORT
August 24, 2021
RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA
Sample Delivery Group: L1391194
Samples Received: 08/06/2021
Project Number: 01-POG-001
Description: Pogonip Farm and Garden
Report To: Doug Whichard
1371 Oakland Blvd.

Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Entire Report Reviewed By:

August 24, 2021
[Preliminary Report]
Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace Analytical National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures ENV-SOP-MTJL-0067 and ENV-SOP-MTJL-0068. Where sampling conducted by the customer, results relate to the accuracy of the information provided, and as the samples are received.

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 1 of 38 August 25, 2021
Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 1 of 38

42.290

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cp: Cover Page 1
Tc: Table of Contents 2
Ss: Sample Summary 3
Cn: Case Narrative 6
Ds: Detection Summary 7
Sr: Sample Results 8
EM-35-2' L1391194-01 8
R-3-2' L1391194-02 9
R-1-0.5' L1391194-03 10
R-1-2' L1391194-04 11
R-4-2' L1391194-05 12
R-9-0.5' L1391194-06 13
R-9-2' L1391194-07 14
R-10-0.5' L1391194-08 15
R-10-2' L1391194-09 16
R-11-0.5' L1391194-10 17
R-11-2' L1391194-11 18
R-2-0.5' L1391194-12 19
R-2-2' L1391194-13 20
R-5-0.5' L1391194-14 21
R-5-2' L1391194-15 22
T-3-2' L1391194-16 23
R-7-2' L1391194-17 24
R-13-2' L1391194-18 25
R-14-2' L1391194-19 26
Qc: Quality Control Summary 27
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 27
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 30
Gl: Glossary of Terms 31
Al: Accreditations & Locations 32
Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 33
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 2 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 2 of 38

42.291

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
EM-35-2' L1391194-01 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 13:45 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726941 1 08/23/21 11:45 08/23/21 11:50 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 16:06 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-3-2' L1391194-02 Solid B. Angulo 08/03/21 13:20 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726941 1 08/23/21 11:45 08/23/21 11:50 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 16:09 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-1-0.5' L1391194-03 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 07:45 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726941 1 08/23/21 11:45 08/23/21 11:50 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 16:13 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-1-2' L1391194-04 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 07:50 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 16:45 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-4-2' L1391194-05 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 09:05 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 16:49 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-9-0.5' L1391194-06 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 09:20 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 16:52 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-9-2' L1391194-07 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 09:25 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 16:56 LD Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 3 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 3 of 38

42.292

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-10-0.5' L1391194-08 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 09:35 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:00 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-10-2' L1391194-09 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 09:40 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:03 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-11-0.5' L1391194-10 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 10:00 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:07 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-11-2' L1391194-11 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 10:10 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:11 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-2-0.5' L1391194-12 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 10:55 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:15 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-2-2' L1391194-13 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 11:00 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726943 1 08/23/21 11:35 08/23/21 11:41 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 15:47 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-5-0.5' L1391194-14 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 11:30 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726944 1 08/23/21 11:28 08/23/21 11:34 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:19 LD Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 4 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 4 of 38

42.293

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-5-2' L1391194-15 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 11:35 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726944 1 08/23/21 11:28 08/23/21 11:34 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:36 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
T-3-2' L1391194-16 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 13:10 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726944 1 08/23/21 11:28 08/23/21 11:34 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:40 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-7-2' L1391194-17 Solid B. Angulo 08/04/21 14:45 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726944 1 08/23/21 11:28 08/23/21 11:34 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:43 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-13-2' L1391194-18 Solid B. Angulo 08/05/21 09:15 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726944 1 08/23/21 11:28 08/23/21 11:34 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:47 LD Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
R-14-2' L1391194-19 Solid B. Angulo 08/05/21 10:30 08/06/21 11:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1726944 1 08/23/21 11:28 08/23/21 11:34 KDW Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1724688 5 08/18/21 08:03 08/23/21 17:51 LD Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 5 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 5 of 38

42.294

Batch Lab Sample ID Analytes
WG1724688 L1391194-13 Lead
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 6 of 38 Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 6 of 38

42.295

DETECTION SUMMARY
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilutio
n
Analysis Batch
Client ID Lab Sample ID Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time EM-35-2' L1391194-01 Lead 198 0.106 2.15 5 08/23/2021 16:06 WG1724688 R-3-2' L1391194-02 Lead 31.4 0.127 2.57 5 08/23/2021 16:09 WG1724688 R-1-0.5' L1391194-03 Lead 400 0.132 2.67 5 08/23/2021 16:13 WG1724688 R-1-2' L1391194-04 Lead 61.5 0.122 2.47 5 08/23/2021 16:45 WG1724688 R-4-2' L1391194-05 Lead 23.7 0.119 2.40 5 08/23/2021 16:49 WG1724688 R-9-0.5' L1391194-06 Lead 256 0.126 2.54 5 08/23/2021 16:52 WG1724688 R-9-2' L1391194-07 Lead 6.59 0.122 2.46 5 08/23/2021 16:56 WG1724688 R-10-0.5' L1391194-08 Lead 94.0 0.120 2.43 5 08/23/2021 17:00 WG1724688 R-10-2' L1391194-09 Lead 12.5 0.129 2.60 5 08/23/2021 17:03 WG1724688 R-11-0.5' L1391194-10 Lead 75.7 0.105 2.12 5 08/23/2021 17:07 WG1724688 R-11-2' L1391194-11 Lead 23.3 0.106 2.13 5 08/23/2021 17:11 WG1724688 R-2-0.5' L1391194-12 Lead 215 0.105 2.12 5 08/23/2021 17:15 WG1724688 R-2-2' L1391194-13 Lead 8.80 O1 0.110 2.23 5 08/23/2021 15:47 WG1724688 R-5-0.5' L1391194-14 Lead 9.86 0.104 2.10 5 08/23/2021 17:19 WG1724688 R-5-2' L1391194-15 Lead 17.9 0.107 2.17 5 08/23/2021 17:36 WG1724688 T-3-2' L1391194-16 Lead 8.15 0.112 2.26 5 08/23/2021 17:40 WG1724688 R-7-2' L1391194-17 Lead 66.0 0.122 2.46 5 08/23/2021 17:43 WG1724688 R-13-2' L1391194-18 Lead 31.9 0.104 2.10 5 08/23/2021 17:47 WG1724688 R-14-2' L1391194-19 Lead 10.9 0.112 2.26 5 08/23/2021 17:51 WG1724688 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 7 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 7 of 38

42.296
SAMPLE RESULTS - 01
L1391194
EM-35-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 13:45
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 93.2 1 08/23/2021 11:50 WG1726941
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 198 0.106 2.15 5 08/23/2021 16:06 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 8 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 8 of 38

42.297
SAMPLE RESULTS - 02
L1391194
R-3-2'
Collected date/time: 08/03/21 13:20
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 77.9 1 08/23/2021 11:50 WG1726941
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 31.4 0.127 2.57 5 08/23/2021 16:09 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 9 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 9 of 38

42.298
SAMPLE RESULTS - 03
L1391194
R-1-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 07:45
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 74.9 1 08/23/2021 11:50 WG1726941
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 400 0.132 2.67 5 08/23/2021 16:13 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 10 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 10 of 38

42.299
SAMPLE RESULTS - 04
L1391194
R-1-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 07:50
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 80.8 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 61.5 0.122 2.47 5 08/23/2021 16:45 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 11 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 11 of 38

42.300
SAMPLE RESULTS - 05
L1391194
R-4-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 09:05
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 83.3 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 23.7 0.119 2.40 5 08/23/2021 16:49 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 12 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 12 of 38

42.301
SAMPLE RESULTS - 06
L1391194
R-9-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 09:20
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 78.7 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 256 0.126 2.54 5 08/23/2021 16:52 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 13 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 13 of 38

42.302
SAMPLE RESULTS - 07
L1391194
R-9-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 09:25
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 81.4 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 6.59 0.122 2.46 5 08/23/2021 16:56 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 14 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 14 of 38

42.303
SAMPLE RESULTS - 08
L1391194
R-10-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 09:35
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 82.2 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 94.0 0.120 2.43 5 08/23/2021 17:00 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 15 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 15 of 38

42.304
SAMPLE RESULTS - 09
L1391194
R-10-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 09:40
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 76.9 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 12.5 0.129 2.60 5 08/23/2021 17:03 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 16 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 16 of 38

42.305
SAMPLE RESULTS - 10
L1391194
R-11-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 10:00
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 94.3 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 75.7 0.105 2.12 5 08/23/2021 17:07 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 17 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 17 of 38

42.306
SAMPLE RESULTS - 11
L1391194
R-11-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 10:10
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 93.8 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 23.3 0.106 2.13 5 08/23/2021 17:11 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 18 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 18 of 38

42.307
SAMPLE RESULTS - 12
L1391194
R-2-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 10:55
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 94.4 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 215 0.105 2.12 5 08/23/2021 17:15 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 19 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 19 of 38

42.308
SAMPLE RESULTS - 13
L1391194
R-2-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 11:00
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 89.7 1 08/23/2021 11:41 WG1726943
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 8.80 O1 0.110 2.23 5 08/23/2021 15:47 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 20 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 20 of 38

42.309
SAMPLE RESULTS - 14
L1391194
R-5-0.5'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 11:30
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 95.4 1 08/23/2021 11:34 WG1726944
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 9.86 0.104 2.10 5 08/23/2021 17:19 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 21 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 21 of 38

42.310
SAMPLE RESULTS - 15
L1391194
R-5-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 11:35
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 92.4 1 08/23/2021 11:34 WG1726944
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 17.9 0.107 2.17 5 08/23/2021 17:36 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 22 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 22 of 38

42.311
SAMPLE RESULTS - 16
L1391194
T-3-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 13:10
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 88.5 1 08/23/2021 11:34 WG1726944
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 8.15 0.112 2.26 5 08/23/2021 17:40 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 23 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 23 of 38

42.312
SAMPLE RESULTS - 17
L1391194
R-7-2'
Collected date/time: 08/04/21 14:45
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 81.1 1 08/23/2021 11:34 WG1726944
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 66.0 0.122 2.46 5 08/23/2021 17:43 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 24 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 24 of 38

42.313
SAMPLE RESULTS - 18
L1391194
R-13-2'
Collected date/time: 08/05/21 09:15
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 95.1 1 08/23/2021 11:34 WG1726944
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 31.9 0.104 2.10 5 08/23/2021 17:47 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 25 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 25 of 38

42.314
SAMPLE RESULTS - 19
L1391194
R-14-2'
Collected date/time: 08/05/21 10:30
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 88.4 1 08/23/2021 11:34 WG1726944
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 10.9 0.112 2.26 5 08/23/2021 17:51 WG1724688
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 26 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 26 of 38

42.315
WG1726941 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 L1391194-01,02,03
Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3695514-1 08/23/21 11:50
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte % % %
Total Solids 0.00100
L1391123-01 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP)
(OS) L1391123-01 08/23/21 11:50 • (DUP) R3695514-3 08/23/21 11:50 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits
Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 94.2 94.1 1 0.0551 10
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3695514-2 08/23/21 11:50
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 50.0 50.0 100 85.0-115
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 27 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 27 of 38

42.316
WG1726943 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 L1391194-04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13 Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3695512-1 08/23/21 11:41
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte % % %
Total Solids 0.000
L1391194-12 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP)
(OS) L1391194-12 08/23/21 11:41 • (DUP) R3695512-3 08/23/21 11:41 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits
Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 94.4 94.0 1 0.481 10
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3695512-2 08/23/21 11:41
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 50.0 50.0 100 85.0-115
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 28 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 28 of 38

42.317
WG1726944 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 L1391194-14,15,16,17,18,19 Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3695511-1 08/23/21 11:34
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte % % %
Total Solids 0.00100
L1391194-14 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP)
(OS) L1391194-14 08/23/21 11:34 • (DUP) R3695511-3 08/23/21 11:34 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits
Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 95.4 95.4 1 0.0336 10
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3695511-2 08/23/21 11:34
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 50.0 50.0 100 85.0-115
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 29 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 29 of 38

42.318
WG1724688 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 L1391194-01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3695415-1 08/23/21 15:39
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Lead U 0.0990 2.00
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3695415-2 08/23/21 15:43
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte mg/kg mg/kg % %
Lead 100 96.1 96.1 80.0-120
L1391194-13 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1391194-13 08/23/21 15:47 • (MS) R3695415-5 08/23/21 15:58 • (MSD) R3695415-6 08/23/21 16:02 Spike Amount
(dry)
Original Result
(dry) MS Result (dry) MSD Result (dry) MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg % % % % %
Lead 111 8.80 135 136 113 114 5 75.0-125 1.16 20
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 30 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 30 of 38

42.319

Abbreviations and Definitions
(dry) Results are reported based on the dry weight of the sample. [this will only be present on a dry report basis for soils].

MDL Method Detection Limit.

MDL (dry) Method Detection Limit.

RDL Reported Detection Limit.

RDL (dry) Reported Detection Limit.

Rec. Recovery.

RPD Relative Percent Difference.

SDG Sample Delivery Group.

U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable).

Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes reported.

Uncertainty
(Radiochemistry) Confidence level of 2 sigma.

Sample Summary (Ss) This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and times of preparation and/or analysis.

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 31 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 31 of 38

42.320
Pace Analytical National 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05
Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN000032021-1
Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975
Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002
California 2932 New Mexico ¹ TN00003
Colorado TN00003 New York 11742
Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375
Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹ DW21704
Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³ 41
Georgia ¹ 923 North Dakota R-140
Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069
Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915
Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002
Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979
Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356
Kentucky ¹ ⁶ KY90010 South Carolina 84004002
Kentucky ² 16 South Dakota n/a
Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴ 2006
Louisiana LA018 Texas T104704245-20-18
Maine TN00003 Texas ⁵ LAB0152
Maryland 324 Utah TN000032021-11
Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006
Michigan 9958 Virginia 110033
Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847
Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233
Missouri 340 Wisconsin 998093910
Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA
A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789
A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵ 1461.02 DOD 1461.01
Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234
EPA–Crypto TN00003

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/24/21 16:42 32 of 38 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1391194 08/25/21 08:05 32 of 38

42.321

42.322

42.323

42.324

42.325

42.326

42.327

ANALYTICAL REPORT
January 24, 2022
RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA
Sample Delivery Group: L1451658
Samples Received: 01/14/2022
Project Number: 01-POG-001
Description: Pogonip Farm and Garden
Report To: Doug Whichard
1371 Oakland Blvd.

Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Entire Report Reviewed By:

January 24, 2022
[Preliminary Report]
Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace Analytical National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures ENV-SOP-MTJL-0067 and ENV-SOP-MTJL-0068. Where sampling conducted by the customer, results relate to the accuracy of the information provided, and as the samples are received.

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 1 of 16 January 24, 2022
Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 1 of 16

42.328

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cp: Cover Page 1
Tc: Table of Contents 2
Ss: Sample Summary 3
Cn: Case Narrative 4
Ds: Detection Summary 5
Sr: Sample Results 6
T-5-0.5' L1451658-03 6
T-5-2' L1451658-04 7
T-6-0.5' L1451658-05 8
T-6-2' L1451658-06 9
T-7-0.5' L1451658-07 10
T-7-2' L1451658-08 11
Qc: Quality Control Summary 12
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 12
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 13
Gl: Glossary of Terms 14
Al: Accreditations & Locations 15
Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 16
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 2 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 2 of 16

42.329

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
T-5-0.5' L1451658-03 Solid B. Angulo 01/11/22 09:10 01/14/22 08:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1803687 1 01/18/22 17:03 01/18/22 17:23 CMK Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1803304 5 01/17/22 15:03 01/21/22 17:11 JDG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
T-5-2' L1451658-04 Solid B. Angulo 01/11/22 09:15 01/14/22 08:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1803687 1 01/18/22 17:03 01/18/22 17:23 CMK Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1803304 5 01/17/22 15:03 01/21/22 17:28 JDG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
T-6-0.5' L1451658-05 Solid B. Angulo 01/11/22 09:40 01/14/22 08:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1803687 1 01/18/22 17:03 01/18/22 17:23 CMK Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1803304 5 01/17/22 15:03 01/21/22 17:32 JDG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
T-6-2' L1451658-06 Solid B. Angulo 01/11/22 09:45 01/14/22 08:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1803687 1 01/18/22 17:03 01/18/22 17:23 CMK Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1803304 5 01/17/22 15:03 01/21/22 17:36 JDG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
T-7-0.5' L1451658-07 Solid B. Angulo 01/11/22 09:55 01/14/22 08:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1803687 1 01/18/22 17:03 01/18/22 17:23 CMK Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1803304 5 01/17/22 15:03 01/21/22 17:46 JDG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time
T-7-2' L1451658-08 Solid B. Angulo 01/11/22 10:00 01/14/22 08:00 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 WG1803687 1 01/18/22 17:03 01/18/22 17:23 CMK Mt. Juliet, TN Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 WG1803304 5 01/17/22 15:03 01/21/22 17:50 JDG Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 3 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 3 of 16

42.330

CASE NARRATIVE
Unless qualified or notated within the narrative below, all sample aliquots were received at the correct temperature, in the proper containers, with the appropriate preservatives, and within method specified holding times. Where applicable, all MDL (LOD) and RDL (LOQ) values reported for environmental samples have been corrected for the dilution factor used in the analysis. All Method and Batch Quality Control are within established criteria except where addressed in this case narrative, a non-conformance form or properly qualified within the sample results. By my digital signature below, I affirm to the best of my knowledge, all problems/anomalies observed by the laboratory as having the potential to affect the quality of the data have been identified by the laboratory, and no information or data have been knowingly withheld that would affect the quality of the data. [Preliminary Report]
Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 4 of 16 Jordan N Zito
Project Manager
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 4 of 16

42.331

DETECTION SUMMARY
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilutio
n
Analysis Batch
Client ID Lab Sample ID Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time T-5-0.5' L1451658-03 Lead 159 0.113 2.29 5 01/21/2022 17:11 WG1803304 T-5-2' L1451658-04 Lead 7.07 0.118 2.38 5 01/21/2022 17:28 WG1803304 T-6-0.5' L1451658-05 Lead 187 0.120 2.42 5 01/21/2022 17:32 WG1803304 T-6-2' L1451658-06 Lead 9.42 0.120 2.42 5 01/21/2022 17:36 WG1803304 T-7-0.5' L1451658-07 Lead 153 0.120 2.43 5 01/21/2022 17:46 WG1803304 T-7-2' L1451658-08 Lead 8.92 0.109 2.20 5 01/21/2022 17:50 WG1803304 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 5 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 5 of 16

42.332
SAMPLE RESULTS - 03
L1451658
T-5-0.5'
Collected date/time: 01/11/22 09:10
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 87.4 1 01/18/2022 17:23 WG1803687
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 159 0.113 2.29 5 01/21/2022 17:11 WG1803304
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 6 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 6 of 16

42.333
SAMPLE RESULTS - 04
L1451658
T-5-2'
Collected date/time: 01/11/22 09:15
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 84.0 1 01/18/2022 17:23 WG1803687
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 7.07 0.118 2.38 5 01/21/2022 17:28 WG1803304
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 7 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 7 of 16

42.334
SAMPLE RESULTS - 05
L1451658
T-6-0.5'
Collected date/time: 01/11/22 09:40
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 82.7 1 01/18/2022 17:23 WG1803687
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 187 0.120 2.42 5 01/21/2022 17:32 WG1803304
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 8 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 8 of 16

42.335
SAMPLE RESULTS - 06
L1451658
T-6-2'
Collected date/time: 01/11/22 09:45
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 82.8 1 01/18/2022 17:23 WG1803687
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 9.42 0.120 2.42 5 01/21/2022 17:36 WG1803304
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 9 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 9 of 16

42.336
SAMPLE RESULTS - 07
L1451658
T-7-0.5'
Collected date/time: 01/11/22 09:55
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 82.4 1 01/18/2022 17:23 WG1803687
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 153 0.120 2.43 5 01/21/2022 17:46 WG1803304
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 10 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 10 of 16

42.337
SAMPLE RESULTS - 08
L1451658
T-7-2'
Collected date/time: 01/11/22 10:00
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011
Result Qualifier Dilution Analysis Batch
Analyte % date / time
Total Solids 90.8 1 01/18/2022 17:23 WG1803687
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020
Result (dry) Qualifier MDL (dry) RDL (dry) Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg date / time
Lead 8.92 0.109 2.20 5 01/21/2022 17:50 WG1803304
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 11 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 11 of 16

42.338
WG1803687 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Total Solids by Method 2540 G-2011 L1451658-03,04,05,06,07,08 Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3751369-1 01/18/22 17:23
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte % % %
Total Solids 0.000
L1451658-04 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP)
(OS) L1451658-04 01/18/22 17:23 • (DUP) R3751369-3 01/18/22 17:23 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits
Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 84.0 81.8 1 2.69 10
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3751369-2 01/18/22 17:23
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte % % % %
Total Solids 50.0 49.0 98.0 85.0-115
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 12 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 12 of 16

42.339
WG1803304 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY
Metals (ICPMS) by Method 6020 L1451658-03,04,05,06,07,08 Method Blank (MB)
(MB) R3752474-1 01/21/22 17:03
MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL
Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Lead U 0.0990 2.00
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
(LCS) R3752474-2 01/21/22 17:07
Spike Amount LCS Result LCS Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier Analyte mg/kg mg/kg % %
Lead 100 103 103 80.0-120
L1451658-03 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1451658-03 01/21/22 17:11 • (MS) R3752474-5 01/21/22 17:21 • (MSD) R3752474-6 01/21/22 17:25 Spike Amount
(dry)
Original Result
(dry) MS Result (dry) MSD Result (dry) MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg % % % % %
Lead 114 159 269 263 95.9 91.3 5 75.0-125 1.99 20
1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 13 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 13 of 16

42.340

Abbreviations and Definitions
(dry) Results are reported based on the dry weight of the sample. [this will only be present on a dry report basis for soils].

MDL Method Detection Limit.

MDL (dry) Method Detection Limit.

RDL Reported Detection Limit.

RDL (dry) Reported Detection Limit.

Rec. Recovery.

RPD Relative Percent Difference.

SDG Sample Delivery Group.

U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable).

Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes reported.

Uncertainty
(Radiochemistry) Confidence level of 2 sigma.

Sample Summary (Ss) This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and times of preparation and/or analysis.

Qualifier Description
The remainder of this page intentionally left blank, there are no qualifiers applied to this SDG. 1 Cp
2 Tc
3 Ss
4 Cn
5 Ds
6 Sr
7 Qc
8 Gl
9 Al
10 Sc
ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 14 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 14 of 16

42.341
Pace Analytical National 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05
Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN000032021-1
Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975
Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002
California 2932 New Mexico ¹ TN00003
Colorado TN00003 New York 11742
Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375
Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹ DW21704
Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³ 41
Georgia ¹ 923 North Dakota R-140
Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069
Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915
Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002
Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979
Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356
Kentucky ¹ ⁶ KY90010 South Carolina 84004002
Kentucky ² 16 South Dakota n/a
Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴ 2006
Louisiana LA018 Texas T104704245-20-18
Maine TN00003 Texas ⁵ LAB0152
Maryland 324 Utah TN000032021-11
Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006
Michigan 9958 Virginia 110033
Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847
Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233
Missouri 340 Wisconsin 998093910
Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA
A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789
A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵ 1461.02 DOD 1461.01
Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234
EPA–Crypto TN00003

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:52 15 of 16 ACCOUNT: PROJECT: SDG: DATE/TIME: PAGE:

RMD Environmental - Walnut Creek, CA 01-POG-001 L1451658 01/24/22 12:57 15 of 16

42.342

42.343

APPENDIX F

LEAD MODEL SPREADSHEETS

42.344

EAST MEADOW

42.345

Page 1 of 4 ends

Summary of ProUCL Output
East Meadow Surface Soil (0 to 1.5 feet bgs)
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 6.12 Mean 353.1
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 42 Number of Distinct Observations 42 Coefficient of Variation 1.469 Skewness 1.958
Maximum 2090 Median 105.1
SD 518.6 Std. Error of Mean 80.03
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.257 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.135 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.677 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.942 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level 95% Student's-t UCL 487.8 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 510.6 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 491.8
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
5% A-D Critical Value 0.815 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.171 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 1.416 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.492 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.473
5% K-S Critical Value 0.144 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 353.1 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 513.6 Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 26.26
Theta hat (MLE) 717.9 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 747.2 nu hat (MLE) 41.32 nu star (bias corrected) 39.7
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 533.7 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 541.8 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0443 Adjusted Chi Square Value 25.87 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.942 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.133 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.853 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.135 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

42.346

Page 2 of 4 ends

Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 1.812 Mean of logged Data 4.572
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 1299 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 980.5
Maximum of Logged Data 7.645 SD of logged Data 1.811
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1219 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1550 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2200
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 511 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 485.9 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 509.6
95% CLT UCL 484.7 95% Jackknife UCL 487.8
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 479.4 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 531.9 Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 701.9
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 593.2 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 701.9

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 852.9 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1149 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

42.347

Page 3 of 4 ends

Summary of ProUCL Output
East Meadow Shallow Soil (>1.5 to 2 feet bgs)
General Statistics
Minimum 9.26 Mean 62.49
Maximum 220 Median 38.15
Total Number of Observations 22 Number of Distinct Observations 21 Number of Missing Observations 0
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.79 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
SD 61.55 Std. Error of Mean 13.12
Coefficient of Variation 0.985 Skewness 1.478
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.184 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.911 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.239 Lilliefors GOF Test
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 85.76
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 85.07 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 88.49 K-S Test Statistic 0.147 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.189 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.586 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.763 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Theta hat (MLE) 47.62 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 53.7 nu hat (MLE) 57.75 nu star (bias corrected) 51.2
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.312 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.164
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0386 Adjusted Chi Square Value 34.81 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 62.49 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 57.93 Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 35.77
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.962 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50) 89.45 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 91.93 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.184 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.911 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.094 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test

42.348

Page 4 of 4 ends

Maximum of Logged Data 5.394 SD of logged Data 0.949
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 2.226 Mean of logged Data 3.708
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 123.4 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 149.9 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 202
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 107.6 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 104.3
95% CLT UCL 84.07 95% Jackknife UCL 85.07
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 83.69 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 90.7 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 101.9 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 119.7

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 144.4 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 193.1 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 88.78 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 83.94 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 86.14
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 91.93

42.349
RAVINE

42.350

Page 1 of 4 ends

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.151 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.908 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 1145 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 1273 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.029 Adjusted Chi Square Value 8.217 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 593 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 691.5 Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 9.136
Theta hat (MLE) 654.3 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 806.5 nu hat (MLE) 21.75 nu star (bias corrected) 17.65
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.906 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.735
K-S Test Statistic 0.117 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.253 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.191 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.76 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 891.2
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 883.9 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 906.6 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.184 Lilliefors GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.858 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test SD 561.1 Std. Error of Mean 162
Coefficient of Variation 0.946 Skewness 0.944
Normal GOF Test
Summary of ProUCL Output
Ravine Surface Soil (0 to 1.5 feet bgs)
General Statistics
Minimum 9.86 Mean 593
Maximum 1600 Median 428
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 12 Number of Missing Observations 0

42.351

Page 2 of 4 ends

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

When a data set follows an approximate (e.g., normal) distribution passing one of the GOF test When applicable, it is suggested to use a UCL based upon a distribution (e.g., gamma) passing both GOF tests in ProUCL Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 883.9
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1079 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1299

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1605 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2205 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 898.4 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 859.8 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 929.2
95% CLT UCL 859.4 95% Jackknife UCL 883.9
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 852 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 1004 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2382 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3072 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4427
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 5038 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1884
Maximum of Logged Data 7.378 SD of logged Data 1.471
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 2.288 Mean of logged Data 5.741

42.352

Page 3 of 4 ends

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.179 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.922 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 105.1 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 117.4 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.029 Adjusted Chi Square Value 7.429 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 52.96 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 63.92 Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 8.299
Theta hat (MLE) 62.95 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 77.14 nu hat (MLE) 20.19 nu star (bias corrected) 16.48
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.841 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.687
5% K-S Critical Value 0.254 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
5% A-D Critical Value 0.762 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.27 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.995 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 95% Student's-t UCL 101 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 123.5 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 105.2
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.361 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.504 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Coefficient of Variation 1.751 Skewness 3.21
Maximum 341 Median 23.5
SD 92.73 Std. Error of Mean 26.77
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 6.59 Mean 52.96
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 12 Summary of ProUCL Output
Ravine Shallow Soil (>1.5 to 2 feet bgs)

42.353

Page 4 of 4 ends

Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 169.6
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 133.3 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 169.6

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 220.1 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 319.3 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 244.4 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 104.4 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 139
95% CLT UCL 96.99 95% Jackknife UCL 101
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 96.48 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 243.7 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 108.1 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 135.9 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 190.5
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 127.4 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 88.11
Maximum of Logged Data 5.832 SD of logged Data 1.08
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 1.886 Mean of logged Data 3.269

42.354

NORTH ORCHARD

42.355

Page 1 of 4 ends

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.177 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.914 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50) 275 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 311.5 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.029 Adjusted Chi Square Value 5.617 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 127.8 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 169.2 Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 6.362
Theta hat (MLE) 186.1 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 223.9 nu hat (MLE) 16.48 nu star (bias corrected) 13.69
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.687 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.571
5% K-S Critical Value 0.256 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 5% A-D Critical Value 0.77 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.231 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.682 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 95% Student's-t UCL 228.9 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 264.2 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 235.8
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.274 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.243 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.652 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Coefficient of Variation 1.527 Skewness 2.522
Maximum 690 Median 34.9
SD 195.1 Std. Error of Mean 56.32
Minimum 10.5 Mean 127.8
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 12 Summary of ProUCL Output
North Orchard Surface Soil (0 to 1.5 feet bgs)
Number of Missing Observations 0

42.356

Page 2 of 4 ends

Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 311.5
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 296.7 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 373.3

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 479.5 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 688.2 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 570.1 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 225.7 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 273.9
95% CLT UCL 220.4 95% Jackknife UCL 228.9
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 215.8 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 356.6 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 343.9 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 441.1 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 632.1
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 608.8 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 273.8
Maximum of Logged Data 6.537 SD of logged Data 1.372
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 2.351 Mean of logged Data 3.968

42.357

Page 3 of 4 ends

Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 51.01 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 95.87 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0086 Adjusted Chi Square Value 1.033 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 15.06 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 18.57 Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 1.942
Theta hat (MLE) 11.49 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 22.89 nu hat (MLE) 13.11 nu star (bias corrected) 6.578
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 1.311 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.658
K-S Test Statistic 0.301 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test 5% K-S Critical Value 0.363 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.505 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 5% A-D Critical Value 0.688 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 32.73
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 31.58 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 35.17 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.343 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.327 Lilliefors GOF Test
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.723 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.

For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).

Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1 SD 17.33 Std. Error of Mean 7.749
Coefficient of Variation 1.151 Skewness 1.988
Minimum 3.97 Mean 15.06
Maximum 45.3 Median 6.55
Total Number of Observations 5 Number of Distinct Observations 5 Number of Missing Observations 0
Summary of ProUCL Output
North Orchard Shallow Soil (>1.5 to 2 feet bgs)
General Statistics

42.358

Page 4 of 4 ends

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 31.58
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 38.31 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 48.84

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 63.46 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 92.17 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 130.2 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 29.28 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 31.08
95% CLT UCL 27.81 95% Jackknife UCL 31.58
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 26.43 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 156.9 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 39.47 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 50.49 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 72.13
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 159.2 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 31.53
Maximum of Logged Data 3.813 SD of logged Data 0.97
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 1.379 Mean of logged Data 2.285
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.343 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.762 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.262 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.898 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test

42.359

WEST MEADOW

42.360

Page 1 of 4 ends

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.161 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.926 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0957 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.962 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50) 159.1 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 163.2 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0407 Adjusted Chi Square Value 25.14 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 104.9 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 127.8 Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 25.79
Theta hat (MLE) 144.4 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 155.6 nu hat (MLE) 42.14 nu star (bias corrected) 39.11
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 0.727 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.674
5% K-S Critical Value 0.169 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level 5% A-D Critical Value 0.786 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.164 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 1.385 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 95% Student's-t UCL 175.8 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 213.2 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 182
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.33 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.161 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.4 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.926 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Coefficient of Variation 2.139 Skewness 4.803
Maximum 1230 Median 39.1
SD 224.5 Std. Error of Mean 41.68
Minimum 6.16 Mean 104.9
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 29 Number of Distinct Observations 28 Summary of ProUCL Output
West Meadow Surface Soil (0 to 1.5 feet bgs)
Number of Missing Observations 0

42.361

Page 2 of 4 ends

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 163.2
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 230 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 286.6

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 365.2 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 519.7 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 419.5 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 182.2 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 228.2
95% CLT UCL 173.5 95% Jackknife UCL 175.8
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 170.8 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 328.4 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 190.4 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 234.2 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 320.4
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 169.4 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 158.8
Maximum of Logged Data 7.115 SD of logged Data 1.184
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 1.818 Mean of logged Data 3.826

42.362

Page 3 of 4 ends

Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 38.01 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 44.68 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0158 Adjusted Chi Square Value 14.5 MLE Mean (bias corrected) 23.01 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 16.23 Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 17.04
Theta hat (MLE) 6.866 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 11.45 nu hat (MLE) 46.93 nu star (bias corrected) 28.15
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 3.352 k star (bias corrected MLE) 2.011
5% K-S Critical Value 0.313 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 5% A-D Critical Value 0.711 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic 0.245 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic 0.503 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test 95% Student's-t UCL 33.78 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 34.74 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 34.18
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.258 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.828 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Note: Sample size is small (e.g., <10), if data are collected using ISM approach, you should use guidance provided in ITRC Tech Reg Guide on ISM (ITRC, 2012) to compute statistics of interest.

For example, you may want to use Chebyshev UCL to estimate EPC (ITRC, 2012).

Chebyshev UCL can be computed using the Nonparametric and All UCL Options of ProUCL 5.1 Coefficient of Variation 0.637 Skewness 1.167
Maximum 49 Median 15.9
SD 14.65 Std. Error of Mean 5.539
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 11.1 Mean 23.01
West Meadow Surface Soil (>1.5 to 2 feet bgs)
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 7 Number of Distinct Observations 7 Summary of ProUCL Output

42.363

Page 4 of 4 ends

Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 33.78
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 39.63 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 47.16

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 57.6 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 78.12 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 52.74 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 31.5 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 33.09
95% CLT UCL 32.12 95% Jackknife UCL 33.78
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 31.45 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 50.28 Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 44.89 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 54.46 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 73.28
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 44.07 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 37.99
Maximum of Logged Data 3.892 SD of logged Data 0.587
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 2.407 Mean of logged Data 2.98
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.304 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.803 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.213 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.883 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test

42.364
County of Santa Cruz
Health Services Agency  Environmental Health
701 Ocean Street, Room 312, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 454-2022 TDD/TTY -Call 711 www.scceh.com
[email protected]
March 25, 2022
City of Santa Cruz
Parks and Recreations Department
c/o Noah Downing
323 Church Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
EMAIL: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Response to Revised Additional Soil Investigation Report and Human Health Evaluation, Pogonip Open Space (GeoTracker Global ID T1000018646), 501 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz, CA
Dear Mr. Downing:

The County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Division (CSCEHD) and our third-party toxicologist, Huntley Environmental, has reviewed the following document for the subject site: (1) Revised Additional Soil Investigation Report and Human Health Screening Evaluation (dated February 17, 2022 by RMD Environmental Solutions [RMD]). Thank you for the submittal. The report was revised to meet our requirements in our letter dated December 15, 2021.

A technical memorandum was prepared by Huntley Environmental and is attached to this letter. Please note that Huntley Environmental is not authorized to perform additional activities or discuss this case without the approval and involvement of our agency; therefore, any questions or responses to the comments made by Huntley Environmental must be directed to our agency.

Signs are currently placed in areas where lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) exceed site-specific recreational screening levels in site soils to alert Pogonip visitors of the potential threat to their health should they venture beyond the sign’s placement. The City of Santa Cruz has reported City staff has discussed the site health hazards with unhoused individuals sheltering in the ravine.

This letter presents our response.
• Our intention was to have your consultant present an unrestricted land use screening level for a trespasser scenario to represent the unhoused population inhabiting the ravine. In our view, the proposed hypothetical unauthorized camper receptor screening level for lead and PAHs did not use the appropriate exposure frequency and is not representative of the exposure frequency of the unhoused population sheltering in the ravine nor protective of human health.

Additionally, the LeadSpread8 calculation to determine the proposed hypothetical unauthorized camper receptor screening level for lead contained errors. Please review Comments 3, 4, and 5 of the attached technical memorandum and revise this site-specific receptor screening level for lead and PAHs accordingly.

42.365
2 • Please use the Leadspread9 model to update all site-specific lead screening levels. Comment 1 of the technical memorandum provides a further explanation of this update. • A surface water assessment is required at the site to evaluate the potential of chemicals of concern in soil being transported to water. The revised report will need to discuss the seasonal presence of surface water at the site and include methodology to collect surface water when present. Sampling of the surface water should not be put on an immediate time frame as surface water at the site is seasonal.
• Email correspondence between our Agency and RMD dated March 3, 2022, indicates the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SF-RWQCB) Environmental Screening Level (ESL) of 160 mg/kg for construction workers would be used as a screening level for potential construction activities at the site.
• On Figure 6, RMD’s delineation of “approximate area exceeding polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon screening levels for unrestricted land use” is not supported with analytical data.

Additional delineation of PAH in soils around WM-C-11 and the depicted wetlands is required. • Lead in soil is not fully delineated southeast of T-5, southwest of T-7, and west of WM-17. Lead in soil was detected at concentrations above unrestricted land use screening levels in soil samples collected from these borings at a depth of 0.5 feet below grade. Additional soil sampling in these areas is required to delineate the extent of lead in soil. • Our Agency must review and approve a workplan for the additional soil sampling and surface water assessment prior to commencing fieldwork. The workplan may be included in your revised report or submitted as a separate document.
• In accordance with Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, you are required to complete Electronic Submittal of Information (ESI) reporting for all applicable documents and data, including data in Electronic Deliverable Format (EDF), to the SWRCB GeoTracker electronic data management system. Refer to the GeoTracker web page for electronic reporting requirements at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/electronic_submittal/index.shtml.

You are responsible for submitting the revised report along with a workplan for surface water sampling and additional PAH soil sampling to our Agency and GeoTracker by May 27, 2022. The copy for our agency should be submitted electronically directly to my email ([email protected]).

42.366
3 If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter, you may contact me at the above email address or at (831) 454-4831.

Sincerely,
Heather Hanna, P.G.

Resource Planner, Environmental Cleanup Program
County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency
Environmental Health Division
Environmental Cleanup Program
701 Ocean Street, Suite 312
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Attachment: Huntley Environmental Memorandum dated March 17, 2022

42.367
www.huntleyenvironmental.com
HE21004 1

HUNTLEY ENVIRONMENTAL
8898 Oak Trail Drive
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
Technical Memorandum
To: Heather Hanna
County of Santa Cruz
Health Services Agency
Environmental Health Division (CSCEHD)
From: Steve Huntley, Principal Scientist
Date: March 17, 2022
Re: Comments on the RMD Revised Additional Soil Investigation Report and Human Health Screening Evaluation, 501 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz, California In response to your request, the aforementioned Revised Additional Soil Investigation Report and Human Health Screening Evaluation (Report) dated February 17, 2022 was reviewed by Huntley Environmental (Huntley) pursuant to standard site characterization and risk assessment practices, especially those endorsed or recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), and Santa Cruz County regulatory bodies, as applicable. The Report was prepared by RMD Environmental Solutions (RMD) on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz.

My review and comments are limited to the derivation of human health screening levels for lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Comment 1: The Report identifies four human receptors (Hypothetical On‐Site Unrestricted Receptor, Hypothetical On‐Site Commercial Worker Receptor, Hypothetical Recreational Trail User Receptor, and Hypothetical On‐Site Unauthorized Camper Receptor).

The Report also refers to a construction worker as an additional receptor with more limited exposure. It is my understanding that RMD has proposed to adopt the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB‐RWQCB) Environmental Screening Level (ESL) of 160 mg/kg for Construction Worker soil lead exposure. However, the DTSC Leadspread8 model was recently updated and released on Friday March 11, 2022 as Leadspread9. Several changes in the updated Leadspread9 model warrant re‐ evaluation of soil lead screening levels for each the five receptors noted above. These changes may negate the use of the SFB‐RWQCB ESLs as proposed by RMD. The most significant of these changes are the addition of adult and pregnant occupational receptors to the model and reductions in child and adult soil ingestion rates. Other updates include, but are not necessarily limited to, changes to child skin surface area, child dermal uptake constant, soil lead bioavailability, and child breathing rate. The Leadspread9 model and associated documentation can be downloaded at https://dtsc.ca.gov/leadspread‐9/.

42.368
Comments on the Revised Additional Soil Investigation Report and Human Health Screening Evaluation, 501 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz, California
www.huntleyenvironmental.com
HE21004 2
Do to the significance of these updates, I recommend that the soil lead screening levels be re‐evaluated using Leadspread9.

Comment 2: Section 3.2.3 of the Report describes the exposure frequency and exposure duration for the Hypothetical Recreational Trail User Receptor as 52 days/year (1 day/week) for 6 years as a child and 20 years as an adult for a total of 26 years. I believe these are reasonable exposure assumptions for the recreational trail user.

Comment 3: Section 3.2.4 of the Report describes the exposure frequency and exposure duration for the Hypothetical Unauthorized Camper Receptor as 14 to 28 days/year (0.3 to 0.5 days/week) for 6 years as a child and 20 years as an adult for a total of 26 years. It is my understanding that campers who have been characterized as homeless have been observed camping on the property for up to several months at a time and possibly longer. As such, it seems that an exposure frequency of 90 days/year or more may be a more reasonable and plausible assumption. I would recommend that the exposure frequency (days/year, days/week) be revised accordingly in the Report.

Comment 4: Derivation of screening levels and modeling of blood lead using Leadspread8 is presented in Appendix B of the Report. The Leadspread8 exposure frequencies used for the Hypothetical Unauthorized Camper Receptor were 0.3 days/week and 0.5 days/week. These values were derived by dividing 14 days/year and 28 days/year by 52 weeks/year. This averaging is inappropriate for several reasons.

1. Fractions of days cannot be used in the Leadspread8 or Leadspread9 models because the primary contact rate, soil ingestion, is based on whole days, not fractions of days. Soil ingestion rates in units of mg/day cannot be reduced to factions of days.

2. Averaging time of 7 days is already in the exposure equation component of Leadspread8 and Leadspread9. Therefore, it is inappropriate to “pre‐average” the exposure prior to input in the model.

3. It is not reasonable to assume that campers would camp for any period of time of less than one day (e.g., 0.3 days or 0.5 days) as the concept of camping implies overnight camping.

4. Most importantly, based on apparent observations that unauthorized campers have been observed camping on the property for up to several months or more, it is reasonable to assume that such camping occurs on at least 7 consecutive days, meaning the Leadspread8 or Leadspread9 model exposure frequency input would be 7 days/week.

Based on the above comments, I recommend that the soil lead screening level for the Hypothetical Unauthorized Camper Receptor be derived using Leadspread9 and an exposure frequency input of 7 days/week.

Comment 5: The exposure frequencies of 14 days/year and 28 days/year were also used for calculating exposures and risks for PAHs for the Hypothetical Unauthorized Camper Receptor, as presented in Appendix B. I recommend that exposure frequency (days/year) be reevaluated for the Hypothetical Unauthorized Camper Receptor exposure to PAHs consistent with my Comment 3 above.

42.369
Comments on the Revised Additional Soil Investigation Report and Human Health Screening Evaluation, 501 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz, California
www.huntleyenvironmental.com
HE21004 3
References
SFB‐RWQCB. 2019. Environmental Screening Levels. Rev 2. July.

42.370
FEASIBILITY STUDY –

REMEDIATION OF LEAD AND POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC

HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL

Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space
501 Golf Club Drive
Santa Cruz, California
01-POG-002
Prepared For:

City of Santa Cruz
Parks and Recreations Department
323 Church Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Prepared By:
1371 Oakland Boulevard, Suite 200
Walnut Creek, California 94596
June 16, 2022
Doug Whichard
Project Scientist
John Alexander, P.E.

Senior Engineer
Ivy Inouye
Principal Toxicologist

42.371
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 i RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. iii

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

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Site Location and Description .................................................................2-1

2.2 Historical Land Use ..................................................................................2-2

2.3 Current Land Use.....................................................................................2-3

2.4 Anticipated Land Use ..............................................................................2-3

2.4.1 Recreational Land Use ..................................................................2-3

2.4.2 Unrestricted Land Use ..................................................................2-3

2.5 Conceptual Shooting Range Contaminant Distribution ..........................2-3

2.6 Previous Site Investigations .....................................................................2-4

2.6.1 2018/2019 Soil Investigation ........................................................2-6

2.6.2 February 2019 Soil Investigation ..................................................2-7

2.6.3 May 2020 Soil Investigation..........................................................2-7

2.6.4 December 2020 Site Visit .............................................................2-8

2.6.5 March 2021 Soil Investigation.......................................................2-9

2.6.6 August/December 2021 Soil Investigation...................................2-9

2.6.7 Summary of COPCs ....................................................................2-10

3.0 HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ................................................ 3-1

3.1 Chemical Source, Release, and Transport...............................................3-1

3.2 Potential Receptors .................................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Hypothetical On-Site Recreational Trail User Receptor................3-2

3.2.2 Hypothetical On-Site Unrestricted Receptor ................................3-3

3.2.3 Hypothetical On-Site Commercial Worker Receptor....................3-3

3.3 Complete Exposure Pathways .................................................................3-3

4.0 FEASIBILITY EVALUATION ................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Remedial Action Objectives ....................................................................4-1

4.2 Remedial Action Cleanup Goals..............................................................4-1

4.3 Potential Remedial Alternatives...............................................................4-2

42.372
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 ii RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

4.4 Remedial Alternative Screening ..............................................................4-3

4.5 Detailed Analysis of Retained Remedial Alternatives..............................4-5

4.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action .............................................................4-6

4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Institutional and Engineering Controls .................4-6

4.5.3 Alternative 3 – Phytoremediation .................................................4-6

4.5.4 Alternative 4 – Excavation and Off-Site Disposal .........................4-7

4.6 Remedial Alternative Comparison...........................................................4-7

4.7 Preferred Remedial Alternative Selection................................................4-9

5.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 6-1

42.373
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 iii RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Areas Exceeding Screening Levels for Recreational Trail Use Figure 4 Areas Exceeding Screening Levels for Unrestricted Land Use Figure 5 Human Health Conceptual Site Model
Figure 6 Recreational Land Use – Proposed Engineering Controls Figure 7 Unrestricted Land Use – Proposed Soil Removal and Engineering Controls

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Metals Concentrations in Soil
Table 2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Soil Table 3 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Excerpts From Previous Reports

42.374
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
RMD Environmental Solutions, Inc. (RMD), on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz (the City), has prepared this Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil (FS) for the Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, located at 501 Golf Club Drive1 in Santa Cruz, California (the Site, Figures 1 and 2). Previous investigations to evaluate lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) impacts in soil have occurred at the Site since 2019.

This FS was prepared to evaluate potential remedial approaches and strategies for anticipated future land uses at the Site.

This FS is being submitted to: 1) present the Site background and current nature and extent of contamination; 2) present a conceptual site model (CSM) based on available data, including contaminant fate and transport information, to identify the exposure pathways and help ensure that the remedial action objectives (RAOs) and Site cleanup goals are protective of human health; 3) present RAOs for the Site; 4) evaluate potential remedial technologies to address soil impacts at the Site; and 5) select the preferred remedial approach for the Site. The remainder of this document is organized into the following sections:
• Section 2.0: Site Background;
• Section 3.0: Human Health Conceptual Site Model; and
• Section 4.0: Feasibility Evaluation.

Sections 5.0 and 6.0 provide the limitations for this FS and citations to the documents referenced, respectively.
1 Note, the Site address changed from 333 Golf Club Drive to 501 Golf Club Drive in 2021.

42.375
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-1

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND

2.1 Site Location and Description
The Site is identified as the Lower Main Meadow of the Pogonip Open Space in Santa Cruz, California (Figure 1). The Site is the southern portion of the larger Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 001-211-01. The Site is currently undeveloped except for a series of dirt roads and hiking trails accessible from Golf Club Drive, which is located along the southern and western Site boundaries (Figure 2). The Site is divided into the east meadow, the west meadow, a ravine between the east and west meadows, the north orchard, and the Emma McCrary Trail Area (Figure 2). A 0.08-acre seasonal wetland has been identified in the northern portion of west meadow. The Site is bordered by additional open space and the Pogonip clubhouse to the northwest, additional open space, and a former horse stable to the southwest, a forested slope to the east with a railroad line, Highway 9, and the San Lorenzo River beyond, and a plant nursery and Santa Cruz METRO office buildings to the south with commercial businesses beyond.

The City has agreed to lease approximately 20 acres in the lower meadow area to the Homeless Garden Project (HGP), a non-profit organization, of which 9.5 acres is proposed to be converted from recreational and natural open space to an agricultural and educational farm.

In 2019, the City learned that a portion of the Site had been used as a skeet and trap shooting range between the 1930s and 1950s. Metals, primarily lead and to a lesser extent antimony, arsenic, copper, and zinc, are associated with shot, and PAHs are associated with clay targets.

In 2019, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I; Weber, Hayes & Associates [WHA], 2019) identified the following two recognized environmental conditions (RECs):
• The historic operation of a skeet shooting range with confirmed elevated lead and PAH concentrations in shallow soil samples; and
• The presence of trash and debris primarily observed within the ravine of the lower meadow where homeless encampments have been established.

Based on the proposed land use by HGP, these RECs were investigated and the results were reported in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report (PEA Report; RMD, 2020b).

Based on the findings of the PEA Report, PAHs and select metals, primarily lead, were identified in HGP’s proposed planting areas of the Site.

Following the PEA Report, an additional soil investigation for delineation of lead and PAHs at the Site was conducted at the request of the County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency –

42.376
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-2
Environmental Health (the County). Findings of this investigation were presented in the Revised Additional Soil Investigation Report and Human Health Screening Evaluation (Additional Investigation Report) dated February 17, 2022 (RMD, 2022).

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) was the lead oversight agency during the PEA investigation described in the PEA Report. Currently, the County is the lead oversight agency.

A record of environmental conditions at the Site (i.e., regulatory directives and correspondence, Site documents, and analytical data) may be obtained through a review of the case files for DTSC EnviroStor Database Number 60002874 at the following website:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002874 (Site Code 202272).

2.2 Historical Land Use
The following summarizes the historical land use based on information presented in the Phase I:
• Beginning in approximately 1850, the area surrounding the Site was used for limestone mining and the production of lime;
• From approximately 1912 through 1986, the known Site land uses included:
o In 1912, the Site and surrounding open space were developed into a golf course and social club. The Pogonip clubhouse is located northeast of the Site; o In 1935, the golf course was turned into polo fields with horse stables located immediately off-Site to the west;
o In 1937, the polo club constructed a skeet shooting range in the west meadow between Golf Club Drive and the ravine;
o In 1948, a shooting range with a “Remington electrical trap” was added adjacent to the existing skeet shooting range, and the grounds were leveled by grading;
o A 1956 aerial photograph of the Site shows the shooting range infrastructure removed and the area opened to rangeland;
o From approximately 1958 to 1967, the Site was used for cattle grazing; and o In 1987, the Pogonip clubhouse was posted as unsafe for occupancy.

42.377
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-3

2.3 Current Land Use
In 1989, the Site was acquired by the City and has since been maintained as recreational open space. A fire break is maintained along the eastern boundary of the Site. During Phase I activities, Site inspection observations included concrete shooting pads and clay target fragments in the west meadow. In addition, the presence of unauthorized camping has been observed largely in the ravine area. City staff perform homeless encampment clean-ups; fire prevention work, such as removing vegetation and clearing dead trees; and trail work along the existing trails.

2.4 Anticipated Land Use
Site use will likely either remain as recreational land use or the Site will be redeveloped for unrestricted land use. A brief summary of each anticipated land use scenario is provided below.

2.4.1 Recreational Land Use
The recreational land use would be similar to the current land use with trails available for hiking only or multi-use (hiking, biking, and horseback riding) as designated through the Site.

Overnight camping and off-trail use would continue to be prohibited. Natural resource, fire prevention, and trail management activities would occur under City management.

2.4.2 Unrestricted Land Use
The unrestricted land use would include developing portions of the west meadow, east meadow, and north orchard into active farming land. The HGP’s Operation and Maintenance Plan and Development Plans for the Pogonip Farm and Garden propose a building complex, consisting of an administrative building, a pole barn, two greenhouses, and parking in the northeast portion of the west meadow along Golf Club Drive (HGP, 2017). In unfarmed areas, the Site would continue to be used for outdoor recreation (hiking and multi-use trails) with natural resource, fire prevention, and trail management activities conducted under City management.

2.5 Conceptual Shooting Range Contaminant Distribution
The types and distribution of contaminants associated with shooting ranges typically display a systematic pattern (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council [ITRC], 2005). In general, metals, primarily lead and to a lesser extent antimony, arsenic, copper, and zinc, are associated

42.378
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-4
with shot, and PAHs are associated with clay targets. These materials are expected to be deposited on the surface or near surface soil.

Trap and skeet shooting ranges feature a fan-shaped clay target and shot fall zone radiating from the shooting pads. Although the distribution may vary, the following general dimensions relative to the shooting pads are hypothetically expected:
• 0 to 100 feet – Spent cartridge cases and wads;
• 200 to 325 feet – Clay target fragments; and
• 200 to 700 feet (skeet)/770 feet (trap) – Shot fall zone, with the greatest anticipated shot density at 400 to 600 feet.

This conceptual distribution of contaminants was generally observed during the PEA investigation conducted in May 2020 (Section 2.6.3).

2.6 Previous Site Investigations
Between November 2018 and December 2021, soil samples were collected during multiple phases of investigation. Consistent with the anticipated land uses and the PEA Report, the following soil screening levels (SLs) were compared with Site investigation results:
• Background Concentrations for Metals – DTSC (2015) recommends that metals detected at background (ambient) levels not be identified as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) at a site. In accordance with the DTSC-approved Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Work Plan (RMD, 2020a), a 2009 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL, 2009) study was used to identify acceptable background levels for metals except for arsenic, which used the background level for San Francisco Bay Region of 11 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg, Duvergé, 2011). Table 1 of the PEA Report presents background levels for metals detected in soil. • Risk-Based SLs – The risk-based soil SLs include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs; USEPA, 2022) modified per DTSC Office of Human and Ecological Risk Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3 (HHRA Note 3; DTSC, 2022b) in accordance with the PEA Manual (DTSC, 2015). The risk-based soil SLs were available for unrestricted residential and commercial/industrial receptors. Risk-based soil SLs for lead were developed separately, as described in the following bullet.
• Lead SLs – Unlike other COPCs, the soil SL for lead is based on blood-lead (Pb) models.

Neither USEPA nor California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) publishes

42.379
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-5
toxicity values for lead. In the absence of toxicity values, noncarcinogenic effects from exposure to lead are evaluated by predicting blood-Pb concentrations using toxicokinetic modeling. DTSC LeadSpread 92 is recommended by DTSC for evaluating lead exposure. This model evaluates three exposure scenarios: 1) child residential scenario, 2) adult residential scenario, and 3) adult commercial worker (occupational) scenario (DTSC, 2022a). This section describes the blood-lead models used to develop lead soil SLs for the hypothetical long-term receptors anticipated at the Site. o Future On-Site Unrestricted Receptor - This receptor is a long-term receptor that includes unrestricted land use, which may include farming and gardening activities for the purpose of cultivating, consuming and/or selling produce.

DTSC LeadSpread 9 is recommended by DTSC for evaluating lead exposure under unrestricted land use. This model is based on child exposures only (most stringent scenario) and an exposure frequency of seven days per week for a 90-day average exposure duration. Based on this model, DTSC’s soil SL for lead is 80 mg/kg (DTSC, 2022a). The soil SL of 80 mg/kg represents a reasonably conservative soil SL to protect future on-Site unrestricted receptors (RMD, 2020b).
o Future On-Site Commercial Worker Receptor - This receptor is a long-term adult receptor, a full-time commercial worker (farm and garden) employee that is assumed to spend 250 days per year working at the Site for 25 years. This receptor may spend the workday (8 hours per day) both indoors performing light office duties and outdoors performing moderate soil invasive activities in surface or near surface soil (e.g., maintenance or landscaping). The PEA Report used DTSC’s commercial soil SL for lead of 320 mg/kg (RMD, 2020b), which was based on USEPA's adult lead model (ALM; DTSC, 2011)3
. Based on
LeadSpread 9 for the adult commercial worker exposure scenario, DTSC’s soil SL for lead is 500 mg/kg (DTSC, 2022a).
2 LeadSpread 9 is a revision of LeadSpread 8 for evaluating residential and industrial land use scenarios. The DTSC LeadSpread 9 model (DTSC, 2022a) evaluates exposure via the ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure pathways by using equations that relate incremental blood lead increase to a soil lead concentration to provide an estimate of median blood lead concentration. Current DTSC screening levels for lead are based on the soil concentration that will result in a 90th percentile estimate of blood lead equal to the target increase in children’s blood lead level of concern by 1 microgram per deciliter (µg/dL; CalEPA benchmark incremental change criterion for lead). 3 The model calculates the concentration in exterior soil and interior dust that will result in a 90th percentile estimate of blood lead among fetuses of adult workers of 1 µg/dL.

42.380
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-6
o Current/Future Recreational Trail User Receptor – This receptor is a long-term receptor that includes receptors using the Site for outdoor recreation (hiking and biking trails). This receptor is anticipated to be primarily an adult receptor; however, a child receptor may occasionally visit the Site during organized field trips or other visits accompanied by an adult. For this reason, the LeadSpread 9 model based on child exposures was used to estimate a soil SL for on-Site recreational trail user receptors. In the LeadSpread 9 model, DTSC indicates that non-residential scenarios may involve fewer than seven days per week for exposure frequency. Based on best professional judgement, to evaluate a recreational trail user scenario, the exposure frequency in the model was reduced from seven days per week to one day per week for a 90-day average exposure duration. The resulting soil SL for lead of 540 mg/kg represents a reasonably conservative soil SL to protect current/future on-Site recreational trail user receptors (RMD, 2020b)
4 .

The SLs for soil are shown on Tables 1 and 2. Unless otherwise specified, the results of the previous Site investigation activities are compared with the soil SLs and discussed below.

2.6.1 2018/2019 Soil Investigation
The HGP conducted agricultural soil testing and incorporated evaluation of the potential agricultural impacts of the lead associated with the historic shooting range (HGP, 2019). This evaluation indicated the following:
• Extractable lead concentrations ranging from 0.9 parts per million (ppm) to 89.8 ppm, which exceeded a laboratory-recommended threshold for safe agricultural use of 22 ppm; and
• Total sorbed lead concentrations ranging from 56.08 mg/kg to 145.86 mg/kg, which were below a threshold of 400 mg/kg that would require implementation of modified farming practices (HGP, 2019).

Based on these results, the City decided to conduct additional sampling at the Site. 4 The soil SL for lead of 540 mg/kg for on-Site recreational trail user receptors was included in the Work Plan (RMD, 2021) and subsequently approved by the County in their approval letter, dated June 2, 2021.

42.381
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-7

2.6.2 February 2019 Soil Investigation
Soil samples were collected from 52 soil borings, each advanced to approximately 2 feet bgs, in the west meadow at the Site (Environmental Investigation Services, Inc., 2019). Twelve 4-part composite samples (B1 through B12) were collected from 48 borings at depths of approximately 0 to 0.5 foot bgs (surface) and 1.5 to 2 feet bgs (shallow). Additionally, one 4-part composite sample (B13) was collected from approximately 0 to 0.5-foot bgs. The surface composite samples were analyzed for select metals (total lead, arsenic, copper, and zinc), PAHs, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel and motor oil (with silica gel cleanup). The 1.5 to 2 feet bgs composite samples were analyzed for metals only. The 4-part composite sample results for surface soil at borings B1 (northwestern portion of the west meadow) and B3 (northern portion of the west meadow) reported lead concentrations exceeding the residential SL of 80 mg/kg. Therefore, the four individual samples for these locations were analyzed for lead and reported lead concentrations exceeding the residential (unrestricted) SL of 80 mg/kg. Samples with PAH concentrations exceeding SLs were limited to surface soil in borings B5 and B7 (eastern portion of the west meadow) and borings B6 and B11 (central portion of the west meadow, near a former shooting pad location). Data summary tables for this investigation are provided as Tables A1 and A2 of Appendix A.

Based on the findings of the 2019 investigation, the following data gaps were identified:
• The magnitude of select metals (lead, antimony, arsenic, copper, zinc) concentrations in unsampled areas within the planned planting footprint in the west meadow; • The extent and magnitude of select metals (lead, antimony, arsenic, copper, zinc) concentrations within the planned planting footprint in the north orchard and east meadow where higher shot fall density is anticipated;
• The extent and magnitude of PAH concentrations within the planned planting footprint in the western portion of the north orchard and east meadow; and • The vertical extent of PAH concentrations that exceed SLs in the west meadow and other areas.

2.6.3 May 2020 Soil Investigation
To address the data gaps identified during the 2019 investigation, soil samples were collected from 71 soil borings located across the Site, each advanced to approximately 2 feet bgs (RMD, 2020b). Twenty-six soil borings were located in the west meadow, 12 soil borings were located in the north orchard, and 33 soil borings were located in the east meadow. Soil sample

42.382
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-8
locations were selected based on the planned farm and garden areas at the Site, findings of the 2019 soil investigation, and hypothetical shot and clay target fragment fall zones. During boring advancement, soil at approximate 6-inch intervals (0-0.5-foot bgs, 0.5-1.0-foot bgs, and

1.0-1.5-foot bgs [collectively referred to as the “surface”], and 1.5-2.0-foot bgs [shallow]) was visually inspected and logged. Soil from each boring location was screened with an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer to evaluate the vertical distribution of lead in the field. Two soil samples were collected from each boring location based on field observations. The selected soil samples were analyzed for select metals (lead, antimony, arsenic, copper, and zinc) and PAHs according to field observations and XRF screening (for lead) as described in the PEA Report. Data summary tables for this investigation are provided as Tables A3 and A4 of Appendix A.

Lead concentrations exceeded the commercial worker soil SL of 320 mg/kg and the recreational trail user soil SL of 540 mg/kg at one location south of the southern shooting range in the west meadow, in the western portion of the north orchard along the trail connecting the west meadow to the east meadow, and in the south and west portions of the east meadow along the ravine.

PAH concentrations exceeded one or more soil SLs at eight boring locations in the west meadow. As mentioned above, the extent of PAHs in soil have been delineated to the extent necessary.

Based on the findings of the 2020 investigation, the following data gaps were identified:
• The extent of lead concentrations near the north orchard along the trail connecting the west meadow to the east meadow;
• The extent of lead concentrations within the sloped ravine area between the west meadow and east meadow; and
• The extent of lead concentrations along the recreational trails located south of the east meadow (Emma McCrary Trail Area).

2.6.4 December 2020 Site Visit
On December 15, 2020, RMD, City, and County personnel conducted a Site visit to review previous sampling locations where lead concentrations exceeded the recreational trail user soil SL, discuss potential delineation sampling locations, and evaluate potential access issues.

The findings of the Site visit included:

42.383
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-9
• Two arcs of concrete pads, which are interpreted as the shooting pads for the historic trap and skeet ranges, were further observed in the central portion of the west meadow;
• Vegetation covers most of the Site with homeless encampments further observed in several wooded areas including the ravine area; and
• The southern side of the east meadow, the ravine area, and public recreation trails in the southeastern portion of the Site and connecting the west meadow to the east meadow had not been adequately delineated for lead concentrations in shallow soil.

The hypothetical fan-shaped clay target and shot fall distribution associated with the orientation of the shooting pads is depicted on Figure 2.

Based on previous investigations and the Site visit, the County determined that further investigation is needed to fully delineate the lateral and vertical extent of lead concentrations in shallow soil near the southern side of the east meadow, in accessible portions of the ravine, and along select public recreation trails in the southeastern portion of the Site.

2.6.5 March 2021 Soil Investigation
Based on findings of the PEA Report, WHA collected shallow soil samples from 12 soil borings located along the trail connecting the west meadow to the east meadow near the north orchard to delineate the extent of lead concentrations near boring NO-3 and to support the use of this trail (WHA, 2021). At each boring, soil samples were collected at the surface and at approximately 1.5 feet bgs and analyzed for lead. The reported lead concentrations of up to 208 mg/kg were below the commercial soil SL of 320 mg/kg and the recreational trail user soil SL of 540 mg/kg. Based on these results, additional soil investigation is no longer necessary in this portion of the Site. A data summary table for this investigation is provided as Table A5 of Appendix A.

2.6.6 August/December 2021 Soil Investigation
To address the data gaps identified during the PEA Report investigation, soil samples were collected from 32 soil borings located across the Site, each advanced to approximately 2 feet bgs (RMD, 2022). Fourteen soil borings were located in the ravine, two soil borings were located in the north orchard, seven soil borings were located in the east meadow, two soil borings were located in the west meadow, and seven soil borings were located in the Emma McCrary Trail Area. During boring advancement, soil at approximate 6-inch intervals (0-0.5- foot bgs, 0.5-1.0-foot bgs, and 1.0-1.5-foot bgs, and 1.5-2.0-foot bgs) was visually inspected

42.384
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2-10
and logged. Soil from each boring location was screened with a XRF analyzer to evaluate the vertical distribution of lead in the field. Two soil samples were collected from each boring location based on field observations. Select soil samples were analyzed for lead according to field observations and XRF screening as described in the Additional Investigation Report. Lead concentrations exceeded the recreational trail user soil SL of 540 mg/kg at four locations in the east meadow along the border with the ravine and five locations throughout the ravine.

A data summary table for this investigation is provided as Tables A6 of Appendix A.

2.6.7 Summary of COPCs
Based on the sample-by-sample comparison with background levels and risk-based soil SLs for the PEA investigation (RMD, 2020b), the following metals and PAHs were identified as COPCs in each area:

Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)
Area Unrestricted Land Use Recreational Land Use
West Meadow • Antimony
• Arsenic
• Copper
• Lead
• Zinc
• Benz(a)anthracene
• Benzo(a)pyrene
• Benzo(b)fluoranthene
• Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
• Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
• Naphthalene
• Benzo(a)pyrene
• Lead
• Benzo(b)fluoranthene
• Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
North Orchard • Lead • Lead
East Meadow • Lead • Lead
Based on the findings of the PEA Report, PAHs and select metals, primarily lead, were identified in proposed planting areas of the Site. The Additional Investigation Report provides an updated evaluation of the nature and extent of COPCs at the Site. Areas with COPC exceedances above the recreational and unrestricted soil SLs are shown on Figures 3 and 4, respectively.

42.385
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 3-1

3.0 HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
To develop a conceptual understanding of the Site, information regarding potential chemical source, chemical release, and transport mechanisms; locations of potentially exposed human receptors; and potential exposure routes were assessed. This information was previously presented in the PEA Report. Based upon comments from the County (2021 and 2022), the human health conceptual site model (CSM) was updated to include the hypothetical recreational trail user receptor and the hypothetical unauthorized camper receptor. The updated CSM is outlined schematically on Figure 5 and discussed below.

The CSM associates sources of chemicals with potentially exposed human receptors and associated complete exposure pathways. In this way, the CSM assists in quantifying potential impacts to human health. As defined by USEPA (1989), the following four components are necessary for a chemical exposure pathway to be considered complete and for chemical exposure to occur:
• A chemical source and a mechanism of chemical release to the environment; • An environmental transport medium (e.g., soil) for the released chemical; • A point of contact between the contaminated medium and the receptor (i.e., the exposure point); and
• An exposure route (e.g., incidental ingestion of soil) at the exposure point.

As described below, these components provide a basis for the CSM.

3.1 Chemical Source, Release, and Transport
To evaluate the first two components necessary for a complete exposure pathway, chemical properties of the detected chemicals and the physical characteristics of the Site were reviewed to identify factors that might allow the release and transport of chemicals. As discussed in Section 2.0, the potential source of impacts at the Site is related to the deposition of shot and clay target fragments. Based on historic land use as a shooting range and previous Site investigations, the COPCs include metals and PAHs, which tend to adsorb to soil particles and typically do not readily dissolve into water or volatilize into ambient air. Therefore, this CSM focuses on direct contact exposure routes to metals and PAHs in on-Site soil.

42.386
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 3-2

3.2 Potential Receptors
The third component necessary for an exposure pathway to be complete is identification of potential receptors at the Site based on anticipated land use.

Based on current and anticipated future land use as a recreational area, the following hypothetical receptors were considered in this CSM:
• Current/Future On-Site Recreational Trail User Receptor.

Based on the anticipated future land use as an agricultural and educational farm with a commercial building complex, the following hypothetical receptors were considered in this CSM:
• Future On-Site Unrestricted Receptor; and
• Future On-Site Commercial Worker Receptor.

As stated in the PEA Report, a future on-Site construction worker receptor will be present during redevelopment of the Site; but this receptor will be a short-term receptor, performing activities subject to applicable administrative controls (e.g., Site Management Plan [SMP], Site Health and Safety Plan [HASP], and best management practices [BMPs]). This receptor is expected to be a short-term outdoor worker (i.e., 2 weeks to 1 year) for a single construction or development project at the Site. The exposures for a construction worker receptor are expected to be limited in comparison to long-term worker receptors.

The hypothetical on-Site receptors included in the CSM are described in more detail below.

3.2.1 Hypothetical On-Site Recreational Trail User Receptor The recreational trail user receptor is a long-term receptor that may include visitors using the recreational trails at the Site. Based on best professional judgment, this receptor is assumed to visit the Site one day per week (52 days per year) for a 26 year exposure duration (as both a child [6 years] and an adult [20 years] or one day per week for a 90-day average exposure duration for lead [LeadSpread 9 model]). Potential exposures for this receptor are expected to occur from time spent outdoors only (8 hours per day). Typically, a recreational trail user that frequently visits a site would spend up to 4 hours per day on the trails (Gobster, 2005). It is conservative to assume that the recreational trail user that frequently visits the Site for 52 days a year will be using the trails for 8 hours a day at each visit, considering only short segments of

42.387
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 3-3
the greater Pogonip Open Space trail system intersect the lead and PAH impacted areas of the Site.

3.2.2 Hypothetical On-Site Unrestricted Receptor
The hypothetical future on-Site unrestricted receptor was included to evaluate an unrestricted land use scenario, which is considered the most protective scenario for potential on-Site receptors including farm and garden workers. This receptor is a long-term receptor (i.e., greater than 7 years [USEPA, 1989]) that spends 350 days per year at the Site for a 26 year exposure duration (as both a child [6 years] and an adult [20 years] or seven days per week for a 90-day average exposure duration for lead [LeadSpread 9 model]). The unrestricted land use may include farming and gardening activities for the purpose of cultivating, consuming and/or selling produce (RMD, 2020b).

3.2.3 Hypothetical On-Site Commercial Worker Receptor
The hypothetical future on-Site commercial worker receptor is a long-term adult receptor. This receptor is a full-time employee that is assumed to spend 250 days per year working at the Site for a 25 year exposure duration or five days per week for a 90-day average exposure duration for lead [LeadSpread 9 model]. This receptor may spend the workday (8 hours per day) both indoors performing light office duties and outdoors performing moderate soil invasive activities in surface or near surface soil (e.g., maintenance or landscaping).

3.3 Complete Exposure Pathways
The fourth and final component, a complete exposure pathway (i.e., route of exposure) is discussed in combination with the third component (i.e., presence of receptors at an exposure point) to define those exposure pathways considered to be complete and significant for the future on-Site receptors. The exposure pathways assumed to be complete and significant for the hypothetical current/future on-Site receptors includes the following:
• Incidental ingestion of soil;
• Dermal contact with soil; and
• Inhalation of fugitive dust.

As a working farm and garden, it is assumed that the future on-Site farm and garden worker receptor will grow fruits and vegetables to consume and/or sell to the public. The produce sourced from the Pogonip Farm and Garden will only account for a portion of a potential

42.388
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 3-4
receptors diet; therefore, is not likely a significant exposure pathway. Evaluation of the exposure pathways listed above for an unrestricted land use scenario are considered adequately protective for the proposed future land use at the Site (RMD, 2020b).

42.389
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-1

4.0 FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
This section describes the Site-specific remedial action objectives (RAOs) and cleanup goals for soil at the Site. The exposure routes and receptors defined in the human health CSM (Section 3.0 and Figure 5) are used to define the media of concern to be evaluated for remedial alternatives and to identify appropriate Site-specific RAOs and cleanup goals, which are used to identify COPCs. The Site-specific RAOs, cleanup goals, and COPCs are then used for the selection of applicable remediation technologies to be screened for remediation of the Site.

4.1 Remedial Action Objectives
Site-specific RAOs were developed to identify specific cleanup goals to mitigate soil impacts at the Site and to protect human health and the environment based on either a recreational trail or unrestricted land use. The PEA Report identified metals, primarily lead, and select PAHs in shallow soil as COPCs for the Site.

The RAOs developed to address soil impacts at the Site include the following:
• Prevent direct contact, ingestion, and inhalation of COPC-impacted soil to allow for recreational trail land use and/or unrestricted land use; and • Mitigate COPC concentrations in impacted soil at the Site to allow for recreational trail land use and/or unrestricted land use.

The short-term objective is to allow for recreational trail land use in accessible portions of the Site where soil concentrations are below applicable SLs per the request of the County. As funding becomes available, the City plans to conduct additional remedial action to expand the area for recreational trail land use and, ultimately, remediate all accessible portions of the Site to allow for unrestricted land use, including farming and gardening.

4.2 Remedial Action Cleanup Goals
The remedial action cleanup goals were developed using the following:
• Risk-Based Benchmarks (USEPA RSLs [USEPA, 2022];
• DTSC HHRA Note 3 [DTSC, 2022b]; and
• DTSC LeadSpread 9 [DTSC, 2022a]).

42.390
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-2
The LeadSpread 9 model (DTSC, 2022a,b) recommends that the remedial/mitigation level for unrestricted soil exposure remain at the current residential (unrestricted) default value of 80 mg/kg. Similarly, the recreational lead soil SL is 540 mg/kg using LeadSpread 8 and remains at 540 mg/kg using the updated LeadSpread 9 model.

Based on the Site-specific RAOs and the criteria mentioned above, the proposed remedial action cleanup goals are as follows:

Compound
Proposed Cleanup Goal –
Recreational Land Use
(mg/kg)
Proposed Cleanup Goal –
Unrestricted Land Use
(mg/kg)
Lead 540 80
Benzo(a)anthracene 45 1.1
Benzo(a)pyrene 4.5 0.11
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 45 1.1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.1 0.028
Indeno(1,2,3-CD)pyrene 45 1.1

4.3 Potential Remedial Alternatives
Based on the findings of previous Site investigations, remedial alternatives have been identified and will be evaluated. These potential remedial alternatives include the following or combinations of the following:
• No Action;
• Institutional and Engineering Controls;
• Surface Capping;
• In-Situ Treatment;
• Phytoremediation;
• Soil Flipping; and
• Excavation and Off-Site Disposal.

42.391
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-3

4.4 Remedial Alternative Screening
Technologies were screened based on their abilities to meet the overall objectives to provide site management and reduce soil concentrations.

No action involves no further activities to treat, contain, or remove any of the COPC-impacted soil present at the Site. This alternative is required for consideration by the National Contingency Plan (NCP) to provide a baseline to compare other remedial alternatives.

Therefore, this alternative is retained for further evaluation.

Institutional and Engineering Controls
Institutional controls are non-engineering and/or legal measures that minimize the potential for human exposure to COPCs at a Site without actually reducing their toxicity, mobility, and/or volume. Deed restrictions and site management plans are common institutional controls and are sometimes used in combination with active remedial technologies.

Engineering controls are physical modifications that minimize the potential for human exposure to COPCs at a site without actually reducing their toxicity, mobility, and/or volume.

Engineering controls are typically barriers (e.g., fences) that restrict access and direct contact with COPCs at a Site.

Institutional and engineering controls are highly effective in the short-term, easily implementable, and low cost. These methods combined with at least one other alternative would likely receive regulatory and community acceptance. Therefore, this alternative is retained for further evaluation.

Surface Capping
Surface capping involves covering portions of the Site with waterproof material (e.g., asphalt or concrete) where soil concentrations exceed Site-specific SLs to form a stable surface and prevent future direct contact with the impacted soil. Surface capping would provide long-term effectiveness but does not have the ability to reach remedial action cleanup goals and does not reduce toxicity or volume of impacted soil. Surface capping would be difficult to implement in tree covered and sloped areas of the Site and would likely not receive regulatory or community acceptance. Therefore, this alternative is rejected from further evaluation.

In-Situ Treatment
In-Situ treatment can include methods such as soil flushing or chemical immobilization (solidification/stabilization). Soil flushing involves injecting extraction fluid into the soil and

42.392
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-4
works well in coarse-grained soils with high permeability. Chemical immobilization involves mixing a binding agent such as cement, asphalt, or clay to the impacted soil using augers, or similar, to form a solid block. In-situ treatment technologies can be effective in reducing toxicity, mobility, and volume of impacted soil, but can be difficult to implement and are costly.

Also, soil flushing is typically implemented for deeper soil, not the surface and near surface soil impacts observed at the Site. It is unlikely in-situ treatment would receive regulatory and community acceptance. Therefore, this alternative is rejected from further evaluation.

Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation includes growing plants or trees throughout the Site to remove heavy metals and PAHs from soil through natural processes. Phytoremediation would require large volumes of water over the lifetime of the project and would require routine soil sampling to monitor COPC concentrations over time. Phytoremediation relatively low-cost and generally improves the physical, chemical, and biological quality of the soil reducing toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants. Therefore, this alternative is retained for further evaluation.

Soil Flipping
Soil flipping involves excavating and temporarily stockpiling the impacted soil, excavating and stockpiling several feet of the clean soil from beneath where the impacted soil was located, then backfilling the impacted soil beneath the clean soil to create a surface cap as a means to prevent direct contact with the impacted soil.

Soil flipping minimizes the potential for human exposure to COPCs without actually reducing their toxicity, mobility, or volume, but may not be a feasible option for a future unrestricted land use that involves farming since the root structure of the plants may extend down into the impacted soil beneath the top layer of clean soil. However, soil flipping may be feasible in areas of the Site where future farming is not likely to occur. Soil flipping can be implemented for long-term effectiveness at a moderate cost, however regulatory and community acceptance are uncertain. Therefore, this alternative is rejected from further evaluation.

42.393
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-5
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
Excavation and off-Site disposal involves removing the impacted soil and hauling it off-Site for disposal at a landfill. Excavation and off-Site disposal would reach the remedial action cleanup goals by reducing the toxicity, mobility, and volume of impacted soil and is a proven, longterm solution. Implementing excavation and off-Site disposal would be difficult in the tree covered and sloped portions of the Site but would be relatively easy in the open areas.

Excavation and off-Site disposal is a high cost alternative but would likely receive regulatory and community acceptance. Therefore, this alternative is retained for further evaluation.

4.5 Detailed Analysis of Retained Remedial Alternatives A detailed analysis of remedial alternatives retained for further evaluation was conducted using the following nine decision-making criteria:
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment; • Ability to Reach Remedial Action Cleanup Goals;
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Performance;
• Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment; • Short-Term Effectiveness;
• Implementability;
• Cost;
• Regulatory Acceptance; and
• Community Acceptance.

Based on the remedial alternative screening evaluation presented above, RMD conducted a detailed analysis of the following remedial approaches for the Site:
• Alternative 1 – No Action (for comparison; as required by the NCP); • Alternative 2 – Institutional and Engineering Controls; • Alternative 3 – Phytoremediation; and
• Alternative 4 – Excavation and Off-Site Disposal.

Table 3 provides the ranking results and RMD’s evaluation of each alternative to meet the nine decision-making criteria. Results are briefly summarized below.

42.394
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-6

4.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
No action involves no further activities to treat, contain, or remove any of the COPC impacted soil present at the Site. This alternative is considered to provide a baseline to compare to other remedial alternatives. The “no action” alternative does not provide adequate protection to human health or the environment and will not be discussed further in the criteria analysis.

Alternative 1 received a low-ranking score of 10 in the detailed analysis presented in Table 3.

4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Institutional and Engineering Controls Institutional controls would include a deed restriction on the Site, preparation of a site management plan, and posting of notification signs to warn Site visitors of the known COPC impacts to soil. For the recreational land use scenario, engineering controls would include the installation of livestock fencing, or similar, around the ravine and accessible areas of the Site where COPC concentrations exceed the recreational SLs. For the unrestricted land use scenario, engineering controls would include the installation of fencing around the ravine area where COPC concentrations exceed the unrestricted SLs.

This alternative is protective of human health in the recreational land use scenario but would not be appropriate for the unrestricted land use scenario involving active farming and gardening for human consumption. Institutional and engineering controls do not allow for any treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume and would not reach remedial cleanup goals.

This alternative would provide short-term effectiveness for the recreational land use scenario but would require long-term maintenance and repairs of the fencing. The proposed institutional and engineering controls would be easily implemented at a low cost and would likely receive regulatory and community acceptance.

Alternative 2 received a moderate ranking score of 26 in the detailed analysis presented in Table 3.

4.5.3 Alternative 3 – Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation includes growing plants or trees throughout the Site to remove heavy metals and PAHs from soil through natural processes and would be a potential alternative for the recreational land use scenario. Covering large portions of the Site in plants and trees for phytoremediation would limit the available area for active farming and gardening in the unrestricted land use scenario. This alternative would remove COPCs from impacted soil but might not reach remedial action cleanup goals. Phytoremediation is implementable, low-cost,

42.395
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-7
and generally improves the physical, chemical, biological quality of the soil reducing toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants. However, phytoremediation requires large volumes of water and is not a short-term solution. This alternative would require ongoing maintenance and routine soil sampling to monitor remedial progress.

Alternative 3 received a low-ranking score of 19 in the detailed analysis presented in Table 3.

4.5.4 Alternative 4 – Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
Excavation and off-Site disposal includes removing the impacted soil and hauling it off-Site for disposal at a landfill. This alternative is a proven solution to reach the remedial action cleanup goals in the short-term by reducing the toxicity, mobility, and volume of impacted soil and would be highly effective in the long-term since the source of the COPCs in soil has already been removed. Implementing excavation and off-Site disposal would be difficult in the tree covered and sloped portions of the Site but would be relatively easy in the open areas once a temporary access road is constructed and the Site is prepared for heavy equipment operation.

The existing access road between the western and eastern portions of the Site crosses a seasonal wetland/drainage area, and any impacts or temporary development within the area would be heavily regulated. It is uncertain if soil removal in the ravine would be permitted, due to the steepness of the terrain and density of large trees within a riparian area. Excavation and off-Site disposal is the highest cost alternative but would likely receive regulatory and community acceptance.

Alternative 4 received the highest-ranking score of 31 in the detailed analysis presented in Table 3.

4.6 Remedial Alternative Comparison
A comparison of Alternatives 2 through 4 in relation to the nine decision-making criteria is detailed on Table 3 and summarized below.

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: Each of the three alternatives would provide some level of protection to human health and the environment, but excavation and off-Site disposal is the most effective method. Considering the Site topography and features, a combination of institutional and engineering controls with excavation and off-Site disposal would likely be the most feasible approach.

2. Ability to Reach Remedial Action Cleanup Goals: Institutional and engineering controls would not have the ability to reach remedial action cleanup goals. Phytoremediation

42.396
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-8
has the potential to achieve remedial action cleanup goals, but it is not guaranteed and could take a long time. Excavation and off-Site disposal is a proven method to adequately reach remedial action cleanup goals.

3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Performance: Institutional controls can be implemented in perpetuity but will likely need to be implemented in combination with a second remedial alternative to reach Site closure. Engineering controls can be highly effective in the long-term with proper maintenance and repairs. If phytoremediation was able to adequately reduce COPC concentrations, it would be an effective long-term solution.

Excavation and off-Site disposal is the most guaranteed alternative for long-term effectiveness.

4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment: As mentioned above, institutional and engineering controls do nothing to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. Phytoremediation can reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume but the long-term effectiveness is uncertain. Excavation and off-Site disposal would result in the highest reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of COPCs in soil.

5. Short-Term Effectiveness: Institutional and engineering controls can be highly effective in the short-term at preventing exposure to COPCs in soil. Phytoremediation is a medium to long-term alternative that would not be effective in the short-term.

Excavation and off-Site disposal would be highly effective in the short-term once adequate funding is secured and excavation permits are issued.

6. Implementability: Institutional and engineering controls would be the easiest alternative to implement. Phytoremediation is can be easy to implement but would require ongoing maintenance in the form of planting, watering, and routine soil sampling to monitor remedial progress. Excavation and off-Site disposal is easy to implement once a temporary access road is constructed and the Site is prepared for heavy equipment operation. Site access for soil removal is limited due to sensitive natural resources such as wetlands or riparian areas. Sourcing clean, organic, nutrient-rich backfill material for the unrestricted land use scenario would be challenging and add additional cost.

7. Cost: Estimates of present value costs for implementing the remedial approaches for a recreational or unrestricted land use scenario using Alternatives 2 and/or 4 are:
o Recreational Land Use: Alternative 2 – $200-300K; 1-2 years. o Unrestricted Land Use: Alternatives 2 and 4 – $5-6 million; 2-4 years.

42.397
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-9

8. Regulatory Acceptance: It is likely institutional and engineering controls in combination with excavation and off-Site disposal would be approved. Phytoremediation is a less common alternative and does not have adequate short-term effectiveness.

9. Community Acceptance: In addition to this FS, a brief presentation of the project overview and feasibility evaluation will be included as an agenda item during an upcoming Santa Cruz City Council meeting.

4.7 Preferred Remedial Alternative Selection
Based on the above evaluation, the following alternatives are recommended based on anticipated land use:
• Recreational Land Use: Alternative 2 (Institutional and Engineering Controls). • Unrestricted Land Use: Alternative 2 (Institutional and Engineering Controls) in combination with Alternative 4 (Excavation and Off-Site Disposal).

A summary of the proposed remedial actions for the recreational and unrestricted land uses are described in the following sections and presented on Figures 6 and 7, respectively. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared and submitted to the County for the selected land use scenario prior to implementation.

4.7.1 Recreational Land Use (Alternative 2)
For the hypothetical recreational land use scenario, an example of the proposed remedial actions are as follows:
• Install fencing around the tree covered ravine area and where known soil concentrations are above the Site-specific recreational soil SLs;
• Reroute recreational trails around fenced areas, where necessary; • Prepare and implement a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to provide guidance for working and handling potentially impacted soil encountered during routine Site maintenance activities conducted by City staff; and
• Restrict land use with a Land Use Covenant (LUC), or similar.

42.398
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4-10

4.7.2 Unrestricted Land Use (Alternatives 2 and 4)
For the hypothetical unrestricted land use scenario, an example of the proposed remedial actions are as follows:
• Construct a temporary access road and prepare the Site areas that will be used for heavy equipment staging and soil loading;
• Remove impacted soil with known concentrations above the Site-specific unrestricted soil SLs in accessible portions of the east meadow, west meadow, and north orchard areas;
• Collect confirmation soil samples to make sure the impacted soil has been removed to the extent necessary;
• Load and transport impacted soil to an off-Site disposal facility; • Replace the impacted soil with clean imported soil that meets the yet to be determined project specifications;
• Install fencing around the tree covered ravine area and where known soil concentrations are above the Site-specific unrestricted soil SLs;
• Repair the Site topography to pre-remediation conditions, or similar, based on project specifications;
• Prepare and implement a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to provide guidance for working and handling potentially impacted soil encountered during routine Site maintenance and farming activities conducted by City and farm staff; and • Restrict land use with a Land Use Covenant (LUC), or similar.

The estimated remedial cost included in Section 4.6 does not include the following:
• Preparation of an erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plan; • Construction of a temporary access road for soil removal activities; • Installation of utility lines (e.g., water and electrical) to the east meadow; and • Installation of perimeter fencing around the hypothetical farm and garden.

42.399
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 5-1

5.0 LIMITATIONS
This document was prepared for the exclusive use of the City for the express purpose of complying with a client directive for environmental investigation or restoration. RMD has used professional judgment to present the findings and opinions of a scientific and technical nature.

The opinions expressed are based on the conditions of the Site existing at the time of the field investigation, current regulatory requirements, and any specified assumptions. The presented findings and recommendations in this report are intended to be taken in their entirety to assist City personnel in applying their own professional judgment in making decisions related to the property. No warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied, is made with respect to the data or the reported findings, observations, and recommendations.

42.400
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 6-1

6.0 REFERENCES
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2011. User’s Guide to LeadSpread 8 and Recommendations for Evaluation of Lead Exposures in Adults. September.

DTSC, 2015. Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Interim Final - Revised. October.

DTSC, 2022a. LeadSpread 9 – Information for Users. Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO). March.

DTSC, 2022b. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs). May.

Duvergé, D.J., 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Geosciences.

December.

Environmental Investigation Services, Inc. (EIS), 2019. Soil Sampling Investigation Report, Pogonip Farm and Garden in Santa Cruz, CA. April 9.

Gobster, PH, 2005. Recreation and Leisure research from an active living perspective: Taking a second look at urban trail use data. Leisure Sciences 27:367-383.

Homeless Garden Project (HGP), 2017. Operations and Management Plan, Pogonip Farm & Garden. March.

HGP, 2019. Report: Soil Lead Levels in the Lower Main Meadow of Pogonip. January 18.

Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2005. Environmental Management at Operating Outdoor Small Arms Firing Ranges. February.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). 2009. Analysis of Background Distributions of Metals in Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Revised April.

RMD Environmental Solutions, Inc. (RMD), 2020a. Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Work Plan. Pogonip Farm and Garden, Santa Cruz, California. May 5.

RMD, 2020b. Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report, Pogonip Farm and Garden, 333 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz, California. August 10.

RMD, 2021. Delineation of Lead-Impacted Soil Work Plan, Pogonip Farm and Garden, 333 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz, California. May 26.

RMD, 2022. Revised Additional Soil Investigation Report and Human Health Screening Evaluation. Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, 501 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz, California. February 17.

42.401
Feasibility Study – Remediation of Lead and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space, Santa Cruz, California June 16, 2022 RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 6-2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. Interim Final. Solid Waste and Emergency Response. December.

USEPA, 2022. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-6, HQ=1). May.

Weber, Hayes & Associates (WHA), 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Recreational Open Space Property. November 19.

WHA, 2021. Access Road Lead Sample Results. March.

42.402

FIGURES

42.403
SITE LOCATION MAP LOWER MAIN MEADOW, POGONIP OPEN SPACE 501 GOLF CLUB DRIVE SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE DR.BY: APP. BY: 01-POG-001 10/2021 EC DW FIGURE 1N SCALE: 1" = 2000' 0 2000 4000 Map Source: USGS, 2018 SITE LOCATION 42.404 PROPOSED BUILDING COMPLEX 770' 600' 400' 325' 200' POGONIP CLUBHOUSE FORMER HORSE STABLE NORTH ORCHARD WEST MEADOW RAVINE EAST MEADOW EMMA McCRARY TRAIL AREA 01-POG-001 10/2021 EC DW PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWN BY: APP. BY: FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN LOWER MAIN MEADOW, POGONIP OPEN SPACE 501 GOLF CLUB DRIVE SANTA CRUZ, CA N LEGEND PROPOSED WEST MEADOW BOUNDARY 50' WETLAND BUFFER (NO PLANTING) SHOOTING PAD LOCATION 100' WETLAND BUFFER (NATIVE PLANTS) UNKNOWN CONCRETE PAD SCALE: 1" = 150' 0 150 300 HYPOTHETICAL RANGE OF HIGHEST LEAD SHOT CONCENTRATION (~400'-600') HYPOTHETICAL RANGE OF CLAY TARGETS (~200'-325') PROPOSED EAST MEADOW BOUNDARY Notes: 1) Hypothetical Ranges of Lead Shot and Clay Pigeons Are Based On Standard Skeet Shooting Range Shot Fall Zones. (ITRC, 2015) 2) Proposed Garden Boundaries and Building Complex Based on GPS Coordinate Plan (Fall Creek Engineering, Inc, 2018) and Map of Pogonip Farm & Garden (Homeless Garden Project O&M Plan, 2017) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SEASONAL WETLAND HYPOTHETICAL RANGE OF LEAD SHOT (~200'-770') PROPOSED NORTH ORCHARD BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE RAVINE AREA 42.405 PROPOSED BUILDING COMPLEX POGONIP CLUBHOUSE FORMER HORSE STABLE NORTH ORCHARD NO-1 NO-5 NO-8 NO-10 NO-9 NO-11 NO-12 EM-23EM-13 EM-25 EM-29 EM-30EM-31 EM-18 EM-32 EM-33 EM-22 EM-28 EM-17 EM-16 EM-27 EM-15 EM-26 EM-14 EM-24 EM-12 EM-19 EM-20 NO-7 NO-2 WM-C-1 WM-C-2 B1W WEST MEADOW B9N B13NB13E B12N B2WB2N B4N B4WB12W B13S B12S B10W B10S B9W B1S B13W B11NB6W B6N B4E B5N B5E B5W B3W B9EB8S B12E B9S B10E B11W B11S B10N B11E B6S B2EB3S B4S B3E B7NB5S B8E B8W B7S B7W B8NB7E B6E B3N B1N B1EWM-DG-3 WM-DG-5 WM-DG-4 WM-DG-2 WM-C-7 WM-C-6 WM-C-8 WM-DG-14 WM-DG-12 WM-DG-15 WM-C-10 WM-C-5 WM-C-4 WM-DG-7 WM-DG-8WM-DG-9 WM-DG-10 WM-C-11 NO-3 NO-4 NO-6 EM-1 EM-2 EM-3 EM-4 EM-11 EM-10 EM-9 EM-7 EM-8 EM-6 EM-5 EM-21 WM-C-3 WM-DG-1 EM-34 EM-35 EM-36 EM-37 EM-38 EM-40 R-12 R-8 T-2 RAVINE EM-39 B-1 B-2B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 T-1 WM-17WM-16 NO-14 NO-13 R-10 R-11 R-9 R-13 R-14 R-1 R-4 R-2 R-5 R-3 R-6 R-7 EAST MEADOW T-3 EMMA McCRARY TRAIL AREA WM-DG-13 B2SWM-DG-6 WM-DG-11(A) WM-C-9(A) T-4 T-5 T-6T-7 PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWN BY: APP. BY: FIGURE 3 AREAS EXCEEDING SCREENING LEVELS FOR RECREATIONAL TRAIL USE LOWER MAIN MEADOW, POGONIP OPEN SPACE 501 GOLF CLUB DRIVE SANTA CRUZ, CA 01-POG-001 01/2022 EC DWN SHOOTING PAD LOCATION 0 SCALE: 1" = 150' 150 300 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD, 2020) UNKNOWN CONCRETE PAD APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SEASONAL WETLAND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (EIS, 2019) Notes: 1) Hypothetical Ranges of Lead Shot and Clay Pigeons Are Based On Standard Skeet Shooting Range Shot Fall Zones (ITRC, 2015). 2) Proposed Garden Boundaries and Building Complex Based on GPS Coordinate Plan (Fall Creek Engineering, Inc, 2018) and Map of Pogonip Farm & Garden (Homeless Garden Project O&M Plan, 2017). XRF LEGEND PROPOSED WEST MEADOW BOUNDARY 50' WETLAND BUFFER (NO PLANTING) 100' WETLAND BUFFER (NATIVE PLANTS) PROPOSED EAST MEADOW BOUNDARY PROPOSED NORTH ORCHARD BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE RAVINE AREA SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (WHA, 2021) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD, 2021) XRF SCREENING LOCATION (RMD, 2021) XRF SCREENING LOCATION (RMD, 2022) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD,2022) X-RAY FLUORESCENCE APPROXIMATE AREA EXCEEDING LEAD SCREENING LEVEL FOR RECREATIONAL TRAIL USE APPROXIMATE AREA EXCEEDING POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON SCREENING LEVELS FOR RECREATIONAL TRAIL USE 42.406 PROPOSED BUILDING COMPLEX POGONIP CLUBHOUSE FORMER HORSE STABLE NORTH ORCHARD NO-1 NO-5 NO-8 NO-10 NO-9 NO-11 NO-12 EM-23EM-13 EM-25 EM-29 EM-30EM-31 EM-18 EM-32 EM-33 EM-22 EM-28 EM-17 EM-16 EM-27 EM-15 EM-26 EM-14 EM-24 EM-12 EM-19 EM-20 NO-7 NO-2 WM-C-1 WM-C-2 B1W WEST MEADOW B9N B13NB13E B12N B2WB2N B4N B4WB12W B13S B12S B10W B10S B9W B1S B13W B11NB6W B6N B4E B5N B5E B5W B3W B9EB8S B12E B9S B10E B11W B11S B10N B11E B6S B2EB3S B4S B3E B7NB5S B8E B8W B7S B7W B8NB7E B6E B3N B1N B1EWM-DG-3 WM-DG-5 WM-DG-4 WM-DG-2 WM-C-7 WM-C-6 WM-C-8 WM-DG-14 WM-DG-12 WM-DG-15 WM-C-10 WM-C-5 WM-C-4 WM-DG-7 WM-DG-8WM-DG-9 WM-DG-10 WM-C-11 NO-3 NO-4 NO-6 EM-1 EM-2 EM-3 EM-4 EM-11 EM-10 EM-9 EM-7 EM-8 EM-6 EM-5 EM-21 WM-C-3 WM-DG-1 EM-34 EM-35 EM-36 EM-37 EM-38 EM-40 R-12 R-8 T-2 RAVINE EM-39 B-1 B-2B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 T-1 WM-17WM-16 NO-14 NO-13 R-10 R-11 R-9 R-13 R-14 R-1 R-4 R-2 R-5 R-3 R-6 R-7 EAST MEADOW T-3 EMMA McCRARY TRAIL AREA WM-DG-13 B2SWM-DG-6 WM-DG-11(A) WM-C-9(A) T-4 T-5 T-6T-7 PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWN BY: APP. BY: FIGURE 4 AREAS EXCEEDING SCREENING

LEVELS FOR UNRESTRICTED LAND USE
LOWER MAIN MEADOW, POGONIP OPEN SPACE 501 GOLF CLUB DRIVE SANTA CRUZ, CA 01-POG-001 01/2022 EC DW

N LEGEND
0 SCALE: 1" = 150' 150 300 Notes: 1) Yellow highlighted sample locations exceed the lead screening level for unrestricted land use. 2) Orange highlighted sample locations exceed the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon screening levels for unrestricted land use. 3) Sample location WM-DG-13 also reports antimony, arsenic, copper, and zinc exceeding screening levels for unrestricted land use. 4) Shot fragments observed at locations WM-DG-11(A) and WM-DG-13. 5) Clay target fragments observed at locations WM-C-9(A), WM-DG-11(A), WM-DG-13, and EM-10. 6) Proposed Garden Boundaries and Building Complex Based on GPS Coordinate Plan (Fall Creek Engineering, Inc, 2018) and Map of Pogonip Farm & Garden (Homeless Garden Project O&M Plan, 2017). WEST MEADOW SHOOTING PAD LOCATION SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD, 2020) UNKNOWN CONCRETE PAD APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SEASONAL WETLAND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (EIS, 2019) XRF PROPOSED WEST MEADOW BOUNDARY 50' WETLAND BUFFER (NO PLANTING) 100' WETLAND BUFFER (NATIVE PLANTS) PROPOSED EAST MEADOW BOUNDARY PROPOSED NORTH ORCHARD BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE RAVINE AREA SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (WHA, 2021) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD, 2021) XRF SCREENING LOCATION (RMD, 2021) XRF SCREENING LOCATION (RMD, 2022) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD,2022) X-RAY FLUORESCENCE APPROXIMATE AREA EXCEEDING LEAD SCREENING LEVEL FOR UNRESTRICTED LAND USE APPROXIMATE AREA EXCEEDING POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON SCREENING LEVELS FOR UNRESTRICTED LAND USE 42.407 Exposure Point
of Contact
Medium
Exposure
Route
Indoor Air Inhalation
Outdoor Air Inhalation
Wind Fugitive Dust Outdoor Air Inhalation d
Ingestion d
Dermal Contact d
Ingestion
Indoor Air Inhalation
Outdoor Air Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
CSM components related to soil. Receptor likely to be exposed via this route, so pathway is considered potentially complete.

CSM components related to groundwater. Receptor may be exposed via this route, so pathway is considered potentially complete; however, pathway is considered minor.

CSM components related to surface water. Pathway is incomplete, no further evaluation required.

Groundwaterc
Surface Water/
Sedimenta
Leaching
Primary
Sources
Hypothetical Receptors
Primary
Transport
Mechanism
Future
Unrestricted
Plant Uptake Farm and Garden
Produce
Soil
Secondary
Sources
Secondary
Transport
Mechanism
Tertiary
Transport
Mechanism
FIGURE
5 Soil Invasive
Activitiesb
Runoff/Erosion
Tertiary
Sources
Volatilization
Volatilization
d
Camping is prohibited at the Site and the exposure pathways for this receptor are incomplete due to the implementation of engineering controls to mitigate unauthorized camping at the Site.

Deposition Former Shooting
Range
Current/Future
Unauthorized
Camper
On-Site
Groundwater Invasive
Activities
Future
Commercial
Worker
Current/Future
Recreational
Trail User

HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL POGONIP FARM AND GARDEN

SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA
a
With the exception of the seasonal wetland, there are no identified surface water bodies within a one-half mile radius of the site. b
Surface invasive activities are not expected to extend beyond 2 feet bgs. c
Perched shallow groundwater supports seasonal wetlands and seeps. A 345 foot deep water supply well near the Pogonip clubhouse reported a depth to water of 128 feet below ground surface (bgs) in 1993. Due to depth to groundwater, it is not a media of concern at the site.

Soil
PROJECT NO. DATE
01-POG-001 02/02/22 II
DRAWN BY APP. BY
DW

42.408
POGONIP CLUBHOUSE FORMER HORSE STABLE NORTH ORCHARD NO-1 NO-5 NO-8 NO-10 NO-9 NO-11 NO-12 EM-23EM-13 EM-25 EM-29 EM-30EM-31 EM-18 EM-32 EM-33 EM-22 EM-28 EM-17 EM-16 EM-27 EM-15 EM-26 EM-14 EM-24 EM-12 EM-19 NO-7 NO-2 WM-C-1 WM-C-2 B1W WEST MEADOW B9N B13NB13E B12N B2WB2N B4N B4WB12W B13S B12S B10W B10S B9W B1S B13W B11NB6W B6N B4E B5N B5E B5W B3W B9EB8S B12E B9S B10E B11W B11S B10N B11E B6S B3S B4S B3E B7NB5S B8E B8W B7S B7W B8NB7E B6E B3N B1N B1EWM-DG-3 WM-DG-5 WM-DG-4 WM-DG-2 WM-C-7 WM-C-6 WM-C-8 WM-DG-12 WM-DG-15 WM-C-10 WM-C-5 WM-C-4 WM-DG-7 WM-DG-8WM-DG-9 WM-DG-10 NO-3 NO-4 NO-6 EM-1 EM-2 EM-3 EM-4 EM-11 EM-10 EM-9 EM-7 EM-8 EM-5 EM-21 WM-C-3 WM-DG-1 EM-38 R-12 R-8 T-2 RAVINE EM-39 B-1 B-2B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8B-9B-10 B-11 B-12 T-1 WM-17WM-16 NO-14 NO-13 R-10 R-11 R-9 R-13 R-14 R-1 R-4 R-2 R-5 R-3 R-6 R-7 T-3 EMMA McCRARY TRAIL AREAT-4 T-5 T-6T-7 EM-20 EM-6 EM-36 EM-40 EAST MEADOW EM-34 EM-35 EM-37 WM-C-11 B2E B2S WM-DG-14 WM-DG-13 WM-DG-6 WM-DG-11(A) WM-C-9(A) PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWN BY: APP. BY: FIGURE 6 RECREATIONAL LAND USE - PROPOSED ENGINEERING CONTROLS LOWER MAIN MEADOW, POGONIP OPEN SPACE 501 GOLF CLUB DRIVE SANTA CRUZ, CA 01-POG-002 05/2022 EC DWN SHOOTING PAD LOCATION 0 SCALE: 1" = 150' 150 300 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD, 2020) UNKNOWN CONCRETE PAD APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SEASONAL WETLAND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (EIS, 2019) XRF LEGEND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (WHA, 2021) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD, 2021) XRF SCREENING LOCATION (RMD, 2021) XRF SCREENING LOCATION (RMD, 2022) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD,2022) X-RAY FLUORESCENCE APPROXIMATE AREA EXCEEDING LEAD SCREENING LEVEL FOR RECREATIONAL TRAIL USE APPROXIMATE AREA EXCEEDING POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON SCREENING LEVELS FOR RECREATIONAL TRAIL USE PROPOSED ENGINEERING CONTROLS (FENCING) 42.409 PROPOSED BUILDING COMPLEX POGONIP CLUBHOUSE FORMER HORSE STABLE WM-C-1 NORTH ORCHARD NO-1 NO-5 NO-8 NO-10 NO-9 NO-11 NO-12 EM-23EM-13 EM-24 EM-12 NO-7 NO-2 WM-C-2 B1W WEST MEADOW B9N B13NB13E B12N B2WB2N B4N B4WB12W B13S B12S B10W B10S B9W B1S B13W B11NB6W B6N B4E B5N B5E B5W B3W B9EB8S B12E B9S B10E B11W B11S B10N B11E B6S B2EB3S B4S B3E B7N B5S B8E B8W B7S B7W B8N B7E B6E B3N B1N B1EWM-DG-3 WM-DG-5 WM-DG-4 WM-DG-2 WM-C-7 WM-C-6 WM-C-8 WM-DG-14 WM-DG-12 WM-DG-15 WM-C-10 WM-C-5 WM-C-4 WM-DG-7 WM-DG-8WM-DG-9 WM-DG-10 WM-C-11 NO-3 NO-4 NO-6 EM-1 EM-2 EM-3 EM-11 EM-10 EM-9 WM-C-3 WM-DG-1 EM-34 EM-35 EM-36 EM-37 EM-38 EM-40 R-12 R-8 T-2 RAVINE B-1 B-2B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-12 T-1 WM-17WM-16 NO-14 NO-13 R-10 R-11 R-9 R-13 R-14 R-1 R-4 R-2 R-5 R-3 R-6 R-7 T-3 EMMA McCRARY TRAIL AREA WM-DG-13 B2SWM-DG-6 WM-DG-11(A) WM-C-9(A) T-4 T-5 T-6T-7 Soil to be Removed ~ 3,000 CY EM-25 EM-29 EM-30EM-31 EM-18 EM-32 EM-33 EM-22 EM-28 EM-17 EM-16 EM-27 EM-15 EM-26 EM-14 EM-19 EM-20 EM-4 EM-7 EM-8 EM-6 EM-5 EM-21 EM-39 EAST MEADOW Soil to be Removed ~ 1,000 CY B-11 Soil to be Removed ~ 6,000 CY PROJECT NO. DATE DRAWN BY: APP. BY: FIGURE 7 UNRESTRICTED LAND USE -

PROPOSED SOIL REMOVAL

AND ENGINEERING CONTROLS
LOWER MAIN MEADOW, POGONIP OPEN SPACE 501 GOLF CLUB DRIVE SANTA CRUZ, CA 01-POG-002 05/2022 EC DW N
0 SCALE: 1" = 150' 150 300 Notes: 1) Sample location WM-DG-13 also reports antimony, arsenic, copper, and zinc exceeding screening levels for unrestricted land use. 2) Shot fragments observed at locations WM-DG-11(A) and WM-DG-13. 3) Clay target fragments observed at locations WM-C-9(A), WM-DG-11(A), WM-DG-13, and EM-10. 4) Proposed Building Complex Based on GPS Coordinate Plan (Fall Creek Engineering, Inc, 2018) and Map of Pogonip Farm & Garden (Homeless Garden Project O&M Plan, 2017). XRF LEGEND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SEASONAL WETLAND SHOOTING PAD LOCATION UNKNOWN CONCRETE PAD SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (EIS, 2019) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD, 2020) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (WHA, 2021) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD, 2021) XRF SCREENING LOCATION (RMD, 2021) XRF SCREENING LOCATION (RMD, 2022) SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (RMD,2022) X-RAY FLUORESCENCE APPROXIMATE AREA EXCEEDING LEAD SCREENING LEVEL FOR UNRESTRICTED LAND USE APPROXIMATE AREA EXCEEDING POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON SCREENING LEVELS FOR UNRESTRICTED LAND USE PROPOSED SOIL REMOVAL AREAS PROPOSED ENGINEERING CONTROLS (FENCING)

42.410
TABLES

42.411
Table 1
Metals Concentrations in Soil
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 1 of 4 ends

(feet bgs) (feet bgs) (ppm)
B1 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 2.1 3.9 120 17
B1N-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Discrete -- -- -- 150 --
B1S-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Discrete -- -- -- 58 --
B1E-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Discrete -- -- -- 110 --
B1W-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Discrete -- -- -- 64 --
B1 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 2.9 4.6 6.2 18
B1N-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Discrete -- -- -- 4.5 --
B1S-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Discrete -- -- -- 9.5 --
B1E-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Discrete -- -- -- 8.0 --
B1W-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Discrete -- -- -- 6.4 --
B2 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 2.0 3.2 60 60
B2 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 1.6 3.3 5.8 98
B3 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 2.8 3.1 84 20
B3N-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Discrete -- -- -- 190 --
B3S-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Discrete -- -- -- 48 --
B3E-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Discrete -- -- -- 47 --
B3W-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Discrete -- -- -- 89 --
B3 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 2.5 3.9 5.6 22
B3N-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Discrete -- -- -- 5.7 --
B3S-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Discrete -- -- -- 11 --
B3E-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Discrete -- -- -- 20 --
B3W-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Discrete -- -- -- 5.8 --
B4 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 1.8 3.6 24 19
B4 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 1.8 3.8 6.6 19
B5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 9.6 4.2 25 26
B5 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 7.3 3.7 4.6 20
B6 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 1.6 4.0 60 23
B6 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 2.1 3.5 6.4 22
B7 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 3.2 50 38 160
B7 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 2.9 7.1 8.6 47
B8 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 3.7 4.8 19 22
B8 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 4.4 4.1 5.8 19
B9 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 1.8 3.8 8.9 19
B9 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 3.0 4.3 12 20
B10 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 0.98 3.2 6.1 19
B10 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 1.2 3.4 4.4 17
B11 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 2.2 4 11 20
B11 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 1.9 3.5 5.1 19
B12 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite -- 1.2 2.9 10 15
B12 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 - Composite -- 2.2 3.3 6.9 24
B13 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 - Composite 1.4 2.8 70 17
WM-C-1-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 222 1.31 J 2.63 12.3 181 23.9 WM-C-1-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 54 -- -- -- 36.9 --
WM-C-2-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 202 0.989 J 2.13 J 6.91 182 15.3 WM-C-2-0.5' DUP 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 202 Duplicate 1.57 J 2.45 7.54 156 13.6 WM-C-2-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 26 -- -- -- 11.1 --
WM-C-3-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 244 1.23 J 2.14 J 8.38 161 53.6 WM-C-3-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 13 -- -- -- 23.5 --
WM-C-4-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 368 0.683 J 1.92 J 6.96 141 15 WM-C-4-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 27 -- -- -- 12.6 --
WM-C-5-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 95 0.568 J 1.58 J 77.7 O1 76.9 O1 78.5 O1 WM-C-6-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 30 0.897 J,J6 2.16 4.92 10.6 19.7 WM-C-7-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 13 0.785 J <2.51 47.3 8.57 59.1 WM-C-8-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 31 0.879 J <2.40 18.1 15.0 31.0 WM-C-9A-1' 5/15/2020 0.5 - 1 105 0.727 J 1.55 J 5.61 71.2 18.6 WM-C-10-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 - 1.65 J 3.81 9.09 27.0 26.6 WM-C-11-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 45 1.47 J 10.7 7.86 29.3 24.3 WM-DG-1-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 241 1.41 J 2.69 8.57 188 16.4 WM-DG-1-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 9 -- -- -- 15.9 --
WM-DG-2-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 168 <2.42 2.74 10.3 6.16 12.9 WM-DG-3-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 90 0.833 J 1.28 J 5.66 51.1 23.0 WM-DG-4-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 30 <2.42 1.76 J 16.2 19.8 28.3 WM-DG-5-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 19 <2.44 1.53 J 13.9 38.1 23.1 WM-DG-6-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 311 <2.22 2.25 11.0 27.0 18.5 WM-DG-7-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 120 0.721 J 1.77 J 7.01 116 17.0 WM-DG-7-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 29 -- -- -- 12.1 --
WM-DG-8-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 59 0.637 J 1.43 J 9.12 55.7 21.0 Recreational Trail User Screening Level3 -- -- -- 540 -- USEPA RSLs
West Meadow
Screening Level Source USEPA RSLs
(mg/kg)
Sample ID Date
Sample
Depth
Depth Shot
Observed
XRF
Reading
(mg/kg)
Background Level1 6 11 63 43 140
Notes Antimony Arsenic Copper Lead
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Commercial Screening Level2 470 0.36 47,000 500
Unrestricted (Residential) Screening Level2 31 0.11 3,100 80 HHRA Note 3 USEPA RSLs HHRA Note 3
Zinc
350,000
23,000

42.412
Table 1
Metals Concentrations in Soil
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 2 of 4 ends

(feet bgs) (feet bgs) (ppm)
Recreational Trail User Screening Level3 -- -- -- 540 -- USEPA RSLs
West Meadow
Screening Level Source USEPA RSLs
(mg/kg)
Sample ID Date
Sample
Depth
Depth Shot
Observed
XRF
Reading
(mg/kg)
Background Level1 6 11 63 43 140
Notes Antimony Arsenic Copper Lead
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Commercial Screening Level2 470 0.36 47,000 500
Unrestricted (Residential) Screening Level2 31 0.11 3,100 80 HHRA Note 3 USEPA RSLs HHRA Note 3
Zinc
350,000
23,000
WM-DG-9-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 28 <2.31 1.52 J 299 17.5 91.1 WM-DG-10-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 46 0.640 J 2.78 10.9 28.7 25.0 WM-DG-11-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 59 2.01 J 2.72 B 263 76.0 689 WM-DG-11-0.5'-DUP 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 59 Duplicate 1.55 J 2.13 B,J 14.9 40.9 75.8 WM-DG-11A-1' 5/15/2020 0.5 - 1 16 <2.20 1.77 J 9.01 11.5 15.6 WM-DG-12-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 64 1.58 J 1.65 B,J 10.8 39.1 51.6 WM-DG-13-1.5' 5/14/2020 1 - 1.5 1,095 41.7 J 15.9 B,J 6,320 1,230 28,500 WM-DG-13-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 33 3.33 3.61 B 214 49.0 2,770 WM-DG-14-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 19 0.817 J 2.82 B 8.28 13.8 40.8 WM-DG-15-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 23 1.80 J 2.17 B,J 76.9 23.8 303 WM-16-0.5' 8/5/2021 0 - 0.5 18 -- -- -- -- --
WM-16-2' 8/5/2021 1.5 - 2 3 -- -- -- -- --
WM-17-0.5' 8/5/2021 0 - 0.5 133 -- -- -- -- --
WM-17-2' 8/5/2021 1.5 - 2 5 -- -- -- -- --
NO-1-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 225 3.54 3.05 B 6.32 265 24.0 NO-1-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 25 -- -- -- 6.55 --
NO-2-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 119 1.65 J 1.94 B,J 8.14 107 17.6 NO-2-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 28 -- -- -- 5.58 --
NO-3-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 863 6.94 4.77 B 11.3 690 21.5 NO-3-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 35 -- -- -- 45.3 --
NO-4-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 211 2.03 J 1.60 B,J 8.16 180 15.7 NO-4-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 16 -- -- -- 3.97 --
NO-5-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 10 1.08 J 1.57 B,J 50.8 40.0 44.2 NO-6-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 118 1.97 J 2.32 B,J 23.2 144 41.8 NO-6-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 14 -- -- -- 13.9 --
NO-7-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 43 0.926 J 1.91 B,J 8.08 29.8 24.8 NO-8-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 31 0.928 J <2.46 18.9 18.5 23.1 NO-9-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 39 1.51 J 1.70 B,J 14.4 20.0 26.7 NO-10-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 17 <2.33 <2.33 18.0 14.0 27.5 NO-11-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 18 1.04 J 0.655 J 15.0 14.5 26.8 NO-12-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 21 0.718 J <2.42 17.1 10.5 49.8 NO-13-0.5' 8/5/2021 0 - 0.5 14 -- -- -- -- --
NO-13-2' 8/5/2021 1.5 - 2 3 -- -- -- -- --
NO-14-0.5' 8/5/2021 0 - 0.5 56 -- -- -- -- --
NO-14-2' 8/5/2021 1.5 - 2 4 -- -- -- -- --
EM-1-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 119 2.34 2.42 63.1 138 69.6 EM-1-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 39 -- -- -- 22.1 --
EM-2-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 153 1.93 J 2.42 24.6 182 31.0 EM-2-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 15 -- -- -- 13.4 --
EM-3-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 219 2.87 3.23 16.6 203 20.4 EM-3-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 24 -- -- -- 51.3 --
EM-4-1.5' 5/12/2020 1 - 1.5 166 5.15 4.58 15.8 164 25.3 EM-4-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 47 -- -- -- 61.3 --
EM-5-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 139 2.51 3.21 19.1 115 26.4 EM-5-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 95 -- -- -- 53.6 --
EM-6-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 372 3.46 3.91 19.9 264 28.8 EM-6-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 83 -- -- -- 17.9 --
EM-7-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 758 17.0 9.58 21.1 752 30.7 EM-7-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 46 -- -- -- 117 --
EM-8-1' 5/12/2020 0.5 - 1 549 11.8 8.69 14.7 717 31.1
EM-8-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 94 -- -- -- 140 --
EM-9-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 1,227 5.46 6.71 10.7 1,140 22.1 EM-9-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 168 -- -- -- 81.9 --
EM-10-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 2,973 6.07 8.44 12.6 1,670 29.0 EM-10-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 15 -- -- -- 34.1 --
EM-11-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 569 3.78 7.16 24.4 856 36.2 EM-11-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 94 -- -- -- 140 --
EM-12-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 31 <2.44 3.04 B 38.6 9.15 98.3 EM-13-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 24 0.815 J 0.554 J 9.98 11.2 25.4 EM-14-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 38 1.58 J 2.92 B 12.5 33.0 44.5 EM-14-0.5'-DUP 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 38 Duplicate 2.14 J 2.80 B 14.0 32.5 55.3 EM-15-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 26 1.12 J 1.72 J 13.0 16.1 33.0 EM-16-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 42 1.00 J 1.33 J 14.0 24.6 37.3 EM-17-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 47 1.50 J 1.13 J 13.8 40.3 35.0 EM-18-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 39 3.29 2.35 11.2 44.5 30.5 EM-19-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 167 3.13 3.57 B 12.7 116 46.0 EM-19-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 64 -- -- -- 38.4 --
EM-20-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 58 <2.53 2.07 J 20.5 95.2 33.4 EM-20-2' 5/15/2020 1.5 - 2 10 -- -- -- 9.26 --
East Meadow

0.5-2
1-2
North Orchard

42.413
Table 1
Metals Concentrations in Soil
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 3 of 4 ends

(feet bgs) (feet bgs) (ppm)
Recreational Trail User Screening Level3 -- -- -- 540 -- USEPA RSLs
West Meadow
Screening Level Source USEPA RSLs
(mg/kg)
Sample ID Date
Sample
Depth
Depth Shot
Observed
XRF
Reading
(mg/kg)
Background Level1 6 11 63 43 140
Notes Antimony Arsenic Copper Lead
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Commercial Screening Level2 470 0.36 47,000 500
Unrestricted (Residential) Screening Level2 31 0.11 3,100 80 HHRA Note 3 USEPA RSLs HHRA Note 3
Zinc
350,000
23,000
EM-21-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 776 10.0 6.12 7.16 768 28.7 EM-21-0.5'-DUP 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 776 Duplicate 6.85 5.65 B 7.33 769 30.6 EM-21-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 17 -- -- -- 9.52 --
EM-22-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 100 <2.28 2.39 12.3 92.6 22.8 EM-22-2' 5/15/2020 1.5 - 2 17 -- -- -- 25.9 --
EM-23-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 29 0.932 J 1.24 J 12.8 10.7 26.0 EM-24-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 33 0.886 J 0.686 J 9.50 9.18 26.8 EM-25-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 30 0.786 J 0.810 J 12.2 10.3 28.7 EM-26-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 19 0.656 J 1.02 J 11.7 10.8 25.1 EM-27-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 34 1.02 J 0.823 J 13.6 6.12 26.4 EM-28-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 29 0.813 J 0.865 J 14.4 14.3 31.9 EM-29-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 31 0.720 J 1.02 J 10.8 17.8 36.8 EM-30-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 31 <2.25 2.52 21.9 18.0 24.1 EM-31-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 33 <2.30 2.07 J 9.94 15.4 19.1 EM-32-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 18 <2.34 2.01 J 13.8 37.4 23.0 EM-33-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 17 <2.25 2.23 J 8.74 12.3 19.0 EM-34-1' 8/3/2021 0.5 - 1 784 -- -- -- 637 --
EM-34-2' 8/3/2021 1.5 - 2 56 -- -- -- 37.9 --
EM-35-0.5' 8/3/2021 0 - 0.5 1,822 -- -- -- 1,800 --
EM-35-2' 8/3/20214 1.5 - 2 147 -- -- -- 198 --
EM-36-0.5' 8/3/2021 0 - 0.5 1,579 -- -- -- 2,090 --
EM-36-2' 8/3/2021 1.5 - 2 64 -- -- -- 28.6 --
EM-37-0.5' 8/3/2021 0 - 0.5 955 -- -- -- 571 --
EM-37-2' 8/3/2021 1.5 - 2 13 -- -- -- 14.7 --
EM-38-0.5' 8/3/2021 0 - 0.5 499 -- -- -- 490 --
EM-38-2' 8/3/2021 1.5 - 2 48 -- -- -- 41.3 --
EM-39-0.5' 8/3/2021 0 - 0.5 519 -- -- -- 504 --
EM-39-2' 8/3/2021 1.5 - 2 285 -- -- -- 220 --
EM-40-0.5 8/3/2021 0 - 0.5 245 -- -- -- 323 O1 --
EM-40-2' 8/3/2021 1.5 - 2 16 -- -- -- 18.6 --
R-1-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 226 -- -- -- 400 --
R-1-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 131 -- -- -- 61.5 --
R-2-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 28 -- -- -- 215 --
R-2-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 4 -- -- -- 8.80 O1 --
R-3-0.5' 8/3/2021 0 - 0.5 810 -- -- -- 1,530 --
R-3-2' 8/3/2021 1.5 - 2 12 -- -- -- 31.4 --
R-4-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 1,302 -- -- -- 1,600 --
R-4-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 16 -- -- -- 23.7 --
R-5-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 234 -- -- -- 9.86 --
R-5-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 18 -- -- -- 17.9 --
R-6-0.5' 8/3/2021 0 - 0.5 628 -- -- -- 573 --
R-6-2' 8/3/2021 1.5 - 2 290 -- -- -- 341 --
R-7-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 454 -- -- -- 456 --
R-7-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 33 -- -- -- 66.0 --
R-8-1.5' 8/4/2021 1 - 1.5 98 -- -- -- -- --
R-8-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 93 -- -- -- -- --
R-9-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 182 -- -- -- 256 --
R-9-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 11 -- -- -- 6.59 --
R-10-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 86 -- -- -- 94.0 --
R-10-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 3 -- -- -- 12.5 --
R-11-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 93 -- -- -- 75.7 --
R-11-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 20 -- -- -- 23.3 --
R-12-0.5' 8/4/2021 0 - 0.5 61 -- -- -- -- --
R-12-2' 8/4/2021 1.5 - 2 28 -- -- -- -- --
R-13-0.5' 8/5/2021 0 - 0.5 741 -- -- -- 686 --
R-13-2' 8/5/2021 1.5 - 2 17 -- -- -- 31.9 --
R-14-0.5' 8/5/2021 0 - 0.5 1,075 -- -- -- 1,220 --
R-14-2' 8/5/2021 1.5 - 2 6 -- -- -- 10.9 --
3/11/2021 Surface - -- -- -- 13.9 --
3/11/2021 1.5 - -- -- -- 5.68 --
3/11/2021 Surface - -- -- -- 42.5 --
3/11/2021 1.5 - -- -- -- 7.61 --
3/11/2021 Surface - -- -- -- 183 --
3/11/2021 1.5 - -- -- -- 6.54 --
3/11/2021 Surface - -- -- -- 208 --
3/11/2021 1.5 - -- -- -- 10.6 --
3/11/2021 Surface - -- -- -- 8.20 --
3/11/2021 1.5 - -- -- -- 5.74 --
3/11/2021 Surface - -- -- -- 37.5 --
3/11/2021 1.5 - -- -- -- 9.61 --
3/11/2021 Surface - -- -- -- 19.0 --
3/11/2021 1.5 - -- -- -- 15.2 --
B-5
B-6
B-7
East-West Connector Trail5
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
Ravine

42.414
Table 1
Metals Concentrations in Soil
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 4 of 4 ends

Soil samples sieved using No. 10 sieve and metals analyzed using USEPA Method 6010B.

Analytes detected above laboratory reporting limit are emboldened.

Analytes detected above background level and Unrestricted (Residential) Screening Level are highlighted yellow.

Analytes detected above the Recreational Trail Use Screening Level are highlighted blue. bgs = Below ground surface.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
-- = Not analyzed.

B = The same analyte is found in the associated blank.

J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.

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. 5 Soil sampling along the East-West Connector Trail was conducted by Weber, Hayes & Associates (WHA, 2021)) References:

DTSC, 2022. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3. May.

Duvergé, 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. December.

LBNL, 2009. Analysis of Background Distributions of Metals in Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Revised April.

RMD, 2020. Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report. Pogonip Farm and Garden, 333 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz, California. August 10.

USEPA, 2022. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-6, HQ=1). May.

WHA, 2021. Shallow Soil Sampling for Total Lead. Lower Meadows Access Road, Pogonip, 333 Golf Club Drive, Santa Cruz. December 29. 3 The Recreational Trail Use Screening Level was determined based on an evaluation of soil data collected from 2019-2020 and was described in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report (RMD, 2020). 4 Sample EM-35-2' initially reported a lead concentration of 5,810 mg/kg and was reanalyzed to confirm the result. The reanalyzed sample reported a lead concentration of 198 mg/kg.

B-10
B-11
B-12
B-8
B-9
Emma McCrary Trail Area
1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL, 2009), was used to establish acceptable upper estimate background concentrations for metals with the exception of arsenic.

For arsenic, the background level represents the established background level for San Francisco Bay Region of 11 mg/kg (Duvergé, 2011). 2 In order of priority, the screening level represents the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)-modified screening level (DTSC, 2022) followed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Level (RSL; USEPA, 2022).

42.415
Table 2
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Soil
Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space
Santa Cruz, California

Page 1 of 2 ends

Sample
Depth
Depth Clay
Target
Fragments
Observed
(feet bgs) (feet bgs)
Unrestricted (Residential) Screening Level1
Commercial Screening Level1
Recreational Trail Use Screening Level2
B1 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 0.0020 J <0.00095 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.00097 <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 - - - B2 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite <0.0012 <0.0012 0.0012 J 0.0031 0.0028 J <0.0011 <0.0011 0.0011 J <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 - - - B3 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite <0.0012 <0.0012 0.0016 J 0.0034 0.0034 <0.0011 <0.0011 0.0016 J <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 - - - B4 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 0.0024 J 0.0019 J <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.00097 <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 - - - B5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 0.13 A01 0.026 0.55 A01 0.44 A01 0.49 A01 0.17 A01 0.20 A01 0.59 A01 0.063 0.78 A01 0.013 0.18 A01 0.48 A01 0.85 A01 - - - B6 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 0.014 0.006 0.22 A01 0.32 A01 0.33 A01 0.23 A01 0.10 A01 0.25 A01 0.066 A01 0.19 A01 0.0012 J 0.20 A01 0.042 0.24 A01 - - - B7 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 0.024 0.0063 0.42 A01 0.64 A01 0.66 A01 0.50 A01 0.26 A01 0.49 A01 0.17 A01 0.31 A01 0.0019 J 0.45 A01 0.075 A01 0.39 A01 - - - B8 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite <0.0012 <0.0012 0.0095 0.014 0.19 0.0097 0.0054 0.011 0.0016 J 0.0092 <0.0011 0.0078 0.0025 J 0.012 - - - B9 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite <0.0012 <0.0012 0.0021 J 0.0043 J <0.00095 0.0019 J <0.0011 0.0023 J <0.00099 0.0019 J <0.0011 0.0015 J <0.0012 0.0022 J - - - B10 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 0.0019 J <0.00095 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.00097 <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 - - - B11 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 0.0098 0.0050 0.17 A01 0.19 A01 0.21 A01 0.091 A01 0.064 0.20 A01 0.031 0.17 A01 <0.0011 0.089 A01 0.028 0.20 A01 - - - B12 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 <0.00095 <0.00095 <0.0011 <0.0011 <0.00097 <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 - - - WM-C-5-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00645 <0.00645 0.00425 J 0.00642 J 0.00668 0.00606 J 0.00326 J 0.00552 J <0.00645 0.00445 J <0.00645 0.00467 J <0.00645 0.00486 J <0.0215 <0.0215 <0.0215 WM-C-6-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 0.00244 J <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.00644 <0.0215 <0.0215 <0.0215 WM-C-7-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00752 <0.00752 0.00232 J 0.00283 J 0.00352 J 0.00295 J <0.00752 <0.00752 <0.00752 <0.00752 <0.00752 <0.00752 <0.00752 0.00292 J <0.0251 <0.0251 <0.0251 WM-C-8-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 0.0273 0.0102 0.216 0.267 0.323 0.176 0.081 0.261 0.0532 0.340 0.00293 J 0.155 0.102 0.309 <0.0240 <0.0240 <0.0240 WM-C-8-2' 05/14/2020 1.5 - 2 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.00741 <0.0247 <0.0247 <0.0247 WM-C-9A-1' 05/15/2020 0.5 - 1 0.231 0.0866 5.64 10.4 11.5 4.88 2.79 6.44 1.85 4.22 0.0319 J 4.99 <0.215 0.828 4.68 <0.215 <0.215 WM-C-9-2' 05/14/2020 1.5 - 2 <0.00717 <0.00717 0.0332 0.0608 0.0593 0.0545 0.0232 0.0412 0.0145 0.0272 <0.00717 0.0446 0.00582 J 0.0319 <0.0239 <0.0239 <0.0239 WM-C-10-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 0.0115 0.00499 J 0.121 0.185 0.192 0.131 0.0803 0.172 0.0395 0.162 <0.00706 0.112 0.0508 0.155 <0.0235 <0.0235 <0.0235 WM-C-10-2' 05/14/2020 1.5 - 2 0.0258 0.00645 J 0.175 0.243 0.298 0.179 0.0819 0.217 0.0506 0.268 0.00249 J 0.153 0.0736 0.229 <0.0217 <0.0217 <0.0217 WM-C-11-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00640 <0.00640 0.00257 J 0.00383 J 0.00553 J 0.00419 J <0.00640 0.00307 J <0.00640 0.00273 J <0.00640 0.00306 J <0.00640 0.0028 J <0.0213 <0.0213 <0.0213 WM-C-11-2' 05/13/2020 1.5 - 2 0.56 0.23 2.68 2.56 2.88 1.42 0.772 3.02 0.468 3.81 0.123 1.25 2.43 4.18 0.0112 J 0.0106 J 0.0215 J WM-DG-1-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 0.00247 J <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.00687 <0.0229 <0.0229 <0.0229 WM-DG-2-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.00725 <0.0242 <0.0242 <0.0242 WM-DG-3-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.00676 0.00267 J 0.00215 J <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.00676 <0.0225 <0.0225 <0.0225 WM-DG-4-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 0.0027 J 0.00347 J 0.00283 J <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.0242 <0.0242 <0.0242 WM-DG-5-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00733 <0.00733 <0.00733 0.00239 J 0.00287 J 0.00256 J <0.00733 <0.00733 <0.00733 <0.00733 <0.00733 <0.00733 <0.00733 <0.00733 <0.0244 <0.0244 <0.0244 WM-DG-6-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 0.131 0.0763 2.85 3.61 3.88 2.27 1.31 3.61 0.836 3.07 0.0173 2.03 0.633 3.23 0.00974 J 0.0111 J 0.0133 J WM-DG-6-2' 05/13/2020 1.5 - 2 0.185 0.114 5.43 7.56 7.92 4.06 1.85 7.05 0.238 5.06 0.0248 3.58 0.942 6.73 0.0141 J 0.0162 J 0.0194 J WM-DG-7-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00639 <0.00639 0.00345 J 0.00558 J 0.00635 J 0.00506 J <0.00639 0.00452 J <0.00639 0.00399 J <0.00639 0.00419 J <0.00639 0.00411 J <0.0213 <0.0213 <0.0213 WM-DG-8-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00730 <0.00730 0.0529 0.107 0.113 0.0893 0.0331 0.0669 0.0252 0.0409 <0.00730 0.0754 0.00898 0.0444 <0.0243 <0.0243 <0.0243 WM-DG-9-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00694 <0.00694 <0.00694 0.00271 J 0.0034 J 0.00272 J <0.00694 <0.00694 <0.00694 <0.00694 <0.00694 0.00213 J <0.00694 <0.00694 <0.0231 <0.0231 <0.0231 WM-DG-10-0.5' 05/13/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00690 <0.00690 0.00254 J 0.00254 J 0.00298 J <0.00690 <0.00690 0.00297 J <0.00690 0.00366 J <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 0.00373 J <0.0230 <0.0230 <0.0230 WM-DG-11-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.0242 <0.0242 0.041 0.0608 0.0665 0.0445 0.0224 J 0.0535 0.0115 J 0.0469 <0.0242 0.0371 0.0158 J 0.0477 <0.0804 <0.0804 <0.0804 WM-DG-11-0.5'-DUP 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 Duplicate 0.986 0.651 8.45 10.5 12.2 3.35 4.00 9.86 2.38 11.1 0.260 3.61 4.14 11.8 0.321 0.0762 0.11 WM-DG-11A-1' 05/15/2020 0.5 - 1 0.00491 J <0.00659 0.0544 J3 0.0886 J3,J6 0.0813 J3,J6 0.0751 J3 0.0336 J3 0.0709 J3 0.0196 0.0595 <0.00659 0.0637 J3 <0.0220 0.0152 0.061 <0.0220 <0.0220 WM-DG-11-2' 05/14/2020 1.5 - 2 <0.00716 <0.00716 0.00212 J 0.00258 J 0.00271 J <0.00716 <0.00716 <0.00716 <0.00716 <0.00716 <0.00716 <0.00716 <0.00716 <0.00716 0.00716 J <0.0239 <0.0239 WM-DG-12-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 0.0278 0.0132 0.304 0.354 0.415 0.243 0.12 0.365 0.0661 0.347 0.00273 J 0.203 0.13 0.498 <0.0222 <0.0222 <0.0222 WM-DG-12-2' 05/14/2020 1.5 - 2 <0.00675 <0.00675 0.0100 0.00997 0.0102 0.00534 J 0.00445 J 0.0126 <0.00675 0.014 <0.00675 0.00474 J 0.00682 0.0159 <0.0225 <0.0225 <0.0225 WM-DG-13-1.5' 05/14/2020 1 - 1.5 0.252 0.113 6.42 11.7 14.8 7.52 4.02 8.75 4.45 5.74 0.0241 6.25 0.901 5.68 0.0462 0.0166 J 0.0201 J WM-DG-13-2' 05/14/2020 1.5 - 2 0.00609 J <0.00670 0.19 0.358 0.393 0.365 0.123 0.257 0.105 0.123 <0.00670 0.292 0.0186 0.158 0.00491 J <0.0223 <0.0223 WM-DG-14-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00659 <0.00659 0.00997 0.0149 0.0169 0.0138 0.00589 J 0.0122 0.00377 J 0.0108 <0.00659 0.0107 0.00295 J 0.0124 <0.0220 <0.0220 <0.0220 WM-DG-15-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00686 <0.00686 0.00482 J 0.00658 J 0.00832 0.00645 J 0.00264 J 0.00575 J <0.00686 0.00552 J <0.00686 0.00486 J <0.00686 0.0065 J <0.0229 <0.0229 <0.0229 NO-3-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 0.00191 J <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.00726 <0.0242 <0.0242 <0.0242 NO-4-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.00700 <0.0233 <0.0233 <0.0233 NO-6-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.00786 <0.0262 <0.0262 <0.0262 DIBENZ(A,H) ANTHRACENE Sample ID Date Notes

ANTHRACENE

ACENAPHTHENE

BENZO(A)

ANTHRACENE

BENZO(A)
PYRENE

BENZO(B)

FLUORANTHENE

BENZO(G,H,I)

PERYLENE

BENZO(K)

FLUORANTHENE

CHRYSENE
1-METHYL

NAPHTHALENE
2-METHYL

NAPHTHALENE
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

FLUORANTHENE

FLUORENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)
PYRENE

PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE

NAPHTHALENE
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
17,000 3,300 1.1 0.11 1.1 NE 11
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

9.9 190
130,000 23,000 12 1.3 13 NE
110 0.028 2,400 2,300 1.1 NE
18,000 17,000 13
1,800 2.0

4.5 45
130 1,300 0.31 NE 13,000 6.5 30 1,300
120,000 NE 450 4,500 1.1 NE 16,000 45 NE 12,000 38 160 1,600

0.5-2
North Orchard
23,000 45
West Meadow

0.5-1.5

0.5-1

42.416
Table 2
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Soil
Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space
Santa Cruz, California

Page 2 of 2 ends

Sample
Depth
Depth Clay
Target
Fragments
Observed
(feet bgs) (feet bgs)
Unrestricted (Residential) Screening Level1
Commercial Screening Level1
Recreational Trail Use Screening Level2

DIBENZ(A,H)

ANTHRACENE
Sample ID Date Notes

ANTHRACENE

ACENAPHTHENE

BENZO(A)

ANTHRACENE

BENZO(A)
PYRENE

BENZO(B)

FLUORANTHENE

BENZO(G,H,I)

PERYLENE

BENZO(K)

FLUORANTHENE

CHRYSENE
1-METHYL

NAPHTHALENE
2-METHYL

NAPHTHALENE
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

FLUORANTHENE

FLUORENE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)
PYRENE

PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE

NAPHTHALENE
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
17,000 3,300 1.1 0.11 1.1 NE 11
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

9.9 190
130,000 23,000 12 1.3 13 NE
110 0.028 2,400 2,300 1.1 NE
18,000 17,000 13
1,800 2.0

4.5 45
130 1,300 0.31 NE 13,000 6.5 30 1,300
120,000 23,000 45 NE 450 4,500 1.1 NE 16,000 45 NE 12,000 38 160 1,600 West Meadow
EM-1-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00688 <0.00688 J3 <0.00688 <0.00688 0.00228 J <0.00688 <0.00688 J3 <0.00688 <0.00688 <0.00688 <0.00688 <0.00688 <0.00688 <0.00688 <0.0229 J3 <0.0229 J3 <0.0229 J3 EM-2-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00693 <0.00693 0.00233 J 0.00267 J 0.00508 J 0.00326 J <0.00693 0.0028 J <0.00693 0.00337 J <0.00693 0.00232 J <0.00693 0.00292 J <0.0231 <0.0231 <0.0231 EM-3-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 0.00324 J 0.00258 J <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.00690 <0.0230 <0.0230 <0.0230 EM-4-1.5' 05/12/2020 1 - 1.5 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.00656 <0.0219 <0.0219 <0.0219 EM-5-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.00647 <0.0216 <0.0216 <0.0216 EM-6-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.00671 0.00332 J 0.00223 J <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.00671 <0.0224 <0.0224 <0.0224 EM-7-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 0.00224 J <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.00663 <0.0221 <0.0221 <0.0221 EM-8-1' 05/12/2020 0.5 - 1 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.00652 <0.0217 <0.0217 <0.0217 EM-9-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.00641 <0.0214 <0.0214 <0.0214 EM-10-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 0-1.5 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.00633 <0.0211 <0.0211 <0.0211 EM-11-0.5' 05/12/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 <0.00708 0.0114 J <0.0236 0.0102 J EM-21-0.5' 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.00646 <0.0215 <0.0215 <0.0215 EM-21-0.5'-DUP 05/14/2020 0 - 0.5 Duplicate <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 0.00183 J <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.00650 <0.0217 <0.0217 <0.0217 Notes:

PAHs analyzed using USEPA Method 8270C-SIM.

Analytes detected above laboratory reporting limit are emboldened.

Analytes detected above Unrestricted (Residential) Screening Level are highlighted yellow.

Analytes detected above Recreational Trail Use Screening Level are highlighted blue.

Analytes detected above Commercial Screening Level are underlined. bgs = Below ground surface.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.

NE = Not Established.

PAHs = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.

SIM = Selective Ion Mode.

A01 = Detection and quantation limits were raised due to sample dilution.

J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.

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

J6 = The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is low. 1 The screening level represents the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)-modified screening level (DTSC, 2022). 2 The Recreational Trail Use Screening Level was determined based on an evaluation of soil data collected from 2019-2020.

References:

DTSC, 2022. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3. May.

East Meadow

42.417
Table 3
Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
Lower Main Meadow, Pogonip Open Space
Santa Cruz, California

Page 1 of 1 ends

Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Concentrations naturally attenuate over
time. Current conditions do not appear
to be protective of human health and
the environment.
0 Institutional and engineering controls can
protect humans from direct contact with
impacted soil but do not protect the
environment.
3 Removal of COPCs from impacted soil
slowly over long-term. 2
Highly protective of human health and
the environment by removing the risk of
exposure.
5 Ability to Reach Remedial
Action Cleanup Goals
Natural attenuation rates do not appear
to be adequately protective of human
health and the environment.
0 Do not reduce concentrations of
impacted soil. 0
Removal of COPCs from impacted soil
slowly, but might not reach
concentrations below the remedial action
cleanup goals.
2 Proven method to reach remedial action
cleanup goals, especially with the source
already removed.
5 Long-Term Effectiveness and
Performance
Natural attenuation rates do not appear
to be adequately protective of human
health and the environment.
0 Institutional controls can be highly
effective in the long-term. Engineering
controls require ongoing maintenance
and repairs
3 Removal of COPCs from impacted soil
over long-term, but might not reach
level of effectiveness necessary to meet
remedial actional cleanup goals.
3 Highly effective long-term solution,
especially with the source already
removed.
5 Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility or Volume through
Treatment
Natural attenuation reduces toxicity,
mobility, and volume through dispersion,
sorption, and dilution. Attenuation rates
do not appear to be protective of human
health and the environment.
0 Do not reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume of impacted soil. 0
Removal of COPCs will reduce toxicity,
mobility, and volume but requires
ongoing sampling to monitor progress.
3 Reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume by
removing the impacted soil. 5
Short-Term Effectiveness Does not adequately protect human health and the environment. 0 Highly effective short-term solution. 5 Not effective in the short-term. 0 Highly effective short-term solution, once
funding is secured and excavation
permits are issued.
3 Implementability Easily implementable.

No action required. 5 Easily implemented. 5
Planting new plants and trees is feasible,
but requires a significant volume of water
and routine soil sampling to monitor
remedial progress.
3 Easy to implement once temporary
access road is constructed and Site is
prepared for heavy equipment
operation.
3 Cost No cost. 5 Low capitol and O&M costs. 5
Low capitol cost for planting; moderate
O&M costs for watering and conducting
routine soil sampling to monitor remedial
progress.
3 Moderate cost for excavating soil;
extremely high cost for off-Site disposal. 0
Regulatory
Acceptance
Not likely to be approved.

Provided as baseline for comparison of
remedial alternatives.
0 Likely to be approved in combination
with a secondary remedial alternative. 5
Likely to be approved, but it is a less
common remedial alternative and does
not have adequate short-term
effectiveness.
3 Likely to be approved. 5
Community Acceptance Community has not been solicited. -- Community has not been solicited. -- Community has not been solicited. -- Community has not been solicited. -- Overall Ranking
Notes:

Scoring system is as follows:
0 = Ineffective / Not easily implementable / High cost
3 = Moderately effective / Implementable / Moderate cost 5 = Highly effective / Easily implementable / Low cost
10 26 19 31
Criteria
Alternative 1:

No Action
Alternative 2:

Institutional and Engineering Controls
Alternative 4:

Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
Alternative 3:

Phytoremediation

42.418

APPENDIX A

EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS

42.419
5HSRUW
6RLO/HDG/HYHOVLQWKH/RZHU0DLQ0HDGRZRI3RJRQLS
7KiV iV rHSRrt XSGDtHG January 18, 2019.
%\WKH+RPHOHss*DUGHQ3URMHFW
2Q1RYHPEHUIROORZiQJDPHHWiQJZiWK3DUNsDQG5HFUHDWiRQsWDII+*3UHFHiYHGD IRUPDOOHWWHUDOHUWiQJXsWRWKHSUHsHQFHRIKisWRUiFsNHHWsKRRWiQJiQWKH/RZHU0DiQ0HDGRZ DQGWKHSRssiEiOiW\RIKiJKHUOHDGOHYHOsUHsXOWiQJIURPWKisXsH. $WWKHWiPHDJUiFXOWXUDOsRiOWHsWiQJZDsXQGHUZD\.7KHiQiWiDOsRiOWHsWUHsXOWsZHUHUHFHiYHGRQ 'HFHPEHUDQGDUHsKRZQiQ7DEOH.6RiOsDPSOHsZHUHWDNHQXsiQJWKHEHsWSUDFWiFHs PHWKRGRORJ\RXWOiQHGE\WKH6RiODQG3ODQW1XWUiHQW7HsWiQJ/DERUDWRU\DWWKH8QiYHUsiW\RI 0DssDFKXsHWWs$PKHUsWIRUDJUiFXOWXUHsRiOWHsWiQJ./HDGOHYHOsWHsWHGiQWKisiQiWiDOSKDsHUHSRUW SODQWDYDiODEOH
H[WUDFWiEOH
OHDGOHYHOs127WRWDOOHDGOHYHOs.
,QDGGiWiRQWRUHSRUWiQJSODQW
DYDiODEOHOHDGRWKHUDJUiFXOWXUDOO\siJQiIiFDQWWHsWsZHUHUHSRUWHGiQFOXGiQJS+.

7DEOH
EHORZ
sKRZsWKHUHsXOWsRIURXQGWHsWiQJ.6DPSOHORFDWiRQsDUHsKRZQZiWKJUHHQ SiQsRQWKHPDS.
7DEOH
/RFDWLRQ
([WUDFWDEOH/HDG
SSP S+
2UFKDUG . .
)iHOG . .
$FDFiD . .
)iHOG .
.
2QHsDPSOHIURPWKHDUHDSODQQHGDsWKHIXWXUHRUFKDUGsKRZHGOHDGOHYHOsWKDWIHOODERYH WKHRSWiPXPUDQJHRISSPUHFRPPHQGHGE\WKHODE.
)XUWKHUsDPSOHsZHUHFROOHFWHGIURPWKHORZHUPHDGRZWRH[SORUHZKDWDUHDRIWKH/RZHU 0HDGRZsKRZHGHOHYDWHGOHDGOHYHOs.7KUHHsDPSOHs
QXPEHUs
sKRZHGHOHYDWHGOHDG
OHYHOs.7KHsHsDPSOHsFRUUHsSRQGWRWKHIRRWZHWODQGsEXIIHU]RQH.7DEOHsKRZsWKH UHsXOWsRIURXQGWHsWiQJ6DPSOHsORFDWiRQsDUHsKRZQZiWKUHG³SiQs´RQWKHPDS.

DRAFT 42.420
7DEOH2sKRZsWKHUHsXOWsRIURXQGWHsWiQJsKRZiQJH[WUDFWDEOH/HDG.6DPSOHORFDWiRQsDUH sKRZQRQWKHPDSE\UHGSiQs.
/RFDWLRQ
([WUDFWDEOH/HDG
SSP S+
. .

. .
. .
. .
. .

. .
-DQXDU\2
XSGDWH
7KHODEDWWKH8QiYHUsiW\RI0DssDFKXsHWWsUHFRPPHQGsWKDWsRiOsZiWKHOHYDWHGOHYHOsRI H[WUDFWDEOHOHDG
!SSP
EHWHsWHGIRU7RWDO6RUEHG/HDG.7KH\UHFRPPHQGWKDWsDPSOHsEH DQDO\]HGE\WKH$JUiFXOWXUDO$QDO\WiFDO6HUYiFHs/DERUDWRU\DWWKH3HQQs\OYDQiD6WDWH8QiYHUsiW\ $QDO\WiFDO6HUYiFHs/DE.$GGiWiRQDOsDPSOHsIRUERWKH[WUDFWDEOHDQGWRWDO6RUEHG/HDGZHUH WDNHQRQ'HFHPEHU
DQGsKiSSHGWRWKHODERQ'HFHPEHU.7DEOHDQG sKRZWKHUHsXOWsRIWKisWKiUGURXQGRIsRiOWHsWiQJ./RFDWiRQsRIWKHsHsDPSOHsDUHiQGiFDWHGRQ WKHPDSZiWKOiJKWEOXHSiQs.
7DEOH.5RXQGWHsWiQJIRUH[WUDFWDEOHOHDG
sDPHWHsWsDssKRZQiQ7DEOHDQG
/RFDWiRQs
RIWKHsHsDPSOHsDUHiQGiFDWHGRQWKHPDSZiWKOiJKWEOXHSiQs.3OXP&UHHNisiQGiFDWHGZiWKD ZKiWHSiQ.
/RFDWLRQ
([WUDFWDEOH/HDG
SSP S+
3OXP&UHHN .
.
6DPSOH

IURP
7DEOH
. .
6DPSOH

IURP
7DEOH

. .
DRAFT 42.421
7DEOHsKRZsWRWDO6RUEHG/HDGDsPHDsXUHGE\WKH3HQQs\OYDQiD6WDWH8QiYHUsiW\$QDO\WiFDO 6HUYiFHs/DE.:HDUHSOHDsHGWRUHSRUWWKDWWKisWHsWiQJiQGiFDWHsWKDWZKiOHWKHDUHDsKRZs sRPHZKDWHOHYDWHGOHDGOHYHOsWKHUHsXOWsDUHEHORZWKH(3$sWDQGDUGsRIWRSSP WKDWZRXOGUHTXiUHPRGiIiHGIDUPiQJSUDFWiFHs.
7DEOH.6KRZsWRWDO6RUEHG/HDGDsPHDsXUHGE\WKH3HQQs\OYDQiD6WDWH8QiYHUsiW\$QDO\WiFDO 6HUYiFHs/DE.1RWHPJNJ SSP./iJKWEOXHSiQs
6RUEisQHDUWKHURDGDQG6RUEWZRis
IXUWKHUWRWKHHDsW

/RFDWLRQ
3E

/HDG

PJNJ
&G

&DGPLXP

PJNJ
&X

&RSSHU

PJNJ
&U

&KURPLXP

PJNJ
1L

1LFNHO

PJNJ
=Q

=LQN

PJNJ
6RUE

IURP7DEOH
. . . . . .
6RUE

IURP7DEOH
. . . . . .
127(:WRSSPOHDGDUHsHWE\WKH(3$DQGZRXOGUHTXiUHPRGiIiHGIDUPiQJSUDFWiFHs $GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQ

$FFRUGiQJWR3HQQs\OYDQiD6WDWH&ROOHJHRI$JUiFXOWXUH6FiHQFH/HDG)DFW6KHHWDQGRWKHU sRXUFHsWKHSODQWDYDiODEOH/HDGGHSHQGsRQiWssROXEiOiW\DQGsROXEiOiW\issWURQJO\iPSDFWHGE\ sRiOS+.$WORZS+
S+RUOHss
OHDGisPRUHsROXEOH.$WQHXWUDO
RUPRUHEDsiF
S+sOHDGis
KHOGWiJKWO\iQsRiODQGiWssROXEiOiW\isORZ.
%RWKWKH8QiYHUsiW\RI0DssDFKXsHWWsDQG2UHJRQ6WDWH8QiYHUsiW\SXEOisKJXiGHOiQHsIRU FXOWiYDWiRQiQDUHDsiPSDFWHGE\KiJKHUOHDGOHYHOs.7KHsHUHFRPPHQGDWiRQsDUHiGHQWiFDODQG DOORZIRUFXOWiYDWiRQsDWOHDGOHYHOsXSWRSSP727$//($'.7KHsHUHFRPPHQGDWiRQs IROORZWKHJXiGHOiQHsissXHGE\WKH(3$.

DRAFT 42.422
Map showing sample locations:

References (shown in the order they appear linked in the text):
1) https://ag.umass.edu/soil-plant-nutrient-testing-laboratory/fact-sheets/sampling-instructio ns-for-routine-soil-analysis
2) https://ag.umass.edu/soil-plant-nutrient-testing-laboratory/fact-sheets/soil-lead-testing-int erpretation-recommendations
3) https://ag.umass.edu/soil-plant-nutrient-testing-laboratory/fact-sheets/soil-lead-testing-int erpretation-recommendations
4) https://ag.umass.edu/soil-plant-nutrient-testing-laboratory/fact-sheets/soil-lead-testing-int erpretation-recommendations
5) Lead in Residential Soils: Sources, Testing, and Reducing Exposure. Pennsylvania State College of Agricultural Sciences. Copyright 1999
6) http://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/sfn/su10toxicmetals 7) https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=34&po=8 DRAFT

42.423
Table A1
Summary of Soil Analytical Results
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 1 of 2 ends

Arsenic Copper Lead Zinc Diesel Motor Oil

0.26 3,100 80 23,000 260 12,000

0.31 47,000 320 350,000 1,200 180,000

0.98 14,000 160 110,000 1,100 54,000
B1 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 2.1 3.9 120 17 <0.24 <1.3 B1N-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Discrete --- --- 150 --- --- --- B1S-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Discrete --- --- 58 --- --- --- B1E-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Discrete --- --- 110 --- --- --- B1W-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Discrete --- --- 64 --- --- --- B1 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 2.9 4.6 6.2 18 --- ---
B1N-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Discrete --- --- 4.5 --- --- --- B1S-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Discrete --- --- 9.5 --- --- --- B1E-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Discrete --- --- 8.0 --- --- --- B1W-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Discrete --- --- 6.4 --- --- --- B2 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 2.0 3.2 60 60 <0.24 <1.3 B2 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 1.6 3.3 5.8 98 --- ---
B3 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 2.8 3.1 84 20 <0.24 <1.3 B3N-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Discrete --- --- 190 --- --- --- B3S-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Discrete --- --- 48 --- --- --- B3E-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Discrete --- --- 47 --- --- --- B3W-0.5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Discrete --- --- 89 --- --- --- B3 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 2.5 3.9 5.6 22 --- ---
B3N-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Discrete --- --- 5.7 --- --- --- B3S-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Discrete --- --- 11 --- --- --- B3E-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Discrete --- --- 20 --- --- --- B3W-2.0 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Discrete --- --- 5.8 --- --- --- B4 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 1.8 3.6 24 19 <0.24 <1.3 B4 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 1.8 3.8 6.6 19 --- ---
B5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 9.6 4.2 25 26 <0.24 <1.3 B5 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 7.3 3.7 4.6 20 --- ---
B6 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 1.6 4.0 60 23 8.4 A01, A52 85 A01, A57 B6 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 2.1 3.5 6.4 22 --- ---
B7 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 3.2 50 38 160 <0.24 <1.3 B7 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 2.9 7.1 8.6 47 --- ---
B8 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 3.7 4.8 19 22 1.3 J, A52 2.1 J, A57 B8 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 4.4 4.1 5.8 19 --- ---
B9 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 1.8 3.8 8.9 19 1.3 J, A52 3.4 J, A57 Metals TPH
RWQCB Residential ESLs
RWQCB Commercial/Industrial ESLs
RWQCB Construction Worker ESLs
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
Sample
Type

42.424
Table A1
Summary of Soil Analytical Results
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 2 of 2 ends

Arsenic Copper Lead Zinc Diesel Motor Oil

0.26 3,100 80 23,000 260 12,000

0.31 47,000 320 350,000 1,200 180,000

0.98 14,000 160 110,000 1,100 54,000
Metals TPH
RWQCB Residential ESLs
RWQCB Commercial/Industrial ESLs
RWQCB Construction Worker ESLs
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
Sample
Type
B9 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 3.0 4.3 12 20 --- ---
B10 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 0.98 3.2 6.1 19 1.3 J, A52 1.7 J, A57 B10 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 1.2 3.4 4.4 17 --- ---
B11 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 2.2 4 11 20 <0.24 <1.3
B11 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 1.9 3.5 5.1 19 --- ---
B12 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 1.2 2.9 10 15 <0.24 <1.3 B12 2/28/2019 1.5-2.0 Composite 2.2 3.3 6.9 24 NA NA
B13 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 Composite 1.4 2.8 70 17 NA NA
Notes: 9.6 50.0 190.0 160.0
Sample results reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).

Metals analyzed by USEPA Method 6010B.

TPH analyzed by USEPA Method 8015B.

TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons.

Bolded value = exceedence of Residential ESL.
<0.24 = not detected above analytical laboratory Method Detection Limit (MDL). --- = not analyzed or not established.

J = Estimated Value.

A01 = Detection and quantation limits were raised due to sample dilution.

A52 = Chromatogram not typical of diesel.

A57 = Chromatogram not typical of motor oil.

RWQCB ESL = San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level (January 2019, Rev 1).

42.425
Table A2
Summary of Soil Analytical Results - PAHs
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 1 of 1 ends

AcenaphtheneAnthraceneBenzo[a]anthraceneBenzo[b]fluorantheneBenzo[k]fluorantheneBenzo[a]pyreneBenzo[g,h,i]perlyeneChryseneDibenzo[a,h]anthraceneFluoroantheneFluoreneIndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrenePhenanthrenePyrene 3,600 18,000 1.1 1.1 11 0.11 NE 110 0.11 2,400 2,400 1.1 NE 1,800 45,000 230,000 20 21 210 2.1 NE 2,100 2.1 30,000 30,000 21 NE 23,000 10,000 50,000 110 110 910 10 NE 9,100 11 6,700 6,700 110 NE 5,000 B1 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 <0.00095 <0.0011 0.0020 J <0.0011 <0.00097 <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 B2 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 <0.0012 <0.0012 0.0012 J 0.0028 J <0.0011 0.0031 <0.0011 0.0011 J <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 B3 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 <0.0012 <0.0012 0.0016 J 0.0034 <0.0011 0.0034 <0.0011 0.0016 J <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 B4 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 0.0019 J <0.0011 0.0024 J <0.0011 <0.00097 <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 B5 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 0.026 0.13 A01 0.55 A01 0.49 A01 0.20 A01 0.44 A01 0.17 A01 0.59 A01 0.063 0.78 A01 0.013 0.18 A01 0.48 A01 0.85 A01 B6 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 0.006 0.014 0.22 A01 0.33 A01 0.10 A01 0.32 A01 0.23 A01 0.25 A01 0.066 A01 0.19 A01 0.0012 J 0.20 A01 0.042 0.24 A01 B7 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 0.0063 0.024 0.42 A01 0.66 A01 0.26 A01 0.64 A01 0.50 A01 0.49 A01 0.17 A01 0.31 A01 0.0019 J 0.45 A01 0.075 A01 0.39 A01 B8 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 <0.0012 <0.0012 0.0095 0.19 0.0054 0.014 0.0097 0.011 0.0016 J 0.0092 <0.0011 0.0078 0.0025 J 0.012 B9 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 <0.0012 <0.0012 0.0021 J <0.00095 <0.0011 0.0043 J 0.0019 J 0.0023 J <0.00099 0.0019 J <0.0011 0.0015 J <0.0012 0.0022 J B10 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 <0.00095 <0.0011 0.0019 J <0.0011 <0.00097 <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 B11 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 0.0050 0.0098 0.17 A01 0.21 A01 0.064 0.19 A01 0.091 A01 0.20 A01 0.031 0.17 A01 <0.0011 0.089 A01 0.028 0.20 A01 B12 2/28/2019 0.0-0.5 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0011 <0.00095 <0.0011 <0.00095 <0.0011 <0.00097 <0.00099 <0.0014 <0.0011 <0.00092 <0.0012 <0.0015 Notes:

Sample results reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).

PAHs analyzed by USEPA Method 8270C.

Bolded value = exceedence of Residential ESL.
<0.0012 = not detected above analytical laboratory Method Detection Limit (MDL).

PAHs = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.

NA = not analyzed.

J = Estimated Value.

NE = ESL not established.

A01 = Detection and quantation limits were raised due to sample dilution.

RWQCB ESL = San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level (January 2019, Rev 1).

PAHs
RWQCB Residential ESLs
RWQCB Commercial/Industrial ESLs
RWQCB Construction Worker ESLs
Sample
ID
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
(feet)

42.426
Table A3
Metals in Soil
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 1 of 2 ends

(feet bgs) (feet bgs) (ppm)
WM-C-1-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 222 1.31 J 2.63 12.3 181 23.9 WM-C-1-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 54 - - - 36.9 -
WM-C-2-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 202 0.989 J 2.13 J 6.91 182 15.3 WM-C-2-0.5' DUP 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 202 Duplicate 1.57 J 2.45 7.54 156 13.6 WM-C-2-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 26 - - - 11.1 -
WM-C-3-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 244 1.23 J 2.14 J 8.38 161 53.6 WM-C-3-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 13 - - - 23.5 -
WM-C-4-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 368 0.683 J 1.92 J 6.96 141 15 WM-C-4-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 27 - - - 12.6 -
WM-C-5-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 95 0.568 J 1.58 J 77.7 O1 76.9 O1 78.5 O1 WM-C-6-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 30 0.897 J,J6 2.16 4.92 10.6 19.7 WM-C-7-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 13 0.785 J <2.51 47.3 8.57 59.1 WM-C-8-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 31 0.879 J <2.40 18.1 15.0 31.0 WM-C-9A-1' 5/15/2020 0.5 - 1 105 0.727 J 1.55 J 5.61 71.2 18.6 WM-C-10-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 - 1.65 J 3.81 9.09 27.0 26.6 WM-C-11-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 45 1.47 J 10.7 7.86 29.3 24.3 WM-DG-1-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 241 1.41 J 2.69 8.57 188 16.4 WM-DG-1-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 9 - - - 15.9 -
WM-DG-2-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 168 <2.42 2.74 10.3 6.16 12.9 WM-DG-3-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 90 0.833 J 1.28 J 5.66 51.1 23.0 WM-DG-4-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 30 <2.42 1.76 J 16.2 19.8 28.3 WM-DG-5-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 19 <2.44 1.53 J 13.9 38.1 23.1 WM-DG-6-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 311 <2.22 2.25 11.0 27.0 18.5 WM-DG-7-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 120 0.721 J 1.77 J 7.01 116 17.0 WM-DG-7-2' 5/13/2020 1.5 - 2 29 - - - 12.1 -
WM-DG-8-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 59 0.637 J 1.43 J 9.12 55.7 21.0 WM-DG-9-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 28 <2.31 1.52 J 299 17.5 91.1 WM-DG-10-0.5' 5/13/2020 0 - 0.5 46 0.640 J 2.78 10.9 28.7 25.0 WM-DG-11-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 59 2.01 J 2.72 B 263 76.0 689 WM-DG-11-0.5'-DUP 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 59 Duplicate 1.55 J 2.13 B,J 14.9 40.9 75.8 WM-DG-11A-1' 5/15/2020 0.5 - 1 16 <2.20 1.77 J 9.01 11.5 15.6 WM-DG-12-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 64 1.58 J 1.65 B,J 10.8 39.1 51.6 WM-DG-13-1.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 1,095 41.7 J 15.9 B,J 6,320 1,230 28,500 WM-DG-13-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 33 3.33 3.61 B 214 49.0 2,770 WM-DG-14-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 19 0.817 J 2.82 B 8.28 13.8 40.8 WM-DG-15-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 23 1.80 J 2.17 B,J 76.9 23.8 303 NO-1-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 225 3.54 3.05 B 6.32 265 24.0 NO-1-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 25 - - - 6.55 -
NO-2-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 119 1.65 J 1.94 B,J 8.14 107 17.6 NO-2-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 28 - - - 5.58 -
NO-3-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 863 6.94 4.77 B 11.3 690 21.5 NO-3-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 35 - - - 45.3 -
NO-4-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 211 2.03 J 1.60 B,J 8.16 180 15.7 NO-4-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 16 - - - 3.97 -
NO-5-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 10 1.08 J 1.57 B,J 50.8 40.0 44.2 NO-6-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 118 1.97 J 2.32 B,J 23.2 144 41.8 NO-6-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 14 - - - 13.9 -
NO-7-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 43 0.926 J 1.91 B,J 8.08 29.8 24.8 NO-8-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 31 0.928 J <2.46 18.9 18.5 23.1 NO-9-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 39 1.51 J 1.70 B,J 14.4 20.0 26.7 NO-10-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 17 <2.33 <2.33 18.0 14.0 27.5 NO-11-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 18 1.04 J 0.655 J 15.0 14.5 26.8 NO-12-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 21 0.718 J <2.42 17.1 10.5 49.8 EM-1-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 119 2.34 2.42 63.1 138 69.6 EM-1-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 39 - - - 22.1 -
EM-2-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 153 1.93 J 2.42 24.6 182 31.0 EM-2-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 15 - - - 13.4 -
EM-3-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 219 2.87 3.23 16.6 203 20.4 EM-3-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 24 - - - 51.3 -
EM-4-1.5' 5/12/2020 1 - 1.5 166 5.15 4.58 15.8 164 25.3 EM-4-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 47 - - - 61.3 -
EM-5-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 139 2.51 3.21 19.1 115 26.4 EM-5-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 95 - - - 53.6 -
EM-6-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 372 3.46 3.91 19.9 264 28.8 EM-6-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 83 - - - 17.9 -
EM-7-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 758 17.0 9.58 21.1 752 30.7 EM-7-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 46 - - - 117 -
EM-8-1' 5/12/2020 0.5 - 1 549 11.8 8.69 14.7 717 31.1
EM-8-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 94 - - - 140 -
EM-9-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 1,227 5.46 6.71 10.7 1,140 22.1 EM-9-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 168 - - - 81.9 -
(mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
1-2
XRF
Reading
80 0.5-2
11 3,100
Screening Level Source
Sample ID Date Notes
Sample
Depth
Residential Screening Level
HHRA Note 3
31 East Meadow
North Orchard
West Meadow
USEPA RSLs Background USEPA RSLs USEPA RSLs
Depth Shot
Observed Antimony Arsenic
23,000
(mg/kg)
Zinc
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Copper

42.427
Table A3
Metals in Soil
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 2 of 2 ends

(feet bgs) (feet bgs) (ppm) (mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
XRF
Reading
11 3,100 80
Sample ID Date Notes
Sample
Depth
Residential Screening Level 31
Depth Shot
Observed Antimony Arsenic
23,000
(mg/kg)
Zinc
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Copper
EM-10-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 2,973 6.07 8.44 12.6 1,670 29.0 EM-10-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 15 - - - 34.1 -
EM-11-0.5' 5/12/2020 0 - 0.5 569 3.78 7.16 24.4 856 36.2 EM-11-2' 5/12/2020 1.5 - 2 94 - - - 140 -
EM-12-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 31 <2.44 3.04 B 38.6 9.15 98.3 EM-13-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 24 0.815 J 0.554 J 9.98 11.2 25.4 EM-14-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 38 1.58 J 2.92 B 12.5 33.0 44.5 EM-14-0.5'-DUP 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 38 Duplicate 2.14 J 2.80 B 14.0 32.5 55.3 EM-15-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 26 1.12 J 1.72 J 13.0 16.1 33.0 EM-16-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 42 1.00 J 1.33 J 14.0 24.6 37.3 EM-17-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 47 1.50 J 1.13 J 13.8 40.3 35.0 EM-18-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 39 3.29 2.35 11.2 44.5 30.5 EM-19-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 167 3.13 3.57 B 12.7 116 46.0 EM-19-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 64 - - - 38.4 -
EM-20-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 58 <2.53 2.07 J 20.5 95.2 33.4 EM-20-2' 5/15/2020 1.5 - 2 10 - - - 9.26 -
EM-21-0.5' 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 776 10.0 6.12 7.16 768 28.7 EM-21-0.5'-DUP 5/14/2020 0 - 0.5 776 Duplicate 6.85 5.65 B 7.33 769 30.6 EM-21-2' 5/14/2020 1.5 - 2 17 - - - 9.52 -
EM-22-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 100 <2.28 2.39 12.3 92.6 22.8 EM-22-2' 5/15/2020 1.5 - 2 17 - - - 25.9 -
EM-23-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 29 0.932 J 1.24 J 12.8 10.7 26.0 EM-24-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 33 0.886 J 0.686 J 9.50 9.18 26.8 EM-25-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 30 0.786 J 0.810 J 12.2 10.3 28.7 EM-26-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 19 0.656 J 1.02 J 11.7 10.8 25.1 EM-27-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 34 1.02 J 0.823 J 13.6 6.12 26.4 EM-28-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 29 0.813 J 0.865 J 14.4 14.3 31.9 EM-29-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 31 0.720 J 1.02 J 10.8 17.8 36.8 EM-30-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 31 <2.25 2.52 21.9 18.0 24.1 EM-31-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 33 <2.30 2.07 J 9.94 15.4 19.1 EM-32-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 18 <2.34 2.01 J 13.8 37.4 23.0 EM-33-0.5' 5/15/2020 0 - 0.5 17 <2.25 2.23 J 8.74 12.3 19.0 Notes:

Metals analyzed using USEPA Method 6010B.

Analytes detected above laboratory reporting limit are emboldened.

Analytes detected above Residential Screening Level are highlighted.

Background = Duverge, 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. December.

HHRA Note 3 = DTSC, 2019. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3. April.

USEPA RSLs = USEPA, 2020. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table (TR=1E-6, HQ=1). May.

DTSC = California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control.

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
bgs = Below ground surface.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
- = Not analyzed.

B = The same analyte is found in the associated blank.

J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.

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.

42.428
Table A4
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soil
Pogonip Farm and Garden
Santa Cruz, California

Page 1 of 2 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilJune 28, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
June 28, 2022