Home > Urban Seattle Area Soil Dioxin and PAH Concentrations Initial Summary Report

Urban Seattle Area Soil Dioxin and PAH Concentrations Initial Summary Report

Page 1
Template
       
Urban Seattle Area Soil Dioxin and PAH Concentrations Initial Summary Report
September 2011 Publication no. 11-09-049

Page 2
Publication and Contact Information
This report is available on the Department of Ecology��s website at
www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1109049.html
For more information contact: Toxics Cleanup Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: Program Receptionist at 360-407-7170 Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov
o Headquarters, Olympia
360-407-6000
o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue
425-649-7000
o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia
360-407-6300
o Central Regional Office, Yakima
509-575-2490
o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane
509-329-3400 If you need this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Toxics Cleanup Program at 360-407-7170. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341.  

Page 3
Urban Seattle Area Soil Dioxin and PAH Concentrations Initial Summary Report
     
Prepared for Ecology by Hart Crowser
Charles San Juan, LHG Toxics Cleanup Program – Ecology Project Manager Toxics Cleanup Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington

Page 4
 

Page 5
i
Table of Contents
Page 
List of Figures and Tables................................................................................................... ii Figures........................................................................................................................... ii Tables ............................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ iii Abstract/Executive Summary ............................................................................................ iv 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Surface Soil Sampling Locations...................................................................................3 South Park .............................................................................................................3 Georgetown ...........................................................................................................3 West Seattle ...........................................................................................................3 Capitol Hill ............................................................................................................3 Ballard ...................................................................................................................4 Ravenna .................................................................................................................4 3.0 Field Sampling Methods................................................................................................7 3.1 Subsample locations and collection methods ..........................................................7 3.2 Sample exclusion criteria.........................................................................................8 3.3 Deviations from the 2011 SAP ................................................................................9 4.0 Soil Chemical Analysis Results...................................................................................11 4.1 Data quality review summary ................................................................................11 4.2 Physical/chemical parameters................................................................................12 Total organic carbon............................................................................................12 Total solids ..........................................................................................................12 Grain size.............................................................................................................12 4.3 Dioxins/furans........................................................................................................12 4.4 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)............................................................13 5.0 References....................................................................................................................15 Appendices...........................................................................................................................1 Appendix A. Field Documentation...............................................................................1 Appendix B. Representative Photographs ....................................................................1 Appendix C. Chemical Data Quality Review and Laboratory Reports........................1 Chemical data quality review for soil samples......................................................1 Sample receiving exceedances ..............................................................................2 Physical/chemical parameters ...............................................................................3 PAHs by EPA 8270-SIM.......................................................................................4 Dioxins/furans by EPA 1613B ..............................................................................7
 

Page 6
ii
 
List of Figures and Tables
     Page 
Figures
Figure 1 Seattle Study Areas Figure 2 South Park Study Areas Figure 3 Georgetown Study Areas Figure 4 Ballard Study Areas Figure 5 West Seattle Study Areas Figure 6 Capitol Hill Study Areas Figure 7 Ravenna Study Areas
Tables
Table 1 Median and Average Carcinogenic PAH and Dioxin Toxicity Equivalent Concentrations Table 2 Sample Names and Neighborhood Locations Table 3 Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from South Park Study Areas Table 4 Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Georgetown Study Areas Table 5 Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ballard Study Areas Table 6 Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from West Seattle Study Areas Table 7 Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Capitol Hill Study Areas Table 8 Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ravenna Study Areas Table 9 Summary of Carcinogenic PAH Toxicity Equivalent Concentrations Table 10 Summary of Dioxin Total Toxicity Equivalent Concentrations
 

Page 7
iii
 
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report would like to thank the following people for their contribution to this study: • Hart Crowser (Roger McGinnis, Colleen Rust, and Anne Conrad) • City of Seattle (Lynn Best and Beth Schmoyer) • Integral Consulting (Betsy Day and Dreas Nielsen) • Greg Glass Consulting • Ecology - Dave Bradley (Toxicologist), Ian Mooser (GIS Technical Support), Meg Bommarito and Seth Preston (Public Involvement); Bob Warren
 

Page 8
iv
 
Abstract/Executive Summary
This report documents the results of Ecology��s investigation of surface soils collected from six Seattle neighborhoods, South Park, Georgetown, West Seattle, Ballard, Capitol Hill, and Ravenna (Figure 1). This investigation is in support of the Washington State Department of Ecology��s (Ecology) Toxics Cleanup Program (TCP). The purpose of this investigation was to collect sufficient data from various Seattle neighborhoods to determine the range and magnitude of concentrations and toxic equivalents (TEQs) of dioxins and furans in urban areas. Soil samples were also analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) TEQ data for surface soil. Twenty shallow soil samples (0 to 3 inches deep) were collected from each neighborhood for a total of 120 samples. To ensure samples were distributed throughout each neighborhood, each neighborhood was divided into quadrants (ten subsections in South Park only) containing an approximately equal number of properties per quadrant. The number of properties per quadrant differed in each neighborhood because the neighborhoods differ in size. An equal number of samples were collected from randomly selected locations within each quadrant. Each sample was a composite of five individual samples collected from City of Seattle right-of-way (ROW) land in front of a single property. The cPAH TEQ concentrations ranged from 1.9 to 8,900 ug/kg with an average concentration of 260 ug/kg. The median and nonparametric 90th percentile concentrations were 84 and 390 ug/kg, respectively. Dioxin TEQ concentrations ranged from 1.7 to 110 ng/kg with an average concentration of 19 ng/kg. The median and nonparametric 90th percentile concentrations were 12 and 46 ng/kg, respectively. In general, the lowest cPAH and dioxin TEQ concentrations were in samples collected from West Seattle and the highest median concentrations for dioxin were in samples from the Georgetown area, while the highest median concentrations for cPAH TEQ were in samples from Ballard (See Table 1). The project schedule did not allow for detailed statistical evaluations. However, preliminary evaluations indicate that soil concentrations in Ravenna, South Park, Ballard and Capitol Hill were not significantly different.

Page 9
1
URBAN SEATTLE AREA SOIL DIOXIN AND PAH CONCENTRATIONS INITIAL SUMMARY REPORT
1.0 Introduction
This report documents the results of our investigation of surface soils collected from six Seattle neighborhoods, South Park, Georgetown, West Seattle, Ballard, Capitol Hill, and Ravenna (Figure 1). This investigation is in support of the Washington State Department of Ecology��s (Ecology) Toxics Cleanup Program (TCP). The purpose of this investigation was to collect sufficient data from various Seattle neighborhoods in support of determining the range and magnitude of concentrations and toxic equivalents (TEQs) of dioxins and furans in surface soils in the Seattle urban area. Soil samples were also analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) TEQ data for surface soil. Twenty shallow soil samples (0 to 3 inches deep) were collected from each neighborhood for a total of 120 samples. To ensure samples were spread throughout each neighborhood, each neighborhood was divided into quadrants (ten subsections in South Park only) containing an approximately equal number of properties per quadrant. The number of properties per quadrant differed in each neighborhood because the neighborhoods differ in size. An equal number of samples were collected from randomly selected locations within each quadrant. Each sample was a composite of five individual samples collected from City of Seattle right-of-way (ROW) land in front of a single property. The cPAH TEQ concentrations ranged from 1.9 to 8,900 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) with an average concentration of 260 ug/kg. The median and nonparametric 90th percentile concentrations were 84 and 390 ug/kg, respectively. Dioxin TEQ concentrations ranged from 1.7 to 110 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) with an average concentration of 19 ng/kg. The median and nonparametric 90th percentile concentrations were 12 and 46 ng/kg, respectively. In general, the lowest cPAH and dioxin TEQ concentrations were in samples collected from West Seattle. The highest median concentrations for dioxin were in samples from the Georgetown area, while the highest median concentrations for cPAH TEQ were in samples from Ballard. The project schedule did not allow for detailed statistical evaluations. However, preliminary evaluations indicate that soil concentrations in Ravenna, South Park, Ballard and Capitol Hill were not significantly different.

Page 10
2

Page 11
3
2.0 Surface Soil Sampling Locations
Urban soil samples were collected and analyzed for dioxin/furans and cPAHs in the following six Seattle neighborhoods, shown on Figure 1: • South Park (SP); • Georgetown (GP); • West Seattle (WS); • Capitol Hill (CH); • Ballard (BA); and • Ravenna (RA). The neighborhoods selected were intended to represent the range of historical conditions likely to be found in Seattle residential areas. Neighborhoods were selected based on presumed differences in land use history (industrial, non-industrial) and factors affecting deposition or accumulation.
South Park
The South Park neighborhood is located south of downtown Seattle and west of the Duwamish River. The town of South Park was annexed to Seattle in 1907. In the early 1900s, South Park was an agricultural community, but with the straightening of the Duwamish River in the 1920s, industrial growth developed in the area. The neighborhood is now zoned as both residential and industrial.
Georgetown
The Georgetown neighborhood is located south of downtown Seattle, and east of the Duwamish River. While originally agricultural, the neighborhood was developed by strong commercial and industrial interests including a brewery, race track, railroad, and steam power plant. By the mid- to late twentieth century, the neighborhood was primarily industrial.
West Seattle
The West Seattle neighborhood is located west of downtown Seattle, on a peninsula in Puget Sound. Business and commercial districts developed in the late 1800s surrounded by multiple residential areas. It was incorporated as an independent town in 1902 and annexed by Seattle in 1907. West Seattle contains many parks, greenbelts, and beaches and is primarily residential.
Capitol Hill
The Capitol Hill neighborhood is located east of downtown Seattle. In the late 1880s, the hill was logged and was quickly developed into a primarily residential area. In the first half of the

Page 12
4 twentieth century, automobile dealerships and furniture retail stores were located along Broadway, the main thoroughfare. These commercial spaces gave way to smaller shops and studios. The neighborhood remains primarily residential and includes parks, museums, schools, and churches. This neighborhood was selected as it represented a residential area with no industrial activities.
Ballard
The Ballard neighborhood is located north of downtown Seattle and north of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Ballard was incorporated as a separate city between 1890 and 1907, than voted to join the City of Seattle. Ballard��s early growth was linked to lumber and maritime industries. Additional industry developed following construction of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (Ballard Locks) and the Lake Washington Ship Canal, which linked the saltwater Puget Sound to the freshwater Lake Union and Lake Washington. Historically, Ballard has been the traditional center for an ethnic Scandinavian community. Ballard experienced a real estate boom at the end of the 20th century, with multiple condominium/retail projects. This neighborhood was selected as it represented a residential area that had a history of light industrial development.
Ravenna
The Ravenna neighborhood is located northeast of downtown Seattle and north of the University of Washington. Due to the location of a creek and ravine, the neighborhood has remained primarily residential since the 1800s. Most neighborhoods were divided into quadrants with approximately equal numbers of single- family residential properties in each quadrant. South Park was divided into 10 sections. Equal numbers of residences (plus or minus a few) in each quadrant were necessary to ensure an equal probability of each parcel being sampled in each neighborhood. Quadrants for each neighborhood are presented on Figures 2 through 7. Samples were collected from City of Seattle right-of-ways (ROW). In most instances, this property consisted of soil between a sidewalk and the curb, often called planting strips. Twenty shallow soil samples (0 to 3 inch depth) were collected from each neighborhood for a total of 120 soil samples. Five sample locations were randomly selected from each of the quadrants established for each neighborhood (ten areas with two samples each in South Park). For each neighborhood, properties that did not meet the exclusion criteria described in Section 3.2 were preassessed by Ecology using web-based tools and a drive-by survey conducted by the City. Based on the surveys, a minimum of 10 acceptable right-of-way properties in each study area were preselected to ensure that field crews had a sufficient number of final locations to randomly select from based on exclusion criteria applied by the field crew at the time of sampling.

Page 13
5 A randomized list of all single-family residential properties built before 1975 within each neighborhood sampling area was generated. Addresses for the first ten properties on the list were printed and cut to the size of a business card. City of Seattle personnel reviewed each of these properties for acceptability by driving by the property and assessing if it met the exclusion criteria. Properties that met the exclusion criteria were removed from further consideration for soil sampling and the printed address was destroyed. With the exception of the Ravenna neighborhood, the first 10 acceptable right-of-way properties in each study area were adequate for field crews to select from based on exclusion criteria. Soil sampling was conducted by two teams consisting of a field crew from the Ecology contractor and City of Seattle staff. During sampling, the field leader of each field team randomly selected five (or two for South Park) addresses by blindly drawing the address slips of paper from an envelope. The field crews then drove to the first selected property and determined if the site met the exclusion criteria. If it did not, it was sampled. If it did, then the field leader selected another address from the envelope. This process was repeated until the required number of properties had been sampled in each quadrant. The addresses pulled from the envelope were discarded in a second envelope and both envelopes were collected by a City representative at the end of the sampling day and the printed addresses were destroyed.

Page 14
6

Page 15
7
3.0 Field Sampling Methods
3.1 Subsample locations and collection methods
After selecting a sampling point at a right-of-way property, five subsample locations were established and marked on the ground using pin flags. The default design was to collect five subsamples from equidistant locations at each address. Samples were collected along the center of the right-of-way, parallel to the street. The first and fifth subsample locations were three feet from the ends of the property right-of-way. This layout was modified by field personnel using their best judgment on collecting representative samples if obstacles or excluded ground surfaces occurred. At each subsample location, the surface groundcover was carefully removed and set aside. Surface soil samples were collected from the targeted 0 to 3-inch-depth profile using a precleaned stainless steel spoon or shovel and placed in a pre-cleaned stainless steel bowl. An equal amount of soil was collected from each of the five sub-sampling points and homogenized. Organic material such as worms, rootlets, leaves, twigs, landscaping materials, and debris were removed, after shaking off excess soil, and noted on the sampling forms. After homogenization, the sample in the bowl was separated into quarters by drawing an ��X.�� A subsample from each of these quarters was transferred into a pre-cleaned 16-ounce jar for grain size analysis. Care was taken to include all soil fractions to ensure sample representativeness. Equal aliquots were collected from each of the quarters of the bowl until the container was full. Then the remaining sample was re-homogenized and any large rocks or gravel were removed after shaking or carefully brushing off clinging soil. The sample was again separated into quarters by drawing an ��X,�� and equal aliquots were collected from the quarters to fill a pre- cleaned, 32-ounce glass container for chemical analysis, plus sufficient sample for a 16-once split sample for the City of Seattle. Sample jars were labeled with area and quadrant only. Any remaining soil was returned to the sub-sampling locations, and the groundcover was replaced. Visual sample descriptions of the surface soil samples are presented in Table A-1 through A-6 in Appendix A. The stainless steel collecting equipment was decontaminated between sampling locations following the procedure in the SAP. During sampling, no information including parcel addresses, area photographs, descriptions, and GPS coordinates were recorded that could identify the location of the sampled parcel. GPS coordinates for the center of each quadrant within each neighborhood are presented in Table 2, but no coordinates were recorded for the individual properties. After marking subsample locations with pin flags, a photograph of the immediate sampling location was taken and recorded on the sampling form. Any other pertinent information was also recorded on the field sampling form. Representative photographs of field activities are provided in Appendix B.

Page 16
8
3.2 Sample exclusion criteria
Surface soil samples were collected from City of Seattle right-of-way areas. The overall appearance of the right-of-way area sampled should be similar to the appearance of the adjacent residential yard. For example, if the yard of the residence was a green, well-maintained grassy area and the right-of-way area was also a green, well-maintained grassy area, then the site was considered a suitable location for surface soil sampling. If the yard of the residence had mature tree cover and the right-of-way area also had mature tree cover (including overhanging cover from the yard), then the site was considered a suitable location for surface soil sampling. During site selection by field crews, a strong preference was given to areas where the right-of-way was isolated from the street by a curb to reduce the possibility that the right-of-way was affected by street runoff or vehicle parking or passage. Note: Few curbs exist in many of the subareas of the South Park neighborhood. Therefore, more than 10 to 20 randomly listed properties were used to select acceptable curbed and non- curbed right-of-ways for sampling. For the acceptable non-curbed right-of-ways, field crews made a visual assessment of similarities and differences between the residential yard and the adjacent right-of-way and made their best professional judgment in consultation with both the City and Ecology representative, as needed, before sampling. Out of the 20 surface soil samples collect in South Park, five samples were from acceptable non-curbed right-of-ways. The five acceptable non-curbed right-of-ways were all sloped toward the street. None had evidence of water or were inundated with water, none had evidence of parked vehicles, and none had areas of stained or dead vegetation. Any of the following conditions that differentiated a residence yard and right-of-way were sufficient to categorize the right-of-way as unrepresentative of the yard and, therefore, were rejected from further consideration for soil sampling. Exclusion criteria include: • The right-of-way area was paved or bricked over. • The right-of-way area was less than three feet wide. • The ground within the right-of-way area was disturbed (e.g., footprints, tire tracks, recent digging). • The right-of-way area had large landscaped areas (e.g., the grade was raised for use as a planter or garden). • The right-of-way area contained dissimilar planting from the residence yard (e.g., grass in yard is green and grass in right-of-way area is brown or yellow). • Tree cover was distinctly different in the residence yard and right-of-way (e.g., tree canopy covers the majority of the right-of-way area but not the residence yard). • Vehicles were parked on the right-of-way area.

Page 17
9 • The right-of-way area had evidence of water or was inundated with water, or it was below the grade of the residence yard, sidewalk, and road so that it would collect runoff. • Staining or areas of dead vegetation were observed. • Unusual quantities of litter, other garbage, or derelict cars were present within the right-of- way area. Field staff applied best professional judgment in the application of these exclusion criteria, and to identify any other conditions that may differentiate residence yards from the adjacent right-of- way. If charcoal, landscaping materials, or other foreign materials were observed in any of the sub- samples, the sub-sample location was abandoned and a new sub-sample location was selected for the composite surface soil sample.
3.3 Deviations from the 2011 SAP
Minor deviations from the SAP were made, as necessary, based on adaptations to the field conditions encountered. Deviations from the Ecology-approved SAP are summarized below and are discussed in more detail in the applicable report sections. • The chemistry data were reviewed and validated by Hart Crowser senior chemists, rather than by Ecochem, as stated in the SAP. • Hart Crowser received notification in mid-May 2011 that archived samples should be analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The laboratory was subsequently notified, and the samples were prepared and analyzed for PAHs by EPA Method 8270C- SIM. The PAH data was reviewed and validated by Hart Crowser, using the quality control procedures detailed in the Washington State Background Soil Concentration Study SAP (Hart Crowser 2010). • An additional sample was collected from the Ballard neighborhood. After collecting sample BA-3-E, the sampling crew was informed by a neighbor of the residential property where the sample was collected, that within the last few years, the owner of the property had replaced surface soil and/or resodded and fertilized throughout the yard. There was a strong probability that the planting strip was not representative of the residential property. An additional sample from the next random address was collected, and labeled BA-3-F. Sample BA-3-F was subsequently submitted to the laboratory for analysis, and BA-3-E was discarded.

Page 18
10

Page 19
11
4.0 Soil Chemical Analysis Results
Soil sample results are summarized in Tables 3 through 8. Samples were submitted to CAS in Kelso, Washington. At CAS, the samples for chemical analysis were air dried and sieved using an ASTM No. 10 (2 mm) screen, to obtain finer-grained material consistent with MTCA requirements. The sieved material than underwent a Multi-Increment Sampling (MIS) procedure to create a composite sample. This procedure included spreading the fine fraction (less than 2 mm diameter) of the sieved sample evenly on a clean steel tray to approximately 1/2 inch in depth. The tray was divided into 30 to 50 sections and approximately 1 g was collected from each of the sections using a small spatula. The spatula was scraped along the bottom of the tray to make sure that every particle size was equally represented in the subsample. For each analysis, all scoops were placed into a single sample jar (2 or 4 ounce as appropriate) and the entire jar was extracted for analysis. The composite sample was than analyzed for the following: • Total Organic Carbon (TOC) by EPA Method 9060 Modified; • Total solids by EPA Method 160.3 modified; • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270C - SIM; and • Grain size by ASTM D422 modified. CAS submitted an aliquot of each sieved/MIS sample to the CAS laboratory in Houston, Texas for analysis of the following: • Dioxins/furans by EPA Method 1613B. No field duplicates or equipment rinse blanks were collected for analysis.
4.1 Data quality review summary
All analyses were performed in a manner consistent with the methods and guidelines stated in the SAP/QAPP. The chemistry data were reviewed and validated by Hart Crowser chemists. Overall, the data quality objectives (DQOs), as set forth in the SAP, were achieved, and the data for this project are acceptable for use, as qualified. No results were rejected as a result of the QA/QC review; therefore, data for this project are 100 percent complete. Results for several analytes were qualified as estimated concentrations based on exceedances of quality control criteria. A detailed chemical data quality review and chemical laboratory reports are presented in Appendix C.

Page 20
12
4.2 Physical/chemical parameters
Analytical results for samples collected from the various study areas are presented by neighborhood in Tables 3 through 8.
Total organic carbon
The total organic carbon concentrations from samples collected from all study areas ranged from 0.786 to 8.38 percent.
Total solids
Samples were air dried before performing multi-incremental sampling (MIS) in the laboratory. The total solids results are for the air-dried samples and were used to correct chemical results to a dry weight reporting basis. The total solids for the areas of the city are described below, by study area. Total solids on air-dried samples collected from all study areas ranged from 93.2 to 99.8 percent.
Grain size
The citywide distribution of surface soil grain size ranged from Clay to gravelly sandy Silt to gravelly silty Sand to sandy silty Gravel. Grain size analytical results are provided in Tables 3 through 8. Visual sample descriptions of the surface soil samples are presented in Tables A-1 through A-6. Note that soil classifications based on field observations may vary from the grain size analytical results. During surface soil sample collection, field crews removed the surface layer of grass, leaves, or twigs at each sub-location point. Once surface soil was exposed, an effort was made by field crews to exclude identifiable organic matter such as worms, roots, leaves, and twigs from the soil sample.
4.3 Dioxins/furans
Analytical results for dioxins/furans expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalent concentrations (TEQs) are presented in Tables 3 through 8, separated by study area. TEQs were calculated using the World Health Organization (WHO) 2005 toxic equivalency factors (TEF) for mammals. Total dioxin TEQs are reported using two conventions: adding only detected congeners, and using 1/2 the detection limit for non-detected congeners. The substitution method did not make a significant difference in reported totals since all congeners were detected in most samples. Citywide, dioxin TEQ concentrations ranged from 1.66 to 114.65 ng/kg with an average concentration of 19.08 ng/kg. The median and nonparametric 90th percentile concentrations were 11.70 and 46.10 ng/kg, respectively.

Page 21
13 In general, the lowest median and maximum dioxin TEQ concentrations were in samples collected from West Seattle and the highest median and maximum concentrations were in samples from the Georgetown area. Results summarized by study area are presented in Table 10.
4.4 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAHs were found in all samples, from all study areas. Analytical results are presented in Tables 3 through 8, by study area. The samples are described below by study area, but not separated by quadrant. The samples from the known South Park residences were not analyzed for PAHs. Analytical results for carcinogenic PAHs (benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(123- cd)pyrene) expressed as benzo(a)pyrene toxicity equivalent concentrations (TEQs) are also presented in the tables. TEQs were calculated using the MTCA toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) under WAC 173-340-708. cPAH TEQs are reported using two conventions: adding only detected cPAHs, and using 1/2 the detection limit for non-detected cPAHs. The substitution method did not make any difference in reported totals since all cPAHs were detected in all samples. Citywide, cPAH TEQ concentrations ranged from 1.91 to 8,851 ug/kg with an average concentration of 260 ug/kg. The median and nonparametric 90th percentile concentrations were 84.5 and 393 ug/kg, respectively. In general, the lowest median cPAH TEQ concentrations were in samples collected from West Seattle and the highest median concentrations were in samples from the Georgetown area. The maximum concentration was detected in a sample from the Ravenna neighborhood. Results summarized by study area are presented in Table 9.

Page 22
14

Page 23
15
5.0 References
American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) 2007. ASTM Standard D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA, 2007. Hart Crowser, 2010. Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan, Washington State Background Soil Concentration Study. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology, November 12, 2010. Hart Crowser, 2011. Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan, Washington State Urban Background Soil Concentration Study. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology, March 18, 2011. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1994. Method 1613, Revision B, Tetra- through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste; Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, 3rd Update. EPA 2005. National Functional Guidelines for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin (CDDs) and Chlorinated Dibenzofurans (CDFs) Data Review, USEPA Analytical Operations/Data Quality Center, OSWER 9240.1-37, EPA 540-R-05-001, September 2005. EPA 2008. US EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Data Review. EPA-540-R-08-01, June 2008.
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Final Urban Ecology Background Report �� Ecology  Format.docx 

Page 24
16
 

Page 25
Figures

Page 26
   

Page 27

Page 28
     

Page 29

Page 30
     

Page 31

Page 32
     

Page 33

Page 34
     

Page 35

Page 36
     

Page 37

Page 38
     

Page 39

Page 40
     

Page 41
Tables

Page 42
 

Page 43
Table 1 - Median and Average Carcinogenic PAH and Dioxin Toxicity Equivalent Concentrations Median cPAH Average cPAH Median Dioxin Average Dioxin Neighborhood TEQ in ug/kg TEQ in ug/kg TEQ in ng/kg TEQ in ng/kg Ballard 230 340 22 26 Capitol Hill 170 680 8.1 18 Georgetown 150 240 23 36 Ravenna 67 260 10 15 South Park 81 100 12 12 West Seattle 9.9 54 4.5 7.5 All Areas 84 260 12 19 Non-detected Results = 1/2 Detection Limit
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Table 1

Page 44
Sheet 1 of 3 Table 2 - Sample Names and Neighborhood Locations Latitude Longitude South Park (SP) SP-1-A SP-1-B SP-2-A SP-2-B SP-3-A SP-3-B SP-4-A SP-4-B SP-5-A SP-5-B SP-6-A SP-6-B SP-7-A SP-7-B SP-8-A SP-8-B SP-9-A SP-9-B SP-10-A SP-10-B Georgetown (GT) GT-1-A GT-1-B GT-1-C GT-1-D GT-1-E GT-2-A GT-2-B GT-2-C GT-2-D GT-2-E GT-3-A GT-3-B GT-3-C GT-3-D GT-3-E GT-4-A GT-4-B GT-4-C GT-4-D GT-4-E -122.317993 47.529285 -122.327164 47.526138 -122.317268 47.521770 -122.322243 47.521702 -122.327835 Notes -122.324501 47.54598618 -122.316887 47.526295 -122.320663 47.526249 -122.328003 47.528564 47.532467 47.521633 -122.330063 47.521984 -122.3225021 47.54365158 -122.3259583 47.55122757 -122.326271 Seattle Neighborhood Sample Number WGS84 Decimal Degrees GPS Coordinates -122.3205795 47.54108047
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 45
Sheet 2 of 3 Table 2 - Sample Names and Neighborhood Locations Latitude Longitude Notes Seattle Neighborhood Sample Number WGS84 Decimal Degrees GPS Coordinates West Seattle (WS) WS-1-A WS-1-B WS-1-C WS-1-D WS-1-E WS-2-A WS-2-B WS-2-C WS-2-D WS-2-E WS-3-A WS-3-B WS-3-C WS-3-D WS-3-E WS-4-A WS-4-B WS-4-C WS-4-D WS-4-E Capitol Hill (CH) CH-1-A CH-1-B CH-1-C CH-1-D CH-1-E CH-2-A CH-2-B CH-2-C CH-2-D CH-2-E CH-3-A CH-3-B CH-3-C CH-3-D CH-3-E CH-4-A CH-4-B CH-4-C CH-4-D CH-4-E -122.3049622 47.63193512 -122.3183899 47.63412857 -122.3022461 47.62383652 -122.3187027 47.62083054 -122.3852539 47.54912186 -122.3841705 47.56263351 -122.4021301 47.56583405 47.53723145 -122.3883972
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 46
Sheet 3 of 3 Table 2 - Sample Names and Neighborhood Locations Latitude Longitude Notes Seattle Neighborhood Sample Number WGS84 Decimal Degrees GPS Coordinates Ballard (BA) BA-1-A BA-1-B BA-1-C BA-1-D BA-1-E BA-2-A BA-2-B BA-2-C BA-2-D BA-2-E BA-3-A BA-3-B BA-3-C BA-3-D BA-3-E Not shipped to CAS BA-3-F Replaces BA-3-E BA-4-A BA-4-B BA-4-C BA-4-D BA-4-E Ravenna (RA) RA-1-A RA-1-B RA-1-C RA-1-D RA-1-E RA-2-A RA-2-B RA-2-C RA-2-D RA-2-E RA-3-A RA-3-B RA-3-C RA-3-D RA-3-E RA-4-A RA-4-B RA-4-C RA-4-D RA-4-E Notes: -122.296402 47.67892075 -122.3071747 47.67885208 -122.2943497 47.66919708 -122.3057785 47.66986465 -122.3673782 47.66836548 -122.3849869 47.66988754 -122.3529129 47.65547943 -122.3588486 47.66289139 The latitude and longitude coordinates for the six Seattle neighborhoods, South Park (SP), Georgetown (GP), West Seattle (WS), Capitol Hill (CH), Ballard (BA), and Ravenna (RA), have an accuracy of +/- 2000 feet.
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 47
Table 3 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from South Park Study Areas
Sheet 1 of 4 Sample ID SP-1-A SP-1-B SP-2-A SP-2-B SP-3-A SP-3-B SP-4-A SP-4-B SP-5-A SP-5-B SP-6-A SP-6-B SP-7-A Sampling Date 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 Conventionals in % Total Solids 98.9 97.2 94.6 98.4 95.3 93.2 98.6 98 94.8 96.2 97.8 97.1 98.1 Total Organic Carbon 2.97 3.67 3.68 2.23 5.02 4.3 1.9 2.1 2.91 3.13 3.2 4.56 3.08 Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.829 T 3.92 1.41 1.73 2.24 7.53 0.944 1.1 UK 5.91 1.47 2.25 4.99 8.48 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 3.51 T 2.03 T 2.78 T 1.7 T 3.66 T 2.18 T 4.43 3.83 T 2.74 T 1.88 T 2 T 3.11 T 3.02 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 4.59 2.8 T 3.03 T 2.24 T 4.67 2.94 T 5.43 5.22 3.21 T 2.54 T 3.23 T 3.56 T 3.42 T 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 14.4 8.23 9.5 6.62 16.4 11.8 16.4 14.9 7.96 6.4 8.89 8.39 9.59 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 13.3 8.41 9.71 6.51 13.8 8.93 15.9 15.1 9.32 7.21 7.45 9.85 9.25 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 254 158 179 126 359 310 308 274 143 125 167 164 174 OCDD 2170 1240 1700 1020 2660 3300 2150 1970 1140 921 1210 1220 1420 2,3,7,8-TCDF 4.18 2.24 4.21 2.3 5.67 3.24 5.49 3.9 3.89 3.11 2.97 5.13 3.55 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2.07 JT 1.06 T 1.49 JT 1.33 JT 2.69 JT 1.32 T 2.32 T 1.92 T 1.47 T 1.44 T 1.32 T 2.39 T 1.87 T 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 5.3 J 1.93 T 2.92 T 1.88 T 4.11 T 2.54 T 3.6 T 2.94 T 2.23 UK 2.81 T 2.47 T 4.67 2.26 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 14.9 5.63 6.24 J 3.76 T 9.69 J 4.8 10.3 9.75 5.43 5.02 5.03 6.17 6.19 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 5.75 2.39 T 2.78 T 1.94 T 4.85 2.87 T 3.98 T 4.03 T 2.91 T 3.23 T 2.83 T 4.64 2.43 T 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.141 U 0.194 U 0.132 T 0.0882 U 0.241 T 0.104 U 0.213 T 0.159 U 0.125 U 0.686 U 0.504 U 0.718 U 0.203 U 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 11 3.93 T 3.33 T 1.97 T 5.54 4.87 5.07 5.92 4.58 T 5.26 4.81 8.85 2.96 T 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 59.2 25.4 29.6 24 70.7 36.3 44.4 51.5 20.5 20 44.9 27.2 30.9 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 4.76 1.83 T 2.14 T 1.43 T 4.3 T 2.48 T 3.54 T 3.55 T 1.74 T 1.32 UK 1.8 T 2.07 T 2.29 T OCDF 212 57.8 84.4 75.9 266 120 113 107 45.6 45.3 82.9 68.9 158 Total TCDD 18.4 14.9 24.1 14.6 26.4 20.9 24.1 12.1 22.4 13.5 13.4 39.1 72.3 Total PeCDD 38.4 20.8 39 28.7 51.9 31 63.8 51.8 49.9 32.9 29.5 67.3 111 Total HxCDD 116 75.5 83.4 61 127 86 145 133 91.6 67.4 72 104 123 Total HpCDD 488 310 340 237 643 547 586 515 279 241 307 307 316 Total TCDF 74.2 12.9 69.4 45.2 114 49.4 61.3 49.1 50.3 57.5 44 148 27.1 Total PeCDF 195 54.3 80.8 49.2 136 98.1 121 93.5 95.8 132 101 300 42.7 Total HxCDF 160 57.4 48.1 29.5 128 75.7 95 108 45.5 72.2 74.8 84.5 48 Total HpCDF 154 62.1 80.4 63.1 218 115 134 147 51.2 48.5 102 70.7 97.1
TEQ-Detects only
17 12 12 8.4 19 19 17 15 14 9.3 11 17 19
TEQ-1/2 MDL
17 12 12 8.4 19 19 17 15 15 9.3 11 17 19 PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene 2 0.85 9.5 2.9 8.2 15 5.3 12 7.2 12 7.3 11 0.79 Acenaphthylene 2.6 2 4.6 2.7 6.9 2.3 1.8 4.7 3.8 2.9 3.9 17 1.5 Anthracene 5.6 2.6 13 5.1 22 16 9.4 15 11 17 13 29 3.5 Benzo(a)anthracene 37 14 74 41 140 88 63 78 95 110 73 230 43 Benzo(a)pyrene 60 23 110 52 180 110 79 84 120 120 96 290 59 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 97 33 120 68 240 110 92 120 150 150 100 340 83 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 26 8.8 38 20 63 36 25 38 44 43 30 97 24 Benzo(ghi)perylene 68 26 84 42 110 65 52 54 82 77 68 250 50 Chrysene 65 21 100 58 230 110 83 150 130 130 89 260 48 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 15 5.2 20 11 31 18 14 15 20 23 18 44 15 Fluoranthene 84 41 140 86 280 180 120 320 180 250 110 360 79 Fluorene 2.2 0.99 7.3 2.2 8 11 4.3 12 5.4 8.5 5.3 9.4 1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 66 24 87 45 120 73 58 60 93 88 70 250 54 Naphthalene 7 3.8 4.5 4.4 15 2.7 3.3 5.2 6.8 4.9 5.4 12 3.5 Phenanthrene 43 24 100 57 160 160 86 330 120 160 96 210 31 Pyrene 78 37 170 97 320 240 150 350 250 300 170 450 79
TEQ-Detects only
85 32 140 71 240 140 110 120 160 160 130 390 81
TEQ-1/2 MDL
85 32 140 71 240 140 110 120 160 160 130 390 81
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 48
Table 3 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from South Park Study Areas
Sheet 2 of 4 Sample ID SP-1-A SP-1-B SP-2-A SP-2-B SP-3-A SP-3-B SP-4-A SP-4-B SP-5-A SP-5-B SP-6-A SP-6-B SP-7-A Sampling Date 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium 0.15 0.03 0.14 0.03 1.89 0.17 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.21 1.36 0.84 Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine 0.86 0.14 0.82 0.96 2.12 1.31 0.11 0.66 0.75 0.13 0.13 0.39 3.65 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse 2.24 0.6 2.06 0.52 2.35 1.69 2.68 1.61 1.93 1.44 1.39 2.36 4.94 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse 6.3 3.46 4.84 0.95 5.74 6.09 7.61 6.4 5.95 4.42 7.82 6.74 8 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium 11.5 10.7 8.65 3.91 6.93 5.15 17.5 19.6 9.97 5.26 16.1 12 12 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine 29.4 22.1 15.4 30.3 19.8 10 27.5 26.8 21.7 15.7 31.8 18.9 22.3 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine 13.2 7.66 6.07 13.8 6.69 3.77 6.49 6.43 7.4 7.39 6.97 5.4 6.32 Particle/Grain Size, Silt 31.5 47.8 51.7 46.1 43.2 54.5 29.9 31.5 43.7 53.9 27.9 47.1 38.2 Particle/Grain Size, Clay 2.14 4.8 9.01 0.73 8.22 8.58 6.53 4.83 8.31 11.7 4.06 7.08 6.31
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 49
Table 3 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from South Park Study Areas
Sheet 3 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Conventionals in % Total Solids Total Organic Carbon Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF Total TCDD Total PeCDD Total HxCDD Total HpCDD Total TCDF Total PeCDF Total HxCDF Total HpCDF
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(ghi)perylene Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
SP-7-B SP-8-A SP-8-B SP-9-A SP-9-B SP-10-A SP-10-B 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 98.6 96.4 97.7 96.9 95.3 97.1 97.4 2.56 3.38 4.16 3.75 4.28 3 3.37 0.832 0.954 0.722 U 0.207 UK 0.357 UK 0.514 UK 1.56 2.22 T 1.02 T 0.677 T 0.44 T 0.395 UK 2.43 T 3.54 T 3.04 T 1.09 T 0.853 UK 0.502 UK 0.704 T 3.41 T 7.74 8.2 5.39 4.15 5.51 6.22 8.52 21.6 9.23 4.56 2.79 T 2.01 T 2.23 T 8.78 17.8 163 78.4 86.7 183 205 176 714 1170 419 673 1790 1950 1150 6100 3.18 0.982 0.624 T 0.601 T 0.865 T 3.44 2.71 1.21 T 0.576 T 0.399 UK 0.313 UK 0.438 UK 1.86 JT 1.45 JT 2.13 T 0.609 T 0.533 T 0.419 T 0.503 UK 3.07 T 2.04 T 5.41 1.65 T 2.29 T 1.41 T 1.37 T 5.65 9.12 2.35 T 0.615 T 0.658 UK 0.707 T 0.61 T 3.4 T 3.58 T 0.157 U 0.216 U 0.293 U 0.303 U 0.121 U 0.138 U 0.199 U 3.65 0.88 T 0.889 T 0.79 T 1.28 T 5.92 5.04 J 22.6 6.81 10 27.4 27.9 41 99.8 1.94 T 0.424 T 0.67 UK 1.52 T 1.65 T 2.36 T 7.6 50.7 20 29.4 174 196 128 521 9.12 27.2 4.96 2.65 3.72 16.1 11 32 82.1 12.8 7.85 3.82 T 38.9 36.8 77 145 34.7 28.8 36.7 84.4 128 317 146 160 307 340 329 1110 33.7 2.81 2.9 2.85 6.2 47.7 20 65.6 12.8 10.1 12.6 11.5 103 49 53 13.6 16.5 33.7 34.8 62.3 67.2 58 18.9 31.6 124 135 114 327 9.5 4.7 3.1 4.4 4.3 9.9 23 9.5 4.7 3.5 4.5 4.8 10 23 0.44 T 0.74 0.14 T 1 1.3 3.5 1.9 1.2 0.63 0.39 T 2.2 1.8 2.4 5 1.7 2.1 0.44 T 3.5 3.2 5.8 6 14 8.9 3 13 16 32 31 19 12 5.3 20 19 22 40 39 18 7.9 28 28 55 53 8 5.7 2.1 7.7 7.7 18 17 27 12 6.3 21 19 33 34 32 14 5.6 18 23 53 43 8.1 2.7 1.3 4.7 4 9.7 7.8 29 21 7.1 33 36 95 62 0.67 0.95 0.49 U 1.5 1.9 3.2 3.1 22 11 5.7 19 18 33 36 9 1.8 1.5 4.9 5.7 6.4 3.9 15 15 3.5 18 21 59 42 24 18 5.9 31 35 89 62 28 17 7.4 27 27 37 55 28 17 7.4 27 27 37 55
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 50
Table 3 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from South Park Study Areas
Sheet 4 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine Particle/Grain Size, Silt Particle/Grain Size, Clay SP-7-B SP-8-A SP-8-B SP-9-A SP-9-B SP-10-A SP-10-B 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 0.98 4.4 23.3 J 4.68 7.71 2.14 3.46 1.73 7.81 6.22 9.04 7.59 0.94 3.56 3.67 8.91 7.84 9.32 11.4 3.7 5.48 10.1 9.16 9.42 8.68 14.6 7.85 8.96 25.9 13.1 11.3 10.6 9.22 10 11.7 30.1 17.9 13.4 16.7 15.5 18.5 18.4 5.78 4.96 3.46 4.27 3.75 5.12 4.07 20 34.4 15.6 23.1 30.4 39.4 35.9 1.49 0.79 1.85 J 5.87 5.36 9.55 9.75
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 51
Table 4 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Georgetown Study Areas
Sheet 1 of 4 Sample ID GT-1-A GT-1-B GT-1-C GT-1-D GT-1-E GT-2-A GT-2-B GT-2-C GT-2-D GT-2-E GT-3-A GT-3-B GT-3-C Sampling Date 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 Conventionals in % Total Solids 95.5 99.3 96.3 98.6 99.2 97.9 99 98.5 99.1 99.1 98.3 98.3 96.9 Total Organic Carbon 5.08 1.98 5.18 3.64 2.08 3.8 2.54 3.04 2.44 1.55 3.62 3.44 4.81 Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2.65 10 0.812 UK 0.777 UK 1.02 97.6 0.921 0.642 UK 0.611 T 0.208 UK 1.08 5.28 6.82 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 2.44 UK 3.07 UK 2.29 T 4.05 5.33 2.69 T 2.72 T 2.55 T 3.29 T 1.04 T 3.42 T 3.53 T 14.5 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2.76 T 3.96 2.42 T 4.75 6.9 2.77 T 3.19 T 2.66 T 4.75 1.24 T 3.96 T 4.04 7.11 UK 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 9.54 12.1 6.88 15.5 21.2 11.5 11.4 8.41 53.4 5.44 15.1 13.4 59.8 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 6.54 11.1 6.6 11.9 16.8 8.09 8.42 5.73 13.2 3.96 12.3 12.2 42.2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 188 201 125 302 439 259 301 146 964 109 240 224 1130 OCDD 1460 1460 1380 2230 3580 2170 3290 1050 11800 1070 1720 1670 10400 2,3,7,8-TCDF 4.3 5.95 4.1 5.56 3.17 4.76 2.33 5.12 2.7 1.03 6.87 6.76 12 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 1.64 JT 2.25 JT 1.38 JT 2.45 JT 2.5 JT 2.53 JT 1.8 T 2.08 T 2.8 T 0.612 T 3.26 JT 3.27 JT 5.87 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 3.78 T 4.63 2.98 T 4.74 7.01 4.93 3.88 4.5 6.2 1.62 T 7.51 7.2 13.1 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 6.18 8.95 J 4.63 11.1 11.4 J 8.39 6.66 6.43 11.5 2.7 T 9.48 9.21 27.6 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 3.83 T 5.65 3.06 T 5.86 8.39 4.88 4.25 4.63 7.67 1.95 T 8.79 J 7.11 13.9 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.112 U 0.135 U 0.101 U 0.174 T 0.149 U 0.112 U 0.174 U 0.112 UK 0.348 T 0.0907 T 0.207 T 0.182 U 0.47 T 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.42 9.45 5.46 9.42 15.6 8.2 7.75 8.37 16.1 3.76 15 J 12 22.4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 41.6 49.4 21.8 68.9 97.5 52.9 56.1 30.7 81 21 55.7 50.3 209 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1.92 T 2.76 T 1.3 T 3.95 4.64 2.64 T 3.6 1.86 T 3.59 T 1.33 T 3.7 T 3.32 T 13.3 OCDF 108 122 58.8 193 363 165 328 67.6 178 58.8 117 108 964 Total TCDD 32.4 52.8 24.7 48 36.5 125 24.3 42.5 19.9 7.02 48.3 63 58.6 Total PeCDD 25.5 50.3 33.8 75 65 38.5 26.1 65.9 41.4 8.64 56 39.8 88.9 Total HxCDD 84.4 115 69.8 127 149 96.2 76.8 85.9 180 38.2 121 123 417 Total HpCDD 349 384 244 524 783 472 522 285 1680 210 449 423 2050 Total TCDF 66.3 91.8 50.8 84 136 74.3 80.8 107 102 30.8 189 178 254 Total PeCDF 119 189 99.5 140 324 166 171 177 258 81.4 366 255 487 Total HxCDF 92.5 98.9 51.8 151 162 123 76.1 78.7 166 38.3 156 116 238 Total HpCDF 116 119 56.7 189 275 162 193 71.8 235 58 140 128 772
TEQ-Detects only
11 20 8.5 16 23 110 14 10 31 5.2 18 21 60
TEQ-1/2 MDL
12 22 8.9 17 23 110 14 11 31 5.3 18 21 61 PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene 7.9 1.5 2.3 2 4 2.5 1.5 4.1 3.4 1.4 8.5 8 2 Acenaphthylene 4.6 3.7 5 14 4.4 10 3.2 23 6.4 2.5 6.6 7 4.7 Anthracene 12 4.2 7.2 10 11 9.5 5.1 20 12 5 23 73 8.2 Benzo(a)anthracene 56 32 40 81 72 73 33 210 79 23 160 860 64 Benzo(a)pyrene 75 41 55 120 100 100 44 270 93 33 160 700 84 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 110 72 82 190 210 150 83 410 150 50 260 970 160 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 32 19 23 54 59 44 22 110 41 14 71 350 36 Benzo(ghi)perylene 73 49 54 110 100 95 49 240 84 44 140 330 110 Chrysene 79 55 62 140 150 120 62 310 120 36 220 940 110 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 14 8.8 11 27 23 22 10 49 27 7.9 40 100 28 Fluoranthene 140 81 94 170 170 160 86 380 170 49 320 1100 120 Fluorene 5.4 1.6 3.3 2.7 4.2 3.2 1.5 5.6 4.9 1.4 8.5 6.7 2.3 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 74 47 56 110 110 95 50 250 84 36 140 360 110 Naphthalene 11 13 9 16 15 10 9.5 26 9.8 5.2 11 11 8.5 Phenanthrene 91 46 58 73 88 77 45 150 100 27 160 240 62 Pyrene 140 78 95 240 150 160 81 500 140 54 310 1700 120
TEQ-Detects only
100 59 77 170 150 140 64 380 130 46 230 970 130
TEQ-1/2 MDL
100 59 77 170 150 140 64 380 130 46 230 970 130
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 52
Table 4 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Georgetown Study Areas
Sheet 2 of 4 Sample ID GT-1-A GT-1-B GT-1-C GT-1-D GT-1-E GT-2-A GT-2-B GT-2-C GT-2-D GT-2-E GT-3-A GT-3-B GT-3-C Sampling Date 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium 0.04 23.9 0.04 0.06 3.93 0.02 0.06 J 0 0.06 23.1 2.76 0.02 0.01 Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine 0.22 1.5 0.27 1.79 1.56 0.31 0.05 J 0.63 0.61 6.99 1.47 0.1 0.41 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse 0.94 2.75 2.37 3.48 4.32 1.96 0.96 3.28 1.63 7.55 3.43 0.75 1.47 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse 3.12 7.63 6.32 7.67 10.3 5.8 2.1 J 8.32 5.87 14 7.19 2.56 7.44 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium 7.68 25 8.69 12.6 26.2 11.4 7.26 14.3 14.4 16.6 15.6 10.8 20 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine 16.3 22.8 12 18.7 28.3 34.2 29.1 32.6 38.4 13.9 31.2 30.1 25.9 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine 7.83 3.73 5.47 6.65 4.15 11.4 16.1 11.1 12.6 3.15 7.9 9.69 8.07 Particle/Grain Size, Silt 55.9 14.3 54.7 43.1 16.3 30.7 42 25.4 23.2 10.8 27.8 41.9 29.5 Particle/Grain Size, Clay 5.33 0.94 7.1 3.12 2.82 2.75 2.12 1.43 0.84 1.78 0.8 2.55 4.29
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 53
Table 4 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Georgetown Study Areas
Sheet 3 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Conventionals in % Total Solids Total Organic Carbon Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF Total TCDD Total PeCDD Total HxCDD Total HpCDD Total TCDF Total PeCDF Total HxCDF Total HpCDF
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(ghi)perylene Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
GT-3-D GT-3-E GT-4-A GT-4-B GT-4-C GT-4-D GT-4-E 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 98.4 98.6 98.2 98.6 97.6 98.4 97.9 3.38 4.53 4.45 4.29 3.68 2 4.43 5.36 1.6 13.1 2.35 9.48 1.75 2.9 25.1 9.59 7.35 6.22 3.09 5.19 8.16 39.3 13.5 8.47 UK 7.79 4.07 8.28 8.77 125 53.5 33.9 29.3 11.2 89 32.2 142 37.6 28 21.4 11.6 22.8 23.2 3090 985 1130 527 196 1540 615 28800 J 8230 11200 4220 1470 16200 J 6780 8.76 11 9.82 11.2 5.74 3.89 14.6 5.64 J 6.88 J 7.13 J 5.47 J 2.74 JT 3.66 J 6.89 J 10.5 13.8 J 10.4 J 11.1 J 5.67 5.69 15.1 J 29.4 J 29.6 J 21.6 J 20.7 J 9.33 J 14.1 J 22.5 J 15.2 17.9 12 12.2 5.5 7.68 14.2 0.554 UK 0.647 T 0.441 T 0.29 UK 0.182 UK 0.497 T 0.358 UK 22.7 27.6 16.8 J 18.9 9.06 14.3 23 J 266 231 109 114 39.6 112 135 16.6 14 9.11 7.8 3.15 5.47 7.86 802 657 375 287 95.5 227 469 144 101 184 58 45.5 18.8 134 191 78.9 180 82.1 51.8 36.2 101 816 327 333 216 112 275 265 6110 1760 1740 975 375 2670 1240 248 281 243 228 115 72.3 360 300 365 321 326 158 153 418 282 346 194 218 90.5 182 255 737 682 308 310 98.5 335 403 120 50 52 32 23 46 39 120 50 52 32 23 46 39 3 97 8.8 16 2 1.1 19 12 15 5.7 11 1.8 3.2 28 26 80 21 40 5.4 4 51 160 230 160 210 35 25 380 170 270 210 240 47 35 410 380 450 370 450 75 57 780 110 150 110 140 20 16 260 130 420 250 270 48 37 410 450 240 250 360 53 41 560 35 70 50 52 9.4 6.5 91 510 500 360 490 78 66 710 3.4 68 7.1 16 2 1.5 18 130 290 230 280 47 36 440 14 150 13 21 5.2 3.9 23 110 400 150 220 38 39 290 770 460 330 420 71 65 690 260 390 310 360 66 49 610 260 390 310 360 66 49 610
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 54
Table 4 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Georgetown Study Areas
Sheet 4 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine Particle/Grain Size, Silt Particle/Grain Size, Clay GT-3-D GT-3-E GT-4-A GT-4-B GT-4-C GT-4-D GT-4-E 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 0.07 0 0.91 0.09 0.39 1.5 3.64 0.18 1.23 1.49 2.24 1.15 3.18 0.33 2.08 3.88 3.79 3.94 2.67 4.05 2.79 13.5 12.6 16.7 16.9 4.67 6.34 13.8 29.4 19.9 21.3 21.6 8.33 15.6 21.3 24.4 26.2 22 22.2 19.1 35.3 22.2 4.82 9.14 6.35 6.6 6.54 8.09 6.5 23.3 23.9 23.9 23.5 47.9 21.7 24.6 1.39 1.3 2.4 1.62 6.21 3.27 0.9
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 55
Table 5 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ballard Study Areas
Sheet 1 of 4 Sample ID BA-1-A BA-1-B BA-1-C BA-1-D BA-1-E BA-2-A BA-2-B BA-2-C BA-2-D BA-2-E BA-3A BA-3-B BA-3-C Sampling Date 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 Conventionals in % Total Solids 97.5 98.6 98.5 98.4 98.7 98.2 98.2 98.8 97.1 98.5 97.6 98.4 99.1 Total Organic Carbon 8.21 5.61 6.09 2.79 5.66 8.1 7.15 5.62 5.58 7.69 7.76 6.67 2.47 Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.0486 U 3.88 1.62 4.61 11 4.59 14.8 2.63 2.91 2.9 5.81 2.13 21.6 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 4.8 UK 5.27 1.62 T 2.23 T 5.75 4.33 2.56 T 2.88 T 1.44 T 9.42 2.71 T 2.77 T 2.47 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 3.71 T 6.65 1.08 T 2.25 T 12.1 3.82 1.68 T 2.87 T 1.07 T 6.56 5.68 5.64 3.36 T 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 8.18 23.8 3.62 T 6.92 52.1 11.5 4.54 9.03 3.93 25.7 23.7 17.9 32.6 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 7.7 19 3.2 T 5.2 22.4 8.56 3.71 T 6.81 2.98 T 29.6 14.3 12.9 16.6 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 94.1 448 52.1 122 2180 244 74.9 159 76.4 667 838 611 1160 OCDD 690 2130 419 871 20600 J 1840 636 1420 855 6820 10300 6750 5400 2,3,7,8-TCDF 16.5 8.93 4.29 4.87 6.43 6.72 4.66 5.03 2.85 4.9 2.46 2.85 2.74 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 5.82 J 3.5 JT 1.7 JT 1.71 JT 2.4 JT 2.75 JT 1.76 JT 2.39 JT 1.43 JT 2.36 JT 1.45 JT 1.69 JT 1.2 JT 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 9.73 5.17 2.67 T 3.13 T 3.96 4.46 3.23 T 4.6 3.12 T 5.42 2.93 T 3.64 2.19 JT 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 10.8 9.17 2.59 JT 3.73 T 14 J 5.25 3.36 T 5.11 J 3.62 T 8.78 7.03 7.74 3.87 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 7.69 9.2 J 1.72 T 2.88 T 5.47 3.47 2.4 T 4.4 2.67 T 5.78 J 4.19 J 4.37 J 1.94 T 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.241 UK 0.207 U 0.286 U 0.681 U 0.312 U 0.152 T 0.119 U 0.123 T 0.111 UK 0.157 T 0.158 UK 0.156 T 0.119 U 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 13.1 J 12.1 2.37 T 4.64 T 10.8 J 5.55 J 3.88 T 7.46 4.65 9.34 7.25 7.86 3.54 T 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 31.8 149 8.4 39.7 319 37.5 40.7 31.2 17 87.6 79.3 83.8 47.8 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 2.35 T 5.67 0.662 T 1.72 T 20.7 1.84 T 1.08 T 1.82 T 0.892 T 6.23 7.92 7.54 3.54 T OCDF 55.8 185 18.2 161 2370 70.2 49.8 77.4 39.5 435 497 513 121 Total TCDD 197 102 36 32.6 78.4 68.1 58.2 44.3 21.1 42.2 22 21.8 43.5 Total PeCDD 138 110 42.1 30.1 84 72.4 50 39.6 22.1 60.8 27 27.1 35.1 Total HxCDD 131 215 44.9 52.9 250 110 56.6 78.5 35.7 223 128 103 192 Total HpCDD 182 771 95.4 205 3240 417 138 347 141 1190 1390 966 1790 Total TCDF 301 35.8 67.3 106 49.9 86.4 81.5 133 70.9 185 58.5 65.7 39.8 Total PeCDF 254 140 53.3 103 121 107 82.7 158 93.5 203 89.2 103 48.7 Total HxCDF 141 172 27 68.5 54.6 57.6 41.6 97.2 54.9 134 109 74.8 55.7 Total HpCDF 66.8 266 19.2 116 1380 97.8 79.6 80.4 43.8 275 280 278 122
TEQ-Detects only
11 26 6.7 13 62 18 22 13 8.7 33 28 21 45
TEQ-1/2 MDL
14 26 6.7 13 62 18 22 13 8.7 33 28 21 45 PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene 19 6.5 4.7 11 3.4 4.3 6.3 2.5 5 10 130 18 4.7 Acenaphthylene 26 12 62 8.4 10 37 8.1 5 3.9 9 5.1 6 2.4 Anthracene 49 19 45 19 22 49 17 5.8 37 52 220 34 11 Benzo(a)anthracene 240 150 380 130 120 330 74 40 170 170 520 180 41 Benzo(a)pyrene 250 180 570 150 140 360 91 49 180 160 480 180 46 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 450 300 760 250 240 510 130 120 260 250 650 300 70 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 110 76 240 66 66 130 38 28 67 67 160 77 20 Benzo(ghi)perylene 230 150 580 130 130 290 87 73 160 120 290 130 42 Chrysene 380 240 680 190 190 430 110 92 190 180 570 230 55 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 43 30 72 31 21 50 15 13 30 26 68 29 7.3 Fluoranthene 930 430 1100 350 410 760 200 130 350 440 1300 410 100 Fluorene 19 7 18 9.4 5.4 13 5.3 2.6 5.2 15 100 11 3.3 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 240 180 580 140 140 310 88 63 170 140 370 150 40 Naphthalene 100 21 23 26 30 36 16 31 7.6 6.7 18 11 3.8 Phenanthrene 490 190 500 200 200 360 100 77 150 240 1200 210 59 Pyrene 690 370 1300 300 370 820 200 100 300 360 1200 390 96
TEQ-Detects only
360 260 780 210 200 500 130 76 250 230 660 260 64
TEQ-1/2 MDL
360 260 780 210 200 500 130 76 250 230 660 260 64
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 56
Table 5 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ballard Study Areas
Sheet 2 of 4 Sample ID BA-1-A BA-1-B BA-1-C BA-1-D BA-1-E BA-2-A BA-2-B BA-2-C BA-2-D BA-2-E BA-3A BA-3-B BA-3-C Sampling Date 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium 1.58 0 0.04 1.9 0.1 0.19 1.04 0.01 0.56 0.51 2.35 0.13 0.2 Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine 2.72 0.31 1.28 4.63 0.54 0.36 0 0.98 0.42 0.23 5.24 0.14 0.98 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse 8.67 3.93 1.72 7.59 3.87 2.47 3.37 2.99 2.54 1.51 9.42 3.84 2.32 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse 13.9 9.59 8.47 14.3 13.7 11.4 16 12.5 14.6 16.6 14.7 17.8 12.5 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium 11.9 16.4 18.2 20.8 19.6 19.3 18.6 24 25.7 24.6 15.1 18.5 25.5 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine 14.2 22 23.9 19.6 25.5 26.9 22.5 31.1 27.6 28.1 16 21.4 28.7 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine 4.67 5.13 5.38 4.25 5.77 4.95 4.89 6.52 4.47 5.89 4.21 6.06 4.97 Particle/Grain Size, Silt 32.4 34.6 33.8 22.9 25.6 25.6 22.8 25.1 20.6 18 22.4 25.9 20.7 Particle/Grain Size, Clay 9.64 6.69 4.54 0.56 3.69 4.3 3.59 2.12 3.32 1.27 3.11 2.58 2.33
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 57
Table 5 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ballard Study Areas
Sheet 3 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Conventionals in % Total Solids Total Organic Carbon Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF Total TCDD Total PeCDD Total HxCDD Total HpCDD Total TCDF Total PeCDF Total HxCDF Total HpCDF
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(ghi)perylene Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
BA-3-D BA-3-F BA-4-A BA-4-B BA-4-C BA-4-D BA-4-E 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 99 98.7 99.3 98.8 97.8 99.8 98.8 2.69 4.25 3.71 5.21 3.56 3.41 2.9 4.17 1.05 12.9 2.02 0.37 UK 3.39 0.651 UK 5.5 7.22 5.74 6.24 2.1 T 2.12 T 0.4 UK 9.5 12 11 7.4 4.31 1.8 T 0.551 T 54.6 56.5 35.2 31.4 14.4 6.73 2.28 T 22.7 33.1 21.3 22.1 8.44 5.11 1.46 T 1100 1160 1170 895 459 111 46.2 9660 9780 12500 14400 J 4720 863 465 4.3 4.74 5.18 11.7 1.53 4.1 0.379 T 3.6 J 4.79 J 2.56 JT 5.47 J 0.761 T 2.1 JT 0.176 UK 7.45 6.9 7.53 20.2 J 1.74 T 3.91 T 0.314 UK 27.4 13.3 21.6 15.7 4.35 4.28 T 0.676 T 10.8 9.9 12.6 23.5 J 2.44 T 3.08 T 0.443 T 0.65 T 0.52 UK 0.394 T 0.319 UK 0.123 U 0.167 U 0.135 U 16 J 16.1 24.6 50.2 J 4.41 5.02 0.731 T 205 144 306 166 69 18.8 6.54 9.97 6.38 27.2 12.8 5.69 1.02 T 1.1 T 347 415 1370 1050 395 39.2 20.7 27.7 23 49.5 77.3 9.09 33.9 3.49 42.9 46.9 52.8 86.6 14.3 29.1 2.4 T 245 259 180 204 70.7 53.2 15.3 1850 1970 1840 1580 687 201 80.6 89.2 130 238 935 41.1 107 7.53 155 240 480 1380 58.9 115 9.57 493 322 271 447 47.4 66.8 11.2 626 435 1140 577 233 44.3 18.5 43 41 53 46 14 11 1.3 43 41 53 46 14 11 1.9 24 72 2.1 67 8.1 J 1.8 0.54 6.2 45 7.5 23 4.5 J 8 2.8 41 150 8.2 100 14 J 6.2 2.8 230 750 50 550 67 J 33 19 250 900 62 640 82 J 50 26 380 1300 120 930 110 J 84 34 94 380 30 280 37 J 23 10 190 720 75 540 63 J 52 23 300 1000 93 740 95 J 63 26 38 130 11 130 15 J 10 4.4 570 2100 140 1300 140 J 90 42 15 58 2.3 41 4.8 J 2.4 0.74 220 810 73 560 68 J 52 22 14 48 32 52 13 J 13 2.2 300 1100 76 890 87 J 53 16 530 2000 130 1300 140 J 87 48 350 1200 91 890 110 71 35 350 1200 91 890 110 71 35
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 58
Table 5 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ballard Study Areas
Sheet 4 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine Particle/Grain Size, Silt Particle/Grain Size, Clay BA-3-D BA-3-F BA-4-A BA-4-B BA-4-C BA-4-D BA-4-E 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 0.26 0.09 10.6 1.84 1.45 J 0.12 0.58 0.19 0.55 6.01 2.11 4.56 1.22 0.96 2.99 2.56 7.55 5.78 6.77 3.94 5.01 12.5 13.4 11.6 14.8 17.4 J 12.2 10.1 17.3 31.5 15 20.3 16 17.5 17.4 23.7 31.2 19.1 24.8 19.9 23.1 25 5.59 5.55 5.16 6.57 5.56 J 5.91 6.06 29.4 12.3 21.8 21.5 22.5 30.8 31 4.17 0.59 1.96 0.78 1.68 J 3.07 5.13
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 59
Table 6 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from West Seattle Study Areas
Sheet 1 of 4 Sample ID WS-1-A WS-1-B WS-1-C WS-1-D WS-1-E WS-2-A WS-2-B WS-2-C WS-2-D WS-2-E WS-3-A WS-3-B WS-3-C Sampling Date 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 Conventionals in % Total Solids 98.7 98.5 98.5 97.1 99 98.7 98.9 98 96.5 97.6 96.9 98.9 99.1 Total Organic Carbon 0.786 2.23 4.27 8.38 4.17 4.93 3.19 4.83 1.67 4.57 1.16 J 1.59 1.57 Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2.62 16.1 0.366 T 0.603 T 0.638 T 29.4 1.47 0.852 5.66 2.07 0.212 UK 0.745 UK 0.564 T 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.103 UK 4.12 0.339 T 1.02 T 0.5 T 0.905 T 2.2 T 0.71 T 0.436 T 1.16 T 1.01 T 0.575 T 0.651 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.142 UK 1.68 T 0.24 UK 1.02 T 0.668 UK 0.545 T 1.95 T 0.712 T 0.374 UK 0.903 T 0.646 T 0.466 T 0.556 T 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.526 UK 20.2 1.12 T 4.87 4.5 3.52 8.63 2.5 T 1.56 T 2.38 T 2.54 T 1.54 T 1.88 T 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.386 UK 10.9 0.86 T 2.97 T 2.51 T 1.98 T 5.49 2.07 T 1.19 T 2.21 T 1.59 T 1.28 T 1.61 T 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 13.5 448 27.5 143 132 87 152 44.7 21.5 35.3 19.5 21.4 31.5 OCDD 110 4560 426 2080 1430 721 1210 348 141 279 115 151 270 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.28 T 3.31 0.5 UK 1.56 1.37 0.798 4.59 1.31 0.772 T 1.95 1.31 0.967 1.19 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.0896 UJK 1.43 JT 0.181 UJK 0.682 JT 0.497 JT 0.252 UJK 2.35 JT 0.532 JT 0.336 JT 0.883 UJK 0.74 JT 0.504 JT 0.741 JT 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.126 T 3.09 T 0.327 T 1.26 T 0.884 T 0.538 T 4.79 T 1.3 T 0.637 T 1.95 T 4.91 T 1.06 T 1.26 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.225 UK 6.06 0.57 T 2.35 T 1.67 T 1.33 T 5.2 1.27 T 0.918 T 2.12 T 3.82 T 1.28 T 2.23 T 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.11 T 2.91 T 0.392 T 1.49 T 0.79 T 0.479 T 2.98 UK 1.13 T 0.434 UK 1.95 T 6.49 1.01 T 1 T 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.0642 U 0.0325 U 0.158 U 0.344 U 0.251 U 0.213 U 0.414 U 0.273 U 0.0471 U 0.0747 U 0.431 U 0.111 U 0.179 U 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.183 T 4.72 0.351 T 2.3 T 1.27 T 0.897 T 4.96 T 2.1 T 0.702 T 4.07 19.8 1.75 T 1.31 T 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.69 T 62 6.72 25.1 17.1 10.7 23.9 6.57 3.62 T 8.51 11.3 6.08 6.41 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.183 T 2.74 T 0.265 T 1.4 T 0.769 T 0.592 UK 1.23 T 0.306 UK 0.337 T 0.697 T 0.891 T 0.335 T 0.421 T OCDF 5.11 U 269 22.8 111 65.4 30.3 41.3 12.7 10.5 17.1 10.6 9.15 U 13.6 Total TCDD 3.37 29.7 1.81 8.69 2.17 35.5 18.5 6.72 10.2 22 3.41 7.5 4.72 Total PeCDD 0.554 T 16.4 2.37 T 13.7 5.36 10.5 29.9 9.15 5.85 22.5 11 10.1 3.15 T Total HxCDD 3.13 T 131 8.77 32.2 26 28.8 57.5 20.5 12.8 27.1 22.1 13.4 16 Total HpCDD 23.9 792 57.7 242 238 154 274 84.4 41.3 71.5 38.7 43.4 58 Total TCDF 0.297 T 39.5 2.97 9.44 7.02 6.06 77.3 22 9.06 33.6 72.2 18.4 15 Total PeCDF 1.5 T 94.7 7.94 36.1 18.8 10.8 92.8 52.1 9.05 65.2 417 30.9 16.2 Total HxCDF 1.99 T 86.1 8.65 35.8 20.2 15 59.9 25.6 8.32 52.9 247 22.1 13.7 Total HpCDF 4.54 213 6.98 83.6 51.1 32 58.3 15.6 8.84 21.3 29.6 14 14.9
TEQ-Detects only
2.9 33 1.6 6.0 4.6 33 10 3.7 7.1 5.9 6.5 2.1 3.1
TEQ-1/2 MDL
3.0 33 1.7 6.0 4.6 33 11 3.7 7.2 5.9 6.6 2.4 3.1 PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene 0.04 T 31 0.15 T 0.9 0.22 T 0.24 T 19 2.4 0.27 T 0.28 T 3.4 0.22 T 0.094 T Acenaphthylene 0.22 T 3.6 0.34 T 10 0.47 0.37 T 28 0.85 0.71 0.83 2 0.92 0.25 T Anthracene 0.37 T 44 0.49 9.9 0.59 0.74 37 3.3 0.88 0.92 7 0.87 0.3 T Benzo(a)anthracene 1.6 230 3.7 34 3.5 4.3 260 29 5.3 5.8 20 4.1 1.7 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.9 230 4.4 49 5.5 5.6 300 30 5.7 7.6 22 5.9 1.7 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.2 310 10 72 9 10 380 47 11 17 31 13 5.2 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.88 75 2.7 23 2.8 2.9 98 14 3.1 4.1 7.7 3.4 1.3 Benzo(ghi)perylene 2.1 130 7.9 41 7.2 7.3 160 25 7.6 12 44 8.8 3.8 Chrysene 2.6 280 6.9 59 6.2 7.8 330 40 9.2 14 30 10 4.5 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.45 35 1.2 9.6 1.3 1.2 40 6.1 1.3 2 6.5 1.4 0.67 Fluoranthene 3.6 490 10 81 6.9 11 510 63 14 19 32 13 5.2 Fluorene 0.1 T 19 0.23 T 2.3 0.21 T 0.31 T 14 1.6 0.33 T 0.38 T 2.6 0.33 T 0.19 T Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.9 150 5.8 46 5.9 6.3 230 25 7.6 9.8 20 8.5 3.2 Naphthalene 0.88 U 4.9 2.6 13 1.3 U 1.9 14 3.1 2.9 4.3 6.7 4.7 1.3 U Phenanthrene 1.5 360 4.5 48 3.9 6.3 350 40 8.6 13 38 10 3.3 Pyrene 3.8 620 10 83 7.7 11 700 66 15 17 50 12 5.3
TEQ-Detects only
2.7 310 6.8 68 7.8 8.1 400 43 8.6 12 31 9.0 3.0
TEQ-1/2 MDL
2.7 310 6.8 68 7.8 8.1 400 43 8.6 12 31 9.0 3.0
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 60
Table 6 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from West Seattle Study Areas
Sheet 2 of 4 Sample ID WS-1-A WS-1-B WS-1-C WS-1-D WS-1-E WS-2-A WS-2-B WS-2-C WS-2-D WS-2-E WS-3-A WS-3-B WS-3-C Sampling Date 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/30/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium 1.91 0.04 20.8 0.31 5.19 0.63 0.02 0 12.9 13.4 49 2.86 6.02 Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine 1.85 2.08 4.62 2.97 0.98 0.55 5.13 0.02 4.66 5.21 8.72 5.24 6.79 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse 2.23 2.35 5.29 2.84 3.63 1.94 8.53 0.78 4.33 4.11 6.06 5.65 4.43 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse 5.3 8.25 7.84 4.38 10.8 8.43 16.8 2.54 6.87 5.64 6.29 11.3 5.76 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium 23.3 24.5 16.3 11.4 25 22.4 26.7 3.6 11.8 10.8 7.99 23.3 10 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine 37.1 28.5 17.5 17.6 31 29.1 24.1 6.25 16.7 14.5 8.38 24.7 14.2 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine 4.55 4.22 3.01 3.82 4.95 4.42 3.85 3.8 5.42 4.72 1.94 4.05 3.8 Particle/Grain Size, Silt 18.7 23.7 23.2 57.1 15.4 25.9 13.7 71.9 30 31.6 18.2 19 33.9 Particle/Grain Size, Clay 7.5 5.68 4.23 0.66 1.69 5.5 1.34 9.52 6.33 11.5 2.32 2.98 9.49
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 61
Table 6 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from West Seattle Study Areas
Sheet 3 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Conventionals in % Total Solids Total Organic Carbon Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF Total TCDD Total PeCDD Total HxCDD Total HpCDD Total TCDF Total PeCDF Total HxCDF Total HpCDF
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(ghi)perylene Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
WS-3-D WS-3-E WS-4-A WS-4-B WS-4-C WS-4-D WS-4-E 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 4/1/2011 99.6 98.6 99.6 98.8 97.4 99.6 99.3 0.885 2.67 1.26 0.876 0.816 3.12 1.65 1.87 3.38 0.436 UK 0.221 UK 2.69 0.381 UK 0.784 0.177 T 0.998 T 0.663 T 0.586 T 0.116 UK 1.25 T 0.648 T 0.16 T 1.01 T 0.844 T 0.405 T 0.185 T 1.48 T 0.811 T 0.808 T 4.03 T 4.07 T 2.2 T 0.511 UK 4.79 2.94 T 0.476 UK 2.84 T 2.67 T 1.12 T 0.469 T 3.9 2.16 T 16.6 74.8 125 40.7 10.9 107 71 187 697 1220 320 96.3 911 652 0.243 T 1.31 1.34 0.683 T 0.277 UK 1.28 0.695 T 0.108 JT 0.75 JT 0.504 JT 0.305 JT 0.0983 UJK 0.582 JT 0.32 T 0.214 T 1.51 UK 1.04 T 1.43 T 0.231 T 1.72 T 0.627 T 0.339 T 2.69 T 1.54 T 1.15 T 0.305 T 2.81 T 1.19 UK 0.208 T 1.72 T 0.753 T 1.8 T 0.227 T 1.83 T 0.729 T 0.0713 U 0.158 U 0.114 U 0.147 U 0.0652 U 0.458 U 0.173 U 0.238 T 2.9 T 1.23 T 4.4 T 0.133 UK 4.38 1.52 T 2.57 T 13.1 17.7 10.3 2.22 T 21.5 11.9 0.134 UK 0.845 T 0.918 T 0.636 T 0.0836 U 1.32 T 0.577 T 7.61 U 35.4 78.4 42.4 5.81 U 69.1 33.7 U 2.18 13.9 7.53 2.82 2.69 4.31 1.41 1.53 T 15.8 8.59 6.19 0.645 T 13 7.4 5.09 32.1 28.5 14.6 2.86 T 35.2 22.3 33.1 145 227 73.1 20.5 185 132 2.71 25.6 14.2 20.3 1.48 15.7 4.11 4.08 T 49.2 18.9 96.1 7.16 72.1 25.6 4.64 38.7 26 64.6 4.45 T 59.8 13.5 7.17 33.2 71.1 38.7 5.37 61.3 33.2 2.6 7.2 4.1 2.8 3.0 5.4 3.5 2.6 7.4 4.3 2.9 3.1 5.6 3.6 0.12 T 0.42 T 0.11 T 0.2 T 0.034 T 0.61 0.51 0.41 T 4.5 0.49 1 0.17 T 0.89 1 0.42 T 2.5 0.8 1.1 0.12 T 2.4 1.7 2.6 23 5.7 4.2 0.75 16 11 3.9 27 6.9 6.6 1.3 22 14 5.4 35 11 7.6 2.7 56 22 1.5 10 2.7 2 0.62 14 6.4 4.3 23 9.6 10 2.1 22 18 4.5 30 11 5.2 1.1 40 17 0.67 4.4 2 2.2 0.31 T 4.9 2.7 5.8 31 9.4 8.1 2.1 28 22 0.19 T 0.58 0.22 T 0.33 T 0.086 T 0.7 0.9 3.7 22 7 5.9 1.6 24 14 1.4 3.2 2.5 1.6 1.7 1.3 2 3 11 7 5.2 1.5 11 14 7.4 39 11 9.6 2.1 28 25 5.3 37 9.9 8.8 1.9 34 20 5.3 37 9.9 8.8 1.9 34 20
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 62
Table 6 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from West Seattle Study Areas
Sheet 4 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine Particle/Grain Size, Silt Particle/Grain Size, Clay WS-3-D WS-3-E WS-4-A WS-4-B WS-4-C WS-4-D WS-4-E 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 3/31/2011 4/1/2011 2.38 12.3 29.1 10.8 14 13.4 5.07 J 4.13 5.97 12.1 10.8 9 J 6.76 7.86 J 5.2 5.74 8.24 7.15 7.36 6.6 8.25 11.3 11.5 11.4 11 9.81 10.1 15.9 27.4 18.2 15.8 18 19.3 16.1 26.3 22.5 21 10.5 17 20.9 18 18.7 2.08 4.62 1.59 3.17 3.8 4.44 2.54 15.8 19.1 9.4 16.2 14.3 23.3 10.9 7.45 0.61 2.76 3.52 0.89 2.09 1.59
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 63
Table 7 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Capitol Hill Study Areas
Sheet 1 of 4 Sample ID CH-1-A CH-1-B CH-1-C CH-1-D CH-1-E CH-2-A CH-2-B CH-2-C CH-2-D CH-2-E CH-3-A CH-3-B CH-3-C Sampling Date 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 Conventionals in % Total Solids 97.9 97.9 97.6 98.4 98.6 98.2 97.7 98.1 98 97.6 98 98.9 98.6 Total Organic Carbon 3.27 4.89 5.51 3.97 2.87 3.93 3.41 3.84 4.36 3.65 3.75 3.12 3.32 Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 16.5 0.411 T 26.5 3.75 0.351 UK 5.66 0.958 1.27 0.691 UK 1.85 1.71 0.462 T 0.528 T 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 2.31 T 0.77 T 4 T 1.05 T 0.507 T 2.69 T 2.8 T 1.31 T 1.38 T 2.36 T 7.62 1.43 T 1.83 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 2.54 T 0.939 T 5.31 1.09 T 0.805 T 2.76 T 2.56 T 1.29 T 1.41 T 2.35 T 12.5 1.47 T 1.71 T 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 10.9 6.69 73.5 3.18 T 3.74 9.13 8.94 6.48 8.29 10 52.6 5.13 5.63 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 7.69 2.68 T 19.7 2.33 T 2.3 T 7.13 6.23 4.9 5.31 9.29 39.4 4.87 5.05 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 240 178 2070 60 89.4 172 165 155 141 187 1470 93.9 89.1 OCDD 1890 2140 19600 J 534 957 1290 1290 675 1160 1670 12700 690 615 2,3,7,8-TCDF 4.33 2.75 5.55 2.21 0.736 5.52 7.06 3.62 3.18 4.98 7.98 2.61 3.79 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 1.76 JT 0.619 T 2.91 JT 0.954 UK 0.25 T 2.3 JT 3.1 JT 1.65 JT 1.7 JT 2.23 JT 5.17 J 1.59 JT 1.98 UK 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 3.36 UK 1.42 T 6.22 1.77 T 0.471 T 5.55 5.35 2.91 T 2.65 T 3.41 12.2 3.05 T 4.14 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 5.39 J 2.25 T 117 J 2.81 JT 1.31 T 6 6.29 J 3.15 JT 3.87 JT 4.42 J 16 J 3.62 T 4.23 T 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 3.73 T 1.35 T 18.6 1.75 T 0.637 UK 5.39 J 4.05 2.21 T 2.42 T 2.51 T 14.3 2.51 UK 3.57 T 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.111 U 0.0999 U 0.421 T 0.126 U 0.111 U 0.193 U 0.113 UK 0.45 U 1.04 U 0.922 U 3.74 U 0.711 U 0.159 U 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 6.86 1.38 T 36 3.16 T 1.13 T 10.7 J 6.74 J 3.67 T 4.63 T 4.23 30.5 J 5.46 7.34 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 41 25.3 829 13 13 28.3 26.9 16.6 76.8 21.6 304 17.6 19.2 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 2.12 T 1.37 T 71.9 0.798 T 0.634 T 1.9 T 1.85 T 0.905 T 1.59 T 1.62 T 13.1 1.1 T 1.07 UK OCDF 141 100 1770 27.2 41.9 73 76.2 36.5 87 80.7 1840 49.1 42.5 Total TCDD 35.2 4.6 44.7 11.7 2.94 32 31.3 12.7 10.8 18.1 34.5 14.3 23 Total PeCDD 38.9 7.83 61.5 21.9 3.9 52.4 62 23.4 21.5 24.3 77.7 24.6 33.8 Total HxCDD 76.2 43.6 265 33.5 23.9 90.2 86.6 53.6 69 84.9 324 52.4 55.7 Total HpCDD 419 371 3450 117 173 333 330 256 282 346 2600 179 168 Total TCDF 56.2 13.2 58.3 15.8 3.75 187 74.8 57.7 55.7 69.7 365 59.9 107 Total PeCDF 106 39.4 213 65.3 13.5 353 155 66.2 69.5 85.2 647 99.1 152 Total HxCDF 93.2 42.9 505 41.6 19.5 136 88.4 43.9 101 41.8 552 67 90.5 Total HpCDF 117 81.8 3420 33.4 40.1 71.9 75.9 37 181 67.1 1240 47.7 47.6
TEQ-Detects only
26 6.1 96 7.9 3.0 17 12 8.0 7.7 12 53 6.5 8.0
TEQ-1/2 MDL
27 6.2 96 7.9 3.2 17 12 8.0 8.1 12 53 6.7 8.1 PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene 2.1 5.1 7.3 1.2 1.8 2.1 120 4.2 5.4 18 4.6 1.9 2.4 Acenaphthylene 6 6 21 7.7 2.8 15 9.1 16 58 5.6 18 13 13 Anthracene 8.5 14 31 6.9 5.5 13 400 15 41 24 19 17 14 Benzo(a)anthracene 45 58 240 43 27 88 1200 99 290 130 110 100 92 Benzo(a)pyrene 57 73 270 63 34 120 930 140 430 130 150 130 120 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 110 120 410 98 50 200 1300 230 600 200 320 200 200 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 32 34 88 28 14 54 360 57 170 59 74 57 49 Benzo(ghi)perylene 64 79 200 57 32 110 540 120 420 110 210 100 120 Chrysene 93 92 360 84 39 160 1200 200 480 180 240 160 160 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 12 17 48 10 6.7 19 160 22 57 23 38 20 23 Fluoranthene 130 140 540 130 60 270 2100 360 860 330 330 280 270 Fluorene 2.6 6.8 13 3.1 2.2 6.4 130 8.2 16 12 6.8 6.5 5.9 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 64 73 230 60 32 120 620 130 420 120 190 110 130 Naphthalene 9 11 14 8.9 3.3 16 9.2 13 33 6.4 35 14 17 Phenanthrene 68 81 270 74 31 150 1700 220 430 230 180 150 150 Pyrene 120 130 530 130 61 280 2200 370 920 350 320 280 260
TEQ-Detects only
84 100 380 88 47 170 1300 200 590 190 230 180 170
TEQ-1/2 MDL
84 100 380 88 47 170 1300 200 590 190 230 180 170
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 64
Table 7 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Capitol Hill Study Areas
Sheet 2 of 4 Sample ID CH-1-A CH-1-B CH-1-C CH-1-D CH-1-E CH-2-A CH-2-B CH-2-C CH-2-D CH-2-E CH-3-A CH-3-B CH-3-C Sampling Date 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/5/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium 0.66 18.2 0 J 0.11 20.5 3.48 0.15 2.47 1.3 0.15 0.37 5.69 0.17 Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine 1.94 12.1 0.56 J 0.91 8.6 1.12 1.8 2.41 2.21 1.09 0.63 0.17 2.2 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse 10.8 12.2 1.68 5.26 8.84 2.81 3.56 5.16 2.79 2.73 3.57 1.84 5.89 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse 13.3 11.3 15.5 11.7 9.18 8.76 11.6 11.9 19.6 9.94 15.9 9.9 13.2 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium 15.2 11.2 17.1 19.2 11.3 22.8 17.6 19.3 31.3 13 22.5 26.4 21.3 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine 19 13.1 22.9 20.4 14.8 27.8 16.7 21.8 19.4 14.4 27.3 30 23.9 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine 5.92 1.05 6.71 5.73 3.85 6.06 5.53 4.93 3.16 3.63 6.61 4.63 4.99 Particle/Grain Size, Silt 30.4 18.4 31.1 31.9 20.4 19.6 34.4 31.9 15.5 36.6 25.8 18.6 22.7 Particle/Grain Size, Clay 4.98 0.78 2.58 3.94 6.25 4.48 10.1 0.73 1.65 10.9 2.08 2.74 2.77
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 65
Table 7 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Capitol Hill Study Areas
Sheet 3 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Conventionals in % Total Solids Total Organic Carbon Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF Total TCDD Total PeCDD Total HxCDD Total HpCDD Total TCDF Total PeCDF Total HxCDF Total HpCDF
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(ghi)perylene Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
CH-3-D CH-3-E CH-4-A CH-4-B CH-4-C CH-4-D CH-4-E 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 98.4 98.2 98.2 98.8 99 97.8 98.5 3.29 3.71 4.02 2.15 1.62 3.88 2.87 0.748 0.649 T 0.456 UK 0.771 T 0.638 UK 0.784 T 0.339 UK 2.19 T 1.77 T 1.76 T 0.667 T 11.3 1.32 T 1.06 T 2.83 T 1.67 T 1.81 UK 0.755 T 21.7 1.51 T 1.14 T 15 5.93 6.84 2.76 UK 64.3 4.78 3.42 T 8.11 5.32 5.59 2.69 T 62.8 4.16 3.36 T 266 117 111 57.2 1310 83.1 56.1 1730 940 769 436 7860 831 403 3.95 4.82 3.18 1.31 2.57 2.42 2.15 3.51 T 2.46 JT 2.04 JT 0.703 UK 5.58 J 1.47 JT 1.24 T 5.12 3.98 3.09 T 1.27 T 7.84 2.42 UK 2.73 T 6.91 4.74 3.99 1.88 T 33.9 3.41 T 3.36 T 5.12 2.91 T 2.72 T 0.971 UK 18.8 2.6 T 2.86 T 0.199 U 1.2 U 0.643 U 0.366 U 0.642 T 0.395 U 0.128 U 8.71 3.59 T 3.47 T 1.36 T 25.2 2.86 T 5.15 40.8 18.8 17.9 8.21 265 14.1 15.5 1.87 T 1.35 T 1.12 T 0.497 T 13.3 0.919 T 1.01 T 64.2 60.1 41.9 17.1 445 27.7 50 14 22.2 13.1 4.56 8.15 10.6 7.93 26.2 33.6 25.5 10.3 44.7 12.4 15.1 86.4 61.9 55.2 24.7 359 42.5 33.6 479 220 207 108 2160 159 105 107 81.5 62.9 17 61.8 71.3 73.1 156 89.9 93.5 25.8 270 101 122 163 62.5 47.5 15.6 413 57.2 66.2 117 56.5 45.6 19.4 726 35.5 39.7 13 8.3 6.9 3.4 55 5.6 4.9 13 8.3 7.2 3.6 56 5.9 5.1 3300 1.9 0.87 1.7 1.1 0.71 0.69 35 16 6.5 14 2.6 2.2 2.3 4100 12 4.7 9.5 4.5 2.9 2.4 6000 88 37 76 29 21 16 6700 130 53 100 30 24 24 7300 200 88 160 55 53 43 2000 53 24 45 15 13 11 5200 120 62 85 36 35 25 7000 160 68 120 47 41 37 710 21 9.6 17 7.2 7.1 5 18000 250 110 200 65 54 54 2900 4.7 2 5 1.7 1.2 2.1 4800 130 59 92 35 32 25 4100 13 6.8 7.6 7.1 5.1 4.2 25000 130 57 110 37 29 48 20000 270 120 220 70 51 57 8900 180 75 140 45 37 34 8900 180 75 140 45 37 34
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 66
Table 7 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Capitol Hill Study Areas
Sheet 4 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine Particle/Grain Size, Silt Particle/Grain Size, Clay CH-3-D CH-3-E CH-4-A CH-4-B CH-4-C CH-4-D CH-4-E 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 4/6/2011 0.79 0.41 0.31 10.2 4.32 0.05 0.61 1.02 1.24 1.46 5.68 6.13 0.75 0.37 3.92 3.63 7.77 7.58 5.67 1.53 0.86 12.6 11.1 17.3 12.1 8.8 7.53 6.39 21.5 21.1 22.3 18.8 19.4 12.5 14.1 22.7 29 20 21.7 20.8 16.7 20.4 4.31 5.63 3.78 3.79 3.45 5.5 4.33 28.1 23.9 23.9 20.1 23.6 63.7 41.7 4.69 1.12 1.74 1.73 6.21 0.86 10.8
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 67
Table 8 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ravenna Study Areas
Sheet 1 of 4 Sample ID RA-1-A RA-1-B RA-1-C RA-1-D RA-1-E RA-2-A RA-2-B RA-2-C RA-2-D RA-2-E RA-3-A RA-3-B RA-3-C Sampling Date 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 Conventionals in % Total Solids 98.7 98.7 98.9 98.8 99 99.4 98 99.3 99.1 99 98 98.5 98.3 Total Organic Carbon 3.07 2.77 2.35 2.42 2.5 3.22 4.87 2.56 2.89 2.37 3.72 3.53 3.38 Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2.6 1.43 2.35 0.474 T 0.827 T 0.755 0.413 UK 0.861 11.8 1.83 2.71 0.395 UK 2.75 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.823 T 1.29 T 1.66 T 3.46 T 1.02 T 2.13 T 1.25 T 1.23 T 2.09 T 11.6 1.54 UK 2.01 T 1.22 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.835 T 1.25 T 2.05 T 8.8 0.843 T 2.06 T 1.46 T 1.05 UK 2.77 T 17.8 2.04 T 3.06 T 1.22 T 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 3.02 T 5.01 8.6 26.6 3.23 T 8.66 5.78 4.17 22.4 58.9 7.47 10.1 5.67 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.55 T 4.29 6.99 21.1 2.21 T 7.46 4.39 4.5 9.66 43.4 6.56 7.02 3.29 T 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 46.2 79.5 190 901 47.4 124 134 70.8 457 1080 131 293 103 OCDD 435 602 1640 7770 359 867 1510 601 3560 6700 953 2360 910 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1.54 2.19 1.97 1.63 1.85 1.83 1.84 2.12 2.65 3.57 2.69 2.2 2.43 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.847 JT 1.29 JT 1.18 JT 0.885 JT 1.02 JT 0.929 JT 0.97 JT 1.11 JT 1.64 T 1.98 T 1.17 JT 1.05 JT 0.908 JT 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1.65 T 2.91 JT 2.36 T 1.96 T 2.36 T 2.73 T 2 T 2.57 T 5.8 4.94 3.08 T 2.62 T 2.11 T 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.21 JT 3.45 JT 4.05 7.38 J 3.11 T 3.9 J 3.26 JT 3.46 JT 9.53 18.5 4.87 T 4.1 T 3.04 T 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.65 T 2.95 T 2.88 T 4.35 2.35 T 3.61 2.22 T 2.1 T 8.94 13.7 4.2 T 3.14 T 1.95 T 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.0758 U 0.103 U 0.0818 U 0.129 U 0.0803 U 0.0648 T 0.103 U 0.0641 U 0.147 U 0.252 U 0.119 U 0.142 U 0.091 U 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 2.7 T 4.83 4.24 6.92 3.93 T 7.55 2.62 T 3.69 19.7 21.8 8.24 3.63 T 3.41 T 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 12.4 22.5 29.8 162 20.6 27.1 35 17.4 63.5 352 32.8 48.9 19.7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.828 T 1.11 T 2.28 T 9.66 0.945 T 1.6 T 1.62 T 1 T 2.49 T 13.7 1.43 T 2.79 T 1.04 T OCDF 40.5 42.9 86.5 768 39.7 73.9 96.3 47.4 152 1310 85.7 241 54.7 Total TCDD 11.1 13.3 24.2 7.37 11.7 14.6 9.86 12.9 18.8 15 13.8 12.9 13.7 Total PeCDD 14.5 16.7 30.1 22.6 14.5 17.4 13.5 18.5 15 61.8 23.1 25.6 19.5 Total HxCDD 30.8 43.4 72.5 153 30.6 68.7 46.6 43 105 326 63.2 76.7 43.8 Total HpCDD 91.9 148 322 1420 91.5 228 264 139 796 1860 247 556 193 Total TCDF 24.2 52.8 39.8 27.9 53.3 44.2 35.6 36 75.7 88.1 70.4 66 19 Total PeCDF 41.7 92.7 63.2 43.2 75.5 116 58 51.7 359 236 160 112 62.2 Total HxCDF 33.2 50.8 46.5 89.3 49.6 66.7 41.8 34.9 187 276 77.1 53.9 45.1 Total HpCDF 31.6 49.6 78.7 481 44.1 70.1 98.2 47.2 180 995 83 153 53.7
TEQ-Detects only
6.1 7.3 11 26 5.1 9.1 6.2 6.0 30 50 9.2 10 8.3
TEQ-1/2 MDL
6.1 7.3 11 26 5.2 9.1 6.4 6.0 30 50 10 11 8.3 PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene 18 2.7 1.6 11 39 0.68 0.85 0.81 0.46 1.7 36 50 17 Acenaphthylene 2.3 3.2 2.2 1.7 7.2 1.7 1.3 4.7 2.2 2.2 9.1 14 33 Anthracene 27 6.2 3.9 14 62 2.9 2.6 3.2 1.9 5.1 70 83 45 Benzo(a)anthracene 140 50 31 93 250 14 18 21 13 34 380 500 260 Benzo(a)pyrene 150 65 41 100 280 21 24 29 18 44 390 480 300 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 210 95 68 150 360 35 47 41 29 94 570 750 400 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 55 24 19 38 100 8.7 14 12 8.9 28 170 170 130 Benzo(ghi)perylene 130 61 42 71 170 32 36 33 24 50 290 330 200 Chrysene 170 77 49 120 330 29 35 30 22 76 470 610 360 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 27 12 7.7 17 41 7.1 5 4.8 4 10 62 82 43 Fluoranthene 330 120 75 230 570 36 47 36 28 78 860 1200 710 Fluorene 11 2.4 1.4 6.6 25 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.91 1.7 26 43 21 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 120 60 42 81 230 26 31 28 22 54 340 410 260 Naphthalene 6.1 5.8 5.2 3.4 11 3.8 3.6 3.5 8.4 7.7 13 15 25 Phenanthrene 180 61 35 120 380 21 20 19 16 33 450 660 420 Pyrene 330 120 72 230 560 35 40 39 29 78 780 960 670
TEQ-Detects only
210 90 58 140 380 30 36 40 26 67 550 680 410
TEQ-1/2 MDL
210 90 58 140 380 30 36 40 26 67 550 680 410
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 68
Table 8 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ravenna Study Areas
Sheet 2 of 4 Sample ID RA-1-A RA-1-B RA-1-C RA-1-D RA-1-E RA-2-A RA-2-B RA-2-C RA-2-D RA-2-E RA-3-A RA-3-B RA-3-C Sampling Date 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/1/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium 1.73 0 0.85 1.55 2.84 4.22 0.32 1.87 7.43 0.73 4.77 3.1 8.61 Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine 1.86 0.59 0.84 1.64 2.84 3.95 2.96 1.07 6.57 2 2.25 2.72 7.48 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse 3.42 5.96 3.93 4.24 6.61 9.62 5.61 3.74 8.46 3.36 5.71 5.78 7.95 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse 9.69 11.4 15 14.8 15.8 20.6 11.4 14.4 11.7 6 25.3 14 14.5 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium 13.5 15.1 16.3 26.2 19.8 22.2 18.4 30.4 16.9 11.9 27.4 23.5 23.9 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine 18.3 16.9 17.9 27.8 22.2 17.1 20.9 28.1 19.6 45.6 17.2 22.6 18.5 Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine 6.62 5.46 6.18 4.64 5.03 3.21 4.42 4.14 4.8 7.61 3.34 5.32 2.8 Particle/Grain Size, Silt 35.6 36.5 32.4 17.7 22.1 16.2 31 12.7 22.3 21.4 12.8 20.3 15.5 Particle/Grain Size, Clay 2.89 0.83 3.29 1.79 1.83 1.55 7.78 0.97 1.72 2.3 0.71 1.15 0.72
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 69
Table 8 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ravenna Study Areas
Sheet 3 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Conventionals in % Total Solids Total Organic Carbon Dioxins in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF Total TCDD Total PeCDD Total HxCDD Total HpCDD Total TCDF Total PeCDF Total HxCDF Total HpCDF
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
PAHs (8270 SIM) in ug/kg Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(ghi)perylene Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
TEQ-Detects only TEQ-1/2 MDL
RA-3-D RA-3-E RA-4-A RA-4-B RA-4-C RA-4-D RA-4-E 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/5/2011 98.4 98.1 97.8 98.7 98.5 98 98.6 2.54 3.31 3.22 2.72 3.17 3.27 3.58 0.483 UK 17.2 0.712 T 11.2 4.07 3.63 UK 0.455 T 1.11 UK 2.65 T 1.87 T 1.33 T 0.862 T 2.51 T 1.75 T 1.22 T 2.93 T 2.38 T 1.32 T 0.781 T 4.33 2.25 T 5.06 16.1 9.95 4.51 T 2.94 T 16.9 23 3.45 T 12.3 7.02 4.18 T 2.69 T 11.4 12.9 77.2 392 197 75.6 59.7 445 795 560 3610 1490 520 489 3550 3170 2.34 4.31 2.38 1.8 1.51 2.96 3.55 1.19 JT 2.03 T 1.1 JT 0.156 U 0.692 JT 0.159 U 2.08 T 2.86 T 4.47 3.79 T 2.34 T 1.63 T 3.59 T 4.06 3.48 T 9.39 J 4.93 2.93 T 2.45 T 7.35 3.78 T 3.27 T 4.36 4.87 2.85 T 1.73 T 3.97 T 3.8 T 0.0894 U 0.261 T 0.211 U 0.176 U 0.0845 U 0.136 U 0.135 U 6.81 J 5.45 9.25 5.96 3.06 T 7.88 7.07 17.8 91.2 51.4 28.5 14.6 135 19 0.828 T 4.32 1.96 T 0.979 UK 0.519 UK 3.09 T 1.42 T 33.8 U 308 120 49.1 U 34.2 U 256 46.6 11.5 39.9 12.2 17.2 11 12.1 12 15.5 42.3 24.7 19.3 10.3 28.1 23.8 43.5 115 66.1 41.1 26.7 106 157 152 746 350 152 113 750 1270 43.7 72.8 85.3 37.6 30.1 60 121 119 141 221 110 61 141 169 83 144 93.7 75.1 38.9 83.9 88.3 40.9 314 132 60.8 32.1 308 51.7 4.6 33 11 17 7.8 16 18 5.4 33 11 17 7.9 18 18 1.8 110 1.1 0.66 1 1.2 2.8 6.6 150 3.1 1.4 1.9 2.9 12 10 250 4 2.5 4.2 4.1 22 62 1300 25 24 36 32 100 82 1400 37 38 48 46 130 140 1900 62 49 77 80 190 40 760 22 12 21 18 47 84 880 42 35 45 54 120 100 1500 48 39 51 57 140 15 240 6.4 16 7.7 10 23 170 2100 70 37 91 72 280 3.5 74 2.3 0.81 1.3 1.3 9.2 91 1100 41 28 47 49 120 11 20 5.5 3.6 4.6 9.1 10 81 1000 42 17 32 36 150 160 1900 63 37 78 68 290 120 1900 53 51 67 65 180 120 1900 53 51 67 65 180
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 70
Table 8 - Analytical Results for Surface Soil Samples from Ravenna Study Areas
Sheet 4 of 4 Sample ID Sampling Date Grain Size in % Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Gravel, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Coarse Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Medium Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Fine Particle/Grain Size, Sand, Very Fine Particle/Grain Size, Silt Particle/Grain Size, Clay RA-3-D RA-3-E RA-4-A RA-4-B RA-4-C RA-4-D RA-4-E 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/5/2011 0.1 12.8 15.2 3.34 2.69 2.18 0.79 0.65 4.36 1.66 1.45 1.65 3.54 1.4 1.93 6.11 6.19 3.81 4.26 6.82 3.65 15.8 13.7 13.7 15.3 13.8 20.8 10.9 33 18.7 23.7 26.4 26.1 27.6 27.6 26.2 21.9 23.2 27.2 26.7 23.5 32.9 2.62 5.35 4.06 5.75 4.82 3.86 4.83 13.6 16.7 12.7 18.1 17.8 12.5 16.9 2.1 1.42 0.83 1.24 2.14 1.06 0.77
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 3 - 8

Page 71
Table 9 - Summary of Carcinogenic PAH Toxicity Equivalent Concentrations Neighborhood Minimum Maximum Average Median 90th Percentile Minimum Maximum Average Median 90th Percentile Ballard 35 1200 340 230 800 35 1200 340 230 800 Capitol Hill 34 8900 680 170 730 34 8900 680 170 730 Georgetown 46 970 240 150 440 46 970 240 150 440 Ravenna 26 1900 260 67 570 26 1900 260 67 570 South Park 7.4 390 100 81 180 7.4 390 100 81 180 West Seattle 1.9 400 54 9.9 120 1.9 400 54 9.9 120 All Areas 1.9 8900 260 84 390 1.9 8900 260 84 390 Notes: Units in ug/kg benzo(a)pyrene toxicity equivalents. Non-parametric 90th percentile. Non-detected Results = 1/2 Detection Limit Non-detected Results = 0
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Table 9

Page 72
Table 10 - Summary of Dioxin Total Toxicity Equivalent Concentrations Neighborhood Minimum Maximum Average Median 90th Percentile Minimum Maximum Average Median 90th Percentile Ballard 1.3 62 26 22 47 1.9 62 26 22 47 Capitol Hill 3.0 96 18 8.0 53 3.2 96 18 8.1 53 Georgetown 5.2 110 35 23 65 5.3 110 36 23 66 Ravenna 4.6 50 15 9.8 30 5.2 50 15 10 30 South Park 3.1 23 12 12 19 3.5 23 12 12 19 West Seattle 1.6 33 7.4 4.3 13 1.7 33 7.5 4.5 13 All Areas 1.3 110 19 11 46 1.7 110 19 12 46 Notes: Units in ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalents. Non-parametric 90th percentile. Non-detected Results = 1/2 Detection Limit Non-detected Results = 0
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Table 10

Page 73
Appendices
 

Page 74

Page 75
Appendix A. Field Documentation

Page 76

Page 77
Sheet 1 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments South Park (SP) SP-1-A 4/5/2011 41 x 7 (Soft), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. SP-1-B 4/5/2011 34 x 12 (Soft), moist, dark brown to black, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 inches, worms present. No curb present, lawn slopes down to street, no evidence of standing water or vehicles parking on the median strip. SP-2-A 4/5/2011 38 x 11 (Soft), moist, dark brown, very slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 to 6 inches, worms present, power line over site, and tall grass present in median strip. SP-2-B 4/5/2011 52 x 10 (Soft), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, worms present. SP-3-A 4/5/2011 38 x 10.5 (Soft), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy gravelly SILT (ML) to slightly sandy silty GRAVEL (GM), with gravels 0.5 to 4 inches. Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Small piece of plastic found just below grass sod in one sub-location, new sub-location collected for composite soil sample. SP-3-B 4/5/2011 50 x 10 (Soft), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy slightly gravelly SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. SP-4-A 4/5/2011 35 x 6.5 (Soft), moist to wet, medium brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. SP-4-B 4/5/2011 38 x 6.5 (Soft), moist, medium brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) to slightly gravelly silty SAND (SM) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Small piece of plastic found just below grass sod in one sub-location, new sub-location collected for composite soil sample. SP-5-A 4/5/2011 77 x 7.5 (Soft), moist, medium brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 to 6 inches, worms present. SP-5-B 4/5/2011 49 x 7 (Soft), moist, medium brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. SP-6-A 4/5/2011 49 x 10.5 (Soft), moist, medium brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. Site located on the corner of two streets. SP-6-B 4/6/2011 49 x 10 (Soft), moist, dark brown, sandy gravelly SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. SP-7-A 4/6/2011 76 x 10 (Soft), moist, medium brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. No curb present, lawn slopes down to street, no evidence of standing water or vehicles parking on the median strip. Site located on the corner of two streets.
Table A-1 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - South Park
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 78
Sheet 2 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments South Park (SP)
Table A-1 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - South Park
SP-7-B 4/6/2011 36 x 15 (Loose), moist, red-brown, gravelly silty fine SAND (SM) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 to 6 inches, worms present. No curb present, lawn slopes down to street, no evidence of standing water or vehicles parking on the median strip. Site located one block from an elevated freeway. SP-8-A 4/6/2011 52 x 10 (Soft), moist to wet, brown, gravelly sandy SILT (ML), gravels 0.25 to 3 inches Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. Tall grass and weeds present at site, one small tire track near curb, sub- sample locations collected 8 feet from the curb. SP-8-B 4/6/2011 51 x 11 (Soft), moist, brown, gravelly sandy SILT (ML) to gravelly silty SAND (SM), gravels 0.25 to 1 inch Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. Tall trees overhanging both the yard and median strip. SP-9-A 4/6/2011 39 x 10.5 (Soft), moist, brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. SP-9-B 4/6/2011 61 x 10.5 (Soft), moist, brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Site located on the corner of two streets. Small piece of wood found just below grass sod in two sub-locations, new sub-locations collected for composite soil sample. SP-10-A 4/6/2011 21 x 11 (Soft), dry to moist, light brown, gravelly sandy SILT (ML), gravels 0.25 to 4 inches Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Site located on busy street on a hill. No curb present and no evidence of standing water or vehicles parking on the median strip, large rocks were placed to keep traffic off the median strip. SP-10-B 4/6/2011 22 (no sidewalk) (Soft), moist, brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. No curb or sidewalk present at site, sampled right-of- way. 20 Total SP Samples ROW = right-of-way NA - Not Available
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 79
Sheet 1 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments Georgetown (GT) GT-1-A 4/1/2011 38 x 20.5 (Soft), moist, dark brown to black, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. GT-1-B 4/1/2011 70 x 10.5 (Soft), moist, dark brown, slightly silty fine SAND (SM), trace gravel Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, no worms present. Site located on the corner of two streets. GT-1-C 4/1/2011 76 x 21.5 (Soft), moist, dark brown to black, very slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Site located on the corner of two streets. GT-1-D 4/1/2011 48.5 x 9 (Soft), moist, dark brown to black, very slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. GT-1-E 4/1/2011 52 x 6 (Loose), moist, light brown, gravelly silty SAND (SM), gravels 0.25 to 1 inch Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. GT-2-A 4/1/2011 41 x 5.5 (Soft), moist, dark brown to black, very slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. GT-2-B 4/4/2011 60 x 5.5 (Soft), dry to moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. GT-2-C 4/4/2011 41 x 5.5 (Soft), dry to moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. Tall trees overhanging both the yard and median strip. GT-2-D 4/4/2011 76 x 5.8 (Soft), dry to moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Sub-sample locations avoided an area of pressed discolored grass where a replacement telephone poll laid on the grass median strip for a short period of time. GT-2-E 4/4/2011 42 x 5.75 (Loose), dry to moist, medium brown, slightly silty gravelly SAND (SP) Approximately 1 inch of grass sod, root zone approximately 2 to 3 inches, no worms present. Small pieces of concrete and one piece of plastic found in a few sub-locations, new sub-locations collected for composite soil sample. GT-3-A 4/4/2011 33 x 6 (Soft), moist, dark brown to black, slightly sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, no worms present, power line over site. Small piece of charcoal in a sub-location, new sub-location collected for composite soil sample. Tall trees overhanging both the yard and median strip. GT-3-B 4/4/2011 33 x 6 (Soft), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML), trace gravel Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 inches, worms present, power line over site. GT-3-C 4/4/2011 81 x 5.5 (Soft), moist, medium brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 to 6 inches, no worms present. GT-3-D 4/4/2011 40 x 6 (Loose), moist, dark brown to black, silty fine SAND (SM) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 to 6 inches, worms present, power line over site. GT-3-E 4/4/2011 72 x 6 (Soft), moist, medium brown, gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, worms present, power line over site.
Table A-2 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - Georgetown
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 80
Sheet 2 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments
Table A-2 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - Georgetown
GT-4-A 4/4/2011 37 x 6 (Soft), dry to moist, brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Site along a busy street. GT-4-B 4/4/2011 43 x 5.5 (Soft), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Site along a busy street. GT-4-C 4/4/2011 40 x 5.5 (Soft), dry to moist, dark brown, very slightly gravelly slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. GT-4-D 4/4/2011 27 x 5.5 (Soft), moist, medium brown, very slightly gravelly silty SAND (SM) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present, power line over site. Narrow yard, close grouping of sub-locations. Small piece of plastic in a sub-location, new sub-location collected for composite soil sample. GT-4-E 4/4/2011 37.5 x 6 (Soft), moist, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 to 6 inches, worms present, power line over site. Site along a busy street. 20 Total GT Samples ROW = right-of-way NA - Not Available
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 81
Sheet 1 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments West Seattle (WS) WS-1-A 3/30/2011 40 x 11.5 (Loose), moist to wet, grey-brown, slightly gravelly silty SAND (SM), gravels 0.25 to 2 inches Approximately 2 to 3 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches. Small piece of paper trash directly below grass sod in a sub-location, new sub- location collected for composite soil sample. WS-1-B 3/30/2011 43.5 x 7 (Loose), moist, light brown, slightly gravelly silty SAND (SM), gravels 1 to 4 inches Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 inches, worms present. WS-1-C 3/30/2011 48 x 10 (Loose), moist, brown to light brown, slightly gravelly silty SAND (SM), gravels 1 to 3 inches Approximately 1 inch of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. WS-1-D 3/30/2011 49 x 10 (Soft), moist to wet, dark brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML), gravels 3 to 4 inches Approximately 1 inch of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, worms present. WS-1-E 3/30/2011 38 x 9 (Loose), moist, light brown, silty fine SAND (SM) Approximately 1 inch of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, no worms present. WS-2-A 3/30/2011 50.5 x 9.5 (Loose), dry to moist, light brown, slightly gravelly silty SAND (SM) Approximately 1 inch of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, worms present. WS-2-B 3/30/2011 51 x 5.8 (Loose), moist, light brown, slightly gravelly silty fine SAND (SM) Approximately 1 inch of grass sod, root zone approximately 2 to 3 inches, worms present. WS-2-C 3/30/2011 48 x 11.8 (Soft), moist to wet, tan-brown, sandy to slightly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 1 inch of grass sod, root zone approximately 2 to 3 inches, worms present. WS-2-D 3/30/2011 38 x 8.8 (Medium dense), moist, light tan-brown, slightly gravelly silty SAND (SM) Approximately 2 to 3 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, worms present. WS-2-E 3/30/2011 33 x 11 (Soft), moist to wet, tan brown, slightly gravelly sandy SILT (ML) Approximately 1 to 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 2 to 3 inches, worms present. WS-3-A 3/31/2011 38 x 6 (Medium dense), moist, brown to tan- brown, silty gravelly SAND (SP), gravels 0.25 to 0.5 inches Approximately 3 to 4 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, worms present. WS-3-B 3/31/2011 49 x 10.2 (Loose), dry to moist, tan-brown, slightly gravelly silty SAND (SM) Approximately 3 to 4 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, worms present. WS-3-C 3/31/2011 63 x 10 (Soft), moist to wet, tan-brown, sandy gravelly SILT (ML) to sandy silty GRAVEL (GM), gravels 0.25 to 3 inches Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, worms present. WS-3-D 3/31/2011 34 x 9 (Loose), dry to moist, tan-brown, slightly silty gravelly fine SAND (SP) Approximately 2 to 3 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 inches, worms present. Narrow yard, close grouping of sub-locations. WS-3-E 3/31/2011 26 x 9 (Loose), moist, red-brown, slightly silty gravelly SAND (SP), gravels 0.25 to 4 inches Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. Narrow yard, close grouping of sub-locations.
Table A-3 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - West Seattle
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 82
Sheet 2 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments
Table A-3 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - West Seattle
WS-4-A 3/31/2011 42.8 x 10.2 (Loose), moist, brown, slightly silty sandy GRAVEL (GP) to slightly silty gravelly fine SAND (SP), gravels 0.25 to 5 inches Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. WS-4-B 3/31/2011 44 x 10 (Loose), moist, tan-brown, slightly gravelly SAND (SP), gravels 0.25 to 0.5 inches Approximately 2 to 3 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches, no worms present. WS-4-C 3/31/2011 51 x 9 (Loose), dry to moist, orange-brown, slightly silty very gravelly find SAND (SP), gravels 0.25 to 12 inches Approximately 1 inch of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 to 5 inches, no worms present. WS-4-D 3/31/2011 40 x 10 (Loose), moist, dark brown, slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND (SP), gravels 0.25 to 3 inches Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 4 inches, worms present. WS-4-E 4/1/2011 40.5 x 5 (Loose), dry to moist, tan-brown, slightly gravelly fine SAND (SP), gravels 0.25 to 0.5 inches Approximately 2 inches of grass sod, root zone approximately 3 to 4 inches. Small piece of plastic directly below grass sod in a sub-location, new sub-location collected for composite soil sample. 20 Total WS Samples ROW = right-of-way NA - Not Available
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 83
Sheet 1 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments Capitol Hill (CH) CH-1-A 4/4/2011 7.3 x 37 (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) to (soft) sandy SILT (ML) with trace gravel Abundant roots from 0 to 2 inches, residence lot is elevated by approximately 3 feet with landscaping and young trees and shrubs. CH-1-B 4/4/2011 5 x 42 (Loose), damp to moist, red-brown, sandy SILT (ML) over (loose), moist to damp, dark brown silty sandy GRAVEL (GM) to gravelly SAND (SP). Approximately 0.5 to 1 inch of grass sod with abundant roots. Corner lot, residence protected by hedge and fence at sidewalk, grass in ROW, residence has mature trees and shrubs. CH-1-C 4/5/2011 7.5 x 62 (Loose), damp, dark brown silty SAND (SM) to (soft) sandy SILT (ML) Residence matches ROW, both have grass lawns, 1 young tree on residence, abundant roots from 0 to 1 inch and scattered worms. CH-1-D 4/5/2011 8.5 x 39 (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) to (soft) sandy SILT (ML) with trace gravel Abundant roots and scattered worms, grass in ROW matches residence, small bushes border yard, residence elevated by approximately 3 feet above ROW grade with sloping grass landscaping. CH-1-E 4/5/2011 8 x 40 (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, silty gravelly SAND (SP) to (medium dense) silty sandy GRAVEL (SP) Abundant roots, scattered wood fragments (excluded from subsamples), worms, grass in ROW, residence has landscaped yard with numerous shrubs and small large trees CH-2-A 4/5/2011 NA (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) to (soft), sandy SILT (ML) Abundant roots, scattered worms, residence has green lawn that matches ROW, mature and small trees at residence, two young trees in ROW. CH-2-B 4/5/2011 4 x 28.5 (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) to (soft) sandy SILT (ML) Abundant roots from 0 to 1 inch, residence landscaped had no grass, large hedge borders sidewalk. CH-2-C 4/5/2011 9 x 41 (Loose), damp, dark brown to red brown, silty SAND (SM) with trace gravel Abundant roots, scattered worms, residence matches ROW, both are covered by grass. CH-2-D 4/5/2011 10.2 x 41 (Loose) damp to moist, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) to (soft) sandy SILT (ML) with trace gravel Abundant roots from 0 to 1 inch, residence is elevated approximately 4 feet above ROW, small shrubs and flowered surround grassy lawn at residence, green grass in ROW. CH-2-E 4/5/2011 8 x 53 (Loose), damp to moist, silty SAND (SM) to (soft), sandy SILT (ML) with trace gravel Abundant roots from 0 to 1 inch, residence is elevated approximately 10 feet above ROW with a rock retaining wall, grass in ROW, grass at residence surrounded by small shrubs. CH-3-A 4/5/2011 11 x 41.6 (Loose), damp, dark brown sandy SILT (ML) to (soft) silty SAND (SM) Trace debris (i.e. cigarette butts, broken glass) observed in area of the ROW, debris was excluded from sub-samples, abundant roots from 0 to 1 inch, fence surrounds residence that has grass lawn surrounded by shrubs and mature trees, grass in ROW. CH-3-B 4/6/2011 9 x 47 (Soft), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) Abundant fine root material and scattered worms.
Table A-4 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - Capitol Hill
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 84
Sheet 2 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments
Table A-4 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - Capitol Hill
CH-3-C 4/6/2011 8 x 35 (Loose), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (SM), one sub-sample was a (medium dense), red-brown, sandy silty GRAVEL (GM) Occasional worms and ROW on a steep slope. CH-3-D 4/6/2011 10 x 34 (Loose), damp, dark brown, clayey SILT (ML) with trace large gravel Abundant root material and scattered worms. CH-3-E 4/6/2011 14.5 x 40 (Loose), damp, dark brown, clayey SILT (ML) Abundant roots, ROW covered with abundant moss, no worms present in soil. CH-4-A 4/6/2011 10 x 39 (Loose), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) Grass, moss, and roots from 0 to 2 inches, scattered worms, ROW on a slope. CH-4-B 4/6/2011 10 x 22 (Loose), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) with trace gravel, one sub-sample was a sandy silty GRAVEL (GM) Scattered worms, narrow ROW, sub-sample locations were placed closer together. CH-4-C 4/6/2011 3.2 x 40 (Soft), damp, brown, CLAY (CL) to SILT (ML) with trace large and small gravel Scattered worms, no roots present, and narrow ROW. CH-4-D 4/6/2011 4.8 x 39 (Soft), damp, dark brown, CLAY (CL) Few worms present, abundant roots, residence on a street corner, sampled the ROW without trees. The ROW was not rectangular in shape, one end was wider than other. CH-4-E 4/6/2011 8 x 56 (Soft), damp, dark brown, CLAY (CL) Abundant worms, fine root material from 0 to 2 inches, long grass on ROW. 20 Total CH Samples ROW = right-of-way NA - Not Available
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 85
Sheet 1 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments Ballard (BA) BA-1-A 3/30/2011 >3 x 52.5 (Medium stiff), damp to moist, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) with trace gravel Abundant fine roots, scattered worms in upper 1 to 2 inches, ROW covered in grass, ROW matches the residence. BA-1-B 3/30/2011 11 x 50 (Soft), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) to (loose), silty SAND (SM) Abundant fine roots, scattered worms, ROW covered in grass, ROW matches the residence, residence yard is elevated approximately 2 to 3 feet above the ROW. BA-1-C 3/30/2011 10 x 40 (Soft), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) to (lose), silty SAND (SM) Abundant fine roots, worms, ROW covered in grass, ROW matches the residence. BA-1-D 3/30/2011 10 x 45 (Loose to medium dense), damp, gray to brown, fine to course grained SAND (SW) with trace silt to (soft to stiff), dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) Abundant roots from 0 to 4 inches, ROW and residence both had trees of approximately the same age. BA-1-E 3/30/2011 11 x 44 (Loose), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) Abundant roots, scattered worms, ROW covered in grass, ROW matches the residence, with the exception of a small fruit tree on the residence yard. BA-2-A 3/30/2011 13 x 36 (Soft), moist to damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) to (loose), silty SAND (SM) Abundant roots, scattered worms, young trees in ROW which match the residence landscaping. BA-2-B 3/30/2011 12 x 52 (Soft), moist, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) to (loose), silty SAND (SM) Abundant roots from 0 to 1 inch, site on a corner of an intersection, ROW matches residence, one young tree occurs in the ROW. A nearby resident indicated that historically standing water is present in a parking area adjacent to the sampled ROW. During sampling a standing puddle was present in the adjacent parking area with a sheen, but was at a lower elevation and not influencing the sampled ROW. BA-2-C 3/30/2011 >3 x 40 (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) with trace gravel Abundant roots from 0 to 2 inches, residential yard is elevated approximately 2 feet, ROW covered in grass, a few bushes are present on the residence yard. BA-2-D 3/31/2011 12 x 25 (Loose), damp, dark, silty SAND (SM) Scattered worms, abundant fine roots, tree stump with flowers within ROW. BA-2-E 3/31/2011 7 x 27 (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty fine grained SAND (SM) Abundant roots, worms, grass, weeds, and leaf litter within ROW. BA-3-A 3/31/2011 9 x 42 (Soft), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) Abundant roots, occasional worms, ROW is covered in grass with minor amounts of moss, next door neighbors stated that the site owners had re-sodden within past 3 years. BA-3-B 3/31/2011 9 x 40 (Soft), damp, brown, sandy SILT (ML) Abundant roots, occasional worms, ROW is covered with a mixture of grass, clover and weeds. BA-3-C 3/31/2011 >3 x 50 (Loose), damp, dark brown silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) Abundant fine roots, scattered worms, residence yard is steeply sloped, small tree with recently planted daffodils at one end of ROW. BA-3-D 3/31/2011 9 x 49.5 (Soft), damp, brown, clayey SILT (ML) Abundant roots, occasional worms, ROW is covered with a mixture of grass, weeds, and moss and one old small tree.
Table A-5 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - Ballard
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 86
Sheet 2 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments
Table A-5 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - Ballard
BA-3-E 3/31/2011 12 x 39 (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) Abundant fine roots and scattered worms. Surface soil sample was not shipped to CAS. BA-3-F 3/31/2011 4 x 32 (Loose), moist, dark brown, SAND (SM) Abundant fine roots. Surface soil sample BA-3-F replaces BA-3-E. BA-4-A 3/31/2011 >3 x 49 (Loose), moist, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) with trace gravel Occasional roots, wood fragments (excluded from sub-samples), residence yard is steeply sloped, ROW is covered with a mixture of grass, weeds, and leaf litter. BA-4-B 3/31/2011 3.6 x 45 (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) Abundant fine roots, scattered worms, site on a busy road, patches of grass with compacted soil from foot traffic, sub-samples were collected from areas away from foot traffic disturbances. BA-4-C 3/31/2011 3.5 x 32 (Loose), damp, dark brown, sandy SILT (ML) Abundant fine roots, residence yard is steeply sloped, altered sampling area to avoid a guy wire from telephone pole, plastic mesh fragment in one sub-sample location, plastic was excluded from the surface soil sample. BA-4-D 4/1/2011 4.8 x 41 (Loose), damp, dark brown, very silty, fine to medium SAND (SM) Abundant fine roots, occasional worms, ROW is not rectangle in shape, the ROW tapers towards the south. BA-4-E 4/1/2011 10.6 x 23 (Loose), damp, dark brown, CLAY (CL) Fine root material, occasional worms, trash cans and compost placed on ROW for pick up, avoided sampling from the immediate area. 21 Total BA Samples ROW = right-of-way NA - Not Available
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 87
Sheet 1 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments Ravenna (RA) RA-1-A 4/1/2011 9 x 38 (Loose), damp, dark brown CLAY (CL) Abundant worms, occasional fine root material, ROW and yard match with comparable tree cover. RA-1-B 4/1/2011 9 x 42 (Stiff to very stiff), damp, dark brown, CLAY (CL) Abundant worms and grubs, ROW and yard match with comparable tree cover, sub-samples collected away from trees and sidewalk. RA-1-C 4/1/2011 9 x 30 (Soft), damp, dark brown, CLAY (CL) Occasional fine root material, ROW covered with a combination of moss and grass, no worms present in sub-locations. RA-1-D 4/1/2011 9 x 44 (Soft), damp, dark brown to red-brown, clayey SILT (ML) Occasional worms. RA-1-E 4/1/2011 9 x 35 (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) with trace gravel Occasional worms, residence yard is steeply sloped. RA-2-A 4/1/2011 5.3 x 44 (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) with trace gravel ROW and residence property are both flat. RA-2-B 4/1/2011 11 x 36 (Soft), moist to wet, brown, clayey SILT (ML) with trace large gravels Abundant worms, site next to a busy street. RA-2-C 4/1/2011 5 x 42 (Loose), damp, dark brown, gravelly, silty SAND (SM) Occasional worms, found a marble in one sub-location, marble was excluded from surface soil sample. RA-2-D 4/1/2011 10 x 45 (Loose), damp, gravelly, clayey SILT (ML) Occasional worms. RA-2-E 4/1/2011 9.5 x 28 (Loose), damp, dark red-brown, clayey SAND (SC) with trace gravel Occasional worms. RA-3-A 4/4/2011 7.2 x 47 (Loose), damp, dark brown sandy SILT (ML) Occasional fine root material, very few worms, fire hydrant and stop sign present at end of ROW. RA-3-B 4/4/2011 8 x 52 (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, silty SAND, a sandy GRAVEL (GP) to gravelly SAND (SP) layer was encountered at the bottom of three sub-locations Abundant roots, scattered worms, large shrub present on ROW. Residence yard is approximately 8 feet above ROW grade with mature conifers and numerous mature shrubs. RA-3-C 4/4/2011 5 x 42 (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) over silty gravelly SAND (SP) over silty sandy GRAVEL (GP) Abundant roots, ROW is covered with grass, scattered debris (i.e. bottle cap, glass) observed in one sub-location, debris was excluded from the surface soil sample, ROW matches residence yard. RA-3-D 4/4/2011 7.2 x 42 (Loose), damp to moist, gray brown to dark brown, silty fine SAND (SM) Abundant roots from 0 to 2 inches, residence yard is elevated approximately 6 feet above the ROW with a 4 foot concrete retaining wall and large hedge above the retaining wall. RA-3-E 4/4/2011 5 x 41 (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) with trace gravel Abundant roots from 0 to 2 inches, ROW is covered with grass, residence yard has young trees and a raised bed. RA-4-A 4/4/2011 7 x 41 (Loose), damp, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) Site located on the corner of two streets, a telephone pole is present at one end of the ROW.
Table A-6 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - Ravenna
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 88
Sheet 2 of 2 Sample Number Sample Date Median Strip Dimensions in Feet Visual Soil Description Comments
Table A-6 - Surface Soil Sample Descriptions - Ravenna
RA-4-B 4/4/2011 9 x >46 (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) to (soft) sandy SILT (ML) over silty sandy GRAVEL at 4 inches in one sub- location Abundant roots from o to 3 inches, residence yard is raised approximately 4 feet above the ROW, the ROW and residence yard are both covered with grass. RA-4-C 4/4/2011 NA (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, silty SAND (SM) with trace gravel Abundant roots from 0 to 2 inches, ROW is covered with grass, residence yard is covered with shrubs and small to medium size trees (~20' tall). RA-4-D 4/4/2011 9.5 x 29 (Loose), damp to moist, dark brown, gravelly silty SAND (SM) to silty SAND (SM) ROW is covered with grass, scattered garbage, and animal waste, garbage and animal waste was excluded from sub-locations. Residence yard has one small tree. RA-4-E 4/5/2011 9 x 40 (Loose), damp, brown with orange brown zones, silty SAND (SM) to (soft) sandy SILT (ML) Abundant roots from 0 to 1 inches, ROW is similar to the residence yard, the residence yard is approximately 4 feet above the ROW with a rock retaining wall, and small shrubs in yard. 20 Total RA Samples ROW = right-of-way NA - Not Available
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Tables 2, A-1 to A-6

Page 89
Appendix B. Representative Photographs

Page 90

Page 91
Urban Background Study Photo 1: Set up of five subsample locations for one surface soil sample at a randomly selected site. Note the telephone/power line pole in the background and the utility box in the foreground. Subsample locations were collected away from disturbances. Photo 2: Randomly selected site (same as Photo 1) once surface soil sampling was completed.

Page 92
Urban Background Study Photo 3: Set up of five subsample locations for one surface soil sample at a randomly selected site. Note grass and mature trees in the right-of-way (ROW); at this particular site, both the residence yard and ROW had grass and trees. Photo 4: Randomly selected site (same as Photo 3) once surface soil sampling was completed.

Page 93
Urban Background Study Photo 5: Example of a subsample location exploration, approximately 2 inches of grass sod over a root zone from approximately 2 to 4 inches with abundant worms present. Soil sample was collected by scraping along the sides of the exploration to collect an adequate undisturbed soil sample. Photo 6: Example of a disturbance, note the color difference of the grass in the foreground due to high amount of fertilizer.

Page 94
     

Page 95
Appendix C. Chemical Data Quality Review and Laboratory Reports

Page 96

Page 97
C-1
Appendix C. Chemical Data Quality Review and Laboratory Reports
 
Chemical data quality review for soil samples
123 soil samples were collected from urban Seattle, Washington locations between March 30, 2011 and April 6, 2011. The samples were submitted to Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. (CAS), in Kelso, Washington, for chemical analysis. The samples were reported in CAS Service Request Nos. K1102825, K1102826, K1102923, and K1103078. On May 19, 2011, the laboratory was asked to perform additional analyses on the archived samples. The additional results were reported in Service Request Nos. K1104576, K1104577, K1104578, K1104579, K1104580, and K1104585. The samples for chemical analysis were air dried, sieved with a Number 10 (2 mm) sieve, than processed via a Multi-Increment Sampling (MIS) procedure. The soil samples were analyzed for the following: • Total organic carbon (TOC) by EPA Method 9060 Modified; • Total solids by EPA Method 160.3 modified; and • Grain size by ASTM D422 modified. An aliquot from each of the samples was submitted to CAS in Houston, Texas, for analysis of dioxins/furans by EPA Method 1613B. Additional aliquots were prepared for potential analysis for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. The additional aliquots and remaining air dried and sieved sample volumes were archived at -20oC. Additional analyses on the archived samples were requested on May 19, 2011. The soil samples were analyzed for the following: • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270C - SIM. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) reviews of laboratory procedures are performed on an ongoing basis by the laboratory. Hart Crowser performed the data review, using laboratory quality control results summary sheets and raw data, as required, to ensure they met data quality objectives for the project. Data review generally followed the format outlined in the National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (EPA 2008), and the National Functional Guidelines for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin (CDDs) and Chlorinated Dibenzofurans (CDFs) Data Review (EPA 2005) modified to include specific criteria of the individual analytical methods. The following criteria were evaluated in the standard data quality review process, where applicable: • Holding times;

Page 98
C-2 • Method blanks; • Surrogate recoveries; • Laboratory control sample (LCS)/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCS/LCSD) recoveries; • Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries; • Laboratory duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) and laboratory replicate relative standard deviations (RSDs); • Labeled compound recoveries; • Ongoing precision and recovery sample (OPR) recoveries; • Standard reference material (SRM) recoveries; • Calibration criteria; and • Reporting limits (RL). The data were determined to be acceptable for use, as qualified. Full laboratory results are presented at the end of this appendix. Results of the data reviews, organized by analysis class, follow.
Sample receiving exceedances
The coolers were received at CAS in Kelso, Washington, at temperatures below 2�� to 6��C. One temperature blank was received frozen. No sample jars were damaged. As the samples were soils that were frozen and archived, no sample results were qualified. The coolers shipped from CAS in Kelso, Washington, to CAS in Houston, Texas, containing the samples were received at the Houston laboratory at a temperature of 23oC. Because the samples were air dried, sieved, and processed by MIS prior to shipping, the temperature exceedance resulted in no sample qualification. Additional analyses for PAHs on the archived samples were requested on May 19, 2011. As all samples had been archived at -20oC, holding times were extended to six months, and no sample results were qualified. Previously prepared aliquots of air dried, sieved, and MIS processed samples were removed from archive for analysis. Some samples had not had additional aliquots of MIS processed soils prepared during the initial sample extraction, but air dried and sieved soils had been archived. These samples (BA-1-D, WS-2-D, WS-3-A, WS-3-B, WS-4-B, and WS-4-C) were removed from archive and underwent the MIS procedure prior to extraction and analysis for PAHs.

Page 99
C-3
Physical/chemical parameters
Analytical methods Total organic carbon was prepared and analyzed by modified EPA Method 9060. Total solids were determined by modified EPA Method 160.3. Grain size was determined by modified ASTM D422. Sample holding times The samples met holding time limits for total solids, total organic carbon, and grain size. Laboratory detection limits Reported detection limits and analytical results for TOC were adjusted for moisture content and any required dilution factors. Reported detection limits were acceptable. Blank contamination Laboratory blanks for TOC were non-detect. Laboratory control sample recovery LCS recoveries for TOC fell within control limits. Matrix spike recovery MS recoveries for TOC fell within control limits with the following exception: • RA-1-E: The RPD for the matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate exceeded the control limits. As the recoveries were within control, sample results were not qualified. Laboratory duplicate RPDs and laboratory replicate RSDs The laboratory duplicate RPDs for total solids fell within control limits. The laboratory replicate RSDs for TOC fell within control limits with the following exception: • WS-3-A: The RSD for TOC exceeded the control limit. Results for TOC in WS-3-A were qualified as estimated (J). The laboratory duplicate RPDs for grain size fell within control limits with the following exceptions: • WS-4-C: The RPD for fine gravel exceeded control limits of 35 percent. Results for fine gravel in WS-4-C were qualified as estimated (J). • WS-4-E: The RPD for medium gravel and fine gravel exceeded control limits of 35 percent. Results for medium gravel and fine gravel in WS-4-E were qualified as estimated (J). • GT-2-B: The RPD for medium gravel, fine gravel, and coarse sand exceeded control limits of 35 percent. Results for medium gravel, fine gravel, and coarse sand in GT-2-B were qualified as estimated (J).

Page 100
C-4 • 1412: The RPD for medium gravel exceeded control limits of 35 percent. Results for medium gravel in 1412 were qualified as estimated (J). • CH-1-C: The RPD for medium gravel and fine gravel exceeded control limits of 35 percent. Results for medium gravel and fine gravel in CH-1-C were qualified as estimated (J). • SP-8-B: The RPD for medium gravel and clay exceeded control limits of 35 percent. Results for medium gravel and clay in SP-8-B were qualified as estimated (J). • BA-4-C: The RPD for medium gravel, coarse sand, very fine sand, and clay exceeded control limits of 35 percent. Results for medium gravel, coarse sand, very fine sand, and clay in BA-4-C were qualified as estimated (J). Continuing calibration verification checks (CCVs) The CCVs for TOC fell within acceptance criteria.
PAHs by EPA 8270-SIM
Analytical methods PAHs were prepared by EPA Method 3541 and analyzed following EPA Method 8270C with Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM). Sample holding times The samples met holding time limits of six months for frozen soils. Laboratory detection limits Reported detection limits and analytical results were adjusted for moisture content and any required dilution factors. Detections that fell between the reporting limit (RL) and the method detection limit (MDL) were qualified by the laboratory as ��J.�� The laboratory ��J�� qualifier was changed to ��T�� to be consistent with Ecology��s EIM database. Multiple samples were analyzed at dilutions due to high levels of target analytes. The laboratory qualified the diluted analytes with ��D��. The laboratory ��D�� qualifier was removed. MB KWG1104924-6: The MDL for benzo(a)pyrene was elevated due to matrix interferences. The reporting limit was unchanged. The laboratory qualified the analyte as ��Ui.�� Blank contamination The method blanks had detections for multiple analytes between the MDL and the RL. The detections in the associated samples were evaluated and results modified as follows: • MB KWG1104705-6: The method blank had detections for phenanthrene between the MDL and the RL. • Results for phenanthrene in associated samples were above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank and were not qualified.

Page 101
C-5 • MB KWG1104706-6: The method blank had detections for naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, and chrysene between the MDL and the RL. • Results for those analytes in associated samples with detections above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank were not qualified. • Results for those analytes in associated samples that fell between the MDL and the RL were raised to the RL and qualified as non-detect (U): • WS-1-A: Naphthalene • Results for those analytes in associated samples with detections above the RL but less than five times the amount in the method blank were qualified as non-detect (U): • WS-1-E: Naphthalene • WS-3-C: Naphthalene • MB KWG1104924-6: The method blank had detections for naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluorene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(123-cd)pyrene, dibenz(ah)anthracene, and benzo(ghi)perylene between the MDL and the RL. • Results for those analytes in associated samples with detections above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank were not qualified. • Results for those analytes in associated samples that fell between the MDL and the RL were raised to the RL and qualified as non-detect (U): • SP-8-B: Fluorene • MB KWG1105068-3: The method blank had detections for naphthalene and phenanthrene between the MDL and the RL. Results for those analytes in associated samples were above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank and were not qualified. • MB KWG1104777-6: The method blank had detections for naphthalene and phenanthrene between the MDL and the RL. Results for those analytes in associated samples were above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank and were not qualified. • MB KWG1104810-6: The method blank had detections for naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(123- cd)pyrene, and benzo(ghi)perylene between the MDL and the RL. Results for those analytes in associated samples were above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank and were not qualified. • MB KWG1104859-6: The method blank had detections for naphthalene and phenanthrene between the MDL and the RL. Results for those analytes in associated samples were above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank and were not qualified. Surrogate recovery Surrogate recoveries fell within laboratory control limits with the following exception: • SP-10-A: The recovery for the surrogate Terphenyl-d14 fell below the control limits. The remaining surrogates were within control, and sample results were not qualified.

Page 102
C-6 Laboratory control sample recovery LCS recoveries fell within laboratory control limits. Matrix spike recovery MS recoveries fell within laboratory control limits with the following exceptions: • BA-4-C MS/MSD: The recoveries for phenanthrene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, and benz(a)anthracene exceeded the control limits in the MS, but fell within the control limits in the MSD. The recoveries for fluoranthene and pyrene exceeded the control limits in the MS, and fell below the control limits in the MSD. The RPD results for acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(123- cd)pyrene, and benzo(ghi)perylene exceeded the control limits. As the LCS and LCSD were within control limits, the RPD failures and recovery failures are indicative of heterogeneity in the source sample. Results for the source sample BA-4-C were qualified as estimated (J). • GT-3-A MS/MSD: The recoveries for phenanthrene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(123-cd)pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, and benzo(b)fluoranthene fell below the control limits in the MS; the recoveries of fluoranthene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, and pyrene fell below the control limits in the MS and MSD. The spiking amount was less than the target analytes present in the source sample, and no results were qualified. • SP-8-A MS/MSD: The RPDs for phenanthrene and pyrene exceeded the control limits. As the recoveries for those analytes were within control, no sample results were qualified. Internal standards recovery Internal standards were within acceptance criteria. Standard reference material recovery The SRM recoveries fell within acceptance criteria with the following exceptions: • SRM 1941b, extracted on May 25, 2011: The recoveries for naphthalene, fluorene, and fluoranthene fell below the laboratory advisory limits. Sample results were not qualified due to SRM failures. • SRM 1941b, extracted on May 25, 2011. The recoveries for naphthalene and fluorene fell below the laboratory advisory limits. Sample results were not qualified due to SRM failures. • SRM 1941b, extracted on May 26, 2011. The recoveries for naphthalene and fluorene fell below the laboratory advisory limits. Sample results were not qualified due to SRM failures. • SRM 1941b, extracted on May 27, 2011: The recoveries for naphthalene, fluorene, anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene fell below the laboratory advisory limits. Sample results were not qualified due to SRM failures. • SRM 1941b, extracted on May 31, 2011: The recovery for naphthalene fell below the laboratory advisory limits. Sample results were not qualified due to SRM failures • SRM 1941b, extracted on June 1, 2011. The recoveries for naphthalene and fluorene fell below the laboratory advisory limits. Sample results were not qualified due to SRM failures.

Page 103
C-7 Initial calibration curves and continuing calibration verification checks (CCVs) The initial calibration curves were within acceptance criteria. The CCVs were within control limits with the following exceptions: • CCV 05/28/11 at 14:44: The recoveries for Benzo(b)fluoranthene and indeno(123-cd)pyrene failed high. Those analytes in the associated samples (BA-1-A, BA-1-B, BA-1-C, BA-1-D, BA-2-A, BA-2-B, BA-2-E, BA-3-A, BA-3-D, and BA-4-A) were not reported from that sequence. The samples were reanalyzed and benzo(b)fluoranthene and indeno(123- cd)pyrene were reported from the reanalysis. No sample results were qualified.
Dioxins/furans by EPA 1613B
Analytical methods Dioxins/furans were prepared and analyzed by EPA Method 1613B. Sample holding times The samples were prepared and analyzed within holding time limits. Laboratory detection limits Reported detection limits and analytical results were adjusted for moisture content and any required dilution factors. Detections that fell between the RL and the Estimated Detection Limit (EDL) were qualified by the laboratory as estimated (J). J qualifiers were changed to T to be consistent with Ecology��s Environmental Information Management (EIM) database. Blank contamination The method blanks had detections for multiple analytes between the EDL and the RL. The laboratory qualified congener results in the associated samples with B. Method blank results that did not meet ion ratio criteria (EMPC results qualified as K) were treated as non-detected. The detections in the associated samples were evaluated and results modified as follows: • MB-EQ1100174-01: The method blank had the following detections, which met ion identification criteria, between the EDL and RL. • 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD – 0.132 ng/kg • OCDD – 0.961 ng/kg • OCDF – 0.0889 ng/kg • Total HpCDD – 0.132 ng/kg Results for those analytes in the associated samples that fell between the EDL and the RL were qualified as non-detected at the value reported by the laboratory. • WS-1-A: OCDF • WS-3-B: OCDF

Page 104
C-8 • WS-3-D: OCDF Results for those analytes in the associated samples with detections above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank (ten times for OCDD and OCDF) had the B qualifier removed: • WS-1-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • WS-1-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-1-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-1-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-1-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-2-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-2-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-2-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-2-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-2-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-3-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-3-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • WS-3-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • WS-3-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-4-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • WS-4-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • MB-EQ1100184-01: The method blank had the following detections, which met ion identification criteria, between the EDL and RL. • 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD – 0.299 ng/kg • OCDF – 0.257 ng/kg • Total HpCDD – 0.299 ng/kg Detections for OCDD did not meet the ion identification criteria in the method blank. Results for OCDD in the associated samples were also qualified with B, and the B qualifier was removed in samples WS-3-C, WS-4-C, WS-4-D, BA-1-A, BA-1-B, BA-1-C, BA-1-D, BA-1-E, BA-2-A, BA-2-B, BA-2-C, BA-2-D, BA-2-E, BA-3-A, BA-3-B, BA-3-C, BA-3-D, BA-3-F, BA-4-A, and BA-4-B. Results for those analytes in associated samples that fell between the EDL and the RL were qualified as non-detected at the value reported by the laboratory. • WS-4-C: OCDF

Page 105
C-9 Results for those analytes in the associated samples with detections above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank (ten times for OCDD and OCDF) had the B qualifier removed: • WS-3-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • WS-4-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • WS-4-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-1-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-1-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-1-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-1-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-1-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-2-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-2-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-2-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-2-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-2-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-3-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-3-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-3-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-3-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-3-F: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-4-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • BA-4-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDF • MB-EQ110185-01: The method blank had the following detections, which met ion identification criteria, between the EDL and RL: • 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD – 0.774 ng/kg • OCDD – 4.66 ng/kg • OCDF – 0.551 ng/kg • Total HpCDD – 1.28 ng/kg Results for those analytes in associated samples with detections above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank (ten times for OCDD and OCDF) had the B qualifier removed:

Page 106
C-10 • BA-4-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • BA-4-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • BA-4-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • CH-1-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • CH-1-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-1-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-1-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-1-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-1-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-1-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-2-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-2-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-2-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • GT-2-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD; OCDD; and OCDF • MB-EQ110194-01: The method blank had the following detections, which met ion identification criteria, between the EDL and RL. • 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD – 0.402 ng/kg • OCDD – 1.42 ng/kg • Total HpCDD – 0.763 ng/kg Detections for OCDF did not meet the ion identification criteria in the method blank. Results for OCDF in the associated samples were also qualified with B, and the B qualifier was removed in samples GT-2-E, GT-3-A, GT-3-B, GT-3-C, GT-3-D, GT-3-E, GT-4-A, GT-4-B, GT-4-C, GT- 4-D, GT-4-E, RA-1-A, RA-1-B, RA-1-C, RA-1-D, RA-1-E, RA-2-A, RA-2-B, and RA-2-C. Results for those analytes in associated samples with detections above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank (ten times for OCDD and OCDF) had the B qualifier removed: • GT-2-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-3-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-3-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-3-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-3-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-3-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD

Page 107
C-11 • GT-4-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-4-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-4-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-4-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • GT-4-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • RA-1-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • RA-1-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • RA-1-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • RA-1-D: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • RA-1-E: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • RA-2-A: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • RA-2-B: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • RA-2-C: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and OCDD • MB-EQ110196-01: The method blank had the following detections, which met ion identification criteria, between the EDL and the RL. • OCDD – 21.4 ng/kg • 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF – 0.602 ng/kg • OCDF – 4.98 ng/kg • Total HpCDD – 1.13 ng/kg • Total HpCDF – 7.05 ng/kg Detections for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF did not meet the ion identification criteria in the method blank. Results for those congeners in the associated samples were also qualified with B, and the B qualifier was removed in samples SP-1-A, SP-1-B, SP-2-A, SP-2-B, SP-3-A, RA-2-D, RA-2-E, RA-3-A, RA-3-B, RA-3-C, RA-3-D, RA-3-E, RA-4-A, RA-4-B, RA- 4-C, RA-4-D, WS-4-E. Results for those analytes in associated samples that fell between the EDL and the RL or were less than five times the amount in the method blank (ten times for OCDD and OCDF) were qualified as non-detected at the value reported by the laboratory: • RA-4-B: OCDF • RA-4-C: OCDF • RA-3-D: OCDF • WS-4-E: OCDF Results for those analytes in the associated samples with detections above the RL and greater

Page 108
C-12 than five times the amount in the method blank (ten times for OCDD and OCDF) had the B qualifier removed: • RA-2-D: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • RA-2-E: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • RA-3-A: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • RA-3-B: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • RA-3-C: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • RA-3-D: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF • RA-3-E: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • RA-4-A: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • RA-4-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF • RA-4-C: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF • RA-4-D: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • WS-4-E: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF • SP-1-A: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • SP-1-B: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • SP-2-A: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • SP-2-B: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • SP-3-A: OCDD; 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and OCDF • MB-EQ110198-01: The method blank had the following detections, which met ion identification criteria, between the EDL and the RL. • 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD – 0.127 ng/kg • OCDD – 0.342 ng/kg • Total HpCDD – 0.127 ng/kg Results for those analytes in the associated samples with detections above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank (ten times for OCDD and OCDF) had the B qualifier removed: • SP-3-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-4-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-4-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-5-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-5-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD

Page 109
C-13 • SP-6-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-6-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-7-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-7-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-8-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-8-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-9-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-9-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-10-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • SP-10-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-1-C: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-1-D: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-1-E: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-2-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-2-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • MB-EQ110201-01: The method blank had the following detections, which met ion identification criteria, between the EDL and the RL. • 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD – 0.0998 ng/kg • OCDD – 0.536 ng/kg • Total HpCDD – 0.0998 ng/kg Results for those analytes in the associated samples with detections above the RL and greater than five times the amount in the method blank (ten times for OCDD and OCDF) had the B qualifier removed: • CH-2-C: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-2-D: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-2-E: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-3-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-3-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-3-C: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-3-D: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-3-E: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-4-A: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD

Page 110
C-14 • CH-4-B: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-4-C: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-4-D: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • CH-4-E: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • RA-4-E: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • 1420-24: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • 1410: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD • 1412: OCDD and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD Labeled compound recoveries The labeled compound recoveries were within control limits. Ongoing precision and recovery OPR recoveries were within QC limits. Laboratory control sample and LCS duplicate analysis LCS and LCSD recoveries were within control limits with the following exceptions: • LCS/LCSD-EQ110174-02/03: The recoveries for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF fell below the control limits. Results for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF in the associated samples (WS-1-A, WS-1-B, WS-1-C, WS-1-D, WS-1-E, WS-2-A, WS-2-B, WS-2-C, WS-2-D, WS-2-E, WS-3-A, WS-3-B, WS-3- D, WS-3-E, WS-4-A, and WS-4-B) were qualified as estimated (J). • LCS/LCSD-EQ110184-02/03: The recoveries for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF fell below the control limits. Results for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF in the associated samples (WS-3-C, WS-4-C, and WS-4- D) were qualified as estimated (J). • LCSD-EQ110184-03: The recovery for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF fell slightly below the control limits. The recovery for that analyte in the LCS fell within the control limits. As the LCS passed, no associated sample results were qualified. • LCS/LCSD-EQ110194-02/03: The recovery for 1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF was slightly below laboratory control limits in the LCSD, but within control limits in the LCS. The recovery for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF exceeded laboratory control limits in the LCS, but fell within control limits in the LCSD. As recoveries were within control for one of the batch QC samples, associated sample results were not qualified. Standard reference material (SRM) recovery The recoveries of the SRM NIST-1944 fell within acceptance criteria with the following exceptions: • 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF: RPDs were not reported for this congener. No certified value for this congener is available, as NIST recently decertified the value.

Page 111
C-15 • Batch EQ1100185: Due to a spiking error, no SRM results were reported for this batch. The associated LCS and LCSD recoveries were within control limits. Initial calibration curves and continuing calibration verification checks (CCVs) The initial calibration curves and CCVs were within acceptance criteria. Sample qualifiers Multiple compounds in the samples were qualified by the laboratory when ion abundance ratios fell outside quality control limits. The K qualifiers were reported as non-detect (U) for individual analytes and results qualified as UK. When 2,3,7,8-TCDF was detected on the DB-5 column, confirmation analyses were performed on a second column (DB-225). The results from both the DB-5 column and the DB-225 column were included in the data package, and the results from the DB-5 column were qualified as ��C.�� The results from the DB-225 analyses were reported for 2,3,7,8-TCDF in the samples, and the ��C�� qualifier was removed. When OCDD and/or OCDF results exceeded the calibration range at the instrument, the laboratory did not reanalyze the sample at dilution, but qualified the results as estimated (E). The E qualifier was changed to J in the following samples: • CH-1-C: OCDD • BA-1-E: OCDD • BA-4-B: OCDD • GT-3-D: OCDD • GT-4-D: OCDD Multiple compounds were qualified by the laboratory with P due to interferences from chlorodiphenyl ethers. The P qualifiers were changed to J (estimated) in the following samples: • BA-1-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • BA-1-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF • BA-1-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • BA-1-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • BA-1-E: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF; and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • BA-2-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • BA-2-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • BA-2-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • BA-2-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • BA-2-E: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF

Page 112
C-16 • BA-3-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF • BA-3-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF • BA-3-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF • BA-3-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • BA-3-F: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • BA-4-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • BA-4-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF; and 2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDF • BA-4-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • GT-1-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • GT-1-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • GT-1-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • GT-1-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • GT-1-E: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • GT-2-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • RA-1-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • RA-1-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • RA-1-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • RA-1-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • RA-1-E: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • RA-2-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • RA-2-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • RA-2-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • CH-1-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • GT-3-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF; and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • GT-3-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • GT-3-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • GT-3-E: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • GT-4-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF; and 2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDF • GT-4-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • GT-4-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF

Page 113
C-17 • GT-4-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • GT-4-E: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF; and 2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDF • RA-3-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • RA-3-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • RA-3-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • RA-3-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • RA-3-E: 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • RA-4-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • RA-4-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • SP-1-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF • SP-2-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • SP-2-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • SP-3-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • SP-10-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • SP-10-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • CH-1-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • CH-1-D: 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • CH-2-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF; and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • CH-2-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF; and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • CH-2-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • CH-2-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • CH-2-E: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF • CH-3-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF; 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF; and 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF • CH-3-B: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • CH-3-E: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • CH-4-A: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • CH-4-C: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF • CH-4-D: 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
L:\Jobs\1733029\Urban Background Study\Final Urban Ecology Background Report\Final Urban Ecology Background Report �� Ecology  Format.docx 

Recent Documents:

Set Home | Add to Favorites

All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download

Copyright © 2011
This site does not host pdf,doc,ppt,xls,rtf,txt files all document are the property of their respective owners. complaint#nuokui.com
TOP