Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment

294 views

Published on

A Coastal assessment for Black Pot Beach Park to assess coastal processes and sediment characteristics in the Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan project area.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment

  1. 1. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii October 2016 Prepared for: Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2590 Pacific Guardian Center, Makai Tower Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Prepared by: Sea Engineering, Inc. Makai Research Pier Waimanalo, HI 96795 Job No. 25525
  2. 2. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION................................................................................................... 3 1.2 BEACH PARK USE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................... 5 2. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................ 6 2.1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................. 6 2.2 NEARSHORE ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................................. 8 2.3 VEHICLE USE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................. 10 3. COASTAL SETTING......................................................................................................... 13 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 13 3.2 OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Wind........................................................................................................................ 13 3.2.2 Waves ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.3 Still Water Levels and Nearshore Wave Heights.................................................... 15 3.3 SHORELINE PROCESSES ................................................................................................... 15 4. BEACH DYNAMICS.......................................................................................................... 16 4.1 HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE ANALYSIS .................................................................. 19 4.2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................................... 23 4.2.1 Site Visit 1 ............................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Site Visit 2 ............................................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Site Visit 3 ............................................................................................................... 27 4.3 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SAND AND WATER SAMPLES ................................................... 29 4.3.1 Impacts from Vehicles............................................................................................. 31 4.4 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS OF SAND SAMPLES ...................................................................... 31 4.4.1 Impacts from Vehicles............................................................................................. 32 5. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 36 6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX A: BLACK POT BEACH SOIL AND WATER SAMPLING REPORT ......... A APPENDIX B: BLACK POT BEACH GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS DATA SHEET...............B
  3. 3. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION ON THE ISLAND OF KAUAI (DIGITALGLOBE)........................................................3 FIGURE 1-2 PROJECT SITE WITHIN HANALEI BAY (DIGITALGLOBE)..............................................................................4 FIGURE 1-3 BLACK POT BEACH AND HANALEI PIER .....................................................................................................4 FIGURE 1-4 AMENITIES AND ACTIVITIES AT BLACK POT BEACH PARK..........................................................................5 FIGURE 2-1 FRINGING REEF EXTENDING 1,500 FEET OFFSHORE (UH COASTAL GEOLOGY GROUP)...............................7 FIGURE 2-2 NAUTICAL CHART 19385 – DEPTH IN FATHOMS (NOAA)............................................................................7 FIGURE 2-3 NOAA NEARSHORE GEOGRAPHY (PACIOOS) ............................................................................................9 FIGURE 2-4 NOAA NEARSHORE GEOMORPHOLOGY (PACIOOS)...................................................................................9 FIGURE 2-5 VEHICLE USE ON THE BEACH AT BLACK POT BEACH PARK .......................................................................10 FIGURE 2-6 VEHICLE USE PATTERNS AT BLACK POT BEACH PARK (GOOGLE EARTH) .................................................11 FIGURE 2-7 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING VEHICLE PARKING AT BLACK POT BEACH PARK...................................12 FIGURE 3-1 HAWAII DOMINANT SWELL REGIMES (VITOUSEK AND FLETCHER, 2008)...................................................14 FIGURE 4-1 SHORELINE REACHES AND CORRESPONDING TRANSECTS...........................................................................17 FIGURE 4-2 REACH 1 (TRANSECT 229-233) EXTENDING 300 FEET SOUTH OF HANALEI PIER........................................17 FIGURE 4-3 REACH 2 (TRANSECTS 234-238) EXTENDING 300 FEET NORTH OF HANALEI PIER......................................18 FIGURE 4-4 REACH 3 (TRANSECTS 239-243) EXTENDING 300 FEET TO THE HANALEI RIVER MOUTH...........................18 FIGURE 4-5 CGG HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE RATES FOR BLACK POT BEACH PARK (1930-2008)......................19 FIGURE 4-6 MAXIMUM EROSION (1962) AND ACCRETION (1975) AT BLACK POT BEACH PARK...................................20 FIGURE 4-7 SEI HISTORICAL SHORELINE CHANGE RATES FOR BLACK POT BEACH PARK (1968-2016).........................21 FIGURE 4-8 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING MIGRATION OF THE SAND SPIT (1987-2013)..........................................22 FIGURE 4-9 VARIABILITY OF THE SAND SPIT AT THE HANALEI RIVER MOUTH (MAY TO JULY 2016)............................23 FIGURE 4-10 VARIABILITY OF THE SAND SPIT AT THE HANALEI RIVER MOUTH (JULY TO AUGUST 2016) ....................23 FIGURE 4-11 STREAM GAGE HEIGHTS FOR THE HANALEI RIVER (MAY TO AUGUST 2016)...........................................24 FIGURE 4-12 STREAM DISCHARGE FOR THE HANALEI RIVER (MAY TO AUGUST 2016)................................................24 FIGURE 4-13 LOCATION OF DECISION UNITS (DU) FOR SAND AND RIVER WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION ......................26 FIGURE 4-14 SURFACE RUNOFF ENTERING THE OCEAN ADJACENT TO HANALEI PIER (MAY 24, 2016).........................26 FIGURE 4-15 VARIABILITY OF THE BEACH TOE FROM MAY TO AUGUST, 2016 .............................................................28 FIGURE 4-16 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR EACH DECISION UNIT (LOG SCALE BASE 10 FOR X-AXIS)................................33 FIGURE 4-17 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOCUSED ON THE SILT SIZED FRACTIONS ..............................................................34 FIGURE 4-18 COMPACTED BERM ALONG THE EDGE OF THE ESTABLISHED VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTE..............................35
  4. 4. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 3 1. INTRODUCTION Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI) prepared this coastal assessment for Black Pot Beach Park to assess coastal dynamics along the shoreline and identify potential impacts resulting from the use of automotive vehicles on the beach. The project site is located at the northeast end of Weke Road in Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii; Tax Map Key (4) 5-5-001:004 & 011. The study area includes the beach seaward of parcels (4) 5-5-001:008, 012, 013, and 014. The project site consists of Black Pot Beach Park and the beach extending from the Hanalei River mouth to a point approximately 300 feet south of the Hanalei Pier. SEI was contracted to assess coastal processes and sediment characteristics in the project area. Grain size and chemical analyses were conducted in order to assess sand characteristics and identify potential contaminants. This assessment provides a discussion of the coastal setting, shoreline processes, historical shoreline change, beach sand characteristics, and potential impacts resulting from the use of vehicles on the beach. 1.1 Project Site Location The project site is located on the north shore of the island of Kauai (Figure 1-1), within Hanalei bay, at the northeast end of Hanalei Beach (Figure 1-2). The project site includes the southern bank of the Hanalei River at the river mouth, and the sandy beach extending south from the Hanalei River to Hanalei Pier. Figure 1-1 Project site location on the Island of Kauai (DigitalGlobe) Kauai PROJECT SITE
  5. 5. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 4 Figure 1-2 Project site within Hanalei Bay (DigitalGlobe) Figure 1-3 Black Pot Beach and Hanalei Pier Hanalei Bay Hanalei PROJECT SITE Black Pot Beach Park Hanalei Pier Hanalei River Mouth Hanalei Bay
  6. 6. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 5 1.2 Beach Park Use Characteristics Hanalei Bay and surrounding areas are subject to extensive coastal use. Black Pot Beach Park is a convenient and well used launching point for coastal, marine, and river activities. Coastal uses include, but are not limited to, the following: surfing, swimming, fishing, spear fishing, walking, sunbathing, kayaking and canoeing, stand up paddling, parking, and sightseeing. River uses include paddling, boating, and sightseeing. Black Pot Beach Park is owned and managed by the County of Kauai Department of Parks and Recreation. The park is approximately 5.5 acres and consists of a grassy inshore area with approximately 500 feet of sandy beach along the shoreline (Figure 1-3). Park amenities include picnic tables, a comfort station, and an outdoor shower. The park is used as a water entry point for paddlers, surfers, swimmers, and boaters. Typical park uses include picnicking, sunbathing, beach access, pier access, and ocean access (Figure 1-4). The park is also a destination for visiting tourists due to the excellent views of Hanalei Bay and convenient access to Hanalei Pier. A small parking lot with an estimated capacity of 30 vehicles is located on the landward side of the lawn. Additional parking is available along the south side of the comfort station, which can accommodate an additional 20 vehicles. Overflow parking on the sandy beach seaward of the park has been a common practice for the past several decades. During high use periods, it is common for up to several hundred vehicles to occupy the parking lot areas and the beach. Figure 1-4 Amenities and activities at Black Pot Beach Park 1. Canoe and kayak launch 2. Boat launch 3. Ocean access 4. Beach parking 5. Shore fishing 6. Hanalei Pier 7. Canoe access 8. Picnic and camping area 9. Bathroom and shower 10. Parking lot Black Pot Beach Park Hanalei Bay Hanalei River
  7. 7. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 6 2. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Site Characterization The project site is located on the north end of the sandy coastal plain inshore of Hanalei Bay, south of the Hanalei River, on the north coast of Kauai. The embayed shoreline is along the low- lying beach, with broad shallow fringing reefs extending offshore along the northeast and southwest sides of the bay. This region is moderately developed along the coastline with residential development on the coastal plain. The neighboring property to the north, across the Hanalei River, is an elevated basalt ridge line. The southern neighbors are residential lots, some of which are undeveloped, and to mauka are open lots with mixed uses. This west-facing shoreline is near the southern edge of the shallow fringing reef on the northeast side of the bay. The reef is approximately 1,500 feet wide, makai of the mouth of the Hanalei River; however, the reef ends just north of the Hanalei Pier (Figure 2-1). The center of the bay’s seafloor is dominantly sandy substrate that gradually slopes to deeper depths from the beach to the mouth of the bay. LiDAR data and nautical charts (Figure 2-2) show that depths measured over the reef are typically less than 1 fathom (6 feet), and generally range from 2 to 4 feet below water, and depths in the sandy middle of the bay increase from 6 feet just off the shoreline to approximately 40 feet in depth by the center of the bay. The dominant wave regimes are the northeast tradewinds in the summer and north swell in the winter. The shallow reef dissipates a high percentage of the offshore wave energy through broken waves, while the sandy seafloor allows larger waves to reach the middle of the bay, where they break on nearshore sandbars. The waves over both the reef and sandbars are depth limited, meaning that the maximum wave height is a function of water depth. More wave energy can impact the shoreline where water levels are deeper near shore. The beach park is located on a sandy coastal plain, with low elevations, minimal dune development, and dynamic, sandy margins on the seaward and riverside edges. The sandy coastal plain is also part of the Hanalei River flood plain and is a mixture of both fluvial and marine sediment. The beach is predominantly carbonate sand of marine origin, deposited and transported through marine and coastal processes. The river bank is composed of sandy fluvial deposits mixed with marine sediment, abutting the coastal plain. There is a dynamic, ephemeral sand spit that exists at the north end of the beach, extending into the river mouth. The spit is composed primarily of marine carbonate sand. Spit volume and shape are affected by marine waves, littoral currents, and fluvial flow, resulting in changes that are both more frequent and higher magnitude than nearby shorelines.
  8. 8. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 7 Figure 2-1 Fringing reef extending 1,500 feet offshore (UH Coastal Geology Group) Figure 2-2 Nautical chart 19385 – depth in fathoms (NOAA)
  9. 9. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 8 2.2 Nearshore Environment The wide fringing reef extends approximately 1,500 feet from the shoreline to the shallow reef crest as shown in Figure 2-1. The reef structure is incised by several small channels that are filled with sand and rubble. This carbonate structure’s southern edge is offshore of the southern side of Black Pot Beach park. The sandy seafloor in the middle of Hanalei Bay is a gentle slope of unconsolidated marine sediment extending from the beach toe to the well outside the mouth of the bay. The Pacific Island Ocean Observing System’s (PacIOOS) Voyager web-based mapping program displays the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) benthic habitat maps. These maps show the geomorphology and geography of benthic habitat for the project area. The offshore area of the project site (shown in red) is characterized by expansive reef structure incised by narrow channels on the north side and a sandy bank in the middle of the bay. Figure 2-3 shows the area covered by river bed on the north side, reef with a large channel directly offshore of the project site, and a sand bank offshore and south of the project site. Figure 2-4 identifies the type of material in the river bed, the reef on the north side of the bay, and the sand bank in the center of the bay. The river bed is identified as mud substrate. The majority of the carbonate reef structure is pavement, with portions identified as aggregate reef, and the small channel on the south edge called out as a reef rubble filled depression. South of the reef’s edge is the bank, comprised almost entirely of marine sediment.
  10. 10. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 9 Figure 2-3 NOAA nearshore geography (PacIOOS) Figure 2-4 NOAA nearshore geomorphology (PacIOOS)
  11. 11. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 10 2.3 Vehicle Use Assessment Vehicular use on the beach at Black Pot Beach Park has been ongoing for nearly half a century. The property was privately owned from 1967 to 1973, during which time it was closed to the public. The property was purchased by the County of Kauai and reopened to the public in July 1973 (Clark 1990). Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, it appears that vehicles began accessing the beach in the early 1970’s, which correlates with the establishment of Black Pot Beach Park. Vehicle access and parking are primarily limited to the area north of Hanalei Pier (Figure 2-5). Vehicle traffic does occur, but is less frequent, on the sand spit at the Hanalei river mouth, presumably due to the unconsolidated nature of the sand in this area. However, this area is used daily for boat launching purposes. Parking occurs in two rows (one on the upper beach, one on the lower beach) separated by an established vehicle access route. Vehicular use on the beach occurs daily but is likely greatest on weekends and holidays. Figure 2-5 Vehicle use on the beach at Black Pot Beach Park Vehicle estimates were calculated based on a review of 22 historical aerial photos ranging from 1950-2014, and field observations on three separate dates in May, July, and August 2016. Estimates were rounded up by 10% to account for tree cover that obscures the presence of vehicles along the upper beach, which is typically occupied by parked vehicles. The estimated number of vehicles identified in the historical aerial photographs is shown in Table 2-1.
  12. 12. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 11 Average Vehicles Average Area Occupied Maximum Vehicles Maximum Area Occupied Percent Increase 1950-1968 0 0 0 0 N/A 1975-1997 30 6,000 square feet (12% of available area) 48 9,600 square feet (19% of available area) N/A 2003-2011 55 11,000 square feet (22% of available area) 83 16,600 square feet (33% of available area) 83% 2012-2016 75 15,000 square feet (30% of available area) 127 25,400 square feet (51% of available area) 36% Table 2-1 Summary of vehicle use estimates for Black Pot Beach Park The number of vehicles present on the beach reduces the amount of beach area available for public access and recreational uses, which has the potential to impact the accessibility and usability of the beach. The area north of Hanalei Pier, which experiences the greatest volume of vehicular traffic and parking, is approximately 500 feet long x 100 feet wide (50,000 square feet) (Figure 2-6). The established vehicular access route located between the two parking rows is approximately 10,000 square feet, which represents 20% of the available beach area. The average space occupied by a single vehicle is 200 square feet (FWHA). Based on these dimensions, it is estimated that the area north of Hanalei Pier can accommodate a maximum of 100 vehicles at any given time. Figure 2-6 Vehicle use patterns at Black Pot Beach Park (Google Earth) Beach parking – seaward row (20,000 sq.ft.) Established vehicle access route (10,000 sq.ft.) Beach parking – landward row (20,000 sq.ft.)
  13. 13. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 12 A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that vehicle use has continued to increase over time and that vehicle parking occupies a significant portion of the available beach space north of Hanalei Pier. The number of vehicles that access or park on the beach varies on a daily basis. A review of recent aerial photographs from 2012 to 2016, found that the average number of vehicles present on the beach was 75, which occupies approximately 15,000 square feet (26%) of the available beach area (Figure 2-7). The maximum number of vehicles present on the beach was 125, which occupies approximately 25,000 square feet (50%) of the available beach area. Based on these estimates, approximately 70% of the available beach area can be occupied by vehicles (50%) and the established access route (20%) during periods of heavy use. Figure 2-7 Aerial photographs showing vehicle parking at Black Pot Beach Park
  14. 14. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 13 3. COASTAL SETTING 3.1 General Description The project site is located on a low-lying coastal plain, adjacent to the Hanalei River, at the north end of beach within Hanalei Bay. This area is exposed to large winter surf, refracted tradewind wind waves, coastal storms, tsunamis, and river flooding. 3.2 Oceanographic Conditions 3.2.1 Wind The prevailing winds from the northeast, tradewinds, blow along the coastline of the project area. The tradewinds are typically present 80 percent of the time during the summer season from April to November, with wind speeds of 10 to 20 mph. During the winter months there is a general weakening of the tradewind system and the occurrence of southerly and westerly winds (Kona winds) due to both frontal systems passing through the islands and local low-pressure systems. 3.2.2 Waves The wave climate in Hawaii is typically characterized by four general wave types. These include northeast tradewind waves, southern swell, North Pacific swell, and Kona wind waves. Tropical storms and hurricanes also generate waves that can approach the islands from virtually any direction. Unlike winds, any and all of these wave conditions may occur at the same time. The dominant swell regimes for Hawaii are shown in Figure 3-1. Tradewind waves occur throughout the year and are the most persistent April through September when they usually dominate the local wave climate. They result from the strong and steady tradewinds blowing from the northeast quadrant over long fetches of open ocean. Tradewind deepwater waves are typically between 3 to 8 feet high with periods of 5 to 10 seconds, depending upon the strength of the tradewinds and how far the fetch extends east of the Hawaiian Islands. The direction of approach, like the tradewinds themselves, varies between north-northeast and east-southeast and is centered on the east-northeast direction. The reef offshore of the project site is directly exposed to both tradewind waves and North Pacific swell. Southern swell is generated by storms in the southern hemisphere and is most prevalent during the summer months of April through September. Traveling distances of up to 5,000 miles, these waves arrive with relatively low deepwater wave heights of 1 to 4 feet and periods of 14 to 20 seconds. Depending on the positions and tracks of the southern hemisphere storms, southern swells approach between the southeasterly and southwesterly directions. The project site is sheltered from southern swell.
  15. 15. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 14 Figure 3-1 Hawaii dominant swell regimes (Vitousek and Fletcher, 2008) During the winter months in the northern hemisphere, strong storms are frequent in the North Pacific in the mid latitudes and near the Aleutian Islands. These storms generate large North Pacific swells that range in direction from west-northwest to northeast and arrive at the northern Hawaiian shores with little attenuation of wave energy. These are the waves that have made surfing beaches on the north shores of the Hawaiian Islands famous. Deepwater wave heights often reach 15 feet and in extreme cases can reach 30 feet. Periods vary between 12 and 20 seconds, depending on the location and track of the storm. The reef offshore of the project site is exposed to swell approach from the west-northwest through the north. Kona storm waves do not directly approach the project site; however, these waves are fairly infrequent, occurring only about 10 percent of the time during a typical year. Kona waves typically range in period from 6 to 10 seconds with heights of 5 to 10 feet, and approach from the southwest. Deepwater wave heights during the severe Kona storm of January 1980 were about 17 feet. These waves had a significant impact on the south and west shores of the islands. Severe tropical storms and hurricanes obviously have the potential to generate extremely large waves, which in turn could potentially result in large waves at the project site. Recent hurricanes impacting the Hawaiian Islands include Hurricane Iwa in 1982, Hurricane Iniki in 1992, Hurricane Iselle in 2014, and Hurricane Darby in 2016. Iwa passed on the west side of Kauai, inflicting severe property damage to the island. Iniki directly hit the island of Kauai and resulted in large waves along the southern shores of all the Hawaiian Islands. Damage on Kauai from these two hurricanes was extensive.
  16. 16. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 15 3.2.3 Still Water Levels and Nearshore Wave Heights During high wave conditions, the nearshore water level may be elevated above the tide level by the action of breaking waves. This water level rise, termed wave setup, could be as much as 1 to 2 feet during severe storm wave conditions. During hurricane conditions, an additional water level rise due to wind stress and reduced atmospheric pressure can occur. Collectively termed “storm surge,” this can potentially add another 1 to 2 feet to the stillwater level. For example, during the 1992 passage of Hurricane Iniki over Port Allen Harbor on the island of Kauai, a National Weather Service tide gauge recorded a water level rise of 4.4 feet above the predicted tide elevation. During storm or large wave conditions, there may be multiple zones of wave breaking. Wave heights are said to be depth-limited because once the water depth becomes shallow enough the wave breaks, losing size and energy. The wave, however, may reform before it reaches the shoreline and break again when the depth-limited ratio is again attained. The still water level rise during storm events is an important consideration because it allows larger wave heights to reach the shoreline than during lower water levels. Still water level rise at the shoreline is a combination of astronomical tide, storm surge, and wave setup. Wave setup is a function of the breaking wave height, period, and bottom topography. The mass transport of water due to breaking waves produces wave setup—the increase in water depth shoreward of the breaker zone. 3.3 Shoreline Processes Shoreline processes at the project site are a result of combined marine and fluvial influences. The beach face at the north end, connected to the sandy spit on the southern side of the Hanalei River mouth, is affected by both seasonal variations in the wave environment and flow characteristics of the Hanalei River. The spit migrates on a physical scale that is considerably larger than the adjacent beach face dynamics. The beach face between the south side of the spit and the north side of the pier is also affected by the large changes on the spit. Moving south along the coastline, the beach face south of the pier responds as part of the larger beach system extending along the inner shoreline of Hanalei Bay. Nearshore and coastal sand are moved along the larger beach’s shoreline by the attenuated wave energy and nearshore currents. Beach face morphology is related to inclement wave energy, creating pronounced sand bars during high wave events and recovering in quieter and calmer conditions. During recent history, the broader embayment’s shoreline has suffered from mild chronic erosion. The mobile sand bank of the Hanalei River contains a high fraction of marine sands and is occasionally washed by waves coming past the river mouth; however, the dominant control on the sand bank is the river system. Bank dynamics along the park are typically less dynamic than the beach face morphology changes. The bank is partially stabilized by vegetation, with root structure providing some consolidation to the upper stream bank.
  17. 17. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 16 4. BEACH DYNAMICS Black Pot Beach Park is located at the northeastern end of Hanalei Bay where the beach terminates at the Hanalei River mouth. The property is bordered by residential properties to the south, Weke Road to the east, Hanalei River to the north, and Hanalei Bay and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Hanalei Bay is a horseshoe-shaped embayment with a crescent-shaped beach along the shoreline that is approximately 3 km long. The nearshore geology is characterized by a wide fringing limestone reef that extends over 1,500 feet offshore. The fringing reef is incised with channels or depressions at numerous locations. Black Pot Beach Park consists of approximately 5.5 acres with a total shoreline frontage of approximately 500 feet. The surficial geology is classified as quaternary beach deposits, and the local soils consist primarily of beach sand and Mokuleia fine sandy loam. Shoreline processes at the project site are driven by a combination of marine and fluvial processes. The beach is composed of carbonate sand mixed with terrigenous sediments discharged from the Hanalei River. The beach sand is very fine-to-fine with grain sizes ranging from 0.075 mm to 0.250 mm. For the purposes of this study, the shoreline was divided into three (3) reaches (Figure 4-1). Reach 1 (Transects 229-233) is located along the southern portion of the shoreline and extends 300 feet south of Hanalei Pier. The backshore consists of a stable upper berm with well- established vegetation (Naupaka). The foreshore is gently-sloping with a transient lower berm, a moderately-steep lower beach face, and an abrupt, well-defined beach toe. A ground photo showing the location of Reach 1 is shown in Figure 4-2. Reach 2 (Transects 234-238) is located along the central portion of the shoreline and extends 300 north. The backshore consists of a stable upper berm with well-established vegetation (Seashore Paspalum). The foreshore is gently-sloping with a compacted lower berm along the edge of the established vehicle access route, a moderately-steep lower beach face, and a well- defined beach toe. The beach toe becomes progressively less well-defined along the northern end of Reach 2 (Transects 238-239). A ground photo showing the location of Reach 2 is shown in Figure 4-3. Reach 3 (Transects 239-243) is located along the northern portion of the shoreline and includes the ephemeral sand spit located at the Hanalei River mouth. The backshore consists of a stable upper berm with well-established vegetation (Seashore Paspalum). The foreshore consists of an ephemeral sand spit with a mounded shape. The transient lower berm is slightly elevated and arcs landward toward the river mouth. The slope of the lower beach face becomes progressively lower toward the river mouth as the sand spit progrades onto the reef flat. The beach toe is poorly-defined along the seaward side of the sand spit, but well-defined along the landward side. A ground photo showing the location of Reach 3 is shown in Figure 4-4.
  18. 18. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 17 Figure 4-1 Shoreline reaches and corresponding transects Figure 4-2 Reach 1 (Transect 229-233) extending 300 feet south of Hanalei Pier Reach 1
  19. 19. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 18 Figure 4-3 Reach 2 (Transects 234-238) extending 300 feet north of Hanalei Pier Figure 4-4 Reach 3 (Transects 239-243) extending 300 feet to the Hanalei River mouth Reach 2 Reach 3
  20. 20. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 19 4.1 Historical Shoreline Change Analysis A series of historical aerial photographs can be used to determine long-term shoreline trends. The University of Hawaii Coastal Geology Group (CGG) has undertaken historical analysis of Kauai’s shoreline and has produced a shoreline change map for the Hanalei region based on survey data and aerial imagery from 1930 to 2008. Their analyses use the beach toe as the reference feature for measuring shoreline change. The analyses for the project site shoreline are presented as Transects 229 through 241 (Figure 4-5). The CGG study indicates that there is an average, smoothed, long-term trend of erosion (-0.4 feet/year) for the entire project site (Transects 229-241). The CGG study indicates a long-term trend of accretion (+0.25 feet/year) along the southern portion of the shoreline (Reach 1, Transects 229-233), a long-term trend of erosion (-0.64 feet/year) along the central portion of the shoreline (Reach 2, Transects 234-238), and a long-term trend of erosion (-1.10 feet/year) along the northern portion of the shoreline (Reach 3, Transects 239-241). CGG reports average annual accretion rates as high as +0.4 feet/year at Transect 229 along the southern portion of the shoreline, transitioning from long-term accretion to long-term erosion between Transects 232 and 233. Average annual long-term erosion rates increase to -1.3 feet/year at Transect 239 along the northern portion of the shoreline, where fluvial processes become more dominant. Though these rates are representative of the average, smoothed, long- term trends for the project site from 1930 to 2008, they are not indicative of the conditions that have been persistent in the region for the previous three decades. Figure 4-5 CGG historical shoreline change rates for Black Pot Beach Park (1930-2008)
  21. 21. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 20 Sandy shorelines in general are very dynamic and are subject to rapid change in response to incident wave conditions, such as high surf, which can quickly alter the beach width. The shoreline at Black Pot Beach Park is subject to dramatic short-term fluctuations in beach width caused by flooding of the Hanalei River. The CGG analysis was updated for this study by surveying the 2016 shoreline position. To be consistent with the CGG shorelines, the 2016 shoreline was determined by surveying the location of the beach toe, which was located using a Trimble Geo7X handheld system that utilizes global positioning satellites (GPS) with a positional accuracy of approximately 0.5 meter. The project site corresponds to Transects 229 through 241 from the CGG study, whose locations are replicated in the SEI study. To show specific shoreline trends within the long-term record, SEI performed shoreline change analyses using the shoreline positions from 1988 to 2016. There were extreme erosion and accretion events, in 1962 and 1975, respectively, that are not representative of the trend that has been consistent since the 1988 shoreline (Figure 4-6). The SEI study did not include the two events, as they confound the erosion study events and are not indicative of the current state of the beach. Figure 4-6 Maximum erosion (1962) and accretion (1975) at Black Pot Beach Park
  22. 22. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 21 As opposed to the CGG analyses, which employed smoothing techniques and provides a best fit for a long-term trend, the SEI analyses are considered “endpoint” analyses, in which only the change between the first and last shorelines in the analysis period is considered. This is useful in showing sub-trends within the entire data series. The sub-trends in this case are for the time period showing the most recent long-term trend (1988-2016). Note that the CGG analysis does not include Transects 242 and 243. These transects were added in order to analyze the dynamics of the ephemeral sand spit at the Hanalei River mouth but were not included in the endpoint rate calculations. The results of the SEI endpoint analysis are shown in Figure 4-7, which shows the average rate of shoreline change from 1988 to 2016. The study indicates that, from 1988 to 2016, the project site shoreline eroded at an average rate of approximately -1.34 feet/year. The southern portion of the shoreline (Transects 229-233) eroded at an average rate of approximately -1.77 feet/year, the central portion of the shoreline (Transects 234-238) eroded at an average rate of approximately - 2.15 feet/year, and the northern portion of the shoreline (Transects 239-241) accreted at an average rate of approximately +2.39 feet/year. Figure 4-7 SEI historical shoreline change rates for Black Pot Beach Park (1968-2016) SEI found average erosion rates as high as -3.01 feet/year along the southern portion of the shoreline (Transect 235), transitioning from long-term erosion to long-term accretion between Transects 239 and 241, with a maximum long-term accretion rate of +1.59 feet/year at Transect 241 along the northern portion of the shoreline where fluvial processes become more dominant. The ephemeral sand spit located at the Hanalei River mouth is a complex morphologic feature that is highly dynamic and mobile. The morphology of the sand spit is influenced by a combination of wind, wave transformation, tidal variation, longshore currents, availability of sediment, and river discharge. The sand spit was present in approximately 75% of the aerial photographs from 1950 to 2016. This portion of the shoreline experiences extreme fluctuations in sediment volume and exhibits dramatic seasonal and intraseasonal variability. The variability of the sand spit is evident in the aerial photographs shown in Figure 4-8.
  23. 23. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 22 Figure 4-8 Aerial photographs showing migration of the sand spit (1987-2013) The shape and volume of the sand spit can change rapidly and is likely influenced by fluvial discharge from the Hanalei River. The sand spit corresponds with Transects 239-243, which are located in Reach 3 along the northern portion of the project site shoreline. SEI conducted an endpoint analysis for Reach 3 for the period of May through August 2016 in order to analyze the intraseasonal dynamics of the sand spit. The results of the endpoint analysis are shown in Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-10. the 41-day period from May 24 to July 5, the sand spit eroded an average of -101.4 feet with maximum erosion of -138.9 feet at Transect 243 (Figure 4-9). For the 26-day period from July 5 through August 1, the sand spit accreted an average of +145.9 with maximum accretion of +202.5 feet at Transect 242 (Figure 4-10). These results clearly demonstrate the extreme variability of the sand spit and the dramatic changes that can occur within very short time periods. These results also indicate that beach stability decreases significantly north of Transect 239 within the vicinity of the Hanalei River mouth.
  24. 24. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 23 Figure 4-9 Variability of the sand spit at the Hanalei River mouth (May to July 2016) Figure 4-10 Variability of the sand spit at the Hanalei River mouth (July to August 2016) 4.2 Field Investigations SEI and Elemental Environmental (E2) conducted a series of three site visits in order to assess the condition of the shoreline, survey the location of physical features, observe short-term fluctuations in beach width, and collect sand and river water samples. Composite sand samples consisted of 30 aliquots grab samples collected from 4 to 6 inches below the surface. Water samples were collected from the center of the Hanalei River. These samples were collected in order to conduct chemical and grain size analyses to identify potential impacts of vehicular use on the beach. The site visits were conducted on May 24, July 5, and August 1, 2016. These dates were selected in order to observe the shoreline following periods of high-use. Hanalei has had an average rainfall of 77.8 inches over the last 30 years, which is 15.03 inches more than the average in Hawaii. The region frequently experiences flash flooding that often generates flooding in the coastal zone. Three decades of stream gauge data show that the Hanalei River overflowed its banks at the Hanalei Bridge 29 out of 32 years (Fletcher et. al. 2008). All of the site visits were conducted during periods of heavy rainfall that resulted in surface runoff and elevated water levels in the Hanalei River. Stream gage heights and discharge volumes for the Hanalei River from May to August 2016 are shown Figure 4-11 and Figure 4-12.
  25. 25. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 24 Figure 4-11 Stream gage heights for the Hanalei River (May to August 2016) Figure 4-12 Stream discharge for the Hanalei River (May to August 2016)
  26. 26. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 25 4.2.1 Site Visit 1 The first site visit was conducted on May 24, 2016, following the Memorial Day holiday weekend. Weather was mostly cloudy with variable winds and intermittent showers. Very heavy showers were sustained from 1:00pm to 3:30pm. Daily precipitation was 0.34 inches, and the maximum stream gage height for the Hanalei River was 4.74 feet. Low tide was +0.17 feet at 10:12am, and high tide was +2.29 feet at 6:06pm. Wave energy was very low with wave heights of 0-1 feet offshore, and 0-1 feet at the waterline. This was the first of three sampling events and provided the baseline event for future data comparison. Six Decision Units (DU) were established. DU-1 was a control site located along the shoreline north of the Hanalei River mouth. DU-2A and DU-2B were located in Reach 1, south of Hanalei Pier where there is no vehicular use. DU-3 and DU-4 were located in Reach 2, north of Hanalei Pier where vehicular use is the highest. DU-5 was the water sample site located in the center of the Hanalei River. DU-6 was located in Reach 3 and included the ephemeral sand spit at the Hanalei River mouth where vehicular use is moderate. The locations of the DU’s are shown in Figure 4-13. A composite sand sample consisting of 30 aliquot grab samples was collected for each DU. The composite sample for DU-3, where vehicular use is the highest, was a triplicate sample consisting of 90 aliquot grab samples. Sustained heavy rainfall resulted in run-off from the parking lot area entering the ocean adjacent to Hanalei Pier (Figure 4-14). A sample of the runoff water was collected and tested for contaminants. A Trimble Geo7X handheld GPS unit was used to collect location data for physical features including the top bank, edge of vegetation, and beach toe. Reach 1 exhibited a typical profile with a stable upper berm, transient lower berm, and a well- defined beach toe. Reach 2 consisted of a stable upper berm, a compacted lower berm along the seaward edge of the established vehicle access route, and a well-defined beach toe. Reach 3 was substantially prograded with the ephemeral sand spit extending approximately 350 feet seaward of the vegetation line. Approximately 20 vehicles were observed in Reach 2 and Reach 3.
  27. 27. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 26 Figure 4-13 Location of Decision Units (DU) for sand and river water sample collection Figure 4-14 Surface runoff entering the ocean adjacent to Hanalei Pier (May 24, 2016) Surface Runoff Surface Runoff
  28. 28. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 27 4.2.2 Site Visit 2 The second site visit was conducted on July 5, 2016, following the Independence Day holiday weekend. Weather was partly cloudy with moderate tradewinds and intermittent heavy showers. Daily precipitation was 3.21 inches, and the maximum stream gage height for the Hanalei River was 5.25 feet. Low tide was +0.17 feet at 10:00am, and high tide was +2.71 feet at 4:42pm. Wave energy was very low with wave heights of 0-1 feet offshore, and 0-1 feet at the waterline. This was the second of three sampling events. A composite sand sample consisting of 30 aliquot grab samples was collected for each DU. The composite sample for DU-3, where vehicular use is the highest, was a triplicate sample consisting of 90 aliquot grab samples. Sustained heavy rainfall resulted in run-off from the parking lot area entering the ocean adjacent to Hanalei Pier. Samples of the runoff water were not collected. Reach 1 remained stable with some minor erosion observed along Transects 230-231. Reach 2 remained stable across Transects 234-237 and transitioned to erosion at Transect 238. The erosion continued through Transects 239-243 as the entire length of Reach 3 was erosive. The sand spit was present but less prograded onto the reef flat. Approximately 20 vehicles were observed in Reach 2 and Reach 3. 4.2.3 Site Visit 3 The third site visit was conducted on August 1, 2016, following the last weekend of Summer Break for the Hawaii State Department of Education school system. Weather was partly cloudy with light tradewinds and intermittent heavy showers. Daily precipitation was 0.83 inches, and the maximum stream gage height for the Hanalei River was 5.33 feet. Low tide was +0.10 feet at 8:06am, and high tide was +2.76 feet at 3:18pm. Wave energy was very low with wave heights of 0-1 feet offshore, and 0-1 feet at the waterline. This was the last of three sampling events. A composite sand sample consisting of 30 aliquot grab samples was collected for each DU. The composite sample for DU-3, where vehicular use is the highest, was a triplicate sample consisting of 90 aliquot grab samples. Sustained heavy rainfall again caused run-off from the parking lot area to enter the ocean adjacent to Hanalei Pier. Reach 1 remained stable with some minor erosion observed along Transects 230-231. The southern portion of Reach 2 (Transects 234-235) was relatively stable but transitioned to erosion along the northern portion (Transects 236-238). The erosion continued through Transects 239- 243 as the entire length of Reach 3 was erosive. The sand spit was present and a prograded shoal extended onto the reef flat. Approximately 60 vehicles were observed in Reach 2 and Reach 3. Field observations from May to August 2016 confirmed that beach width along the project site shoreline is intraseasonally variable. During the 41-day period from May 24 to July 5, Reach 1 (Transects 229-233) eroded -4.79 feet, Reach 2 (Transects 234-238) accreted +0.29 feet, and Reach 3 (Transects 239-243) eroded -76.4 feet. During the 26-day period from July 5 to August 1, Reach 1 (Transects 229-233) eroded -2.11 feet, Reach 2 (Transects 234-238) eroded -11.9 feet, and Reach 3 (Transects 239-243) accreted +80.8 feet. In general, based on these observations, Reach 1 is considered moderately stable, Reach 2 is considered moderately unstable, and Reach 3 is considered extremely unstable. The variability of the location of the beach toe from May to August 2016 is shown in Figure 4-15.
  29. 29. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 28 Figure 4-15 Variability of the beach toe from May to August, 2016
  30. 30. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 29 4.3 Chemical Analysis of Sand and Water Samples Chemical analysis was conducted for composite sand samples collected within each DU and water samples collected from the middle of the Hanalei River. The samples were analyzed to identify the following contaminants: • Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel; • TPH as oil; • TPH as gasoline; • Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and • RCRA Metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver). All soil samples from each of the three sampling events only contained trace or non-detectable concentrations of petroleum related contaminants, and significant beach contamination was not observed. The highest detected concentration of diesel from any event was detected in DU-3 during the May 2016 sampling event at a concentration of 25 mg/kg. This is significantly below the respective environmental action level (EAL) for residential properties of 500 mg/kg. The highest detected concentration of oil was also detected in DU-3 during the May 2016 event at a concentration of 47 mg/kg; which is also significantly below the EAL of 500 mg/kg. The highest detected concentration of gasoline was detected in DU-3 during the July 2016 event at a concentration of 1.9 mg/kg, which is significantly below the EAL of 100 mg/kg. No PAHs were detected in any of the soil samples during any of the events at concentrations worth noting. Metals were detected the most in soil out of any contaminant, which is to be expected due to its background nature occurring in most soils. The highest detected concentration of arsenic from any event was detected in DU-2A during the August 2016 sampling event at a concentration of 27 mg/kg. This slightly exceeds the EAL of 24 mg/kg. Arsenic exceeded its EAL one other time throughout the project in the sample from DU-2B from the same event at a concentration of 26 mg/kg. Both of these exceedances are consistent in value with concentrations observed in other DUs and during other sampling events. The slight exceedances over the EAL can be attributed to laboratory instrument interference and variability of its outputted results, and are of no concern to the project. Detections of barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver and mercury from all sampling events were at concentrations not worth noting. The highest gasoline concentration detected in any of the water samples collected from DU-5 was 22 μg/L in the sample from July 2016. This is significantly below the EAL of 500 μg/L. No other contaminants were detected in water samples from any of the events at concentrations worth noting. The soil and water sample analytical results from each of the three sampling events are summarized in Table 4-1. The full results of the chemical analyses are included in Appendix A.
  31. 31. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 30 Table 4-1 Analytical data summary table for all sampling events (Element Environmental LLC)
  32. 32. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 31 4.3.1 Impacts from Vehicles When looking at the sample data, we do see a higher occurrence of diesel and oil detections in the samples from DU-3, which contains the heaviest vehicle traffic/parking out of any of the DUs. Therefore, we can draw the conclusion that there is a direct correlation between vehicle traffic and the presence of diesel and oil on the beach. However, when looking at the detected concentrations, we see the concentrations are very low (at least one order of magnitude lower than the respective EAL). Therefore, we can determine that although there is some impact related to vehicles on the beach, the impact is not significant. Additionally, when comparing the diesel and oil data from DU-3 between sampling events, the detected concentrations are consistent in value, and no increasing or decreasing trend is observed as the summer progressed. Rather, the diesel and oil results fluctuate randomly, and their general values remain similar. If vehicles were having a significant impact, one would expect to see higher concentrations later in the summer months (increasing trend) following consistent beach usage and/or holidays when vehicle traffic is heaviest. However, the data does not show this. There appears to be no accumulative nature to the diesel and oil detected on the beach throughout the summer; therefore, vehicle impact can be considered minimal. The detected metals concentrations are fairly consistent between the DUs south of the pier and the DUs in the parking lot area; as well as between individual sampling events. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that these detections are not related to impact by traffic on the beach, but rather are a product of naturally occurring background concentrations inland. The only comparison that would be worth noting is between the control DU-1 and the rest of the DUs. The control contained detections of the same metals, just at lower levels. This is most likely related to outfall from the Hanalei River depositing background concentrations more heavily on parts of the beach in its immediate vicinity. 4.4 Grain Size Analysis of Sand Samples Grain size analysis was conducted for composite samples collected within each DU during the first site visit on May 24, 2016. Each composite sample comprised 30 individual samples collected at even spacing across the length of the DU. A wet sieve analysis was conducted for smaller size fractions, and a dry sieve analysis was conducted for coarser size fractions. A summary of the results of the grain size analyses are shown in Figure 4-16. The full results of the grain size analyses are included in Appendix B. In general, the composite samples from each DU have similar grain size distribution. Between 75% - 80% of the sample weights were within the fine sand fraction (0.25 mm – 0.125 mm). Between 84% - 94% of the composite samples were within the fine and very fine sand fractions (0.25 mm - 0.075 mm). The samples are all similar in their general distribution of grain sizes, except for the fractions ranging from very fine sand (0.075 mm) to fine silt (0.0078 mm).
  33. 33. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 32 4.4.1 Impacts from Vehicles The subrange of the size fractions ranging from very fine sand (0.075 mm) to fine silt (0.0078 mm) identify a departure within DU-3 from the rest of the samples (Figure 4-17). Table 4-2 presents this subset of the grain analysis data, which focuses on the size fractions between medium sand (0.25 mm) and fine silt (0.0078 mm). The shaded grey columns indicate where most of the sample volume was present in each of the samples, and the red section of DU-3 indicates where the sample values depart from the other decision units. DU-3 shows an increase in fine sediment, relative to adjacent sample sites. This increase in fines is likely the result of continued vehicle traffic on the sand berm, causing mechanical abrasion of the grains. The beach area within the established vehicle access route is very compacted in comparison to the surrounding areas. The sand berm along the seaward edge of the established vehicle access route is much harder and more pronounced than the transient berms present along the adjacent portions of the shoreline (Figure 4-18). These data suggest that vehicle use on the beach is resulting in compaction and hardening of the berm.
  34. 34. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 33 Figure 4-16 Grain size analysis for each decision unit (log scale base 10 for x-axis) -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.000100.001000.010000.100001.0000010.00000 CumulativePercentage Grain Size (mm) DU 2A DU 2B DU 3 DU 4 DU 5
  35. 35. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 34 Figure 4-17 Grain size analysis focused on the silt sized fractions -5 0 5 10 15 20 0.001000.010000.10000 CumulativePercentage Grain Size (mm) DU 2A DU 2B DU 3 DU 4 DU 5
  36. 36. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 35 Size (mm) 0.25000 0.12500 0.07500 0.06300 0.04400 0.03100 0.02200 0.01600 0.00780 DU-3 94.200 19.200 3.000 2.430 2.160 2.080 1.810 1.810 0.990 DU-4 92.190 16.000 1.250 1.010 0.950 0.850 0.790 0.720 0.650 DU-6 90.770 10.880 0.740 0.610 0.560 0.510 0.410 0.410 0.410 DU-2A 95.130 16.960 0.790 0.600 0.480 0.480 0.370 0.370 0.210 DU-2B 85.410 12.240 1.680 1.310 1.210 0.980 0.760 0.700 0.600 Table 4-2 Subset of cumulative size fraction data for composite samples focused on the range between medium sand and fine silt. Figure 4-18 Compacted berm along the edge of the established vehicle access route
  37. 37. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 36 5. CONCLUSION Shoreline processes at the project site are a result of combined marine and fluvial influences. The project site shoreline exhibits a historical trend of erosion ranging from -0.4 feet/year (1930- 2008) to -1.34 feet/year (1988 to 2016). The shoreline is relatively stable along the southern portion of the project site and becomes progressively more dynamic and unstable along the northern portion of the shoreline. The ephemeral sand spit located at the Hanalei River mouth is a complex morphologic feature that is highly dynamic and mobile. This portion of the shoreline experiences extreme fluctuations in sediment volume and exhibits dramatic seasonal and intraseasonal variability. Vehicular use on the beach at Black Pot Beach Park has been ongoing for nearly half a century. Vehicle access and parking are primarily limited to the area north of Hanalei Pier. Vehicular use on the beach occurs daily but is likely greatest on weekends and holidays. During periods of heavy use, parked vehicles and the established access route occupy approximately 70% of the available beach area. Chemical analyses of sand samples detected a higher occurrence of diesel and oil detections in the area that experiences the highest amount of vehicle traffic, indicating that there is a direct correlation between vehicle traffic and the presence of diesel and oil on the beach. However, these concentrations are very low, thus vehicle impact can be considered minimal. Given the high amount of annual rainfall in the Hanalei region, it is possible that contaminants are being released through chemical erosion and weathering. Grain size fraction analyses of sand samples detected an increase in fine sediment in DU-3, relative to adjacent sample sites. This increase in fines is likely the result of continued vehicle traffic on the sand berm, causing mechanical abrasion of the grains. These observations suggest that vehicle use on the beach is resulting in compaction and hardening of the berm. Additional observations indicate that the area routinely used by vehicles is significantly more compacted than adjacent areas. Compaction in DU-3 is noticeably greater than compaction in DU-4 and DU-2B, seaward and south of DU-3, respectively.
  38. 38. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. 37 6. REFERENCES Clark, John R. K. Beaches of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau. University of Hawai‘i Press. Honolulu, 1990. Fletcher, C., Grossman, E., Richmond, B., and Gibbs, A. (2002) Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone. U.S. Geological Survey. Geologic Investigations Series I-2761. United States Government Printing Office. Loomis, H. (1976) Tsunami Wave Runup Heights in Hawaii. Hawaii Institute of Geology and Geophysics and NOAA Joint Tsunami Research Effort, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. NOAA-JTRE-161. HIG-76-5. Honolulu, Hawaii. University of Hawaii Coastal Geology Group, 2010, Hawaii Coastal Erosion Website - Kauai. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/erosion/
  39. 39. Black Pot Beach Park Coastal Assessment Helber Hastert & Fee, Planners, Inc. Sea Engineering, Inc. a APPENDIX A: BLACK POT BEACH SOIL AND WATER SAMPLING REPORT
  40. 40. 98-030 Hekaha Street, Unit 9, Aiea, Hawaii 96701 tel: (808) 488-1200 fax: (808) 488-1300 September 15, 2016 Mr. Chris Conger Costal Scientist/Project Manager Sea Engineering, Inc. 41-305 Kalanianaole Hwy. Makai Research Pier Waimanalo, Hawaii 96795 Subject: Environmental Soil and Water Sampling Services Black Pot Beach Strand Sampling Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii Dear Mr. Conger: Element Environmental LLC (E2) has prepared this letter report to describe the activities, observations, and findings resulting from environmental soil and water sampling performed at Black Pot Beach in Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii. Sampling was performed on three separate occasions (24 May, 5 July, and 1 August 2016) in order to detect any contamination present at Black Pot Beach as well as to capture any variability or trends in detected contaminant concentrations between each sampling event. Soil and Water Sampling Activities E2 collected MULTI INCREMENT®1 (MI) soil samples from 3 to 6 inches below ground surface (bgs) from six predetermined beach parcels (decision units [DUs]) located in the vicinity of Black Pot Beach during each sampling event. DU-1 is located in “clean” sand north of the Hanalei River mouth and provided the location for a background/control sample; DU-3 is located north of the Hanalei Pier adjacent to the park where vehicle traffic is heaviest; DU-4 is also located north of the Hanalei Pier, makai of DU-3, where vehicle traffic is still heavy; DU-6 is located north of DUs 3 and 4, adjacent to the Hanalei River mouth; and DUs 2A and 2B are located south of the Hanalei Pier where beach conditions are similar to DUs 3 and 4, but access by vehicles does not occur (Figure 1). E2 also collected a single water sample from the mouth of the Hanalei River (DU-5) during each sampling event in order to screen for contaminants related to those potentially detected on the beach. The river sample was collected from approximately 150 feet off the south shore of the river, near the middle, where the ocean meets fresh water flowing from the mountains. Soil and water samples were submitted to an analytical laboratory for analysis of the following contaminants: 1 MULTI INCREMENT® is a registered trademark of EnviroStat, Inc.
  41. 41. September 15, 2016 Page 2 98-030 Hekaha Street, Unit 9, Aiea, Hawaii 96701 tel: (808) 488-1200 fax: (808) 488-1300  Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel;  TPH as oil;  TPH as gasoline;  Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and  8 RCRA Metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium and silver). Sample Results All soil samples from each of the three sampling events only contained trace or non-detectable concentrations of petroleum related contaminants, and significant beach contamination was not observed. The highest detected concentration of diesel from any event was detected in DU-3 during the May 2016 sampling event at a concentration of 25 mg/kg. This is significantly below the respective environmental action level (EAL) for residential properties of 500 mg/kg. The highest detected concentration of oil was also detected in DU-3 during the May 2016 event at a concentration of 47 mg/kg; which is also significantly below the EAL of 500 mg/kg. The highest detected concentration of gasoline was detected in DU-3 during the July 2016 event at a concentration of 1.9 mg/kg, which is significantly below the EAL of 100 mg/kg. No PAHs were detected in any of the soil samples during any of the events at concentrations worth noting. Metals were detected the most in soil out of any contaminant, which is to be expected due to its background nature ocurring in most soils. The highest detected concentration of arsenic from any event was detected in DU-2A during the August 2016 sampling event at a concentration of 27 mg/kg. This slightly exceeds the EAL of 24 mg/kg. Arsenic exceeded its EAL one other time throughout the project in the sample from DU-2B from the same event at a concentration of 26 mg/kg. Both of these exceedances are consistent in value with concentrations observed in other DUs and during other sampling events. The slight exceedances over the EAL can be attributed to laboratory instrument interference and variability of its outputted results, and are of no concern to the project. Detections of barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver and mercury from all sampling events were at concentrations not worth noting. The highest gasoline concentration detected in any of the water samples collected from DU-5 was 22 µg/L in the sample from July 2016. This is significantly below the EAL of 500 µg/L. No other contaminants were detected in water samples from any of the events at concentrations worth noting. All soil and water sample analytical retults from each of the three sampling events are summarized in Table 1. Conclusions When looking at the sample data, we do see a higher occurrence of diesel and oil detections in the samples from DU-3, which contains the heaviest vehicle traffic/parking out of any of the DUs. Therefore we can draw the conclusion that there is a direct correlation between vehicle traffic and the presence of diesel and oil on the beach. However when looking at the detected concentrations, we see the concentrations are very low (at least one order of magnitude lower than the respective EAL). Therefore we can determine that although there is some impact related to vehicles on the beach, the impact is not signigicant.
  42. 42. September 15, 2016 Page 3 98-030 Hekaha Street, Unit 9, Aiea, Hawaii 96701 tel: (808) 488-1200 fax: (808) 488-1300 Additionally, when comparing the diesel and oil data from DU-3 between sampling events, the detected concentrations are consistent in value, and no increasing or decreasing trend is observed as the summer progressed. Rather, the diesel and oil results fluctuate randomly, and their general values remain similar. If vehicles were having a significant impact, one would expect to see higher concentrations later in the summer months (increasing trend) following consistent beach usage and/or holidays when vehicle traffic is heaviest. However the data does not show this. There appears to be no accumulative nature to the diesel and oil detected on the beach throughout the summer; therefore vehicle impact can be considered minimal. The detected metals concentrations are fairly consistent between the DUs south of the pier and the DUs in the parking lot area; as well as between individual sampling events. Therefore it is safe to conclude that these detections are not related to impact by traffic on the beach, but rather are a product of naturally occurring background concentrations inland. The only comparison that would be worth noting is between the control DU and the rest of the DUs. The control contained detections of the same metals, just at lower levels. This is most likely related to outfall from the Hanalei River depositing background concentrations more heavily on parts of the beach in its immediate vicinity. Please feel free to contact me at (808) 294-4660 if you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter report. Sincerely, Austin Lutey Environmental Engineer Element Environmental, LLC
  43. 43. September 15, 2016 Page 4 98-030 Hekaha Street, Unit 9, Aiea, Hawaii 96701 tel: (808) 488-1200 fax: (808) 488-1300 Attachments  Table 1: Data Summary Table  Figure 1: Black Pot Beach Decision Units  Complete Laboratory Analytical Reports
  44. 44. Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Project Table 1:  Analytical Data Summary Table for All Sampling Events Soil Water Soila Waterb Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) mg/kg ug/L 100 500 ND 1.4 ND ND 1.5 ND ND 1.3 ND ND 1.9 ND ND 1.6 ND ND 1.5 ND ND 1.5 ND ND 1.4 ND ND 22 ND Diesel Range Organics (DRO) mg/kg ug/L 500 640 ND 0.63 ND ND 0.87 ND ND 0.65 ND 25 1.4 ND 3.3 1.8 ND 1.1 6.6 ND ND 1.1 ND ND 0.63 ND ND ND ND Residual Range Organics (RRO) mg/kg ug/L 500 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 47 15 20 22 23 21 18 20 27 ND 3.9 ND ND ND 4.6 ND ND ND 1-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg ug/L 790 2.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg ug/L 870 2.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Acenaphthene ug/kg ug/L 120000 20 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Acenaphthylene ug/kg ug/L 13000 30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Anthracene ug/kg ug/L 4300 0.73 ND ND ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo[a]anthracene ug/kg ug/L 1500 0.018 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo[a]pyrene ug/kg ug/L 150 0.014 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo[b]fluoranthene ug/kg ug/L 1500 0.018 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ug/kg ug/L 27000 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzo[k]fluoranthene ug/kg ug/L 15000 0.018 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Chrysene ug/kg ug/L 11000 0.018 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ug/kg ug/L 150 0.018 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Fluoranthene ug/kg ug/L 87000 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Fluorene ug/kg ug/L 100000 3.9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ug/kg ug/L 1500 0.018 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Naphthalene ug/kg ug/L 4500 21 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Phenanthrene ug/kg ug/L 69000 4.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Pyrene ug/kg ug/L 44000 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Arsenic mg/kg mg/L 24 0.00014 5.7 4.6 8.6 23 17 27 22 17 26 21 19 23 21 20 23 21 12 23 21 19 23 19 15 22 0.0091 ND ND Barium mg/kg mg/L 1000 0.2 4.6 3.1 5.8 4.3 3.3 4.9 4.0 3 4.6 4.4 5.1 4.8 5.2 4.2 5.1 6.7 2.9 5.6 4.7 4.6 5.1 4.5 3.9 5.1 ND 0.0029 0.0079 Cadmium mg/kg mg/L 14 0.003 ND ND 0.16 0.11 0.033 0.6 0.15 0.049 0.6 0.15 0.048 0.52 0.13 0.11 0.77 0.14 0.043 0.76 0.12 0.1 0.74 0.095 0.055 0.73 ND ND ND Chromium mg/kg mg/L 1100 0.074 23 21 28 55 36 66 71 49 75 75 70 85 71 66 89 78 49 94 72 73 84 69 56 88 ND 0.0038 0.031 Lead mg/kg mg/L 200 0.0056 1.2 ND ND 2.0 0.39 0.79 1.9 0.45 0.4 2.4 0.92 0.79 2.5 0.62 0.64 1.9 ND 0.4 1.6 0.57 0.55 1.8 0.55 0.4 ND ND ND Selenium mg/kg mg/L 78 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.68 ND ND 1.2 ND ND 1.2 ND ND ND ND ND 1.2 ND ND 0.97 ND ND ND Silver mg/kg mg/L 78 0.001 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.091 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0009 ND Mercury mg/kg mg/L 4.7 0.000025 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.008 ND ND 0.0062 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND a HDOH Tier 1 Unrestricted (Residential) land use Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for sites where groundwater is not a current or potential source of drinking water and the site is less than 150 meters to a surface water body (HDOH Fall 2011 revised January 2012). b HDOH Environmental Action Levels (EALs) for estuarine surface water bodies (HDOH Fall 2011 revised January 2012). Bold, italicized and red font indicates the respective HDOH EAL was exceeded. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram ug/kg = micrograms per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter ug/L = micrograms per liter ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit Analyte HDOH Environmental Action Level May 2016 Result July 2016 Result May 2016 Result Sampling Location Units Matrix July 2016 Result May 2016 Result July 2016 Result May 2016 Result August 2016 Result DU-3 Sand May 2016 Result July 2016 Result May 2016 Result July 2016 Result July 2016 Result May 2016 Result July 2016 Result May 2016 Result July 2016 Result May 2016 Result July 2016 Result DU-3 (1st replicate) Sand August 2016 Result DU-3 (2nd replicate) Sand August 2016 Result Sand August 2016 Result DU-6 Sand August 2016 Result Total Metals (SW-846 6010B/7471A) DU-1 Sand August 2016 Result DU-5 Water August 2016 Result Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) (SW-846 8260/8015B) Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (SW-846 8270CSIM) DU-2A Sand August 2016 Result DU-2B Sand August 2016 Result DU-4
  45. 45. ANALYTICAL REPORT TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. TestAmerica Honolulu 4429 Malaai St. #104 Honolulu, HI 96818 Tel: (808)486-5227 TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1 Client Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis For: Element Environmental, LLC 98-030 Hekaha Street, Unit 9 Aiea, Hawaii 96701 Attn: Matt Neal Authorized for release by: 6/15/2016 10:49:07 PM Craig Pilialoha, Project Manager I (808)486-5227 craig.pilialoha@testamericainc.com This report has been electronically signed and authorized by the signatory. Electronic signature is intended to be the legally binding equivalent of a traditionally handwritten signature. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  46. 46. Table of Contents Client: Element Environmental, LLC Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1 Page 2 of 55 TestAmerica Honolulu 6/15/2016 Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Sample Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Case Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Client Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 QC Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 QC Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Certification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Chain of Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Receipt Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  47. 47. Sample Summary TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1Client: Element Environmental, LLC Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID ReceivedCollectedMatrix 370-603-1 BPB-DU-2A Solid 05/24/16 09:40 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-2 BPB-DU-2B Solid 05/24/16 12:00 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-3 BPB-DU-5 Water 05/24/16 11:00 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-4 BPB-DU-3-1 Solid 05/24/16 13:45 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-5 BPB-DU-3-2 Solid 05/24/16 14:30 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-6 BPB-DU-3-3 Solid 05/24/16 14:45 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-7 BPB-DU-4 Solid 05/24/16 15:20 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-8 BPB-DU-6 Solid 05/24/16 15:40 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-9 BPB-DU-1 Solid 05/24/16 17:00 05/25/16 13:20 370-603-10 BPB-SW-2016524 Water 05/24/16 10:30 05/25/16 13:20 TestAmerica Honolulu Page 3 of 55 6/15/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  48. 48. Case Narrative Client: Element Environmental, LLC TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1 Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Job ID: 370-603-1 Laboratory: TestAmerica Honolulu Narrative Job Narrative 370-603-1 Comments No additional comments. Receipt The samples were received on 5/25/2016 1:20 PM; the samples arrived in good condition, properly preserved and, where required, on ice. The temperatures of the 3 coolers at receipt time were 5.2º C, 5.8º C and 6.0º C. GC/MS VOA Method(s) 8260/CALUFT DOD: Insufficient sample volume was available to perform a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) associated with analytical batch 112518. Method(s) 8260/CALUFT DOD, 8260B/CA_LUFTMS: Insufficient sample volume was available to perform a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) associated with analytical batch 112651. Method(s) 8260/CALUFT DOD, 8260B/CA_LUFTMS: The method blank for preparation batch 111964 and analytical batch 113153 contained C4-C12 above the method detection limit. This target analyte concentration was less than the reporting limit (RL); therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis of samples was not performed. No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. GC/MS Semi VOA Method(s) 8270C SIM: The d5-Nitrobenzene surrogate recovery in the Laboratory Control Sample associated with prep batch 320-112764 is greater than the historical limit. Re-analysis confirms the high surrogate recovery. The data has been evaluated and as the LCS is in control for all target analytes, and the method blank and field samples are in control for all surrogates, narration is the corrective action. BPB-DU-2A (370-603-1), BPB-DU-2B (370-603-2), BPB-DU-3-1 (370-603-4), BPB-DU-3-2 (370-603-5), BPB-DU-3-3 (370-603-6), BPB-DU-4 (370-603-7), BPB-DU-6 (370-603-8), BPB-DU-1 (370-603-9), (LCS 320-112764/2-A), (370-603-B-8-L MS) and (370-603-B-8-M MSD) Method(s) 8270C SIM: Insufficient sample volume was available to perform a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) associated with preparation batch 440-332987 and analytical batch 440-333626. The laboratory control sample (LCS) was performed in duplicate to provide precision data for this batch. Method(s) 8270C SIM: Surrogate recovery for the following sample was outside control limits: BPB-SW-2016524 (370-603-10). Evidence of matrix interference is present; therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis was not performed. No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. GC VOA Method(s) 8015B: The laboratory control sample (LCS) for 334438 recovered outside control limits for the following analytes: C4-C12. These analytes were biased high in the LCS and were not detected in the associated samples; therefore, the data have been reported. No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. GC Semi VOA Method(s) 8015B: The C24-C40 range extracted for sample 370-603-B-8-N was extracted outside of hold time because sample did not dry in time. As a result, the C24-C40 range is being reported from the wet aliquot within hold. It is also being reported out of hold from the aliquot that was dried and sieved per the ISM process: BPB-DU-6 (370-603-8). Method(s) 8015B: Insufficient sample volume was available to perform a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) associated with preparation batch 320-112589, 320-112766 and 320-112766 and analytical batch 320-113177. An MS/MSD was extracted with the job but not reported with these samples due to differing limit groups. TestAmerica Honolulu Page 4 of 55 6/15/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  49. 49. Case Narrative Client: Element Environmental, LLC TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1 Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Job ID: 370-603-1 (Continued) Laboratory: TestAmerica Honolulu (Continued) Method(s) 8015B: Insufficient sample volume was available to perform a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate/sample duplicate (MS/MSD/DUP) associated with batch preparation batch 440-333500 and analytical batch 440-333532. The laboratory control sample (LCS) was performed in duplicate to provide precision data for this batch.(LCS 440-333500/2-A) Method(s) 8015B: Insufficient sample volume was available to perform a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate/sample duplicate (MS/MSD/DUP) associated with batch preparation batch 440-333613 and analytical batch 440-333534. The laboratory control sample (LCS) was performed in duplicate to provide precision data for this batch.(LCS 440-333613/2-A) No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Metals Method(s) 6010B: The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for preparation batch 320-112758 and 320-113070 and analytical batch 320-113260 were outside control limits. Sample matrix interference and/or non-homogeneity are suspected because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits. Method(s) 7471A: The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for preparation batch 320-111799 and 320-113315 and analytical batch 320-113617 were outside control limits. Sample matrix interference and/or non-homogeneity are suspected because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits. Method(s) 6010B: The continuing calibration blank (CCB) for analytical batch 440-335425 contained Lead above the reporting limit (RL). All reported samples associated with this CCB were either ND for this analyte or contained this analyte at a concentration greater than 10X the value found in the CCB; therefore, re-analysis of samples was not performed. No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. General Chemistry Method(s) Moisture: There is no regulatory holding time for percent moisture analysis. The H flag for the following samples: BPB-DU-2A (370-603-1), BPB-DU-2B (370-603-2), BPB-DU-3-1 (370-603-4), BPB-DU-3-2 (370-603-5), BPB-DU-3-3 (370-603-6) and BPB-DU-4 (370-603-7) have been removed. This non-conformance indicates that the samples were analyzed out of 14 days of collection. Method(s) Moisture: There is no regulatory holding time for percent moisture analysis. The H flag for the following samples: BPB-DU-6 (370-603-8) and BPB-DU-1 (370-603-9) have been removed. This non-conformance indicates that the samples were analyzed out of 14 days of collection. No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. Organic Prep Method(s) 3550B: A deviation from the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) occurred. Details are as follows: the following samples and associated Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) were concentrated between 70-75 Celsius instead of the method specific 80-85 Celsius. Since this is a lower temperature, this should not affect analyte recoveries. This is applicable to preparation batch 320-112758 for method 8015-solid. Method(s) 3550B: Sample BPB-DU-6 (370-603-8) for method 8015 was prepared outside of preparation holding time due to incomplete drying on the final day of the holding time. The sample requested the Incremental Subsampling Procedure (ISM) and this method specifies complete drying prior to processing. Method(s) 3520C: Elevated reporting limits are provided for the following sample due to insufficient sample provided for 3520/8270 Sample volume 500mL Amber preparation/analysis: BPB-SW-2016524 (370-603-10). Method(s) 3510C: Elevated reporting limits are provided for the following sample(s) due to insufficient sample provided for 3510C/8015B preparation/analysis: No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page. VOA Prep No analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described in the Definitions/Glossary page. TestAmerica Honolulu Page 5 of 55 6/15/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  50. 50. Client Sample Results TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1Client: Element Environmental, LLC Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Lab Sample ID: 370-603-1Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-2A Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 05/24/16 09:40 Percent Solids: 92.3Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 Method: 8260/CALUFT DOD - Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS RL MDL Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) -C4-C12 ND 5.4 1.1 mg/Kg 05/31/16 12:27 06/04/16 20:32 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr) 96 59 - 120 05/31/16 12:27 06/04/16 20:32 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Method: 8270C SIM - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS SIM) RL MDL 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.9 0.53 ug/Kg ☼ 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 5.9 0.51 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼2-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.9 0.55 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Acenaphthene ND 5.9 0.39 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Acenaphthylene ND 5.9 0.46 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Anthracene ND 5.9 0.36 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Benzo[a]anthracene ND 5.9 0.47 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Benzo[a]pyrene ND 5.9 0.59 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND 5.9 1.2 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND 5.9 0.89 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND 5.9 0.41 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Chrysene ND 5.9 1.4 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 5.9 0.34 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Fluoranthene ND 5.9 0.58 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Fluorene ND 5.9 0.56 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND 5.9 0.36 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Naphthalene ND 5.9 0.41 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Phenanthrene ND 5.9 0.41 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1☼Pyrene ND 2-Fluorobiphenyl (Surr) 75 53 - 113 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Nitrobenzene-d5 105 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 153 - 113 Terphenyl-d14 94 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:22 170 - 144 Method: 8015B - Diesel Range Organics (DRO) (GC) RL MDL DRO (C10-C25) ND 1.1 0.55 mg/Kg ☼ 06/07/16 08:34 06/09/16 22:19 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 5.0 3.7 mg/Kg 06/07/16 18:12 06/09/16 04:20 1RRO (C24-C40) ND o-Terphenyl (Surr) 96 63 - 141 06/07/16 18:12 06/09/16 04:20 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery o-Terphenyl (Surr) 95 06/07/16 08:34 06/09/16 22:19 163 - 141 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) RL MDL Arsenic 23 2.0 1.3 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:06 2 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 1.0 0.12 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:06 2Barium 4.3 0.20 0.030 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:06 2Cadmium 0.11 J 0.50 0.14 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:06 2Chromium 55 1.0 0.26 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:06 2Lead 2.0 F1 B 2.0 1.4 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:06 2Selenium ND 0.50 0.090 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:06 2Silver ND TestAmerica Honolulu Page 6 of 55 6/15/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  51. 51. Client Sample Results TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1Client: Element Environmental, LLC Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Lab Sample ID: 370-603-1Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-2A Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 05/24/16 09:40 Percent Solids: 92.3Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 Method: 7471A - Mercury (CVAA) RL MDL Mercury ND 0.026 0.0056 mg/Kg ☼ 06/10/16 10:05 06/10/16 16:41 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier General Chemistry RL MDL Percent Moisture 7.7 0.1 0.1 % 06/08/16 20:00 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 0.1 0.1 % 06/08/16 20:00 1Percent Solids 92.3 Lab Sample ID: 370-603-2Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-2B Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 05/24/16 12:00 Percent Solids: 88.7Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 Method: 8260/CALUFT DOD - Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS RL MDL Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) -C4-C12 ND 5.1 1.0 mg/Kg 05/31/16 12:27 06/06/16 19:02 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr) 94 59 - 120 05/31/16 12:27 06/06/16 19:02 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Method: 8270C SIM - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS SIM) RL MDL 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.1 0.46 ug/Kg ☼ 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 5.1 0.44 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼2-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.1 0.48 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Acenaphthene ND 5.1 0.34 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Acenaphthylene ND 5.1 0.41 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Anthracene ND 5.1 0.31 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Benzo[a]anthracene ND 5.1 0.41 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Benzo[a]pyrene ND 5.1 0.52 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND 5.1 1.0 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND 5.1 0.78 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND 5.1 0.36 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Chrysene ND 5.1 1.2 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 5.1 0.30 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Fluoranthene ND 5.1 0.50 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Fluorene ND 5.1 0.49 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND 5.1 0.32 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Naphthalene ND 5.1 0.36 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Phenanthrene ND 5.1 0.36 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1☼Pyrene ND 2-Fluorobiphenyl (Surr) 75 53 - 113 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Nitrobenzene-d5 104 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 153 - 113 Terphenyl-d14 93 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 14:51 170 - 144 Method: 8015B - Diesel Range Organics (DRO) (GC) RL MDL DRO (C10-C25) ND 1.1 0.57 mg/Kg ☼ 06/07/16 08:34 06/09/16 22:48 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 5.0 3.8 mg/Kg 06/07/16 18:12 06/09/16 05:47 1RRO (C24-C40) ND TestAmerica Honolulu Page 7 of 55 6/15/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  52. 52. Client Sample Results TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1Client: Element Environmental, LLC Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Lab Sample ID: 370-603-2Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-2B Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 05/24/16 12:00 Percent Solids: 88.7Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 o-Terphenyl (Surr) 98 63 - 141 06/07/16 18:12 06/09/16 05:47 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery o-Terphenyl (Surr) 93 06/07/16 08:34 06/09/16 22:48 163 - 141 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) RL MDL Arsenic 22 2.0 1.3 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:22 2 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 0.99 0.12 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:22 2Barium 4.0 0.20 0.030 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:22 2Cadmium 0.15 J 0.50 0.14 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:22 2Chromium 71 0.99 0.26 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:22 2Lead 1.9 B 2.0 1.4 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:22 2Selenium ND 0.50 0.089 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:22 2Silver ND Method: 7471A - Mercury (CVAA) RL MDL Mercury ND 0.027 0.0058 mg/Kg ☼ 06/10/16 10:05 06/10/16 16:43 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier General Chemistry RL MDL Percent Moisture 11.3 0.1 0.1 % 06/08/16 20:00 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 0.1 0.1 % 06/08/16 20:00 1Percent Solids 88.7 Lab Sample ID: 370-603-3Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-5 Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 05/24/16 11:00 Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 Method: 8270C SIM - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS SIM) RL MDL 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 12-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Acenaphthene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Acenaphthylene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Anthracene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Benzo[a]anthracene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Benzo[a]pyrene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Chrysene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Fluoranthene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Fluorene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Naphthalene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Phenanthrene ND 0.21 0.11 ug/L 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1Pyrene ND 2-Fluorobiphenyl (Surr) 67 50 - 104 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Nitrobenzene-d5 69 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 146 - 109 Terphenyl-d14 101 05/27/16 10:51 06/01/16 16:43 128 - 124 TestAmerica Honolulu Page 8 of 55 6/15/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  53. 53. Client Sample Results TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1Client: Element Environmental, LLC Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Lab Sample ID: 370-603-3Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-5 Matrix: WaterDate Collected: 05/24/16 11:00 Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 Method: 8015B - Gasoline Range Organics - (GC) RL MDL GRO (C6-C12) ND 50 25 ug/L 06/04/16 08:03 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr) 104 65 - 140 06/04/16 08:03 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Method: 8015B - Diesel Range Organics (DRO) (GC) RL MDL DRO (C9-C25) ND 0.52 0.10 mg/L 05/31/16 07:52 05/31/16 19:04 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 0.52 0.10 mg/L 05/31/16 07:52 05/31/16 19:04 1RRO (C24-C40) ND n-Octacosane 83 45 - 120 05/31/16 07:52 05/31/16 19:04 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) - Total Recoverable RL MDL Arsenic 0.0091 J 0.010 0.0050 mg/L 06/03/16 12:27 06/08/16 15:22 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 0.010 0.0050 mg/L 06/03/16 12:27 06/08/16 15:22 1Barium ND 0.0050 0.0020 mg/L 06/03/16 12:27 06/08/16 15:22 1Cadmium ND 0.0050 0.0025 mg/L 06/03/16 12:27 06/08/16 15:22 1Chromium ND 0.0050 0.0025 mg/L 06/03/16 12:27 06/08/16 15:22 1Lead ND 0.010 0.0061 mg/L 06/03/16 12:27 06/08/16 15:22 1Selenium ND 0.010 0.0050 mg/L 06/03/16 12:27 06/08/16 15:22 1Silver ND Method: 7470A - Mercury (CVAA) RL MDL Mercury ND 0.00020 0.00010 mg/L 05/27/16 18:29 05/31/16 20:34 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier Lab Sample ID: 370-603-4Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-3-1 Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 05/24/16 13:45 Percent Solids: 83.1Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 Method: 8260/CALUFT DOD - Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS RL MDL Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) -C4-C12 ND 4.4 0.88 mg/Kg 05/31/16 12:27 06/06/16 19:24 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr) 94 59 - 120 05/31/16 12:27 06/06/16 19:24 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Method: 8270C SIM - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS SIM) RL MDL 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.6 0.50 ug/Kg ☼ 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 5.6 0.48 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼2-Methylnaphthalene ND 5.6 0.53 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Acenaphthene ND 5.6 0.37 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Acenaphthylene ND 5.6 0.44 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Anthracene ND 5.6 0.34 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Benzo[a]anthracene ND 5.6 0.45 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Benzo[a]pyrene ND 5.6 0.56 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND 5.6 1.1 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND 5.6 0.85 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND 5.6 0.39 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Chrysene ND TestAmerica Honolulu Page 9 of 55 6/15/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  54. 54. Client Sample Results TestAmerica Job ID: 370-603-1Client: Element Environmental, LLC Project/Site: Black Pot Beach Sand Analysis Lab Sample ID: 370-603-4Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-3-1 Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 05/24/16 13:45 Percent Solids: 83.1Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 Method: 8270C SIM - Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS SIM) (Continued) RL MDL Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 5.6 1.3 ug/Kg ☼ 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 5.6 0.33 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Fluoranthene ND 5.6 0.55 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Fluorene ND 5.6 0.54 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND 5.6 0.34 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Naphthalene ND 5.6 0.39 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Phenanthrene ND 5.6 0.39 ug/Kg 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1☼Pyrene ND 2-Fluorobiphenyl (Surr) 70 53 - 113 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery Nitrobenzene-d5 94 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 153 - 113 Terphenyl-d14 93 06/07/16 08:27 06/08/16 15:20 170 - 144 Method: 8015B - Diesel Range Organics (DRO) (GC) RL MDL DRO (C10-C25) 25 1.2 0.62 mg/Kg ☼ 06/07/16 08:34 06/09/16 23:17 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 4.9 3.7 mg/Kg 06/07/16 18:12 06/09/16 06:16 1RRO (C24-C40) 47 o-Terphenyl (Surr) 97 63 - 141 06/07/16 18:12 06/09/16 06:16 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery o-Terphenyl (Surr) 96 06/07/16 08:34 06/09/16 23:17 163 - 141 Method: 6010B - Metals (ICP) RL MDL Arsenic 21 2.0 1.3 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:25 2 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 0.99 0.12 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:25 2Barium 4.4 0.20 0.030 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:25 2Cadmium 0.15 J 0.50 0.14 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:25 2Chromium 75 0.99 0.26 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:25 2Lead 2.4 B 2.0 1.4 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:25 2Selenium ND 0.50 0.089 mg/Kg 06/09/16 06:45 06/09/16 19:25 2Silver 0.091 J Method: 7471A - Mercury (CVAA) RL MDL Mercury ND 0.029 0.0063 mg/Kg ☼ 06/10/16 10:05 06/10/16 16:50 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier General Chemistry RL MDL Percent Moisture 16.9 0.1 0.1 % 06/08/16 20:00 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 0.1 0.1 % 06/08/16 20:00 1Percent Solids 83.1 Lab Sample ID: 370-603-5Client Sample ID: BPB-DU-3-2 Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 05/24/16 14:30 Percent Solids: 86.1Date Received: 05/25/16 13:20 Method: 8260/CALUFT DOD - Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS RL MDL Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) -C4-C12 ND 6.0 1.2 mg/Kg 05/31/16 12:27 06/06/16 19:47 1 Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnit DResult Qualifier 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr) 96 59 - 120 05/31/16 12:27 06/06/16 19:47 1 Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifier Limits%Recovery TestAmerica Honolulu Page 10 of 55 6/15/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

×