United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905-B02-001-B
December 2002
A Guidance Manual to Support
the Assessment of
Contaminated Sediments in
Freshwater Ecosystems
Volume II - Design and Implementation of Sediment
Quality Investigations
by:
Donald D. MacDonald
MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.
#24 - 4800 Island Highway North
Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 1W6
Christopher G. Ingersoll
United States Geological Survey
4200 New Haven Road
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Under Contract To:
Sustainable Fisheries Foundation
120 Avenue A - Suite D
Snohomish, Washington 98290
-------
A Guidance Manual to Support the
Assessment of Contaminated Sediments
in Freshwater Ecosystems
Volume II- Design and Implementation of Sediment
Quality Investigations
Submitted to:
Scott Cieniawski
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard (G-17J)
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Prepared - December 2002 - by:
Donald D. MacDonald1 and Christopher G. Ingersoll2
^acDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd. 2United States Geological Survey
#24 - 4800 Island Highway North 4200 New Haven Road
Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 1W6 Columbia, Missouri 65201
Under Contract to:
Sustainable Fisheries Foundation
120 Avenue A, Suite D
Snohomish, Washington 98290
-------
DISCLAIMER - i
Disclaimer
This publication was developed by the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation under USEPA Grant
Number GL995632-01. The contents, views, and opinions expressed in this document are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of the USEPA,
the United States Government, or other organizations named in this report. Additionally, the
mention of trade names for products or software does not constitute their endorsement.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - ii
Table of Contents
Disclaimer i
Table of Contents ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Executive Summary vii
List of Acronyms xi
Glossary of Terms xvi
Acknowledgments xxii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Chapter 2. Recommended Framework for Assessing and Managing
Sediment Quality Conditions 4
2.0 Introduction 4
2.1 Identify Sediment Quality Issues and Concerns 5
2.2 Evaluating Existing Sediment Chemistry Information 6
2.3 Conducting a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) 9
2.4 Conducting a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) 10
2.5 Remedial Action Planning 12
2.6 Confirmatory Monitoring and Assessment 12
Chapter 3. Conducting a Preliminary Site Investigation 13
3.0 Introduction 13
3.1 Stage I Investigation 13
3.2 Stage II Investigation 15
3.2.1 Data Collection 16
3.2.2 Data Interpretation 19
Chapter 4. Conducting a Detailed Site Investigation 21
4.0 Introduction 21
4.1 Collection of Sediment Quality Data 22
4.1.1 Sediment Chemistry 25
4.1.2 Toxicity Testing 26
4.1.3 Benthic Invertebrate Community Assessments 26
4.1.4 Bioaccumulation Assessments 27
4.1.5 Other Tools for Assessing Sediment Quality Conditions 28
4.1.6 Quality Assurance Project Plan 29
4.2 Data Interpretation 30
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Hi
Chapter 5. Developing Sampling and Analysis Plans for Assessing Sediment
Quality Conditions 33
5.0 Introduction 33
5.1 Background Information 34
5.2 Objectives of the Sediment Investigation 36
5.3 Field Sampling Methods 38
5.4 Sample Handling Procedures 39
5.5 Technical Oversight and Auditing 39
5.6 Quality Assurance Project Plan 40
5.7 Data Evaluation and Validation 41
5.8 Data Analysis, Record Keeping, and Reporting 42
5.9 Health and Safety Plan 42
5.10 Project Schedule 43
5.11 Project Team and Responsibilities 43
Chapter 6. References 44
Appendix 1 Types and Objectives of Freshwater Sediment Quality
Assessments 78
Al .0 Introduction 78
Al.l State and Tribal Water Quality Standards and Monitoring
Programs 80
A1.2 Total Maximum Daily Load Program 80
A1.3 National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System
Permitting Program 82
A1.4 Dredged Material Management Program 83
A1.5 Ocean Disposal Program 84
Al .6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act Program 85
A1.7 British Columbia Contaminated Sites Program 86
Al .8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action
Program 88
Al .9 Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act Program
88
A1.10 Toxic Substances Control Act Program 89
Al.l 1 Damage Assessment and Restoration Program 89
A1.12 Status and Trends Monitoring Programs 91
Appendix 2 USEPA Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy 93
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - iv
Appendix 3 Additional Considerations for Designing Sediment Quality
Sampling Programs 96
A3.0 Introduction 96
A3.1 Selection of Sampling Stations 96
A3.2 Sample Size, Number of Samples, and Replicate Samples 99
A3.3 Control and Reference Sediments 101
A3.4 Evaluation of Data Quality 102
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - v
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Examples of chemicals that should be measured on a site-specific
basis (from WDOE 1995) 54
A matrix of data interpretation tools for assessing ecological
impairments associated with contaminated sediments (from
Krantzberg et al. 2000) 55
Sediment sampling and analysis plan outline and checklist (from
WDOE 1995) 57
Advantages and disadvantages of various sediment samplers (from
WDOE 1995) 59
Minimum sediment samples sizes and acceptable containers for
physical/chemical analyses and sediment toxicity tests (from WDOE
1995) 61
Storage temperatures and maximum holding times for
physical/chemical analyses and sediment toxi city tests (from WDOE
1995) 62
Quality control procedures for organic analyses (from WDOE 1995)
63
Quality control procedures for metal analyses (from WDOE 1995) .... 65
Quality control procedures for conventional analyses (from WDOE
1995) 68
Examples of recommended test conditions for conducting freshwater
sediment toxicity tests (from WDOE 1995) 69
Table A2.1 Statutory needs for sediment quality assessment (from USEPA
2000c) 107
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - vi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Overview of the process for designing and implementing sediment
quality investigations 71
Figure 2 Overview of the recommended process for managing sites with
contaminated sediments 72
Figure 3 An overview of Stage I of the preliminary site investigation (PSI) 73
Figure 4 An overview of Stage n of the preliminary site investigation (PSI).
A Stage n PSI is conducted if the results of the first stage of the PSI
indicates that sediments are likely to be contaminated with toxic or
bioaccumulative substances 74
Figure 5 An overview of the detailed site investigation (DSI) 75
Figure 6 An overview of the contaminated site remediation process 76
Figure Al.l Overview of the tiered approach for assessing the environmental
effects of dredged material management alternatives (from USEPA
and USAGE 1998a) 109
Figure A1.2 Simplified overview of tiered approach to evaluating potential impact
of aquatic disposal of dredged material (from USEPA and USAGE
1998a) 110
Figure A1.3 Illustration of the tiered approach to evaluating potential water
column impacts of dredged material (from USEPA and USAGE
1998a) Ill
Figure A1.4 Illustration of the tiered approach to evaluating potential benthic
impacts of deposited dredged material (from USEPA and USAGE
1998a) 112
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - vii
Executive Summary
Traditionally, concerns relative to the management of aquatic resources in freshwater
ecosystems have focused primarily on water quality. As such, early aquatic resource
management efforts were often directed at assuring the potability of surface water or
groundwater sources. Subsequently, the scope of these management initiatives expanded to
include protection of instream (i.e., fish and aquatic life), agricultural, industrial, and
recreational water uses. While initiatives undertaken in the past twenty years have
unquestionably improved water quality conditions, a growing body of evidence indicates that
management efforts directed solely at the attainment of surface water quality criteria may not
provide an adequate basis for protecting the designated uses of aquatic ecosystems.
In recent years, concerns relative to the health and vitality of aquatic ecosystems have begun
to reemerge in North America. One of the principal reasons for this is that many toxic and
bioaccumulative chemicals [such as metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), chlorophenols, organochlorine pesticides (OC pesticides),
and polybrominated diphenyl ethers]; which are found in only trace amounts in water, can
accumulate to elevated levels in sediments. Some of these pollutants, such as OC pesticides
and PCBs, were released into the environment long ago. The use of many of these
substances has been banned in North America for more than 30 years; nevertheless, these
chemicals continue to persist in the environment. Other contaminants enter our waters every
day from industrial and municipal discharges, urban and agricultural runoff, and atmospheric
deposition from remote sources. Due to their physical and chemical properties, many of
these substances tend to accumulate in sediments. In addition to providing sinks for many
chemicals, sediments can also serve as potential sources of pollutants to the water column
when conditions change in the receiving water system (e.g., during periods of anoxia, after
severe storms).
Information from a variety of sources indicates that sediments in aquatic ecosystems
throughout North America are contaminated by a wide range of toxic and bioaccumulative
substances, including metals, PAHs, PCBs, OC pesticides, a variety of semi-volatile organic
chemicals (SVOCs), and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans (PCDDs and
PCDFs). For example, contaminated sediments pose a major risk to the beneficial uses of
aquatic ecosystems throughout the Great Lakes basin, including the 43 areas of concern
(AOCs) identified by the International Joint Commission. The imposition of fish
consumption advisories has adversely affected commercial, sport, and food fisheries in many
areas. In addition, degradation of the benthic community and other factors have adversely
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - viii
affected fish and wildlife populations. Furthermore, fish in many of these areas often have
higher levels of tumors and other abnormalities than fish from reference areas.
Contaminated sediments have also threatened the viability of many commercial ports through
the imposition of restrictions on dredging of navigational channels and disposal of dredged
materials. Overall, contaminated sediments have been linked to 11 of the 14 beneficial use
impairments that have been documented at the Great Lakes AOCs. Such use impairments
have also been observed elsewhere in Canada and the United States.
In response to concerns raised regarding contaminated sediments, responsible authorities
throughout North America have launched programs to support the assessment, management,
and remediation of contaminated sediments. The information generated under these
programs provide important guidance for designing and implementing investigations at sites
with contaminated sediments. In addition, guidance has been developed under various
sediment-related programs to support the collection and interpretation of sediment quality
data. While such guidance has unquestionably advanced the field of sediment quality
assessments, the users of the individual guidance documents have expressed a need to
consolidate this information into an integrated ecosystem-based framework for assessing and
managing sediment quality in freshwater ecosystems (i.e., as specified under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement). Practitioners in this field have also indicated the need for
additional guidance on the applications of the various tools that support sediment quality
assessments. Furthermore, the need for additional guidance on the design of sediment
quality monitoring programs and on the interpretation of the resultant data has been
identified.
This guidance manual, which comprises a three-volume series and was developed for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, is not intended to
supplantthe existing guidance on sediment quality assessment. Rather, this guidance manual
is intended to further support the design and implementation of assessments of sediment
quality conditions by:
• Presenting an ecosystem-based framework for assessing and managing
contaminated sediments (Volume I);
• Describing the recommended procedures for designing and implementing
sediment quality investigations (Volume II); and,
• Describing the recommended procedures for interpreting the results of sediment
quality investigations (Volume III).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - ix
The first volume of the guidance manual, An Ecosystem-Based Framework for Assessing
and Managing Contaminated Sediments in the Freshwater Ecosystems., describes the five
step process that is recommended to support the assessment and management of sediment
quality conditions (i.e., relative to sediment-dwelling organisms, aquatic-dependent wildlife,
and human health). Importantly, the document provides an overview of the framework for
ecosystem-based sediment quality assessment and management (Chapter 2). In addition, the
recommended procedures for identifying sediment quality issues and concerns and compiling
the existing knowledge base are described (Chapter 3). Furthermore, the recommended
procedures for establishing ecosystem goals, ecosystem health objectives, and sediment
management objectives are presented (Chapter 4). Finally, methods for selecting ecosystem
health indicators, metrics, and targets for assessing contaminated sediments are described
(Chapter 5). Together, this guidance is intended to support planning activities related to
contaminated sediment assessments, such that the resultant data are likely to support
sediment management decisions at the site under investigation. More detailed information
on these and other topics related to the assessment and management of contaminated
sediments can be found in the publications that are listed in the Bibliography of Relevant
Publications (Appendix 2).
The second volume of the series, Design and Implementation of Sediment Quality
Investigations, describes the recommended procedures for designing and implementing
sediment quality assessment programs. More specifically, Volume II provides an overview
of the recommended framework for assessing and managing sediment quality conditions is
presented in this document (Chapter 2). In addition, this volume describes the recommended
procedures for conducting preliminary and detailed site investigations to assess sediment
quality conditions (Chapters 3 and 4). Furthermore, the factors that need to be considered
in the development of sampling and analysis plans for assessing contaminated sediments are
described (Chapter 5). Supplemental guidance on the design of sediment sampling
programs, on the evaluation of sediment quality data, and on the management of
contaminated sediment is provided in the Appendices to Volume II. The appendices of this
document also describe the types and objectives of sediment quality assessments that are
commonly conducted in freshwater ecosystems.
The third volume in the series, Interpretation of the Results of Sediment Quality
Investigations, describes the four types of information that are commonly used to assess
contaminated sediments, including sediment and pore-water chemistry data (Chapter 2),
sediment toxicity data (Chapter 3), benthic invertebrate community structure data (Chapter
4), and bioaccumulation data (Chapter 5). Some of the other tools that can be used to
support assessments of sediment quality conditions are also briefly described (e.g., fish
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - x
health assessments; Chapter 6). The information compiled on each of the tools includes:
descriptions of its applications, advantages, and limitations; discussions on the availability
of standard methods, the evaluation of data quality, methodological uncertainty, and the
interpretation of associated data; and, recommendations to guide the use of each of these
individual indicators of sediment quality conditions. Furthermore, guidance is provided on
the interpretation of data on multiple indicators of sediment quality conditions (Chapter 7).
Together, the information provided in the three-volume series is intended to further support
the design and implementation of focused sediment quality assessment programs.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS - xi
List of Acronyms
0,
0
ng
|imol/g
AET
AETA
Al
ANOVA
AOC
APHA
ARCS Program
ASTM
AVS
BCE
BCWMA
BEST
BSAF
CA
CAC
CCME
CCREM
CDF
CEPA
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CI
CLP
COC
COPC
CRLD
CSO
CSR
CWA
-d
DDT
DDTs
DELT
DL
percent
microgram
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
micromoles per gram
apparent effects threshold
Apparent Effects Threshold Approach
aluminum
analysis of variance
Area of Concern
American Public Health Association
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program
American Society for Testing and Materials
acid volatile sulfides
British Columbia Environment
British Columbia Waste Management Act
biomonitoring of environmental status and trends
biota-sediment bioaccumulation factor
Consensus Approach
Citizens Advisory Committee
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers
confined disposal facility
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
confidence interval
Contract Laboratory Program
contaminant of concern
chemical of potential concern
contract required detection limit
combined sewer overflow
Contaminated Sites Regulation
Clean Water Act
-days
di chl orodipheny 1-tri chl oroethane
/\p'-DDT, o,//-DDT,/\p'-DDE, o,p'-DDE,p,p'-DDD, o,//-DDD, and any
metabolite or degradation product
deformities, fin erosion, lesions, and tumors
detection limit
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS - xii
DM dredged material
DO dissolved oxygen
DOE Department of the Environment
DOT Department of the Interior
DQO data quality objective
DSI detailed site investigation
DW dry weight
EC Environment Canada
EC50 median effective concentration affecting 50 percent of the test organisms
EEC European Economic Community
ELA Effects Level Approach
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (i.e., mayflies, stoneflies,
caddisflies)
EqPA Equilibrium Partitioning Approach
ERL effects range low
ERM effects range median
EROD ethoxyresorufm-(9-deethylase
ESB equilibrium partitioning-derived sediment benchmarks
FCV final chronic values
FD factual determinations
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act
gamma-BHC gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane)
GFAA graphite furnace atomic absorption
GIS geographic information system
-h - hours
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HC Health Canada
HC1 hydrochloric acid
IB I index of biotic integrity
IC50 median inhibition concentration affecting 50 percent of test organisms
ICP inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry
ID insufficient data
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IJC International Joint Commission
IWB index of well-being
Koc organic carbon partition coefficients
Kow octanol-water partition coefficients
Kp sediment/water partition coefficients
LC50 median lethal concentration affecting 50 percent of the test organism
LCS/LCSDs laboratory control sample/laboratory control sample duplicates
Li lithium
LMP lakewide management plan
LOD limit of detection
LOEC lowest observed effect concentration
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS - xiii
LRMA
mean PEC-Q
MESL
MET
mg/kg
mg/L
mlBI
-min
mm
MPRSA
MS/MSDs
MSD
n
NAWQA
NEPA
NG
NH3
NH4+
NOAA
NOEC
NPDES
NPL
NPO
NR
NRDAR
NSQS
NSTP
NT
NYSDEC
OC
OC pesticides
OECD
OEPA
OERR
OPA
OPTTS
OSW
OW
PAET
PAHs
PARCC
PCBs
PCDDs
PCDFs
PCS
Logistic Regression Modeling Approach
mean probable effect concentration quotient
MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.
minimal effect threshold
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity
- minutes
millimeter
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates
minimum significant difference
number of samples
National Water Quality Assessment
National Environmental Policy Act
no guideline available
unionized ammonia
ionized ammonia
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
no observed effect concentration
National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System
National Priorities List
nonpolar organics
not reported
natural resource damage assessment and restoration
National Sediment Quality Survey
National Status and Trends Program
not toxic
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
organic carbon
organochlorine pesticides
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Oil Pollution Act
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Office of Solid Waste
The Office of Water
probable apparent effects threshold
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability
polychlorinated biphenyls
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
polychlorinated dibenzofurans
permit compliance system
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS - xiv
PEC probable effect concentration (consensus-based)
PEC-Q probable effect concentration quotient
PEL probable effect level
PEL-HA28 probable effect level for Hyalella azteca; 28-day test
PQL protection quantification limit
PRGs preliminary remedial goals
PSDDA Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
PSEP Puget Sound Estuary Program
PSI preliminary site investigation
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QHEI qualitative habitat evaluation index
RAP remedial action plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REF reference sediment
RPD relative percent difference
RRH rapidly rendered harmless
RSD relative standard deviation
SAB Science Advisory Board
SAG Science Advisory Group
SAP sampling and analysis plan
SEC sediment effect concentration
SEL severe effect level
SEM simultaneously extracted metals
SEM - AVS simultaneously extracted metal minus acid volatile sulfides
SET AC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SLCA Screening Level Concentration Approach
SMS sediment management standards
SOD sediment oxygen demand
SPMD semipermeable membrane device
SQAL sediment quality advisory levels
SQC sediment quality criteria
SQG sediment quality guideline
SQRO sediment quality remediation objectives
SQS sediment quality standard
SSLC species screening level concentration
SSZ sediment sampling zone
STP sewage treatment plant
SVOC semi-volatile organic chemical
T toxic
TEC threshold effect concentration
TEL threshold effect level
TEL-HA28 threshold effect level for Hyalella azteca; 28 day test
TET toxic effect threshold
TIE toxicity identification evaluation
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS - xv
TMDL
TOC
tPAH
TRA
TRG
TRY
TSCA
USAGE
USDOI
USEPA
USFWS
USGS
VOC
WDOE
WMA
WQC
WQS
WW
total maximum daily load
total organic carbon
total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Tissue Residue Approach
tissue residue guideline
toxicity reference values
Toxic Substances Control Act
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Department of the Interior
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Geological Survey
volatile organic compound
Washington Department of Ecology
Waste Management Act
water quality criteria
water quality standards
wet weight
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS - xvi
Glossary of Terms
Acute toxicity-1\\Q response of an organism to short-term exposure to a chemical substance.
Lethality is the response that is most commonly measured in acute toxicity tests.
Acute toxicity threshold- The concentration of a substance above which adverse effects are
likely to be observed in short-term toxicity tests.
Altered benthic invertebrate community - An assemblage of benthic invertebrates that has
characteristics (i.e., mlBI score, abundance of EPT taxa) that are outside the normal
range that has been observed at uncontaminated reference sites.
Aquatic ecosystem - All the living and nonliving material interacting within an aquatic
system (e.g., pond, lake, river, ocean).
Aquatic invertebrates - Animals without backbones that utilize habitats in freshwater,
estuaries, or marine systems.
Aquatic organisms - The species that utilize habitats within aquatic ecosystems (e.g., aquatic
plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians and reptiles).
Benthic invertebrate community-The assemblage of various species of sediment-dwelling
organisms that are found within an aquatic ecosystem.
Bioaccumulation - The net accumulation of a substance by an organism as a result of uptake
from all environmental sources.
Bioaccumulation-based sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) - Sediment quality guidelines
that are established to protect fish, aquatic-dependent wildlife, and human health against
effects that are associated with the bioaccumulation of contaminants in sediment-
dwelling organisms and subsequent food web transfer.
Bioaccumulative substances - The chemicals that tend to accumulate in the tissues of aquatic
and terrestrial organisms.
Bioavailability - Degree to which a chemical can be absorbed by and/or interact with an
organism.
Bioconcentration - The accumulation of a chemical in the tissues of an organism as a result
of direct exposure to the surrounding medium (e.g., water; i.e., it does not include food
web transfer).
Biomagnification - The accumulation of a chemical in the tissues of an organism as a result
of food web transfer.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS - xvii
Chemical benchmark - Guidelines for water or sediment quality which define the
concentration of contaminants that are associated with low or high probabilities of
observing harmful biological effects, depending on the narrative intent.
Chemical of potential concern - A substance that has the potential to adversely affect surface
water or biological resources.
Chronic toxicity - The response of an organism to long-term exposure to a chemical
substance. Among others, the responses that are often measured in chronic toxicity tests
include lethality, decreased growth, and impaired reproduction.
Chronic toxicity threshold- The concentration of a substance above which adverse effects
are likely to be observed in long-term toxicity tests.
Congener - A member of a group of chemicals with similar chemical structures (e.g.,
PCDDs generally refers to a group of 75 congeners that consist of two benzene rings
connected to each other by two oxygen bridges).
Consensus-based probable effect concentrations (PECs) - The PECs that were developed
from published sediment quality guidelines and identify contaminant concentrations
above which adverse biological effects are likely to occur.
Consensus-based threshold effect concentrations (TECs) - The TECs that were developed
from published sediment quality guidelines and identify contaminant concentrations
below which adverse biological effects are unlikely to occur.
Contaminants of concern (COC) - The substances that occur in environmental media at
levels that pose a risk to ecological receptors or human health.
Contaminated sediment - Sediment that contains chemical substances at concentrations that
could potentially harm sediment-dwelling organisms, wildlife, or human health.
Conventional variables - A number of variables that are commonly measured in water
and/or sediment quality assessments, including water hardness, conductivity, total
organic carbon (TOC), sediment oxygen demand (SOD), unionized ammonia (NH3),
temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, alkalinity
Core sampler - A device that is used to collect both surficial and sub-surface sediment
samples by driving a hollow corer into the sediments.
Degradation - A breakdown of a molecule into smaller molecules or atoms.
DELT abnormalities - A number of variables that are measured to assess fish health,
including deformities, fin erosion, lesions, and tumors.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS - xviii
Diagenesis - The sum of the physical and chemical changes that take place in sediments
after its initial deposition (before they become consolidated into rocks, excluding all
metamorphic changes).
Discharge - Discharge of oil as defined in Section 31 l(a)(2) o f the Clean Water Act, and
includes, but is not limited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting,
emptying, or dumping of oil.
Ecosystem - All the living (e.g., plants, animals, and humans) and nonliving (rocks,
sediments, soil, water, and air) material interacting within a specified location in time and
space.
Ecosystem-based management - An approach that integrates the management of natural
landscapes, ecological processes, physical and biological components, and human
activities to maintain or enhance the integrity of an ecosystem. This approach places
equal emphasis on concerns related to the environment, the economy, and the community
(also called the ecosystem approach).
Ecosystem goals - Are broad management goals which describe the long-term vision that has
been established for the ecosystem.
Ecosystem metrics - Identify quantifiable attributes of the indicators and defines acceptable
ranges, or targets, for these variables.
Ecosystem objectives - Are developed for the various components of the ecosystem to clarify
the scope and intent of the ecosystem goals. These objectives should include target
schedules for being achieved.
Endpoint - A measured response of a receptor to a stressor. An endpoint can be measured
in a toxicity test or in a field survey.
Epibenthic organisms - The organisms that live on the surface of sediments.
Exposure - Co-occurrence of or contact between a stressor (e.g., chemical substance) and an
ecological component (e.g., aquatic organism).
Grab (Dredge) samplers - A device that is used to collect surficial sediments through a
scooping mechanism (e.g. petite ponar dredge).
Hazardous substance - Hazardous substance as defined in Section 101(14) of CERCLA.
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS - xix
Index of biotic integrity (IBI) - A parameter that is used to evaluate the status of fish
communities. The IBI integrates information on species composition (i.e., total number
of species, types of species, percent sensitive species, and percent tolerant species), on
trophic composition (i.e., percent omnivores, percent insectivores, and percent pioneer
species), and on fish condition.
Infaunal organisms - The organisms that live in sediments.
Injury - A measurable adverse change, either long or short-term, in the chemical or physical
quality or the viability of a natural resource resulting either directly or indirectly from
exposure to a discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance, or exposure to a
product of reactions resulting from the discharge to oil or release of a hazardous
substance. As used in this part, injury encompasses the phrases "injury", "destruction",
and "loss". Injury definitions applicable to specific resources are provided in Section
11.62 of this part (this definition is from the Department of the Interior Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Regulations).
Macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (mlBI) - The mffil was used to provide
information on the overall structure of benthic invertebrate communities. The scoring
criteria for this metric includes such variables as number of taxa, percent dominant taxa,
relative abundance of EPT taxa, and abundance of chironomids.
Mean probable effect concentration-quotient (PEC-Q) - A measure of the overall level of
chemical contamination in a sediment, which is calculated by averaging the individual
quotients for select chemicals of interest.
Natural resources - Land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water
supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by,
appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the federal government (including the
resources of the fishery conservation zone established by the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976), State or local government, or any foreign
government and Indian tribe. These natural resource have been categorized into the
following five groups: surface water resources, ground water resources, air resources,
geologic resources, and biological resources.
Natural resources damage assessment and restoration - The process of collecting,
compiling, and analyzing information, statistics, or data through prescribed
methodologies to determine damages for injuries to natural resources as set forth in this
part.
Neoplastic - Refers to abnormal new growth.
Oil- Oil as defined in Section 31 l(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act, of any kind or in any form,
including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with
wastes other that dredged spoil.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS - xx
Piscivorus wildlife species - The wildlife species that consume fish as part of all of their
diets (e.g., herons, kingfishers, otter, osprey, and mink).
Population - An aggregate of individual of a species within a specified location in time and
space.
Pore water - The water that occupies the spaces between sediment particles.
Probable effect concentration (PEC) - Concentration of a chemical in sediment above which
adverse biological effects are likely to occur.
Probable effect concentration-quotient (PEC-Q) - A PEC-Q is a measure of the level of
chemical contamination in sediment relative to a sediment quality guideline, and is
calculated by dividing the measured concentration of a substance in a sediment sample
by the corresponding PEC.
Receptor - A plant or animal that may be exposed to a stressor.
Release - A release of a hazardous substance as defined in Section 101(22) of CERCLA.
Sediment - Particulate material that usually lies below water.
Sediment-associated contaminants - Contaminants that are present in sediments, including
whole sediments or pore water.
Sediment chemistry data - Information on the concentrations of chemical substances in
whole sediments or pore water.
Sediment-dwelling organisms - The organisms that live in, on, or near bottom sediments,
including both epibenthic and infaunal species.
Sediment injury - The presence of conditions that have injured or are sufficient to injure
sediment-dwelling organisms, wildlife, or human health.
Sediment quality guideline - Chemical benchmark that is intended to define the
concentration of sediment-associated contaminants that is associated with a high or a low
probability of observing harmful biological effects or unacceptable levels of
bioaccumulation, depending on its purpose and narrative intent.
Sediment quality targets - Chemical or biological benchmarks for assessing the status of
each metric.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS - xxi
Simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) - Divalent metals - commonly cadmium, copper,
lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc - that form less soluble sulfides than does iron or
manganese and are solubilized during the acidification step (0.5m HC1 for 1 hour) used
in the determination of acid volatile sulfides in sediments.
Stressor - Physical, chemical, or biological entities that can induce adverse effects on
ecological receptors or human health.
Surface water resources - The waters of North America, including the sediments suspended
in water or lying on the bank, bed, or shoreline and sediments in or transported through
coastal and marine areas. This term does not include ground water or water or sediments
in ponds, lakes, or reservoirs designed for waste treatment under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6987 or the Clean
Water Act, and applicable regulations.
Threshold effect concentration (TEC) - Concentration of a chemical in sediment below
which adverse biological effects are unlikely to occur.
Tissue - A group of cells, along with the associated intercellular substances, which perform
the same function within a multicellular organism.
Tissue residue guideline (TRG) - Chemical benchmark that is intended to define the
concentration of a substance in the tissues offish or invertebrates that will protect fish-
eating wildlife against effects that are associated with dietary exposure to hazardous
substances.
Trophic level - A portion of the food web at which groups of animals have similar feeding
strategies.
Trustee - Any Federal natural resources management agency designated in the National
Contingency Plan and any State agency designated by the Governor of each State,
pursuant to Section 107(f)(2)(B) of CERCLA, that may prosecute claims for damages
under Section 107(f) or 11 l(b) of CERCLA; or any Indian tribe, that may commence an
action under Section 126(d) of CERCLA.
Wildlife - The fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals that are associated with aquatic
ecosystems.
Whole sediment - Sediment and associated pore water.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - xxii
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of a number of individuals who contributed to the
preparation of 'A Guidance Manual to Support the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments in
Freshwater Ecosystems'. First, we would like to thank the members of the Science Advisory Group
on Sediment Quality Assessment for their insight and guidance on the need for and elements of this
Guidance Manual. We would also like to thank the instructors of the various short courses on
sediment quality assessment for providing access to instructional materials that provided a
conceptual basis for many of the sections included in the Guidance Manual. Furthermore, we would
like to express our sincerest appreciation to the members of the project Steering Committee for
providing oversight and excellent review comments on previous drafts of this report. The Steering
Committee consisted of the following individuals:
Tom Balduf (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency)
Walter Berry (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Kelly Burch (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection)
Scott Cieniawski (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Demaree Collier (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Judy Crane (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)
William Creal (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality)
Bonnie Eleder (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Frank Estabrooks (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation)
John Estenik (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency)
Jay Field (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Scott Ireland (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Roger Jones (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality)
Peter Landrum (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Lee Liebenstein (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
Mike MacFarlane (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection)
Jan Miller (United States Army Corps of Engineers)
T.J. Miller (United States Fish and Wildlife Service)
Dave Mount (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Gail Sloane (Florida Department of Environmental Protection Agency)
Eric Stern (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Marc Tuchman (United States Environmental Protection Agency)
Karen Woodfield (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation)
Finally, timely review comments on the final draft of the Guidance Manual were provided by Scott
Cieniawski, Demaree Collier, Marc Tuchman, Scott Ireland, Bonnie Eleder, Jay Field, Judy Crane,
and Mike Macfarlane. Development of this Guidance Manual was supported in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National Program Office through the grant
"Development of a Guidance Manual for Sediment Assessment", Grant Number GL995632-01,
awarded to the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation. Additional funding to support the preparation of
this report was provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the British
Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. This report has been reviewed in accordance
with United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological Survey, and
Sustainable Fisheries Foundation policies.
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
INTRODUCTION - PAGE 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
In response to concerns raised regarding contaminated sediments, a number of programs have
been established or expanded to support the assessment and management of contaminated
sediments in the United States and Canada (Appendix 1 of Volume II). The information
generated under these programs provides important guidance for designing and implementing
investigations at sites with contaminated sediments (see USEPA 1994a; MacDonald 1994a;
1994b; Reynoldson et al. 2000; Ingersoll et al. 1997; USEPA and USAGE 1998a; ASTM
2001a; USEPA 2000a; Krantzberg et al. 2001). While these guidance documents have
unquestionably advanced the field of sediment quality assessment, the users of these
individual guidance documents have expressed a need to consolidate this information into
an integrated ecosystem-based framework for assessing and managing sediment quality in
freshwater ecosystems.
This guidance manual, which comprises a three-volume series and was developed for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, is not intended to
supplant the existing guidance documents on sediment quality assessment (e.g., USEPA
1994a; Reynoldson et al. 2000; USEPA and US ACE 1998a; USEPA2000a; ASTM 200 la;
Krantzberg et al. 2001). Rather, this guidance manual is intended to further support the
design and implementation of assessments of sediment quality conditions by:
• Presenting an ecosystem-based framework for assessing and managing
contaminated sediments (Volume I);
• Describing the recommended procedures for designing and implementing
sediment quality investigations (Volume II); and,
• Describing the recommended procedures for interpreting the results of sediment
quality investigations (Volume III).
The first volume of the guidance manual, An Ecosystem-Based Framework for Assessing
andManaging Contaminated Sediments in Freshwater Ecosystems, describes the five step
process recommended to support the assessment and management of sediment quality
conditions (i.e., relative to sediment-dwelling organisms, aquatic-dependent wildlife, and
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
INTRODUCTION - PAGE 2
human health). Importantly, the document provides an overview of the framework for
ecosystem-based sediment quality assessment and management (Chapter 2). The
recommended procedures for identifying sediment quality issues and concerns and compiling
the existing knowledge base are described (Chapter 3). Furthermore, the recommended
procedures for establishing ecosystem goals, ecosystem health objectives, and sediment
management objectives are presented (Chapter 4). Finally, methods for selecting ecosystem
health indicators, metrics, and targets for assessing contaminated sediments are described
(Chapter 5). Together, this guidance is intended to support planning activities related to
contaminated sediment assessments, such that the resultant data are likely to support
sediment management decisions at the site under investigation. More detailed information
on these and other topics related to the assessment and management of contaminated
sediments can be found in the publications that are listed in the Bibliography of Relevant
Publications (Appendix 2).
The second volume of the series, Design and Implementation of Sediment Quality
Investigations., describes the recommended procedures for designing and implementing
sediment quality assessment programs. More specifically, an overview of the recommended
framework for assessing and managing sediment quality conditions is presented in this
document (Chapter 2). In addition, Volume II describes the recommended procedures for
conducting preliminary and detailed site investigations to assess sediment quality conditions
(Chapters 3 and 4). Furthermore, the factors that need to be considered in the development
of sampling and analysis plans for assessing contaminated sediments are described (Chapter
5). Supplemental guidance on the design of sediment sampling programs, on the evaluation
of sediment quality data, and on the management of contaminated sediment is provided in
the Appendices to Volume II. The Appendices of this document also describe the types and
objectives of sediment quality assessments that are commonly conducted in freshwater
ecosystems.
The third volume in the series, Interpretation of the Results of Sediment Quality
Investigations, describes the four types of indicators that are commonly used to assess
contaminated sediments, including sediment and pore-water chemistry data (Chapter 2),
sediment toxicity data (Chapter 3), benthic invertebrate community structure data (Chapter
4), and bioaccumulation data (Chapter 5). Some of the other indicators that can be used to
support assessments of sediment quality conditions are also described (e.g., fish health
assessments; Chapter 6). The information compiled on each of the indicators includes:
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
INTRODUCTION - PAGE 3
descriptions of its applications, advantages, and limitations; discussions on the availability
of standard methods, the evaluation of data quality, methodological uncertainty, and the
interpretation of associated data; and, recommendations to guide its use. Furthermore,
guidance is provided on the interpretation of data on multiple indicators of sediment quality
conditions (Chapter 7). Together, the information provided in the three-volume series is
intended to further support the design and implementation of focused sediment quality
assessment programs.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SQCs - PAGE 4
Chapter 2. Recommended Framework for Assessing and
Managing Sediment Quality Conditions
2.0 Introduction
Guidance on the design and implementation of sediment quality investigations is available
from a number of sources (e.g., WDOE 1995; USEPA 1994a; 1998a; 1999b; 2000a; USEPA
and USAGE 1998a; ASTM 200la). Based on a review of the guidance generated to date,
the following framework was developed to assist in the design and implementation of
efficient and effective sediment quality assessments. This framework identifies the steps that
should be followed in conducting site-specific sediment quality assessment programs and
comprises the following elements (Figure 1):
• Identifying sediment quality issues and concerns;
• Evaluating existing sediment quality data;
• Designing and implementing preliminary and detailed site assessments;
• Developing and implementing remedial action plans; and,
• Conducting confirmatory monitoring and assessment.
The recommended framework is intended to provide general guidance to support the
sediment quality assessment process (Figure 2). More detailed guidance on preliminary and
detailed site investigations is provided in Chapter 3 (Figures 3 and 4) and Chapter 4 (Figure
5) of Volume II, respectively. Importantly, this guidance is not intended to supplant any
program-specific guidance that has been developed previously (e.g., USEPA 1997a).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SQCs - PAGES
2.1 Identify Sediment Quality Issues and Concerns
The first phase of a site-specific sediment quality assessment involves the evaluation of
sediment issues and concerns at the area (or site) under investigation (see Chapter 3 of
Volume I for additional information). As a first step in this process, the pertinent historical
information on the area under consideration is collected and reviewed. More specifically,
information is required on the types of industries and businesses that operate or have
operated in the area, on the location of wastewater treatment plants, on land use patterns in
upland areas, on stormwater drainage systems, on residential developments, and on other
historic, ongoing, and potential activities within the area. These data provide a basis for
identifying potential contaminant sources in the area. Information on the chemical
composition of wastewater effluent discharges, types of substances likely to be associated
with non-point sources, and physical/chemical properties [e.g., octanol-water partition
coefficients (Kow), organic carbon partition coefficients (Koc), solubility] of those substances
provides a basis for developing an initial list of chemical of potential concern (COPCs; i.e.,
the substances that could be posing risks or hazards to ecological receptors or human health)
at the site. By evaluating the probable environmental fate of these COPCs, it is possible to
establish a list of COPCs and areas of interest with respect to sediment contamination at the
site (Figure 3).
In addition to information on contaminant sources, information should be collected that helps
define the ecosystem health goals and objectives (if these have not already been defined;
Chapter 4 of Volume I). In many jurisdictions, protection and restoration of the designated
uses of the aquatic ecosystem represents a primary ecosystem health goal for areas of
concern. As such, ecosystem goals in freshwater systems may be based on protection of the
ecosystem as a whole, maintenance of viable populations of sportfish species, protection of
human health (e.g., swimmable and fishable), or a variety of other considerations (e.g.,
regional stormwater management, industrial development). In turn, information on existing
uses of the site provides a basis for making decisions regarding the nature and extent of the
investigations that should be conducted at the site. Mudroch and McKnight (1991), Baudo
and Muntau (1990) and MacDonald (1989) provide detailed descriptions of the types of
background information (e.g., location and nature of industrial facilities, location and
characteristics of point source effluent discharges, location of stormwater discharges, land
and water uses in the vicinity of the site, and location of sediment deposit!onal zones) that
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SQCs - PAGE 6
should be obtained and guidance on how these data may be used to help define sediment
quality issues and concerns.
The existing data on the various indicators selected for assessing sediment quality conditions
should also be collected and collated at this stage of the process. Such data may include
information on sediment chemistry, tissue chemistry, sediment toxicity, benthic invertebrate
and fish community structure, fish health, and the presence offish consumption advisories
(see Volume in for more information on each of these indicators). State, tribal, federal, and
provincial agencies represent primary sources of such data; however, industrial interests,
local governments, and environmental groups should not be overlooked.
2.2 Evaluating Existing Sediment Chemistry Information
Acquisition and evaluation of existing sediment quality data is a critical component of the
sediment quality assessment process. Because such data may have been collected under a
variety of programs and for a number of reasons, it is essential that these data be fully
evaluated to determine their applicability in the sediment quality assessment process. This
evaluation should cover the overall quality of the data set (i.e., relative to project data quality
objectives; DQOs) and the degree to which the data are thought to represent current
conditions at the site under consideration.
Concerns regarding data quality may be resolved by evaluating the quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) measures that were implemented during collection, transport, and analysis
of sediment samples (Appendix 3 of Volume II). A number of conventions have been
established to provide guidance on the field aspects of sediment sampling programs (USEPA
and USAGE 1998a; ASTM 2001 c; USEPA 2001 a); this guidance can be used to evaluate the
sample collection, handling, and transport procedures used in previous investigations. A
diversity of standardized analytical procedures have been developed to quantify
concentrations of COPCs in sediments (e.g., USEPA and USAGE 1991; APHA etal 1998;
see Chapter 2 of Volume HI). However, explicit adherence to standard methods does not
necessarily assure that project DQOs will be met. For this reason, evaluating the
performance of analytical laboratories using the quality assurance data generated during the
investigation is essential. More specifically, analytical results may be evaluated based on the
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SQCs - PAGE 7
reported accuracy and precision of the technique (i.e., the results of analyses performed on
certified reference materials, and on split and spiked sediment samples; USEPA 1994a).
Analytical detection limits are also relevant to the assessment of potential biological effects
at the site. The suitability of the detection limits may be assessed by comparing them with
the threshold effect concentration (TEC)-type SQGs for that substance (MacDonald et al.
2000). Criteria for evaluating the applicability of candidate data sets for use in sediment
quality assessments are presented in Appendix 4 of Volume III.
Assessment of sediment quality conditions requires information that adequately represents
the contemporary environmental conditions at the site under consideration. Therefore, the
age of the data is a central question with respect to determining the applicability of the data.
Natural degradative processes in sediments can lead to reductions in the concentrations of
certain organic COPCs over time (Mosello and Calderoni 1990). Major events (such as
storms) can result in the transport of sediments between sites, while industrial developments
and/or regulatory activities can alter the sources and composition of COPCs released into the
environment over time. Thus, it is important that assessments of sediment quality be
undertaken with the most recent data available. In many cases, new data will need to be
collected to support such assessments if the existing data is of questionable relevance (i.e.,
> 10 years old).
In addition to temporal variability, the sediment quality is known to vary significantly on a
spatial basis (Long et al. 1991; 1996). Therefore, any single sample is likely to represent
only a small proportion of the geographic area in which it was collected. For this reason,
data from a number of stations should be available to provide a representative picture of
sediment quality conditions at the site, with the actual number of stations required dependent
on the size of the area under consideration, the concentrations of sediment-associated
COPCs, and the variability of COPC concentrations (see Appendix 3 of Volume n for more
information for assessing the extent to which data sets represent sediment quality conditions
at a site).
Another important factor to consider in evaluating the applicability of existing sediment
quality data is the list of variables that were analyzed. It is important that the list of analytes
reflects the existing and historical contaminant sources from land and water use activities in
the area (Table 1). In harbors, for example, variables such as pentachlorophenol (which is
often used as a preservative for pilings), tributyltin (which is often used in antifouling paints
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SQCs - PAGES
for ships), and copper (which is often used in antifouling paints for pleasure craft) should be
measured. Similarly, elevated concentrations of poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and lead are frequently observed in sediments in the vicinity of urban stormwater discharges.
In agricultural areas, persistent pesticides and nutrients should be considered in sediment
quality assessments. At minimum, data on the levels of metals, PAHs, and polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCBs) are needed to assess sediment contamination at most sites. It is also
important to determine if the available biological effects data (e.g., acute toxicity tests) are
relevant for determining if the management objectives established for the site have been
compromised by contaminated sediments (i.e., the results of chronic toxicity tests and/or
benthic invertebrate community assessments are usually needed to determine if sediment-
dwelling organisms are likely to be or have been adversely affected by sediment
contamination).
Development of a project database is an important element of the overall sediment quality
assessment process. Designing and populating the project database early in the process (i.e.,
during the collation of existing information) is beneficial to support the evaluation of current
conditions and the identification of any additional investigations that may be needed at the
site. In general, a relational database format is the most flexible for conducting subsequent
analyses of the historic data (Field et al. 1999; 2002; Crane et al. 2000). Importantly, the
format of the database should support linkage to various analytical tools, such as NOAA's
Query Manager and Marplot applications and ESRI's Spatial Analyst and Arc View
applications (MacDonald and Ingersoll 2000).
If the results of the data evaluation process indicate that sufficient quantities of acceptable
quality data are available, then initiating the data interpretation process is possible. However,
if the sediment chemistry or other historical effects data are considered to be of unacceptable
quality or are not considered to adequately represent the site, additional data may be required
to complete the sediment quality assessment. Such data gaps may be addressed by
conducting additional sampling to acquire the data needed to support a preliminary site
investigation (Section 2.3 and Chapter 3 of Volume II) and/or a detailed site investigation
(Section 2.4 and Chapter 4 of Volume II).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SQCs - PAGE 9
2.3 Conducting a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI)
The term PSI is used to describe a screening level-type investigation (e.g.,screening-level
ecological risk assessment; SERA; Figures 3 and 4). A PSI should be conducted at any site
suspected of having contaminated sediments. The PSI is intended to provide information for
assessing the probability that adverse effects can be attributed to elevated concentrations of
contaminants in sediments at the site. A PSI may be conducted using historical data (if
deemed adequate) or by collecting additional data to fill any identified data gaps. In the PSI,
evaluations of sediment quality conditions typically rely on sediment chemistry data alone
(although other types of data can be used if available).
The first stage of the PSI involves the use of historical records, interviews with local
individuals, reconnaissance trips, and related activities to ascertain if sediments are likely to
be contaminated, to identify which locations are most likely to be affected, and to determine
which substances are likely to occur in sediments at the site (Figure 3). If sufficient
information is available and the results indicate that sediment contamination is unlikely, then
no further investigations are required at the site. However, further investigation is required
if insufficient information is available to evaluate the potential for sediment contamination
and/or if the available information indicates that the site is likely to contain contaminated
sediments (see Chapter 3 of Volume II).
The second stage of the PSI is undertaken to provide information on the general location of
contaminated sediments at the site and determine the degree of any contamination that exists
(Figure 4). This step in the PSI generally consists of three main activities, including design
and implementation of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP; which may utilize random and/or
biased sampling designs; Chapter 5 of Volume II), chemical analysis of the samples to
determine the concentrations of COPCs, and comparison of the ambient concentrations of
COPCs to selected targets for sediment quality assessment. Numerical, effects-based SQGs
(such as those reported by MacDonald et al. 2000; USEPA 2000a) are particularly useful in
this application because they provide a basis for estimating the probability of observing
sediment toxicity in samples with various chemical characteristics. In addition
bioaccumulation-based SQGs can be used to evaluate potential effects of bioaccumulation
of sediment-associated COPCs on aquatic-dependent wildlife or human health (e.g.,
NYSDEC 1999; Section 4.1.4). These activities need to be directed through the development
of a SAP, which includes a quality assurance project plan (QAPP; see WDOE 1995 for more
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SOCs - PAGE 10
information on the development of a SAP; guidance on the development of a QAPP is
provided in USEPA 1991a; 1991b; 1991c; 1991d; 2000b; also see Section 3.2.1 and 4.1.6
of Volume II). No further investigations are required if the results of the PSI indicate that
it is unlikely that COPCs at the site are adversely affecting sediment-dwelling organisms,
wildlife, or human health. However, a more detailed site investigation should be conducted
if the results of the PSI indicate that sediments may be contaminated by toxic and/or
bioaccumulative substances at levels that are likely to adversely affect sediment-dwelling
organisms, wildlife, or human health.
2.4 Conducting a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI)
A DSI should be conducted when the results of the PSI indicate that a site contains or is
likely to contain concentrations of contaminants in sediments that are adversely affecting
sediment-dwelling organisms, wildlife, or human health. In this context, the term DSI is
used to describe various types of detailed investigations that are conducted under specific
programs [e.g., baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) or human health risk assessment
(HHRA); USEPA 1997a]. The DSI is intended to provide detailed information on the site,
including:
• The identity of the substances that are causing or substantially contributing to
adverse effects on ecological receptors or human health (i.e., contaminants of
concern; COCs);
• The magnitude and areal extent of sediment contamination at the site; and,
• The potential for and/or actual effects of contaminated sediments on ecological
receptors and/or human health.
By fulfilling these obj ectives, the DSI provides the information needed for assessing the risks
to ecological receptors and/or human health posed by contaminated sediments and for
developing a remedial action plan (RAP) for the site, if required (Figure 5). In many ways,
the DSI is an extension of the Stage II PSI. Therefore, combining these two types of
investigations under certain circumstances may be cost-effective (i.e., following the
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SOCs - PAGE 11
completion of a Stage IPSI, which primarily involved compilation and evaluation of existing
sediment quality data and related information).
A number of important and potentially costly decisions are dependent on the results of the
DSL For this reason, it is essential that the DSI be based on a detailed study design, as
articulated in the SAP and the associated QAPP. More specifically, the study should be
designed to confirm or refute the presence of COPCs, to determine the spatial extent of
chemical contamination (both in surficial and in deeper sediments), to identify chemical
gradients (which can be used to identify possible sources of contamination), and to identify
the location of sediment hot spots. While whole-sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity, and
benthic invertebrate community structure are a primary focus of this investigation, the DSI
should also provide data for assessing the nature, severity, and extent of contamination in
surface water, pore water, and biological tissues (including sediment-dwelling organisms,
fish, and wildlife, as appropriate) and for assessing the status offish communities inhabiting
the area. Such information on the levels of COPCs can then be evaluated relative to the
SQGs, water quality criteria (WQC), or tissue residue guidelines (TRGs; Volume III). In this
way, it is possible to identify the COCs at the site.
While the results of chemical analysis of environmental samples provide important
information for assessing the risks that contaminated sediments pose to human health and
environmental receptors, other types of data should also be collected during the DSI to
confirm the results of such assessments and to provide multiple lines of evidence for
assessing risks to ecological receptors. Specifically, data from toxicity (including whole-
sediment and pore-water tests), benthic invertebrate community, and fish community
assessments can provide important information for evaluating the effects of contaminated
sediments on aquatic organisms. In addition, bioaccumulation assessments can be used to
assess the potential effects of COPCs that tend to bioaccumulate in the food web and, in so
doing, pose risks to aquatic-dependent wildlife and/or human health. In designing the DSI,
it is important to remember that the weight of evidence required needs to be proportional to
the weight of the decisions that are likely to be made at the site (D. Mount. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Duluth, Minnesota. Personal communication). More
detailed guidance on the design and implementation of DSIs is presented in Chapter 4 of
Volume n, while supplemental guidance for sampling design is provided in Chapter 5 of
Volume II.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND MANAGING SOCs - PAGE 12
2.5 Remedial Action Planning
The results of the DSI provide the information needed to assess the risks to aquatic
organisms, aquatic-dependent wildlife, and human health associated with exposure to
sediment-associated COPCs. At sites where such risks are not deemed to be significant,
further action is likely to be limited to periodic monitoring to assess trends in environmental
contamination. At other sites, remedial action may be needed to reduce risks to acceptable
levels. Accordingly, a feasibility study is typically conducted following completion of the
DSI to analyze the benefits (i.e., risk reduction), costs, and risks associated with various
remedial options (Suter et al. 2000). The results of the feasibility study, then, provide the
information needed to develop a remedial action plan (RAP) for the site.
Development of an RAP is a critical component of the contaminated site remediation
process. The RAP should contain the results of any investigations conducted on the site,
evaluations of various remediation options (including the results of public consultations), an
evaluation of the potential impacts of the preferred remediation option, and a description of
the monitoring and evaluation procedures that will be employed to assess the efficacy of the
remedial measures. The reader is directed to Zarull et al. (2001), Krantzberg et al. (2000),
Santiago and Pelletier (2001), and Dewees and Schaefer (2001) for more information on
remedial action planning for sites with contaminated sediments.
2.6 Confirmatory Monitoring and Assessment
Sediment quality assessment are typically conducted to determine if sediment contamination
poses unacceptable risks to aquatic organisms, aquatic-dependent wildlife and/or human
health. When the results of such assessments demonstrate that such unacceptable risks exist,
remedial actions may be taken to reduce risks to acceptable levels (i.e., to facilitate
achievement of ecosystem goals and objectives). Because it is difficult to precisely predict
the outcome of remedial measures on an a priori basis, it is important to conduct
confirmatory sampling and analysis to determine if the remedial measures implemented have
achieved the goals identified in the RAP. The procedures for conducting follow-up
monitoring and evaluation are the same as those that would be applied during a DSI.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 13
Chapter 3. Conducting a Preliminary Site Investigation
3.0 Introduction
A PSI should be conducted at all sites that are suspected of containing contaminated
sediments (see Section 2.3 of Volume II). A PSI is typically conducted in two distinct
phases. The first phase of the investigation (i.e., Stage I PSI) is intended to provide the
information needed to more fully assess the potential for sediment contamination at the site
and is conducted using existing information (Figure 3; e.g., preliminary site characterization
and scoping assessment; Suter etal. 2000). The second phase of the investigation (i.e., Stage
II PSI) is intended to provide information on nature, areal extent, and severity of sediment
contamination at the site (Figure 4; e.g., SERA; Suter et al. 2000). The sediment chemistry
data compiled during this process provide essential information for determining if
contaminated sediments pose unacceptable risks to human health and/or to the environment.
The recommended procedures for conducting Stage I and Stage II PSIs for sites with
contaminated sediments are described in the following sections of this chapter.
3.1 Stage I Investigation
The first phase of a site-specific sediment quality assessment involves the collection and
review of historical information on the site under consideration. Specifically, information
is required on the current and historic activities and uses, accidents and spills of chemical
substances, and practices and management relating to potential contamination at the site. It
is also important to obtain information on land use patterns and on the location of effluent
and stormwater discharges in the vicinity of the site to evaluate the potential for
contamination from off-site sources. Existing water quality, effluent quality, and sediment
quality data should also be obtained at this stage of the PSI. This type of information can be
acquired by conducting reconnaissance visits to the site and by conducting interviews with
key individuals, such as current and former owners, occupants, neighbors, managers, and
employees of the facility. Government agency staff represents an important source of
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 14
information on land use practices, designated water uses, contaminant sources, and ambient
environmental conditions in the area.
The data collected during Stage I of the PSI should provide a basis for determining the nature
and location of potential sources of contaminants to aquatic ecosystems. Information on the
chemical composition of wastewater effluent discharges, on the chemicals used in the area,
on the nature of spills and accidents, and on types of substances likely to be associated with
non-point sources should be used to develop a preliminary list of COPCs at the site. The
available information on the physical/chemical properties of the COPCs should then be used
to identify the substances that are likely to partition into sediments (i.e., those with Kows of
>3.5). These substances, then, form the basis of the refined list of COPCs with respect to
sediment quality (Figure 3; see Chapter 3 of Volume I for more information on the
identification of sediment quality issues and concerns).
During the Stage I PSI, information should be collected that helps to define the
environmental management goals for the site. In many watersheds, for example, ecosystem
goals and objectives have been established to guide resource management and restoration
activities and to facilitate cooperation among the various participants. More specific goals
and objectives for managing fine-grained sediments are established based on the legislative
mandates of the responsible agencies. Information on the designated uses of sediment in the
area is also needed to establish narrative management goals for the site (see Volume I of this
guidance manual for more information on the establishment of ecosystem goals and
objectives).
Evaluation of existing sediment chemistry data is a critical component of the site-specific
sediment quality assessment process. Because sediment chemistry data are generated under
various federal, tribal, state, and provincial programs for a variety of purposes, such data
must be fully evaluated to determine their applicability to the sediment quality assessment
that is being conducted. Some of the factors that should be considered in this evaluation
include, sampling procedures, sample handling, transport, and holding procedures, analytical
methods and detection limits, toxicity testing methods, age of the data, geographic
distribution of the sampling stations, and the analytes measured (i.e., relative to the refined
list of COPCs generated). More information on the evaluation of candidate data sets for use
in sediment quality assessments is provided in Appendix 4 of Volume III.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 15
Together, the information collected in the first phase of the PSI should provide a basis for
determining if sediment contamination is likely to represent an unacceptable risk to the
environment or to human health. Sediment contamination should be suspected if toxic or
bioaccumulative substances have been or are likely to have been released into the aquatic
ecosystems at or near the site, or if ambient monitoring data indicate that sediment
contamination has occurred at or near the site (i.e., based on exceedances of SQGs). If the
minimum data requirements have been met and evaluation of these data indicates that
sediment contamination is unlikely, then the need for further action at the site is generally
obviated. If the minimum data requirements have not been met, then the outstanding data
gaps should be identified and preparations for proceeding to the next stage of the process
should be made. Depending on the nature and extent of contamination and on the
complexity of the site, investigators may choose to conduct a Stage n PSI or move directly
to the DSL
3.2 Stage II Investigation
A Stage n PSI is conducted if the results of the Stage I investigation indicate that the
sediments at the site are likely to be contaminated with toxic or bioaccumulative substances.
The second stage of the PSI is intended to provide information on the nature, location, and
magnitude of sediment contamination at the site. The existing sediment chemistry data,
which were assembled in Stage I, may be used in this investigation if they provide suitable
areal coverage, include the substances on the refined list of COPCs, and are of sufficient
quality. However, additional sediment sampling is required when existing data are of
insufficient quality or quantity to support an assessment of sediment quality at a site. The
Stage n PSI consists of two main elements, including the data collection phase and the data
interpretation phase of the investigation.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 16
3.2.1 Data Collection
A Stage n PSI should be conducted when the results of the Stage I PSI indicate that
sediments are likely to be contaminated by toxic and/or bioaccumulative substances, but
insufficient data are available to fully evaluate the nature, areal extent, and severity of
sediment contamination. Therefore, the first step in the Stage II PSI involves designing a
sampling program that will provide the information needed to fill the data gaps identified
during the Phase I PSI. Some of the key steps involved in developing a Phase II PSI SAP
include:
• Map and describe the area to be sampled;
• Map location and extent of sediment depositional zones at the site;
• Map and describe the proposed sampling sites (including latitude and longitude;
both primary and alternate sampling sites should be identified at this stage of the
process, with criteria specified for when alternate sites should be sampled);
• Describe the sediment sampling, handling, and storage procedures that will be
used;
• List the chemical analytes that will be measured in sediment samples and
associated data quality objectives; and,
• Describe the quality assurance procedures that will be used in the field and the
laboratory to assure that the resultant data meet proj ect DQOs (i.e., which should
be included as an appendix to the SAP).
The first step in the development of a contaminated site sampling plan is to define the
boundaries of the sediment sampling zone (SSZ). This step in the process is important
because it defines the area that will be sampled to assess the areal extent of contamination
and to identify sediment hot spots. For the purposes of conducting a Stage II investigation,
it is recommended that the SSZ encompass the area that could, potentially, be contaminated
due to releases of COPCs into receiving waters. The SSZ should extend from a point located
well upstream of the discharge point or source area to a point located downstream of the first
identified depositional area. It is important to note, however, that the SSZ does not, in any
way, indicate the limit of responsibility or liability for contaminated sediments. Instead, it
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 17
provides an operational definition of the area that is most likely to be contaminated by
activities at the site and, hence, the area to be targeted by the Stage II PSI. Because
additional sampling is required if significant contamination is detected near the boundary of
the SSZ, it is usually most efficient to initially define the SSZ broadly (i.e., to avoid the need
to remobilize a sampling team to collect additional data).
Development of a sampling grid is a critical element of the Stage n PSI sampling plan (i.e.,
identification of the location of sampling sites). As the sampling program needs to provide
information on the spatial distribution of chemical contaminants at the site, it is important
that the sampling design consider the results of the Stage I investigation. Two general
sampling designs can be utilized at this stage of the site investigation, including stratified
random sampling and biased sampling (Chapter 5 of Volume II). Stratified random sampling
is recommended when the sediment contamination is suspected but little information is
available on the specific location of potential contaminant sources. By comparison, a biased
sampling design is recommended when the location of probable contaminant sources and
downstream depositional areas are known, largely because identifying sediment hot spots is
more likely using this approach (i.e., areas with elevated contaminant concentrations).
Because characterizing the areal extent of contamination and identifying the location of hot
spots is essential, investigators may collect samples from a relatively large number of sites
and use analyses of indicator variables [e.g., total organic carbon (TOC), total petroleum
hydrocarbons] to identify the samples that will be analyzed for the full suite of COPCs. In
this way, it is possible to maximize the areal coverage of the site using screening chemistry
and, in so doing, optimize the use of resources for chemical analyses. Importantly, the
sampling program should be designed to determine the concentrations of COPCs in both
surficial and deeper sediments.
The sampling and analysis plan should include descriptions of the methods that will be used
to collect, handle, and store sediment samples that are collected for chemical analysis.
Importantly, the collection, handing, and storage of sediment samples should follow
established protocols, such as those developed by the ASTM (200Ic) and USEPA (200la).
To achieve this obj ective, everyone involved in the sampling program should receive training
on these methods before initiating the sampling program. Additional guidance on sediment
sampling is provided by Mudroch and McKnight (1991).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 18
The procedures that will be used to identify and quantify the chemical substances in the
sediment samples should also be described in the SAP. As a first step, a list of substances
for chemical analysis should be compiled from the list of COPCs that was prepared in Stage
I. This list should also include the variables that provide ancillary information for
interpreting the resultant sediment chemistry data (e.g., TOC, AVS, NH3, H2S, Al, Li).
Although the preferred analytical method for each analyte can also be specified in the SAP,
establishing performance-based criteria for evaluating the analytical results may be preferable
in many circumstances. Such criteria, which are articulated in the data quality objectives
(DQOs) established for the investigation, provide analytical laboratories with a clear
understanding of the project analytical requirements and, hence, a basis for selecting and/or
refining methods that will assure that the project DQOs are met.
The procedures that will be applied to assure the overall integrity of the sampling program
and the quality of the resultant data should be described in a QAPP (USEPA 1991a; 1991b;
1991c; 199Id; 2000c). The QAPP, which is typically included as an appendix to the SAP,
should apply to both the field and laboratory components of the program. Some of the
important elements that need to be contained in a QAPP include:
• Project organization and responsibilities;
• Personnel training and instruction;
• Data quality objectives, including the methods that will be used for assessing
precision, accuracy, completeness, representativeness, and comparability of the
data generated;
• Sampling procedures, including sampling equipment, decontamination of
equipment, collection of field duplicates, generation of field blanks, positional
data collection, sample containers, sample identification and labeling, sample
preservation and holding times, field documentation, and field data sheets;
• Sample custody and transportation, including field custody procedures, chain-of-
custody documentation, sample packaging and transport, and laboratory log-in
procedures and documentation;
• Analytical methods, including target detection limits, accuracy, and precision for
each analyte (i.e., DQOs);
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 19
• Data management, validation, analysis, and reporting procedures; and,
Quality assurance report preparation.
Implementation of a focused, well-designed monitoring program will ensure that the resultant
sediment chemistry data will support a defensible sediment quality assessment. More
information on the design of sediment quality sampling programs is provided in Chapter 5
of Volume n, while the elements of sampling and analysis plans are described in Appendix
3 of Volume II.
3.2.2 Data Interpretation
Interpretation of the data collected in the Stage IIPSI should be conducted in three steps. As
a first step, the quality assurance information collected during the sampling program should
be reviewed in light of the acceptance criteria established in the QAPP (see Appendix 3 of
Volume II for more details). This initial evaluation provides a basis for assessing the validity
of the resultant data and determining if additional sampling is required. Any data gaps that
are identified should be documented and used to support the design of the DSI, if required.
In the second step of the data analysis, the sediment chemistry data are compared to the
numerical effects-based SQGs or bioaccumulation-based SQGs that have been established
to protect and/or restore the sediment uses at the site. The results of this analysis provide a
basis for identifying the contaminants that are present in sediments at concentrations that
may be sufficient to impair one or more beneficial uses of the aquatic ecosystem.
Application of mean SQG-quotients provides a basis for estimating the probability that
individual sediment samples would be toxic to sediment-dwelling organisms (MacDonald
etal. 2000; USEPA 2000d; Ingersoll etal 2001). In addition, the results of the Stage IIPSI
provide the data needed to ascertain the locations of sediment hot spots and to assess the
relative hazards posed by each COPC (i.e., by considering the degree to which ambient
concentrations exceed the effects-based or bioaccumulation-based SQGs).
While exceedances of the SQGs provide strong evidence of chemical contamination, it
should be recognized that all or a portion of the exceedances may be associated with elevated
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 20
background concentrations. For this reason, the third step of the data analysis should involve
comparison of the data from the site to regional background concentrations and/or
contemporary background concentrations of each COPC. The substances that exceed both
the SQGs and background levels should be considered to be the contaminants of concern
(COCs) at the site. Some of the methods for determining background concentrations of
metals and organic contaminants are described in Appendix 2 of Volume in of this guidance
manual. Further information on the interpretation of sediment chemistry data is also
provided in Volume III.
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 21
Chapter 4. Conducting a Detailed Site Investigation
4.0 Introduction
A detailed site investigation (DSI) is required if the results of the preliminary site
investigation (PSI; which is conducted using sediment chemistry data) indicate that
sediments are sufficiently contaminated to impair the beneficial uses of the aquatic
ecosystem (i.e., pose unacceptable risks to sediment-dwelling organisms, and aquatic-
dependent wildlife, or human health). The information collected and compiled during the
PSI should be used to design the DSI. As the PSI was conducted to evaluate the nature,
magnitude, and extent of sediment contamination at the site, the results of the investigation
should provide the information needed to identify which substances occur in sediments at
potentially harmful levels (e.g., in excess of the SQGs), describe the range of concentrations
of priority substances, and identify the locations that contain elevated levels of sediment-
associated COPCs. Importantly, the PSI should also provide essential background
information on the site, such as the location of contaminant discharges and spills. As such,
the PSI provides critical information for designing a well-focused DSI.
The DSI is designed to provide the information needed to assess risks to sediment-dwelling
organisms, wildlife, and human health associated with exposure to contaminated sediments.
In addition, the DSI should provide the necessary and sufficient information to support the
evaluation of remedial alternatives and the development of a RAP. Because the results of
the DSI will be used directly to support sediment management decisions, the scope of this
investigation will necessarily be broader than that of a PSI. More specifically, the DSI
should be designed to answer four main questions, including:
• Does the presence of COPCs in whole sediments and/or pore water pose an
unacceptable risk to the receptors under consideration (i.e., sediment-dwelling
organisms, aquatic-dependent wildlife, or human health)?
• What is the nature, severity, and areal extent of the risk to each receptor under
consideration?
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 22
• Which COPCs are causing or substantially contributing to the risk to the receptor
under consideration (i.e., the COCs)?
• What are the concentrations of COPCs, by media type, that are associated with
negligible risk to the receptor under consideration?
The DSI consists of two elements, including the data collection phase and the data
interpretation stage. The following sections of this chapter provide an overview of the
recommended procedures for conducting a DSI. More specific guidance on ecological and
human health risk assessments relative to contaminated sediments are described in other
documents (e.g., Ingersoll et al. 1997; Landis et al. 1997; USEPA 1998b; Wenning and
Ingersoll 2002). More detailed guidance on the design of sampling programs and the
development of sampling and analysis plans is provided in Chapter 5 and Appendix 3 of
Volume II, respectively.
4.1 Collection of Sediment Quality Data
The development of a DSI SAP and associated QAPP represent essential steps in the overall
data collection process. Some of the key steps involved in developing a SAP for the DSI
include (see Chapter 5 of Volume II for more information):
• Map and describe the area to be sampled (i.e., sediment sampling zone; SSZ);
• Determine the data requirements for ecological and human health risk
assessments;
• Map and describe the proposed sampling sites (including latitude and longitude;
both primary and alternate sampling sites should be identified at this stage of the
process, with criteria specified for when alternate sites should be sampled);
• Describe the sediment sampling, handling, and storage procedures that will be
used for obtaining sediment samples for chemical analysis;
• List the chemical analytes that will be measured in sediment samples and
associated data quality objectives;
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 23
Describe the sediment sampling, handling, and storage procedures that will be
used for obtaining sediment samples for toxicity and bioaccumulation testing;
Describe the toxicity tests that will be conducted on the sediment samples,
including the associated description of the selected metrics (e.g., survival and
growth);
Describe the procedures that will be used to assess bioaccumulation;
Describe the procedures that will be used for sampling the benthic invertebrate
community, including associated descriptions of the selected metrics (e.g.,
benthic index); and,
Describe the quality assurance procedures that will be used in the field and the
laboratory to assure that the resultant data meet project DQOs (i.e., which should
be included as an appendix to the sampling plan).
Definition of the SSZ is the first step in the development of a sampling plan for the DSL As
the DSI is designed to provide further information on the areal extent of sediment
contamination, including the extent to which COPCs have been transported to adjoining
properties, the SSZ may be larger than that identified in the PSI. For example, if significant
contamination was found near the boundaries of the SSZ for the PSI, then the SSZ for the
DSI should be expanded substantially to support characterization of the areal extent of
contamination. While near-term sampling costs are likely to be it less if the SSZ for the DSI
is relatively small, additional sampling may be required if the results of the DSI indicate that
contaminated sediments occur at or near the boundaries of the SSZ. Therefore, it may be
more cost-effective to err on the side of inclusiveness when defining the SSZ for the DSI
(i.e., making it larger than what seems absolutely necessary). As was the case for the PSI,
the size of the SSZ does not, in any way, indicate the limit of responsibility or liability for
contaminated sediments. Instead it provides an operational definition of the area that is most
likely to be contaminated by activities at the site.
The second step in the design of a DSI sampling plan is to develop a sampling grid (i.e.,
identify the location of sampling sites). As the DSI needs to provide information on the
specific areas, depths, and magnitude of contamination at the site and in nearby areas, it is
important to review the results of the PSI to identify potential hot spots with respect to
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 24
sediment contamination. In general, a biased sampling design is preferred for the DSI
because it can be used to focus sampling effort on the areas that are most likely to be
contaminated (i.e., by conducting targeted sampling to delineate the location and extent of
hot spot areas). Within the original SSZ (i.e., the area sampled during the PSI), intensive
sampling should be conducted in the vicinity of sediment hot spots to confirm the results of
the PSI, to determine the areal extent of contamination at each hot spot, and to identify
gradients in contaminant concentrations. Outside the original SSZ, biased sampling should
be used to target potential hot spots (i.e., near the contaminated areas within the original
SSZ) and random sampling should be used to investigate the potential for contamination in
other areas.
Importantly, the DSI sampling program should be designed to determine the concentrations
of COPCs in both surficial and deeper sediments. The sampling plan should identify the
location of each site that will be sampled, with decision criteria also provided in the event
that sampling certain sites is not feasible. As the mobilization/demobilization costs
associated with sediment sampling can be substantial, it may be prudent to collect and
archive samples from additional locations during the DSI. This makes it possible to, for
example, analyze samples collected 10m from a hot spot if the samples collected 5 m from
that hot spot show significant contamination. In this way, the costs associated with chemical
analyses can be minimized. However, attention needs to be paid to acceptable holding times
to ensure that only high quality data are generated (ASTM 200la; 200Ic).
The sampling plan should include descriptions of the methods that will be used to collect,
handle, and store sediment samples. These instructions are particularly important in the DSI
because sediment samples are likely to be collected for several purposes, including chemical
analysis, toxicity testing, bioaccumulation assessment, and/or benthic invertebrate
community analyses. As one of the obj ectives of the DSI is to confirm that the contaminated
sediments are actually toxic to sediment-dwelling organisms, it is critical that sediments be
collected in a manner that facilitates the generation of matching sediment chemistry and
biological effects data (i.e., by preparing splits of homogenized sediment samples). The
collection, handing, and storage of sediment samples needs to follow established protocols,
(ASTM 200la; 200Ib; 200Id; USEPA 2000a; 200la). To achieve this objective, everyone
involved in the sampling program should receive specialized training on these methods
before starting the sampling program.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 25
In addition to the foregoing considerations, development of the DSI sampling program
should consider additional factors that apply to each of the key indicators of sediment quality
conditions, including sediment chemistry data, sediment toxicity data, benthic invertebrate
community assessments, and bioaccumulation assessments (Krantzberg et al. 2000). Some
additional considerations that should be taken into account in designing the DSI sampling
program are discussed in the following sections. Additional guidance on each of these
indicators is provided in Volume III.
4.1.1 Sediment Chemistry
The procedures that will be used to identify and quantify the chemical substances in the
sediment samples should be described in the sampling and analysis plan (see Chapter 2 of
Volume in for more information). As a first step, a list of substances for chemical analysis
should be compiled using the results of the PSI and other considerations (e.g., substances
used to calculate mean SQG-quotients). This list should also include the variables that
provide ancillary information for interpreting the resultant sediment chemistry data (e.g.,
TOC, AVS, Al, Li). The preferred analytical method for each analyte can also be specified
in the sampling plan; however, it may be more prudent to let the analytical laboratory select
the methods based on the DQOs for the project. Clearly articulating the data quality
requirements (i.e., accuracy, precision, and detection limits) to the laboratory personnel at
the outset of the project is likely to minimize the potential for problems later.
The procedures that will be used to assess the biological effects associated with contaminated
sediments should also be included in the sampling plan. Biological assessment is an
essential tool for evaluating sediment quality conditions at contaminated sites because it
provides important information for interpreting sediment chemistry data. The five types of
biological assessments that are commonly conducted at sites with contaminated sediments
include toxicity testing, benthic invertebrate community assessments, bioaccumulation
testing, fish health, and fish community structure. More detailed information on each of
these indicators is presented in Volume III of this guidance manual.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 26
4.1.2 Toxicity Testing
The selection of appropriate toxicity tests is an important element of the overall biological
assessment process (Chapter 3 of Volume III). Provision of guidance in this area is
particularly important because various regulatory programs (e.g., dredged material analysis
programs) have developed conventions that may not be directly applicable for DSIs at sites
with contaminated sediments. Because sediment-dwelling organisms are exposed to
contaminated sediments for extended periods, at least one chronic toxicity test on a sensitive
sediment-dwelling organism, in which sub-lethal endpoints are measured, should be included
in the DSL Although several such tests are available, the 28-day whole-sediment toxicity test
with the amphipod, Hyalella azteca, is likely to be relevant in many situations. Survival and
growth are the endpoints measured in this toxicity test (USEPA 2000a; ASTM 200la).
Acute toxicity tests can also be used to assess the toxicity of contaminated sediments to
sediment-dwelling organisms. However, the results of such tests must be interpreted with
caution due to the potential for obtaining false negative results (i.e., erroneous concluding
that contaminated sediments are unlikely to adversely affect sediment-dwelling organisms).
Amphipods (Hyalella aztecd) and midges (Chironomus riparius and Chironomus tentans)
are the invertebrate species most commonly used in acute toxicity tests (ASTM 200la;
USEPA 2000a). Pore-water toxicity assessments can also be used to provide further
information on the toxicity of contaminated sediments. There is no standardized test for
assessing the effects of pore water in freshwater sediments; however, bacteria, amphipods,
daphnids, and other species have been used successfully to assess toxicity in this medium
(ASTM 200Ib).
4.1.3 Benthic Invertebrate Community Assessments
A wide variety of techniques have been used to evaluate the effects of contaminated
sediments on benthic invertebrate communities (see Rosenberg and Resh 1993; Ingersoll et
al. 1997). These techniques can be classified into four general categories based on the level
of organization considered (Chapter 4 of Volume III). The assessments are reliant on
measurements of endpoints that are relevant to the following organizational scales:
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 27
• Individual (e.g., morphological changes, biomarkers);
• Population (e.g., abundance of keystone species; population age/size structure);
Community structure (e.g., benthic index, multivariate analyses); and,
• Community function (e.g., energy transfer, functional groups).
All of the various measurement endpoints are evaluated based on departure from an expected
or predicted condition (such as observations made at appropriate reference sites).
Uncertainty in the application of these techniques stems from incomplete knowledge of the
system (i.e., what represents normal conditions); systematic error in the method being used;
and, the sampling scale selected (Ingersoll etal. 1997). Of the organization scales evaluated,
the measurement endpoints which provide information on the status of invertebrate
populations and community structure were considered to be the most reliable (Reynoldson
etal. 1995; Ingersoll etal. 1997).
4.1.4 Bio accumulation Assessments
Bioaccumulation assessments are used to evaluate the extent to which sediment-associated
COPCs accumulate in the tissues of sediment-dwelling organisms (see Chapter 5 of Volume
in for additional information on bioaccumulation assessments; ASTM 200 Id). In laboratory
bioaccumulation tests, individuals of a single species are exposed to field-collected
sediments under controlled conditions. After an established period of exposure (usually 28
days), the tissues of the test species are analyzed to determine the concentrations of COPCs.
Bioaccumulation is considered to have occurred if the final concentrations of the COPCs in
tissues exceed the concentrations that were measured in tissue at the beginning of the test or
in the tissues of organisms exposed to control sediments. In field investigations, sediment-
dwelling organisms may be collected at the site under consideration and their tissues
analyzed for the COPCs. Alternatively, organisms can be transplanted to the site from an
uncontaminated location and the tissues analyzed for COPCs after a predetermined exposure
period (e.g., caged mussels; ASTM 2001e). Modeling procedures can also be used to
estimate the concentrations of contaminants that could accumulate in the tissues of aquatic
organisms as a result of exposure to contaminated sediments.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 28
An expert panel evaluated the uncertainty associated with all four of the procedures
established for conducting bioaccumulation assessments (Ingersoll et al. 1997). The results
of this evaluation indicate that bioaccumulation is a highly variable endpoint that primarily
provides information on exposure to contaminants. It is particularly useful for determining
the bioavailability of sediment-associated contaminants. Of the four approaches evaluated,
laboratory assessments were considered to be the most reliable and are recommended for
assessing bioaccumulation potential at contaminated sites. The preferred test species for
freshwater bioaccumulation assessments is the oligochaete (Lumbriculus variegatus);
however, many other species may be used in this application (see ASTM 200Id). It should
be noted that such data do not necessarily provide a direct means of estimating tissue
residues in the field. For this reason, it is also recommended that the tissues of resident
species also be collected and analyzed to provide a basis for assessing hazards to human
health and aquatic-dependent wildlife species (i.e., by comparing measured tissue
concentrations to tissue residue guidelines).
4.1.5 Other Tools for Assessing Sediment Quality Conditions
While sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity, benthic invertebrate community structure, and
bioaccumulation data represent the primary tools for assessing sediment quality conditions
in freshwater ecosystems, there are a number of other tools that can be used to support the
sediment quality assessment process. For example, in certain circumstances it may be
necessary to identify the substances that are causing or substantially contributing to the
effects observed in the investigation (i.e., COCs). In these cases, spiked sediment toxicity
tests and/or toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) procedures can be used to help identify
the putative causal agents. In addition, numerical SQGs can be used to assist in the
identification of the substances that are causing or substantially contributing to sediment
toxicity (Wenning and Ingersoll 2002). Furthermore, various data analytical approaches,
such as multiple regression analysis and principal components analysis, can be applied to
identify the substances that are most directly linked to the toxic effects observed in field
collected samples. Some of these tools and their applications are described in Chapter 7 of
Volume III.
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 29
4.1.6 Quality Assurance Project Plan
The sampling and analysis plan for the DSI should include a QAPP that applies to both the
field and laboratory components of the program. Some of the important elements that need
to be contained in a QAPP for a DSI include:
• Project organization and responsibility;
• Personnel training and instruction;
• Quality assurance objectives and methods for assessing precision, accuracy,
completeness, representativeness, and comparability of the data generated;
• Sampling procedures, including sampling equipment, decontamination of
equipment, collection of field duplicates, generation of field blanks, collection
of positional data, sample containers, sample identification and labeling, sample
preservation and holding times, field documentation, and field data sheets;
• Sample handling and preparation procedures for each media type and purpose
(i.e., chemistry, toxicity testing, etc.);
Sample custody and transportation, including field custody procedures, chain-of-
custody documentation, sample packaging and transport, and laboratory log-in
procedures and documentation;
• Analytical methods, including target data quality objectives;
• Toxicity testing procedures, including descriptions of negative controls, positive
controls, and reference samples, and associated criteria for data acceptance;
• Bioaccumulation testing procedures and associated criteria for data acceptance;
• Benthic invertebrates identification and counting procedures and associated
criteria for data acceptance;
• Data management, validation, analysis, and reporting procedures; and,
• Quality assurance report preparation.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 30
Implementation of a well-designed sampling program is likely to provide the data needed to
conduct a comprehensive assessment of sediment quality conditions at the site. More
information on the design of sediment quality sampling programs is provided in Chapter 5
of Volume n, while the elements of sampling and analysis plans are described in Appendix
3 of Volume II.
4.2 Data Interpretation
Interpretation of the data collected in the DSI is more involved than the interpretation of
Stage n PSI data. As was the case for the PSI, the review and evaluation of the quality
assurance information (i.e., in light of the acceptance criteria that were established in the
QAPP) represents the first stage of the data interpretation process. This initial evaluation
provides a basis for assessing the validity of the resultant data and determining if additional
sampling is required.
In the second step of the data analysis process, the data collected in the DSI are compiled and
used to assess exposures to contaminated sediments, the effects of contaminated sediments
on ecological receptors and human health, and the risks posed by contaminated sediments
to beneficial uses of the aquatic ecosystem. The objectives of the exposure assessment are
to identify the receptors at risk, describe the relevant exposure pathways, and determine
intensity and areal extent of the exposure to COPCs. Sediment chemistry data and/or pore-
water chemistry data may be used, in conjunction with applicable benchmarks (e.g., SQGs,
water quality criteria, background levels) to identify the areas, depths, and degree of
contamination at the site and in nearby areas. If significant contamination (i.e., > SQGs) is
observed at or nearby the boundaries of the SSZ (either in surficial sediments or at depth),
then additional sampling may be required to fully characterize the spatial extent of
contamination.
The primary objective of the effects assessment is to describe the nature and severity of
effects that are being caused by contaminated sediments. Sediment chemistry data can also
be used in the effects assessment to estimate the probability that specific types of effects
would be associated with exposure to contaminated sediments (i.e., using the dose-response
relationships established for individual COPCs or groups of COPCs; e.g., Swartz 1999;
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 31
MacDonald et al. 2000; USEPA 2000d; Wenning and Ingersoll 2002). Additionally, the
results of the toxicity tests can be used to determine if sediments with elevated
concentrations of COPCs (i.e., relative to the SQGs) are toxic to aquatic organisms.
Contaminants may be present in relatively unavailable forms or other factors may be
mitigating toxicity at the sites that have elevated chemical concentrations but are not toxic
to sediment-dwelling organisms. The results of benthic invertebrate community assessment
can also be used to evaluate the effects of contaminated sediments on sediment-dwelling
organisms. Agreement among the three measures of adverse biological effects (i.e., the
SQGs, toxicity tests, and benthic assessments) provides strong evidence for identifying the
specific areas and sediment depths that are contaminated to levels that are adversely affecting
or have the potential to adversely affect sediment-dwelling organisms (Chapter 7 of Volume
III).
The data collected in the DSI can also be used to assess the hazards associated with exposure
to bioaccumulative substances at the site. In this assessment, the results of laboratory
bioaccumulation tests provide a basis for identifying which substances are bioavailable and
have the potential to bioaccumulate in the food web. The results of chemical analyses of
biological tissues collected at the site can then be used to confirm the results of the laboratory
bioaccumulation tests. To evaluate the potential effects associated with exposure to
bioaccumulative substances, the tissue residue data can be compared to the tissue residue
guidelines that have been established for the protection of wildlife and human health. In this
way, the chemicals and the locations that pose the greatest hazards to human health and
wildlife can be identified. Integration of the results of the exposure and effects assessments
provides a basis for estimating risks to ecological receptors associated with exposure to
contaminated sediments. A matrix of data interpretation tools relating to various ecological
impairments associated with sediment contamination is provided in Table 2 (Krantzberg et
al. 2000).
The results of the investigations that are conducted during this phase of the project should
be compiled and collated into a comprehensive DSI report. This report should include the
obj ectives of the investigation, provide a summary of the background information on the site,
a description of the study approach, a summary of the existing information on sediment
quality conditions at the site, a description of the methods that were used to generate the new
data, a summary of the results of the investigations, and a discussion of the interpretation of
the resultant data. All of the data collected during the investigation should be compiled in
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
CONDUCTING A DETAILED SITE INVESTIGATION - PAGE 3 2
appendices that facilitate access to and/or re-analysis of the information. The reader is
directed to Volume in of this guidance manual for more information on the interpretation of
data on individual and multiple indicators of sediment quality conditions generated during
the DSL
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE 33
Chapter 5. Developing Sampling and Analysis Plans for
Assessing Sediment Quality Conditions
5.0 Introduction
A primary goal of most sediment quality assessment programs is to determine if the presence
of toxic chemicals in sediment is adversely affecting sediment-dwelling organisms. When
sediments contain bioaccumulative substances, a primary goal of assessment programs is to
determine if these contaminants are accumulating in the tissues of aquatic organisms to such
an extent that they pose a hazard to sediment-dwelling organisms, aquatic-dependent
wildlife, or human health. More specifically, sediment assessments can be used to:
• Determine the relationship between toxic effects and bioavailability;
• Investigate interactions among chemicals;
Compare the sensitivities of different organisms;
• Determine spatial and temporal distribution of contamination;
• Evaluate hazards of dredged material;
• Measure toxicity as part of product licensing or safety testing;
• Rank areas for clean up; and,
• Evaluate the effectiveness of remediation or management practices.
Considering the diversity of reasons for conducting sediment quality assessments and the
variety of programs under which such assessments can be implemented (see Appendix 1 of
Volume II), it is not feasible to provide guidance on the design of sediment quality
assessments that applies uniformly to every application. Therefore, this chapter is intended
to compliment the general guidance that was provided on preliminary and detailed site
investigations (i.e., PSIs - Chapter 3; DSIs - Chapter 4 of Volume II) by identifying the
essential elements of SAPs for assessing contaminated sediments, including:
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE 34
• Background information on the site;
Objectives of the sediment assessment program;
• Field sampling methods;
• Sample handling procedures;
Technical oversight and auditing;
• Quality assurance and quality control procedures;
• Data validation and quality control;
• Data evaluation and validation
• Data analysis, record keeping, and reporting;
• Health and safety; and,
• Responsibilities of the project team members.
Each of these elements of SAPs are briefly described in the following sections of this chapter
(see Table 3 for a sediment sampling and analysis plan outline and checklist). More detailed
information on several key issues related to the design of sampling programs for assessing
contaminated sediments in provided in Appendix 3 of Volume II.
5.1 Background Information
Development of a sampling and analysis plan that explicitly addresses the objectives of the
sediment quality assessment program requires background information on the site under
investigation. The types of background information that should be collected to inform the
design of the sediment quality assessment program include (WDOE 1995):
Site history;
• Regulatory framework (e.g., NPDES, NRDAR, CERCLA; see Appendix 1 of
Volume II);
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE 35
• Results of previous investigations (including data on physical, chemical, and
biological conditions);
• Location and characteristics of historic and current contaminant sources in the
vicinity of the site, including stormwater discharges, wastewater discharges,
hazardous waste storage/disposal, and, hazardous material spills;
• Location of deposit!onal areas; and,
• Designated water uses.
Collectively, this information provides a basis for identifying the sediment quality issues and
concerns at the site, including the COPCs and areas of interest (Chapter 3 of Volume I). This
information also supports the design of a sampling program that characterizes the nature,
extent, and severity of sediment contamination.
Review of available historical data is important both in the selection of sampling stations and
in subsequent data interpretation. Local experts should be consulted to obtain information
on site conditions and on the origin, nature, and degree of contamination. Other potential
sources of information include government agency records, municipal archives, harbor
commission records, news media reports, past geochemical analyses, hydrographic surveys,
and bathymetric maps. Potential sources of contamination should be identified and their
locations noted on a map or chart of the proposed study area. An inspection of the site is
recommended when developing a study plan to assess the completeness and validity of the
collected historical data and to identify any significant changes that might have occurred at
the site since the historical data were collected. Conducting some reconnaissance sampling
to refine the sampling design is also useful (i.e., which may be focused on particle size
distribution, TOC, total petroleum hydrocarbons, or some other suitable indicators of
chemical contamination). Reconnaissance sampling is particularly helpful in defining
appropriate station locations for targeted sampling or to identify appropriate strata for
stratified sampling or subareas for multistage sampling.
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE 36
5.2 Objectives of the Sediment Investigation
The objectives of sediment quality assessments can vary markedly depending on the
regulatory program under which they are conducted. Descriptions of the types and obj ectives
of sediment quality assessments that are being conducted under various regulatory programs
are provided in Appendix 1 of Volume II. In turn, the objectives of the assessment play a
central role in dictating the design of the investigation. For example, certain investigations
may be explicitly designed to assess trends in environmental quality conditions, while others
are designed to evaluate the status of sediment quality conditions. Such differences in
objectives need to be reflected in the sampling design that is described in the SAP.
Assessments of trends in environmental quality conditions typically focus on evaluating
either spatial trends or temporal trends. In assessments of spatial trends, sampling programs
may be designed to facilitate the collection and analysis of sediment samples from a large
number of stations within the study area. In contrast, assessments of temporal trends
typically involve repeated collection of sediment samples from a number of stations at pre-
determined time intervals. Both types of investigations typically focus on chemical analysis
of the selected media types (e.g., whole sediments, pore water); however, other indicators of
sediment quality conditions can be used in trend assessments.
The designs of sampling programs to assess the status of sediment quality conditions tend
to differ markedly from those that are focused on trend assessment. Such sampling programs
are typically undertaken to evaluate the effects of contaminated sediments on the attributes
of key groups of receptors (e.g., sediment-dwelling organisms, aquatic-dependent wildlife,
and/or human health, which are often referred to as assessment endpoints). The
measurement endpoints (i.e., indicators of sediment quality conditions that are actually
measured) that are ultimately included in the sampling program are based on the selected
assessment endpoints and the exposure pathways that are most relevant for the receptor
groups under consideration. As such, the sampling program designs are more likely to
include sediment toxicity, benthic invertebrate community, and bioaccumulation
assessments, as well as sediment and pore-water chemistry. In addition, it is necessary to
include control and reference sediments in these types of investigations to facilitate
interpretation of the resultant data (Appendix 3 of Volume II). Controls are used to evaluate
the acceptability of the test, whereas testing of reference sediments provides a site-specific
basis for evaluating toxicity of the test sediments. Comparisons of test sediments to multiple
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGES?
reference or control sediments representative of the physical characteristics of the test
sediment (i.e., grain size, organic carbon) may be useful in these evaluations.
In some cases, sediment quality assessments are conducted to determine if sediments are
suitable for open water disposal. In these cases, tiered assessment techniques may be applied
to obtain the requisite data to support sediment management decisions. Such tiered
assessment frameworks may rely primarily on sediment chemistry data in the earlier tiers of
the assessment, while biological testing is used more extensively in later tiers (USEPA and
USAGE 1998b).
Sediment quality assessments can also include an evaluation of the toxicity of an individual
contaminant or mixtures of contaminants on selected receptors. In these cases, known
quantities of the substance or substances under investigation are spiked into whole
sediments. Toxicity tests are then conducted to evaluate the effects of each exposure
concentration on the selected receptor (e.g., amphipods, chironomids) and test endpoint (e.g.,
survival, growth). Evaluation of the resultant data provides a basis for determining the lethal
concentrations (e.g., LC50) or effective concentrations (e.g., EC50) of the substance or
substances in sediments. Such investigations require a negative control sediment, a positive
control, a solvent control, and/or several concentrations of sediment spiked with a chemical
(ASTM 200la; USEPA 2000a).
If the purpose of the study is to conduct a reconnaissance field survey to identify the portions
of the study area that require further investigation, the experimental design might include
only one sample from each station to allow for sampling a larger area. The lack of
replication at a station usually precludes statistical comparisons such as analysis of variance
(ANOVA), but these surveys can be used to identify stations for further study or may be
evaluated using regression techniques (ASTM 200la; USEPA 2000a).
More information on the selection of sediment quality indicators, metrics, and targets for
assessing contaminated sediments, based on the objectives of the sampling program, is
provided in Chapter 5 of Volume I and in Chapters 2 through 5 in Volume III.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE 38
5.3 Field Sampling Methods
The purpose of the sampling program is to collect undisturbed sediment samples from one
or more stations within the assessment area. Such samples are typically collected to support
physical-chemical analyses, toxicity testing, benthic invertebrate community assessments
and/or bioaccumulation assessments. To assure that field personnel are adequately prepared
to collect the required sample volumes from each sampling station, it is essential that the
methods that will be used to collect sediment samples in the field be fully described in the
project SAP. The selection of such methods for collecting sediment samples will be
influenced by a variety of factors, including:
Sampling design;
• Type of sampling platforms available;
• Location of and access to the sampling stations;
• Physical characteristics of the sediments;
• Number of sites to be sampled;
• Water depth;
• Number and experience of personnel; and,
• Budget.
In general, the sediment samplers that are used in most freshwater sediment assessments can
be classified into two major categories, grab samplers and corers (USEPA 200la; ASTM
2001c). Some of the commonly utilized grab samples include Birge-Ekman grab samplers
(standard and petite), Ponar grab samplers (standard and petite), Van Veen grab samplers
(standard and large), and Shipek grab sampler. Hand corers, single-gravity corers, multiple-
gravity corers, box corers piston corers, and vibratory corers represent the primary classes
of sediment corers that are currently available. Specific methods are also available for
obtaining pore-water samples. The advantages and disadvantages of various sediment
samplers are described in Table 4 (WDOE 1995). The minimum sample volumes to support
physical-chemical analyses and toxicity testing are presented in Table 5.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE 39
To enhance comparability of the resultant data, the same method should be used to collect
samples from all of the sampling station within the assessment area, whenever practicable.
However, the need to collect both surficial and deeper sediments may preclude this
possibility in certain circumstances. The reader is directed to Mudroch and McKnight
(1991), Mudroch and Azcue (1995), USEPA (200la), and ASTM (200Ic) for more
information on the collection of sediment samples.
5.4 Sample Handling Procedures
The sediment samples that are collected in the field are likely to be subjected to a physical,
chemical, and/or biological testing to support the overall sediment assessment program. The
methods that are applied for handling, preserving, transporting, and storing the samples are
dependent on the objectives of the study and the type of testing to which each sample will
be subjected. In cases where data on multiple indicators of sediment quality conditions are
to be generated, the importance of synoptically-collected sediment samples cannot be over
stated (i.e., collecting sufficient volumes of sediment at each station to facilitate the
preparation of a subsample for toxicity testing and subsamples for chemical analysis from
a single, homogenized sediment sample). Appropriate methods for handling, transporting,
and storing sediment samples for chemical analysis and toxicity testing are presented in
ASTM (2001 c) and USEPA (2001 a). The recommended storage temperatures and maximum
holding times for physical-chemical analyses and sediment toxicity testing are presented in
Table 6. Recommended chain-of custody procedures and methods for delivering sediment
samples to analytical laboratories are summarized in WDOE (1995).
5.5 Technical Oversight and Auditing
In many cases, the field component of the sediment quality assessment is conducted by
contractors who have ready access to sampling vessels and equipment. While these
contractors may have a good deal of experience in the collection of environmental media,
there may be unique aspects of the sediment quality assessment that require special attention
in the field (e.g., collection of matching samples for chemical analysis, toxicity testing, and
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE40
benthic community structure). For this reason, it is recommended that one or more
individuals be assigned the task of providing technical oversight and auditing of all aspects
of the field program. This individual would be responsible for reviewing the SAP (and
associated QAPP), overseeing the training of the field crew, confirming sample locations
prior to sampling, observing sample collection procedures, documenting any inconsistencies
and errors that are observed, assuring that corrective actions are taken, and documenting
sample handling and transport procedures.
5.6 Quality Assurance Project Plan
A QAPP, which outlines specific steps that will be used to perform the study, should be
prepared in advance of collecting samples and appended to the SAP. The scope of the QAPP
is dependant on the specific obj ectives of the study. Some of the preliminary issues that need
to be considered prior to preparing this plan include:
• Defining the potential problem that needs to be addressed;
• Determining resources that are available for the project;
• Reviewingthe existing information and identifying the specific objectives forthe
study; and,
• Determining the data that are likely to be needed to fulfill the proj ect obj ectives.
Detailed guidance on the development of QAPPs is available from a number of sources.
First, USEPA has developed a quality system to assure the quality of data that are collected,
generated, and used under its programs. As part of this program, USEPA has developed a
number of training courses on QA/QC activities, including both generic and specialized
training (see www.epa.gov/quality/trcourse.html for more information). In addition, USEPA
has published a number of guidance documents to support the development of QAPPs for
sediment quality and related assessments (see USEPA 199la; 1991b; 1991c; 1991d; 1993;
1994a; 1998a; 1999a for further information). Furthermore, similar guidance documents
have been established to support certain state government programs (e.g., WDOE 1995).
The quality control procedures that have been identified by WDOE (1995) for organic
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE41
analyses, metal analyses, conventional analyses, and freshwater sediment toxicity testing are
presented in Tables 7, 8,9, and 10, respectively. ASTM (200la; 200Ib; 200Ic) andUSEPA
(2000a) provide more recent guidance on test conditions for conducting whole-sediment
toxicity tests.
5.7 Data Evaluation and Validation
Data evaluation and validation represents an essential component of the overall sediment
assessment process. The results of this step of the process determine which data can be
reliably used in the assessment. The project data quality objectives, which are included in
the QAPP, provide functional guidance for evaluating data quality (USEPA 1998a).
Procedures for validating the data generated during the assessment should be determined on
an a priori basis and included in the SAP. In general, there are five factors that are
considered in the evaluation of physical, chemical, and biological data, including:
• Precision
• Accuracy;
• Representativeness;
• Completeness; and,
Comparability.
Precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability (PARCC)
parameters are indicators of data quality. PARCC goals are established for the site
characterization to aid in assessing data quality. More information on each of the five
indicators of data quality is provided in Appendix 3 of Volume II.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE42
5.8 Data Analysis, Record Keeping, and Reporting
Data analysis, record keeping, and reporting represent essential elements of a sediment
quality assessment. For this reason, the procedures that are to be used to support the
assessment should be described in the SAP. The recommended procedures for interpreting
individual and multiple lines of evidence are presented in Chapter 7 of Volume III.
Additional information on data analysis, record keeping, and reporting is provided in WDOE
(1995).
5.9 Health and Safety Plan
It is recommended that a comprehensive health and safety plan be included in the project
SAP. The health and safety plan should cover all aspects of worker safety during the
collection, handling, transport, and analysis of sediment samples (USEPA 200la; ASTM
200Ic). The health and safety plan should include a list of the tasks to be performed, a
listing of key personnel and responsibilities, a description of the chemical and physical
hazards associated with the site, and an analysis of the health and safety risks associated with
each task. In addition, the plan should include an air monitoring plan, a description of the
personal protective equipment that will be used for each task (including contingencies),
procedures for decontaminating personnel and equipment, procedures for disposing of
contaminated media and equipment, a description of safe work practices, and standard
operating procedures. Finally, a contingency plan, personnel training requirements, a
medical surveillance program, and record-keeping procedures should be included in the
health and safety plan. The members of the sampling team should be reminded about key
health and safety issues related to sampling and sample preparation prior to initiating
activities on each day of the sampling program.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
DEVELOPING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS FOR ASSESSING SOCs - PAGE43
5.10 Project Schedule
A project schedule represents an important component of the SAP. The project schedule
should clearly specify when each element of the sediment quality assessment will be
completed. Some of the activities that should be included in the project schedule include
field mobilization, field sampling (including time for sampling sub-areas and sequencing for
sampling each station), field demobilization, shipment of samples to laboratories, initiation
and completion of physical, chemical, and biological analyses, initiation and completion of
data validation, completion of data reports, and completion of interpretive reports. Because
laboratories may not be available on demand, it is important to consider holding times for
chemical and biological samples when developing sampling schedules for the field program.
In addition to supporting the technical aspects of the program, a detailed project schedule is
likely to support the administrative components of the process (i.e., funding, contracting,
etc.).
5.11 Project Team and Responsibilities
The SAP should include a brief description of the responsibilities of each member of the
project team. In general, the project team will include a project manager, a number of
scientists that are responsible to various field and laboratory components of the project, and
a number of field and laboratory technicians. In addition, a QA/QC coordinator, database
coordinator, data analysts, and other specialists are likely to play important roles during the
planning and implementation of the investigation.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 44
Chapter 6. References
APHA, AWWA, and WPCF (American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation). 1998. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association.
Washington, District of Columbia.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 200la. Standard test methods for
measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater
invertebrates. E1706-00. ASTM2001 AnnualBook of Standards Volume 11.05. West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2001b. Standard guide for designing
biological tests with sediments. El 525-01. ASTM 2001 Annual Book of Standards
Volume 11.05. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2001 c. Standard guide for collection,
storage, characterization, and manipulation of sediments for toxicological testing.
E1391-94. ASTM2001 Annual Book of Standards Volume 11.05. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 200Id. Standard guide for
determination of the bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants by benthic
invertebrates. E1688-00a. ASTM 2001 Annual Book of Standards Volume 11.05. West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2001 e. Standard guide for conducting
in-situ field bioassays with marine, estuarine, and freshwater bivalves. E2122-01.
ASTM 2001 Annual Book of Standards Volume 11.05. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and fish, 2nd edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Washington, District of Columbia.
(As cited in USEPA 200la).
Baudo, R. and H. Muntau. 1990. Lesser known in-place pollutants and diffuse source
problems. In: Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place Pollutants. R. Baudo, J.
Geisy, and H. Muntau (Eds). Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
Baumann, P.C. 1992. Methodological considerations for conducting tumor surveys of
fishes. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 1:127-133. (As cited in Krantzberg et al.
2000).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 45
Beltran, R. and W. Richardson. 1992. The Green Bay/Fox River mass balance study
management summary: Preliminary management study. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, District of Columbia. (As cited in Krantzberg et al.
2000).
Bierman, V.J., D.M. Dolan,R. Kasprzk, and J.L. Clark. 1984. Retrospective analysis of the
response of Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, to reductions in phosphorus loadings.
Environmental Science and Technology 18(1):23-31. (As cited in Krantzberg et al.
2000).
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999. Canadian
environmental quality guidelines. Guidelines and Standards Division. Environment
Canada. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
CDM (CDM Federal Programs Corporation). 1999. Final screening level ecological risk
assessment: Calcasieu Estuary, Lake Charles, Louisiana. Contract Number 68-W5-
0022. Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency. Golden, Colorado.
CDM (CDM Federal Programs Corporation). 2000. Technical memorandum. Assessment
and measurement endpoints for the ecological risk assessment of the Calcasieu Estuary.
Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency. Dallas, Texas.
Crane, J.L., D.D. MacDonald, C.G. Ingersoll, D.E. Smorong, R.A. Lindskoog, C.G. Severn,
T.A. Berger, and LJ. Field. 2000. Development of a framework for evaluating
numerical sediment quality targets and sediment contamination in the St. Louis River
Area of Concern. EPA 905-R-00-008. Great Lakes National Program Office. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois, 107 pp. + appendices.
Dewees, D.N. and K. A. Schaefer. 2001. Identifying and assessing the economic benefits of
contaminated aquatic sediment cleanup. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada
36(3):413-433.
Field, L.J., D.D. MacDonald, S.B. Norton, C.G. Severn, and C.G. Ingersoll. 1999.
Evaluating sediment chemistry and toxicity data using logistic regression modeling.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(6):1311-1322.
Field, L.J., D.D. MacDonald, S.B. Norton, C.G. Ingersoll, C.G. Severn, D.E. Smorong, and
R.A. Lindskoog. 2002. Predicting amphipod toxicity from sediment chemistry using
logistic regression models. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(9): 1993-2005.
Heidtke, T.M. and E. Tauriainen. 1996. An aesthetic quality index for the Rouge River.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Wayne State University. Detroit,
Michigan. (As cited in Krantzberg et al. 2000).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 46
Holland, A.F. 1985. Long-term variation of macrobenthos in a mesohaline region of the
Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 8(2a):93-l 13. (As cited in USEPA 200la).
IJC (International Joint Commission). 1988. Procedures forthe assessment of contaminated
sediment problems in the Great Lakes. Prepared by the Sediment Subcommittee and its
Assessment Work Group. Great Lakes Regional Office. Windsor, Ontario. 140pp.
IJC (International Joint Commission). 1997. Overcoming obstacles to sediment remediation
in the Great Lakes basin. White Paper by the Sediment Priority Action Committee.
Great Lakes Water Quality Board. International Joint Commission. Windsor, Ontario.
38pp.
Ingersoll, C.G., T. Dillon, and R.G. Biddinger (Eds.). 1997. Methodological uncertainty in
sediment ecological risk assessment. In: Ecological Risk Assessments of Contaminated
Sediment. SETAC Press. Pensacola, Florida. 389pp.
Jaagumagi, R and D. Persaud. 1996. An integrated approach to the evaluation and
management of contaminated sediment. Ontario Ministry of Environment. Toronto,
Ontario. (As cited in Krantzberg etal. 2000).
Krantzberg, G., J.H. Hartig, andM.A. Zarull. 2000. Sediment management: Deciding when
to intervene. Environmental Science and Technology News:23 A-26A.
Krantzberg, G., M.A. Zarull, and J.H. Hartig. 2001. Sediment management: Ecological and
ecotoxicological effects must direct actions. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada
36(3):367-376.
Landis, W.G., A.J. Markiewicz, and V. Wilson. 1997. Recommended guidance and
checklist for Tier 1 ecological risk assessment for contaminated sites in the Great Lakes.
Prepared for British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria,
British Columbia.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed
contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Seattle, Washington, pp. 175 + appendices.
Long, E.R., D. MacDonald, and C. Cairncross. 1991. Status and trends in toxicants and the
potential for their biological effects in Tampa Bay, Florida. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 58. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Seattle Washington.
Long, E.R., A. Robertson, D.A. Wolfe, J. Hameedi, and G.M. Sloane. 1996. Estimates of
the spatial extent of sediment toxicity in major U.S. estuaries. Environmental Science
and Technology 30(12):3585-3592.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 47
MacDonald, D.D. 1989. An assessment of ambient water quality conditions in the Slave
River basin, NWT. Report prepared for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. 94 pp.
MacDonald, D.D., A. White, B. Charlish, M.L. Haines, and T. Wong. 1993. Compilation
of toxicological information on sediment-associated contaminants and the development
of freshwater sediment quality guidelines. Report prepared for EcoHealth Branch,
Environment Canada. Ottawa Canada. 24 pp + Supporting Documentation.
MacDonald, D.D. 1994a. Approach to the assessment of sediment quality in Florida coastal
waters. Volume 1: Development and evaluation of sediment quality assessment
guidelines. Report prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Tallahassee, Florida.
MacDonald, D.D. 1994b. Approach to the assessment of sediment quality in Florida coastal
waters. Volume 2: Applications of the sediment quality assessment guidelines. Report
prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.
MacDonald, D.D. and C.G. Ingersoll. 2000. An assessment of sediment injury in the grand
Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal, Indiana Harbor, and the nearshore areas of Lake
Michigan. Volume I. Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bloomington, Indiana. 238 pp.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of
consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39:20-31.
MacDonald, D.D., D.R. Moore, A. Pawlisz, D.E. Smorong, R.L. Breton, D.B. MacDonald,
R. Thompson, R.A. Lindskoog and M.A. Hanacek. 2001. Calcasieu estuary remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS): Baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA).
Volume I. Baseline problem formulation (Draft). Prepared for: CDM Federal Programs
Corporation. Dallas, Texas.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, D.R.J. Moore, M. Bonnell, R.L. Breton, R.A. Lindskoog,
D.B. MacDonald, Y.K. Muirhead, A.V. Pawlitz, D.E. Sims, D.E. Smorong, R.S. Teed,
R.P. Thompson, and N. Wang. 2002. Calcasieu Estuary remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS): Baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA).
Prepared for CDM Federal Programs Corporation. Dallas, Texas.
Minns, C.K., J.R. Kelso, and R.G. Randall. 1996. Detecting the response of fish to habitat
alterations in freshwater ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science.
53(Suppl. Sl):403-414. (As cited inKrantzberg et al. 2000).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 48
Mosello, R. and A. Calderoni. 1990. Pollution and recovery of Lake Orta (Northern Italy)
In: Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place Pollutants. R. Baudo, J. Geisy, and
H. Muntau. Eds. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
Mudroch, A. and J.M. Azcue (Eds.). 1995. Manual of Aquatic Sediment Sampling. Lewis
Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Mudroch, A. and S.D. McKnight (Eds.). 1991. Handbook of Techniques for Aquatic
Sediments Sampling. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 1999. Technical
guidance for screening contaminated sediments. Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine
Resources. Albany, New York. 36 pp.
OMOE and MDNR (Ontario Ministry of Environment and Michigan Department of Natural
Resources). 1991. The St. Clair River area of concern: Environmental conditions and
problem definitions - Remedial Action Plan Stage 1 Report. Ontario Ministry of
Environment and Energy. Sarnia, Ontario. (As cited in Krantzberg et al. 2000).
PDEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 1998. The lake model-
implementation guidance section 95.6: Management of point source phosphorus
discharges to lakes, ponds, and impoundments. DEP 391-2000-010. Meadville,
Pennsylvania. (As cited in Krantzberg et al. 2000).
Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and
management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Environment
and Energy. Toronto, Ontario.
PSEP (Puget Sound Estuary Program). 1989a. Recommended guidelines for measuring
organic compounds in Puget Sound sediment and tissue samples. Final Report. Prepared
by United States Environmental Protection Agency. Region 10. Seattle, Washington.
(As cited in WDOE 1995).
PSEP (Puget Sound Estuary Program). 1995. Recommended guidelines for conducting
laboratory bioassays on Puget Sound sediments. Interim Final Report. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Region 10. Seattle, Washington. (As cited in WDOE
1995).
Reynoldson T.B., K.E. Day, R.C. Bailey, and R.H. Norris. 1995. Methods for establishing
biologically based sediment guidelines for freshwater quality management using benthic
assessment of sediment. Australian Journal of Ecology 20:198-219.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 49
Reynoldson, T.B., R.H. Norris, V.H. Resh, K.E. Day, and D.M. Rosenburg. 1997. The
reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess
water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 16:833-852 (As cited in Krantzberg et al. 2000).
Reynoldson, T. B., L. Grapentine, M. Zarull, T. Pascoe, L. Richman, C. DeBarros, S. Painter,
and J. Anderson. 2000. A support system for decision making using chemical and
biological measures. National Water Research Institute. Environment Canada.
Burlington, Ontario.
Rosenberg, D.M. and V.H. Resh. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall. New York, New York. 488 p.
Santiago, R. and J.-P. Pelletier. 2001. Contaminated sediment management: The Canadian
experience. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 36(3):395-411.
Smith, S.L., D.D. MacDonald, K.A. Keenleyside, C.G. Ingersoll and L.J. Field. 1996. A
preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 22(3):624-638.
Smrcheck, J.C. and M. Zeeman. 1998. Assessing risks to ecological systems from
chemicals. Chapter 3. In: Handbook for Environmental Risk Assessment and
Management. P. Calow (ed.). Blackwell Science Ltd. London. (As cited in USEPA
2000a).
Suter, G.W., R.A. Efroymson, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 2000. Ecological risk
assessment of contaminated sites. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Swartz, R.C. 1999. Consensus sediment quality guidelines for PAH mixtures.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:780-787.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk assessment guidance
for Superfund. Volume 1. Human health evaluation manual. Part A. (Interim Final).
EPA-540-I-89-002. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, District
of Columbia. (As cited in Krantzberg et al. 2000).
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 199la. Preparation aids for the
development of Category I quality assurance plans. EPA/600/8-91/003. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1991b. Preparation aids for the
development of Category II quality assurance plans. EPA/600/8-91/004. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, District of Columbia.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 50
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1991c. Preparation aids for the
development of Category III quality assurance plans. EPA/600/8-91/005. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1991 d. Preparation aids for the
development of Category VI quality assurance plans. EPA/600/8-91/006. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. An SAB report: Review
of sediment criteria development methodology for non-ionic contaminants. EPA-S AB-
EPEC-93-002. Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. Science Advisory Board.
Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Wildlife exposure factors
handbook. Volumes I and II. EPA/600/R-93/187a&b. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Washington, District
of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1994a. Assessment and
remediation of contaminated sediments (ARCS) program. Great Lakes National Program
Office. EPA 905/B-94/002. Chicago, Illinois.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1994b. USEPA Contract
Laboratory Program: National functional guidelines for inorganic data review. EPA
540/R-94/013. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, District of
Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Ecological risk
assessment guidance for Superfund: Process for designing and conducting ecological risk
assessments. Environmental Response Team. Edison, New Jersey.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. The incidence and
severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United States: Volume 1:
National Sediment Quality Survey. EPA/823/R-97/006. Washington, District of
Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1997c. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) research strategy. EPA/620/R-98/001.
Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. EPA's contaminated
sediment management strategy. EPA-823-R-98-001. Office of Water. Washington,
District of Columbia.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 51
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. Guidelines for
ecological risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F.
Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1998c. Evaluation of material
proposed for discharge to waters of the U. S.B. Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual).
EPA-823-B-98-004. Office of Water. Washington, District of Columbia. (As cited in
Krantzberg et al. 2000)
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. Risk assessment
guidance for Superfund: Volume 3 - Part A, process for conducting probabilistic risk
assessment. Draft. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington,
District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. USEPA Contract
Laboratory Program: National functional guidelines for organic data review. EPA
540/R-99/008. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, District of
Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. Methods for measuring
the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater
invertebrates, second edition. EPA/600/R-99/064, Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. Stressor identification
guidance document. EPA-822-B-00-025. Office of Water. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000c. Draft implementation
framework for the use of equilibrium partitioning sediment guidelines: Guidance for
using equilibrium partitioning (ESGs) in water quality programs. Office of Water.
Office of Science and Technology. Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000d. Prediction of sediment
toxicity using consensus-based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. EPA 905/R-
00/007. Great Lakes Program Office. Chicago, Illinois.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 200la. Methods for collection,
storage and manipulation of sediments for chemical and toxicological analyses:
Technical manual. EPA-823-B-01-002. Office of Water. Washington, District of
Columbia.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. National Sediment
Quality Survey Database. EPA-823-C-01-001. Office of Water. Washington, District
of Columbia.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
REFERENCES - PAGE 52
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Draft report on the
incidence and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United States.
National Sediment Quality Survey. EPA-823-F-01-031. Office of Water. Washington,
District of Columbia.
USEPA and USAGE (United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States
Army Corps of Engineers). 1991. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean
disposal testing manual. EPA-503/8-91/001. Office of Water. Washington, District of
Columbia. (As cited in USEPA 2000a).
USEPA and USAGE (United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States
Army Corps of Engineers). 1998a. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for
discharge in water of the US. Testing Manual. EPA 823-B-98-004. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, District of Columbia.
USEPA and USAGE (United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States
Army Corps of Engineers). 1998b. Method for assessing the chronic toxicity of marine
and estuarine sediment-associated contaminants with the amphipod Leptocheirus
plumulosus. Office of Research and Development. Newport, Oregon (August 1998
draft). (As cited in USEPA 2000a).
WDOE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1995. Sediment sampling and analysis
plan appendix: Guidance on the development of sediment sampling and analysis plans
meeting the requirements of the sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204
WAC): Draft. Prepared by: PTI Environmental Services. Bellevue, Washington.
Weiss, J.C., R.E. Unsworth, and E. Ruder. 1997. Assessment plan for the natural resource
damage assessment of the Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, Indiana
Harbor, and associated Lake Michigan environments. Prepared for U.S. Department of
Interior and the State of Indiana. Indianapolis, Indiana.
Wenning RJ. and C.G. Ingersoll. 2002. Use of sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) and
related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments: Summary from a SETAC
Pellston Workshop. SETAC Press. Pensacola, Florida.
Zarull, M.A., J.H. Hartig, and G. Krantzberg. 2001. Contaminated sediment remediation
in the Laurentian Great Lakes: An overview. Water Research Journal of Canada
36(3):351-365.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
Tables
-------
Table 1. Examples of chemicals that should be measured on a site-specific basis
(from WDOE 1995).
Chemical Contaminant
Reason for Suspected Presence in Sediments
Ammonia
* Associated with fish processing plants and aquaculture
Other potentially toxic metals (e.g., antimony,
beryllium, nickel)
Organotin complexes (especially tributyltin)
Pesticides, herbicides
Petroleum compounds (e.g., benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene)
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p -dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs)
Guaiacols and resin acids
Volatile organic compounds (e.g.,
trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene)
Radioactive substances
Associated with mining wastes and metal plating
operations
Used historically in antifouling paint and, therefore,
potentially associated with shipyards and marinas
Associated with agriculture or with agricultural chemical
companies
Associated with refineries, fuel storage facilities,
marinas, gas stations
Associated with the presence of polychlorinated
biphenyls and pentachlorophenol and with pulp and
paper mills using chlorination
Associated with pulp and paper mills and other wood
products operations
Used as solvents and in chemical manufacturing
operations
Associated with nuclear power plants, nuclear processing
plants, medical wastes, and military installations
Note: the substances identified in this table should be measured when there is reason to suspect that they could be
present in sediments. Measurement of these substances is in addition to the standard suite of analytes that should
be measured at all sites with contaminated sediments, including PCBs, PAHs, and priority heavy metals
(arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc).
Page 54
-------
Table 2. A matrix of data interpretation tools for assessing ecological impairments associated with contaminated sediments
(from Krantzberg et al 2000).
Use Impairment
Assessment Element
Data Interpretation Tools
Sample References
Restriction on fish and wildlife
consumption
Degradation offish and wildlife
populations
Fish tumors or other deformities
Bird or animals deformitites or
reproduction problems
Bioaccumulation
Community structure,
bioaccumulation
Bioaccumulation, chemistry
Bioaccumulation, community
structure
Equilibrium partitioning,
comparison to guidelines
Food web model, weight of
evidence
Reference frequencies
Food web model, comparison to
reference conditions, weight of
evidence
USEPA 1989; Beltran and
Richardson 1992
USEPA 1989; Beltran and
Richardson 1992
Baumann 1992
Jaagumagi and Persaud 1996
Degradation of benthos
Restrictions on dredging activities
(no open water disposal)
Eutrophic or undesirable algae
Degradation of aesthetics
Added costs to agriculture or
industry (to prevent or avoid
contaminated water)
Community structure, toxicity
(bioassays)
Chemistry, toxicity (bioassays),
stability*
Chemistry, stability
Chemistry, stability
Chemistry, stability
Comparison to reference
conditions
Jaagmagi and Persaud 1996;
Reynoldson et al. 1997
Comparison to guidelines and/or Persaud et al. 1993; USEPA 1998c
reference conditions
Modeling
Comparison to reference
conditions
Comparison to reference
conditions
PDEP 1998
Heidtke and Tauriainen 1996
OMOE and MDNR 1991
Page 55
-------
Table 2. A matrix of data interpretation tools for assessing ecological impairments associated with contaminated sediments
(from Krantzberg et al 2000).
Use Impairment
Assessment Element
Data Interpretation Tools
Sample References
Dregraded phytoplankton and
zooplankton populations
Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Bioaccumulation, chemistry,
stability
Chemistry, bioaccumulation,
toxicity, benthos, stability
Comparison to reference
conditions, target nutrient loads
Comparison to reference
conditions, weight of evidence
Biermanetal. 1984
Minns et al. 1996
*Physical sediment characteristics, quiescent versus energetic site characteristics, etc.
Page 56
-------
Table 3. Sediment sampling and analysis plan outline and checklist (from WDOE 1995).
Introduction and Background Information
* Site history
* Regulatory framework (e.g., NPDES, MTCA, SMS, CERCLA)
* Summary of previous investigations, if any, of the site
* Location and characteristics of any current and/or historical wastewater or storm water
discharge(s) at the site
* Location and characteristics of any current and/or historical wastewater or storm water
discharge(s) in the local area
* Information on on-site waste disposal practices or chemical spills in the local area, if any
* Site location map showing the surrounding area
* Site map showing site features
Objectives and Design of the Sediment Investigation
* Objectives of the sediment investigation
* Overall design of the sediment investigation, including related investigations, if any
* Chemical analytes (including description of their relevance to the objectives and the regulatory
framework)
* Biological tests (including description of their relevance to the objectives and the regulatory
framework)
* Sampling station locations
- Rationale for station locations
- Site map(s) showing sampling stations and other pertinent features (e.g., bathymetry and current
regime; outfall(s)/diffuser(s); authorized mixing zone(s), if any; sites of waste disposal, spills, or
other activities that may have affected the sediments, such as sandblasting, boat repair, etc.;
- Proposed reference stations
- Table showing the water depth at each proposed station
- Proposed depth(s) below the sediment surface where sediments will be collected
Field Sampling Methods
* Station positioning methods
* Sampling equipment
* Decontamination procedures
* Sample compositing strategy and methods
* Sample containers and labels
* Field documentation procedures
* Procedures for disposal of contaminated sediments
Sample Handling Procedures
* Sample storage requirements (e.g., conditions, maximum holding times) for each type of
sample
* Chain-of-custody procedures
* Delivery of samples to analytical laboratories
Page 57
-------
Table 3. Sediment sampling and analysis plan outline and checklist (from WDOE 1995).
Laboratory Analytical Methods
* Chemical analyses and target detection limits
* Biological analyses
* Corrective actions
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements
* QA/QC for chemical analyses
* QA/QC for biological analysis
* Data quality assurance review procedures
Data Analysis, Record Keeping, and Reporting Requirements
* Analysis of sediment chemistry data
* Analysis of biological test data
* Data interpretation
* Record keeping procedures
* Reporting procedures
Health and Safety Plan (required for cleanup investigations)
* Description of tasks
* Key personnel and responsibilities
* Chemical and physical hazards
* Safety and health risk analysis for each task
* Air monitoring plan
* Personal protective equipment
* Work zones
* Decontamination procedures
* Disposal procedures for contaminated media and equipment
* Safe work procedures
* Standard operating procedures
* Contingency plan
* Personnel training requirements
* Medical surveillance program
* Record keeping procedures
Schedule
* Table or figure showing key project milestones
Project Team and Responsibilities
* Description of sediment sampling program personnel
* Table identifying the project team members and their responsibilities
References
* List of references
Page 58
-------
Table 4. Advantages and disadvantages of various sediment samplers (from WDOE 1995).
Sampler
Sediment
Depth Advantages
Sampled
Disadvantages
Surface Sediment Samplers
van Veen or Young 0-3 cm
grab
Ponar grab
0-10 cm
Petite Ponar grab 0-10 cm
Useful in deep water and on most substrates. Young grab
coated with inert polymer. Large sediment volume
obtained. May be subsampled through lid.
Commonly used. Large volume of sediment obtained.
Adequate on most substrates. Weight allows use in deep
waters. Good sediment penetration.
Similar in design to the Ponar grab, but smaller and more
easily handled from a small boat. Can be deployed by
hand without a winch in shallow water.
Ekman or box 0-10 cm Relatively large volume of sediment may be obtained.
dredge May be subsampled through lid. Lid design reduces loss
of surficial sediments as compared to many dredges.
Usable in moderately compacted sediments of varying
grain sizes.
Petersen grab 0-30 cm Large sediment volume obtained from most substrates in
deep waters.
Loss of fine surface sediments and sediment integrity
may occur during sampling. Incomplete jaw closure
possible. Young grab is expensive. Both may require a
winch.
Loss of fine surface sediments and sediment integrity
may occur during sampling. Incomplete jaw closure
occurs occasionally. Heavy and requires a winch.
Small volume. Loss of fine surface sediments and
sediment integrity may occur during sampling.
Incomplete jaw closure occurs occasionally. May
require winch in deeper water.
Loss of fine surface sediments may occur during
sampling. Incomplete jaw closure occurs in coarse-grain
sediments or with large debris. Sediment integrity
disrupted.
Loss of fine surface sediments and sediment integrity.
Incomplete jaw closure may occur. May require winch.
Orange-peel grab
0-30 cm Large sediment volume obtained from most substrates.
Efficient closure.
Loss of fine surface sediments and sediment integrity.
Requires winch.
Page 59
-------
Table 4. Advantages and disadvantages of various sediment samplers (from WDOE 1995).
Sampler
Sediment
Depth Advantages
Sampled
Disadvantages
Shipek grab
Sediment Corers
Vibrocorer
Impact corer
Box corer
0-1 Ocm Adequate on most substrates.
Hand and gravity
corers
to >200 cm Samples deep sediment for historical analyses. Samples
consolidated sediments.
to >200 cm Samples deep sediment for historical analyses. Samples
consolidated sediments.
0-30 cm Maintains sediment layering of large volume of sediment.
Fine surface sediments retained relatively well.
Quantitative sampling allowed. Excellent control of
depth of penetration.
0-30 cm Maintain sediment layering of the inner core. Fine
surface sediments retained by hand corer. Replicate
samples efficiently obtained. Removable liners. Inert
liners may be used. Quantitative sampling allowed.
Small volume. Loss of fine surface sediments and
sediment integrity; sample may be compressed during
sampling.
Expensive and requires winch and A-frame. Outer core
integrity slightly disrupted.
Large impact corers may be expensive and require
specialized sampling vessel. Outer core integrity slightly
disrupted.
Size and weight require power winch; difficult to handle
and transport. Some box corers may not be suitable for
sampling very coarse sediments.
Small sample volume. Gravity corer may result in loss
of fine surficial sediments. Liner removal required for
repetitive sampling. Not suitable in coarse-grain or
consolidated sediments.
Piston corer
to 20 m Samples deep sediment for historical analyses. Samples
consolidated sediments.
Expensive and requires winch and A-frame. Outer core
integrity slightly disrupted.
Page 60
-------
Table 5. Minimum sediment samples sizes and acceptable containers for physical/chemical
analyses and sediment toxicity tests (from WDOE 1995).
Sample Type
Minimum Sample Size"
Container
rpi b
Type
Physical/Chemical Analyses
Grain size
Total solids
Total volatile solids
Total organic carbon
Ammonia
Total sulfides
Oil and grease
Metals (except mercury)
Mercury
Volatile organic compounds
Semivolatile organic compounds
Pesticides and PCBs
Toxicity Tests
Amphipod (Hyalella azteca)
Mayfly (Hexagenia limbata)
Midge (Chironomus tentans)
Frog embryo (Xenopus laevis)
Microtox® solid phase or deionized water
100-150g P,G
50 g P,G
50 g p5Gc
25 g P,G
25 g P,G
50 g p,Gc
100 g G
50 g P,G
Ig P,G
50 g G,TC
50-100g G
50-100 g G,T
0.1 L per replicate (0.8 L per station) G
0.2 L per replicate (1.0 L per station) G
0.1 L per replicate (0.8 L per station) G
45 g (dry weight) per station G
200 g (wet weight) per station G
aRecommended field sample sizes (wet weight basis) for one laboratory analysis. If additional laboratory analyses are
required (e.g., laboratory replicates, allowance for having to repeat an analysis), the field sample size should be increased
accordingly. For some chemical analyses, smaller sample sizes may be used if comparable sensitivity can be obtained by
adjusting instrumentation, extract volume, or other factors of the analysis.
bP - linear polyethylene; G - borosilicate glass; T - polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE, Teflon®)-lined cap.
°No headspace or air pockets should remain. If such samples are frozen in glass containers, breakage of the container is
likely to occur.
Page 61
-------
Table 6. Storage temperatures and maximum holding times for physical/chemical
analyses and sediment toxicity tests (from WDOE 1995).
Sample Type
Storage Temperature
Maximum Holding Time
Grain Size
Total solids
Total volatile solids
Total organic carbon
Ammonia
Total sulfides
Oil and grease
Metals (except mercury)
Mercury
Semivolatile organic compounds;
pesticides and PCBs; PCDDs/PCDFs
after extraction
Volatile organic compounds
Sediment toxicity tests
Cool, 4°C 6 months
Cool, 4°C 14 days
Freeze,-18°C 6 months
Cool, 4°C 14 days
Freeze,-18°C 6 months
Cool, 4°C 14 days
Freeze,-18°C 6 months
Cool, 4°C 7 days
Cool, 4°C (1 N zinc acetate) 7 days
Cool, 4°C (HC1) 28 days
Freeze, -18°C (HC1) 6 months
Cool, 4°C 6 months
Freeze,-18°C 2 years
Freeze,-18°C 28 days
Cool, 4°C 10 days
Freeze, -18°C 1 year
Cool, 4°C 40 days
Cool, 4°C 14 days
Freeze,-18°C 14 days
Cool, 4°C 2 weeks3
Cool, 4°C, nitrogen
atmosphere 8 weeks3
HC1 - hydrochloric acid; PCB - polychlorinated biphenyl; PCDD - polychlorinated dibenzo-p -dioxin;
PCDF - polychlorinated dibenzofuran.
3 The PSEP (1995) protocols recommend a maximum holding time of 2 weeks, but recognize that it may be necessary
under certain circumstances to extend the holding time to accommodate a tiered testing strategy in which chemical
analyses are conducted prior to toxicity testing. The PSDDA program, for example, allows sediments to be stored
in the dark in a nitrogen atmosphere at 4°C for up to 8 weeks.
Page 62
-------
Table 7. Quality control procedures for organic analyses (from WDOE 1995).
Quality Control
Procedure
Frequency
Control Limit
Corrective Action
Instrument Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Initial As recommended by PSEP
Calibration (1989a) and specified in
analytical protocol
<30 %RSD for SVOCs and
VOCs; <20 %RSD for
PCBs. Relative response
factors >0.05 for SVOCs
and VOCs
Laboratory to recalibrate
and reanalyze affected
samples
Continuing After every 10-12 samples
Calibration (6 samples for PCBs) or
every 12 hours (6 hours for
PCBs), whichever is more
frequent, and after the last
sample of each work shift
<25 %D for SVOCs and
VOCs; < 15 %D for PCBs.
Relative response factors
> 0.05 for SVOCs and
VOCs
Laboratory to recalibrate
and reanalyze affected
samples
Method Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Holding Times Not applicable
1 year (samples stored
frozen [-18°C]) or 14 days
(samples stored at 4°C) for
SVOCs and PCBs; analyze
extract within 40 days; 14
days (samples stored at 4°C)
for VOCs
Qualify data or collect fresh
samples
Method Blank
Surrogate
Compounds
Matrix Spike
Sample and
Matrix Spike
Duplicate
With every extraction batch;
every 12-hour shift for
VOCs
Added to every sample as
specified in analytical
protocol
With every sample batch or
every 20 samples,
whichever is more frequent
Analyte concentration
>PQL (the LOD constitutes
the warning limit)
EPA CLP control limits
Recovery of 50-150
percent; precision of <50
RPD
Laboratory to eliminate or
greatly reduce
contamination; reanalyze
affected samples
Laboratory to follow EPA
CLP protocols (reanalyzes
or reextraction may be
required)
Follow EPA CLP protocols
Page 63
-------
Table 7. Quality control procedures for organic analyses (from WDOE 1995).
Quality Control
Procedure
Frequency
Control Limit
Corrective Action
Method Quality Assurance/Quality Control (cont.)
Laboratory With every sample batch or Recovery of 50-150 percent Laboratory to correct
Control Sample every 20 samples, problem and reanalyze
whichever is more frequent affected samples
Internal
Standards
Added to every sample as
specified in analytical
protocol
Area response of 50-200
percent of calibration
standard; retention time
within 30 seconds of
calibration standard
Laboratory to correct
problem and reanalyze
affected samples
Detection Limits Not applicable
Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Field Replicates At project manager's
discretion
Target detection limits
should be established at
one-half of the TEC values
(MacDonalde/'a/. 2000)
Not applicable
Laboratory must initiate
corrective actions (which
may include additional
cleanup steps as well as
other measures, see) and
contact the QA/QC
coordinator and/or project
manager immediately
Not applicable
Blind Certified
Reference
Material
Overall frequency of 5
percent of field samples
Within 95 percent
confidence interval of true
value
At project manager's
discretion: discuss results
with laboratory; qualify
sample results
CLP - Contract Laboratory Program; EPA-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; LOD - limit of detection; PCB-
polychlorinated biphenyl; PQL - protection quantification limit; RPD - relative percent difference; RSD - relative standard
deviation; SVOC - semivolatile organic compound; VOC - volatile organic compound; QA/QC - quality assurance/quality
control.
Page 64
-------
Table 8. Quality control procedures for metal analyses (from WDOE 1995).
Quality Control
Procedure
Frequency
Control Limit
Corrective Action
Instrument Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Initial Calibration Daily
Initial Calibration Immediately after initial
Verification calibration
Continuing
Calibration
Verification
Initial and
Continuing
Calibration Blanks
ICP Interelement
Interference Check
Sample
After every 10 samples or
every 2 hours, whichever is
more frequent, and after the
last sample
Correlation coefficient
> 0.995
90-110 percent recovery
(80-120 percent for
mercury)
90-110 percent recovery
(80-120 percent for
mercury)
Immediately after initial Analyte concentration
calibration, then 10 percent
-------
Table 8. Quality control procedures for metal analyses (from WDOE 1995).
Quality Control
Procedure
Frequency
Control Limit
Corrective Action
Method Quality Assurance/Quality Control (cont.)
Method Blanks With every sample batch or Analyte concentration Laboratory to redigest and
every 20 samples, 5 times CRDL)
As required when analytical Correlation coefficient
spike recovery fails quality >0.995
control limits (EPA current
CLP statement of work)
Detection Limits Not applicable
Target detection limits
should be established at
one-half of the TEC values
(MacDonalde/'a/. 2000)
Laboratory may be able to
correct or minimize
problem; or qualify and
accept data
Laboratory may be able to
correct or minimize
problem; or qualify and
accept data as reported
Qualify and accept data as
reported
Laboratory must initiate
corrective actions and
contact the QA/QC
coordinator and/or the
project manager
immediately
Page 66
-------
Table 8. Quality control procedures for metal analyses (from WDOE 1995).
Quality Control
Procedure
Frequency
Control Limit
Corrective Action
Matrix Quality Assurance/Quality Control (cont.)
Field Replicates At project manager's ±35 RPD (2 times CRDL
discretion for sample duplicate
results >5 times CRDL)
Examine laboratory
replicate results to rule out
analytical imprecision;
examine and modify sample
homogenization procedures
in the field
Cross-
Contamination
Blanks
At project manager's
discretion
Blind Certified Overall frequency of 5
Reference Material percent of field samples
Analyte concentration
-------
Table 9. Quality control procedures for conventional analyses (from WDOE 1995).
Suggested Control Limit
Analyte
Initial
Calibration
Continuing
Calibration
Calibration
Blanks
Laboratory .
_, , „ , Matrix Spikes
Control Samples
Laboratory
Triplicates
Method Blank
Ammonia Correlation 90-110 percent Analyte 80-120 percent 75-125 percent 35 percent RSD Analyte
coefficient >0.995 recovery concentration recovery recovery concentration
0.995 recovery concentration recovery recovery concentration
0.990 recovery
Not applicable 65-135 percent 65-135 percent
recovery recovery
35 percent RSD Analyte
concentration
-------
Table 10. Examples of recommended test conditions for conducting freshwater sediment toxicity tests (from WDOE 1995).
Toxicity Test
Test Species
Amphipod
Hyalella azteca
Mayfly
Hexagenia limbata
Midge
Chironomus tentans
Frog embryo (FETAX)
Xenopus laevis
Microtox® (solid
phase) Vibrio fisheri^
Microtox® (deionized
water elutriate)
Vibrio fisheri^
Frequency
Temp,
DO
Daily
Daily
Daily
DO at
beginning/end
Not applicable
Not applicable
of Water Quality
Hardness, Alkalinity,
Conductivity, pH,
Ammonia
Beginning/end
Beginning/end
Beginning/end
Beginning/end
Not applicable
Not applicable
Control Limits
Temp DO (%
(°C) saturation)
23±ia 40-100
20±2 Not applicable*3
23±ia 40-100
24±2 Not applicable
15 Not applicable
15 Not applicable
Negative
Control
Clean
sediment
Clean
sediment
Clean
sediment
FETAX
solution
Clean
sediment
Clean
sediment
Control Samples
Positive Reference
Control Sediment
Reference Yes
toxicant in
freshwater
Reference Yes
toxicant in
freshwater
Reference Yes
toxicant in
freshwater
Reference Yes
toxicant in
FETAX
solution
Reference Yes
toxicant
Reference Yes
toxicant
Performance
Standards
Mean mortality in
control sediment <20%
Mean mortality in
control sediment <20%
Mean mortality in
control sediment <30%
Mean mortality in
negative control <10%,
or mean malformation
occurrence in negative
control <7%
Determined by ecology
on case-by-case basis.
Determined by ecology
on case-by-case basis.
DO - dissolved oxygen; Temp = temperature.
a The temperature of the water bath or the exposure chamber should be continuously monitored. The daily mean temperature must be within ±1°C of the desired temperature.
The instantaneous temperature must always be within ±3°C of the desired temperature.
b Continuous aeration is required by the protocol, so the dissolved oxygen concentration should not be cause for concern.
0 Formerly known as Photobacterium phosphoreum .
Note: more recent guidance on conducting freshwater toxicity tests is provided in USEPA (2000a) and ASTM (2001a; 2001b).
Page 69
-------
Figures
-------
Figure 1. Overview of the process for designing and implementing sediment quality
investigations.
Identifying sediment quality issues
and concerns
i
r
Evaluate adequacy of existing
sediment quality data
i
r
Identify data gaps
i
r
Design and implement preliminary
and/or detailed site assessments
i
r
Interpret results of PSI and/or DSI
i
r
Develop and implement
remedial action plan, as necessary
i
r
Conduct confirmatory monitoring
and assessment
^
Page 71
-------
Figure 2. Overview of the recommended process for managing sites with contaminated
sediments.
Site identified as potentially
contaminated
Conduct Stage IP SI to
assess potential for sediment
contamination
Low potential
for contamination
Site not contaminated -
No further action required
Potential
for contamination
Conduct Stage II PSI to
assess nature and extent of
sediment contamination
No exceedances
of SQGs
Site not contaminated -
No further action required
Multiple exceedances of
SQGs observed
Conduct DSI to assess nature,
severity and extent of
contamination
Determine if site is
contaminated
No
No further action required
Yes
Develop and implement
Remedial Action Plan
Monitor and evaluate success
of remedial measures
Risks not
mitigated
Risks mitigated
No further action needed
Page 72
-------
Figure 3. An overview of Stage I of the preliminary site investigation (PSI).
Determine current and
historic activities at site
(uses, spills, etc.)
Identify water and
land uses
Collect information on
stormwater and effluent
discharges
Develop a preliminary
list of chemicals of
potential concern
(COPCs)
Review and evaluate
existing sediment
chemistry data
Evaluate the
environmental fate of
COPCs
Establish list of COPCs
and identify areas of
potential concern
Compare measured
concentrations to SQGs
(e.g., TELs)
Assemble and evaluate
quality of existing
sediment chemistry data
Insufficient
data
Conduct Stage II
PSI or DSI
Sufficient data
Determine if the site
likely contains
contaminated sediments
No
No further
investigations
needed
Yes
Conduct Stage II PSI
or DSI
Page 73
-------
Figure 4. An overview of Stage II of the preliminary site investigation (PSI). A Stage II
PSI is conducted if the results of the first stage of the PSI indicates that sediments
are likely to be contaminated with toxic or bioaccumulative substances.
Define boundaries of
sediment sampling zone
Develop a sampling plan,
including quality
assurance plan
Implement sampling
program and laboratory
analyses
Compile and evaluate
sediment chemistry data
Sufficient
data
Determine if the site
contains contaminated
sediments
Yes
Identify priority locations
and contaminants
Initiate site remediation
process (Figure 3.6)
Insufficient
data
No
No further
investigations needed
Conduct a DSI
Page 74
-------
Figure 5. An overview of the detailed site investigation (DSI).
Define boundaries of expanded
sediment sampling zone
Develop a sampling plan,
including quality assurance plan
Implement sampling program and
laboratory analyses and testing
Compile and
evaluate sediment
chemistry data for
COPCs
Compile and evaluate
sediment toxicity and
benthic data
Compile and evaluate
bioaccumulation and
tissue residue data
Compile and
evaluate other
types of data
Determine if project DQOs were
met for each type of data
DQOs not met
DQOs met
Interpret data on each line of evidence
individually and collectively (see Volume III)
Determine if unacceptable risks exist
to human health or the environment
Yes
No
No further action
needed at site
Identify contaminants of
concerns
Determine magnitude and extent
of sediment contamination and
associated effects
Initiate site remediation
process (Figure 2.6)
Page 75
-------
Figure 6. An overview of the contaminated site remediation process.
Determine responsibility and
liability for contamination
Assess need and priority for
remediation
Develop remedial action plan
Conduct remedial measures at
site
Monitor and evaluate success of
remedial measures
Risks mitigated
No further action needed
Risks not mitigated
Page 76
-------
Appendices
-------
APPENDIX 1 - TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 78
Appendix 1 Types and Objectives of Freshwater
Sediment Quality Assessments
A 1.0 Introduction
Discharges of toxic and bioaccumulative substances into aquatic ecosystems have been
reduced in the last 30 years. Nevertheless, persistent chemicals of potential concern
(COPCs) in sediments continue to pose potential risks to human health and the environment
(USEPA 1994a; USEPA 1997b). Elevated concentrations of COPCs in bottom sediments
and associated adverse effects have been documented throughout North America.
Contaminated sediments have been identified as a significant environmental concern at 42
of the 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs; IJC 1988; 1997) and at numerous other sites
in the United States and Canada.
The extent of sediment contamination and associated adverse effects in the United States
have been summarized in the USEPA National Sediment Inventory (USEPA 1997b; 2002).
The results of this assessment indicate that substances such as metals, PAHs, PCBs,
dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and polybrominated diphenyl esters are chemicals
of major concern at sites throughout the country. Although a comparable national
assessment has not been completed in Canada, there is abundant evidence that freshwater
sediments throughout Canada have been contaminated due to human activities (MacDonald
et al. 1993; Smith et al. 1996; Zarull et al. 2001). These results emphasize the extent to
which sediments have been contaminated by human activities and underscore the need for
reliable information to support the management of contaminated sediments.
Concerns regarding the effects of contaminated sediments on beneficial water uses have
prompted action under a number of federal, state, and provincial programs. Importantly,
investigations have been conducted throughout North America to assess the nature, extent,
and severity of sediment contamination. Although these investigations often have a number
of common elements, their objectives frequently differ depending on the regulatory program
under which they are conducted. The following sections of this appendix provide
descriptions of the types of assessments that are being conducted under various regulatory
programs, including:
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 - TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 79
• State and Tribal Water Quality Standards and Monitoring programs;
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program;
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program;
• Dredged Material Management program;
Ocean Disposal program;
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (i.e.,
CERCLA; Superfund) program;
• British Columbia Contaminated Sites program;
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program;
• Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act (FIFRA) program;
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program;
• Damage Assessment and Restoration program; and,
Status and Trends Monitoring programs.
A description of the objectives of each of these types of programs is presented in the
following sections of this document. This information on the objectives of each regulatory
program and on the types of sediment quality assessments that are being conducted was
obtained primarily from USEPA (1993; 1998a; 2000a) and ASTM (200la). A description
of the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy that has been developed by USEPA
(which has the primary authority for managing contaminated sediments in the United States)
to guide sediment management initiatives is provided in Appendix 2 of Volume n (USEPA
1998a).
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 80
Al.l State and Tribal Water Quality Standards and Monitoring
Programs
The primary objective of state and tribal water quality standards and monitoring programs
is to protect and maintain designated uses of aquatic ecosystems. USEPA recommends that
States and Tribes use their narrative water quality criteria (e.g., "no toxics in toxic amounts")
to protect sediment quality, as necessary to support the protection and maintenance of
designated uses (USEPA 2000c). Attainment of such criteria can be evaluated using the
results of whole-sediment toxicity tests (or benthic community assessments, if desired) as the
primary indicator for identifying waters that are not attaining the applicable water quality
standards with respect to sediment quality. If testing indicates that a sediment causes
toxicity, sediment chemistry data, SQGs, TIE procedures, and/or and spiked-sediment
toxicity tests can be used to help identify chemicals that are contributing to the observed
toxicity (see Chapter 3 of Volume HI). Numerical SQGs can also be used to help determine
pollutant reductions necessary to meet water quality standards. Where toxicity testing has
not already been performed, available SQGs can be used to help prioritize water bodies for
such testing. As well, SQGs can act as benchmarks for monitoring progress toward meeting
water quality standards.
A1.2 Total Maximum Daily Load Program
The objective of the TMDL program is to identify the total maximum daily loads of each
COPC which, if not exceeded, will ensure that the ambient water quality criteria are met in
the receiving water bodies. Such calculations are intended to enable water quality managers
to allocate the total maximum daily load of various chemical substances among various
pollution sources, including natural background sources, non-point sources, and point source
discharges. Section 303(d) of the CWA provides that States and authorized Tribes are to
establish TMDLs at levels necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards.
Every two years, the states are required to:
• Identify waters that do not meet water quality standards and still require TMDLs;
• Rank waters in priority order; and,
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 81
• Develop TMDLs according to this ranking.
The TMDLs provide the information needed to determine the reductions in point and non-
point source discharges necessary to attain and maintain water quality standards. In this way,
TMDLs represent important tools for managing water quality conditions because they
facilitate allocation of assimilative capacity among the multiple sources of COPCs that are
present within a receiving water body.
Information to support the development of TMDLs that consider sediment quality conditions
may include the use of whole-sediment toxicity tests, benthic community surveys, sediment
chemistry data, SQGs, and TIEs (USEPA 1998a; Volume III). Using the approach
recommended by USEPA, states or tribes would utilize whole-sediment toxicity tests and
other appropriate tools to interpret their narrative criteria with respect to sediment toxicity
(i.e., in the absence of applicable state or tribal numerical sediment quality standards;
USEPA 2000c). If the applicable state or tribal water quality standard is not attained for a
water body, then the water body would be listed under Section 303(d) of the CWA and a
TMDL would need to be developed. Numerical SQGs, along with TIEs, whole-sediment
toxicity tests, or spiked-sediment toxicity tests, can be used to help identify the substances
that are causing or substantially contributing to sediment toxicity (i.e., COCs). These
substances are then targeted for the development of TMDLs. Numerical SQGs provide a
basis for determining the magnitude of the reductions in contaminant concentrations needed
to mitigate sediment toxicity. Sediment quality modeling can be used in development of
TMDLs that address sediment toxicity. There are a number of sediment models available
(Ingersoll et al. 1997), but sediment modeling is a relatively resource-intensive tasks and the
results must be field validated to confirm their reliability. Historic sediment chemistry and
contaminant loading data can also be used to estimate the loading reductions needed to
achieve the narrative criteria with respect to sediment toxicity. Follow-up monitoring should
include sediment chemistry analyses to verify that numeric targets are being met, as well as
whole-sediment toxicity tests to verify that the sediments are not toxic.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 82
A 1.3 National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System
Permitting Program
The objective of the NPDES permitting program is to establish water quality-based effluent
discharge limits to protect receiving waters from contamination by point sources (USEPA
2000c). NPDES permits represent the primary tools for ensuring that point source effluent
discharges do not compromise our ability to meet applicable water quality standards. Since
1994, sediment contamination has been considered in the selection of new industrial
categories of chemicals for the development of effluent quality criteria. However, most
NPDES permits do not contain discharge limits that are specifically developed to protect
sediment quality. Some of the information that can be used to support decision making on
NPDES permits relative to sediment quality conditions includes whole-sediment toxicity
tests, TIE procedures, bioaccumulation tests, sediment chemistry data, and SQGs (USEPA
1998a; Volume III).
Regulations promulgated by USEPA require permitting authorities to develop water quality-
based effluent limits under the NPDES permitting program, if a discharge is shown, or has
reasonable potential, to cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality
standards, including narrative criteria. Where the exceedance is due to sediment
contamination, the permit limits would then be based on sediment quality protection. If
sediment downstream of a discharge exhibits toxicity and the causative toxicant appears in
the effluent, the permitting authority or permittee should perform a more detailed analysis
(i.e., modeling) to confirm and quantify the impacts of the discharge. If modeling indicates
that the discharge contributes to the existing sediment contamination, appropriate effluent
limits should be developed. There may be cases where ambient sediment does not yet exhibit
toxicity, but a regulatory authority may want to ensure that additional loadings from a point
source will not create a sediment toxicity problem. In situations where predictive modeling
indicates that a discharge would result in harmful levels of sediment contamination, the
regulatory authority could decide that there is sufficient evidence that the additional loadings
would contribute to sediment contamination. Sediment quality guidelines could then be
used, in conjunction with applicable modeling activities, to establish effluent limits that
would help meet applicable water quality standards (USEPA 2000c). Importantly, the results
of the TMDL process will also provide essential information to support NPDES permitting.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 83
A 1.4 Dredged Material Management Program
The objective of the Dredged Material Management program is to evaluate the potential
environmental effects associated with the disposal of dredged material in open water and in
confined disposal sites, as well as the possibility of using dredged material for beneficial
purposes, such as beach enrichment (USEPA 1992). Decisions on the management of
dredged materials are primarily supported by information on the toxicity of whole sediments
and elutriates in short-term tests (i.e., 4- to 10-day exposures), and on the bioaccumulation
of sediment-associated contaminants (USEPA and USAGE 1998a). As such, the dredged
material management program, which is authorized under Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRS A) and Section 404 of the CWA, relies
heavily on the results of effects-based testing to evaluate the suitability of dredged material
for disposal. Although there is no requirement for utilizing sediment chemistry data in the
evaluation of dredged material, such data could form part of the information base evaluated
to determine whether further assessment of contaminated sediment is warranted (USEPA and
USAGE 1998a). For example, in situations where only sediment chemistry data are available
(i.e., no data exists on sediment toxicity), and such data indicate that contaminant
concentrations exceed SQGs (Chapter 2 and 3 of Volume HI), then there is "reason to
believe" that further biological testing is necessary to evaluate the suitability of dredged
materials for open water disposal. However, a lack of exceedances of SQGs would not
provide sufficient justification for concluding that no further testing is warranted (i.e., due
to the potential presence of unmeasured substances or due to the lack of applicable SQGs).
In 1992, USEPA and USAGE published a guidance document entitled, Evaluating
Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives - A Technical
Framework (USEPA 2000c). The document discusses the regulatory requirements of
applicable statutes, the equipment and techniques employed in dredging and disposal, and
the general framework in which disposal alternatives are evaluated. In addition, guidance
is provided for conducting more detailed assessments for evaluating open water and confined
disposal options, as well as beneficial use alternatives. The analysis of each of these major
alternatives includes an evaluation of disposal site characteristics, physical effects of material
disposal, site capacity and suitability, and pathways of concern of each COPC. The
management actions and control measures that are needed to contain sediment-associated
contaminants are also identified during this type of analysis. See Figures Al. 1 to Al .4 for
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 84
an overview of the tiered approach for evaluating the potential impacts of aquatic disposal
of dredged material.
A1.5 Ocean Disposal Program
Like the United States Dredged Material Management program, the Canadian Ocean
Disposal program is intended to evaluate the suitability of dredged materials for open water
disposal. A tiered-testing approach has been developed to facilitate cost-effective
assessments of dredged materials. In the first tier of the assessment, samples of the materials
to be dredged are obtained and analyzed for a suite of priority substances, including but not
necessarily limited to metals, PAH, and PCBs. The measured concentrations of these
variables are then compared to numerical SQGs [i.e., threshold effect levels (TELs) and
probable effect levels (PELs); CCME 1999]. If the concentrations of all measured analytes
are below the screening levels (TELs), then the material is considered to be unlikely to cause
adverse effects. Such material may be disposed at approved open water disposal sites. In
contrast, dredged materials are considered to be unsuitable for open water disposal if the
concentrations of one or more analytes exceed the rejection levels (PELs). If the
concentrations of one or more substances fall between the screening and rej ection levels, then
further investigations are required to assess the suitability of the material for open water
disposal.
In the second tier of the assessment, a suite of bioassessment tools is used to further evaluate
the effects associated with exposure to the material under investigation. The suite of
bioassessment tools used in this evaluation includes:
• 10-day whole-sediment toxicity test with amphipods, in which survival is the
endpoint measured;
• Short-term pore-water toxicity with echinoderms, in which fertilization is the
endpoint measured;
• Short-term whole-sediment toxicity test with the bacterium, Vibrio fisheri (i.e.,
Microtox), in which bioluminescence is the endpoint measured;
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 85
• 20-day whole-sediment toxicity test with polychaetes, in which growth is the
endpoint measured; and,
• 28-day whole-sediment bioaccumulation test with clams, in which tissue residue
levels is the endpoint measured.
Decisions regarding the suitability of a material for open water disposal are then made based
on the results of these tests. If all tests pass, the material is considered to be rapidly rendered
harmless (RRH) and, hence, suitable for open water disposal. If the material is found to be
not toxic to amphipods but one of the other tests fail, then disposal is allowed only with
special handling techniques. However, the material is considered unsuitable for ocean
disposal if it is found to be toxic to amphipods or if two of the tests fail.
A1.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act Program
The objective the CERCLA program, which is also known as Superfund, was established to
facilitate clean up of hazardous waste sites to protect human health, welfare, and the
environment (USEPA 2000c). The Superfund program identifies, investigates, and
remediates sites contaminated with hazardous substances. The Superfund process provides
a tiered process for evaluating sites relative to their inclusion on the National Priorities List
(NPL). The process is not designed specifically for sediments, but rather provides a basis
for assessing risks to ecological receptors and human health associated with exposure to
contamination at a site via all exposure routes. The types of information used to support the
assessment and management of contaminated sediments at such sites include the results of
whole-sediment toxicity tests, benthic community surveys, and bioaccumulation tests
(Chapter 3, 4 and 5 of Volume III). Sediment chemistry data have also been used in
conjunction with effects-based SQGs to assess the potential risks to ecological receptors
associated with exposure to contaminated sediments (Chapter 2 of Volume III). Information
on the levels of contaminants in sediments and tissues, in conjunction with appropriate
benchmarks, have been used to assess risks to wildlife and human health. The results of
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 86
sediment assessments are used both in site assessment and in remedy selection (USEPA
1993).
In the Superfund program, SQGs have been used by investigators during the screening level
ecological risk assessment, which is conducted as part of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (COM 1999; USEPA2000c; MacDonald etal 2002 ). In this
application, SQGs have been used to help identify COPCs and areas of interest at
contaminated sites. Substances that occur at concentrations below SQGs would generally
not be carried through as COPCs into the baseline ecological risk assessment. However,
substances that occur at concentrations above the SQGs would warrant further investigation
(i.e., COPCs). While SQGs are primarily used for screening purposes, they can also be used
to support the establishment of preliminary remedial goals (PRGs) at sites with contaminated
sediments (USEPA 2000d; MacDonald et al. 2001; 2002). The results of site-specific
evaluations of the predictive ability of the SQGs provide a basis for assessing their
applicability as PRGs.
A1.7 British Columbia Contaminated Sites Program
The objective of the component of the British Columbia Contaminated Sites program is to
manage contaminated sites to protect human health and the environment. A tiered
framework has been established to support the assessment and management of contaminated
sediments in the province. Identification of the site as potentially containing contaminated
sediments represents the first tier in the framework. There are a number of property
management activities that can trigger the site assessment process; however, the presence of
Schedule 2 (of the Waste Management Act; WMA) activities in the upland portion of the site
is the most common trigger (see Table 5 of Volume I). In such cases, a site profile is
completed to provide the responsible agency with sufficient information to determine if the
site is potentially a contaminated site, including the potential for sediment contamination.
A preliminary site investigation (PSI) is required at any site that is suspected of having
contaminated sediments (Chapter 3 of Volume II). The objective of the PSI is to evaluate
the nature, magnitude, and extent of sediment contamination at the site. As such, a sampling
program is designed and implemented to obtain sufficient sediment samples to characterize
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGES?
the concentrations and distributions of contaminants at the site. The measured
concentrations of each analyte are then compared to numerical SQGs to determine if the site
is legally contaminated (i.e., if one of more substances exceed the SQGs in more that 10%
of the samples). Further investigation or remediation is required at sites that are found to
have contaminated sediments.
The additional investigations (i.e., detailed site investigation; DSI) that are conducted at the
site are intended to assess the risks posed by contaminated sites to human health and the
environment. For sites that contain toxic substances that partition into sediments (e.g.,
metals PAHs), such investigations are designed to assess toxicity to sediment-dwelling
organisms. Although short-term toxicity tests have been used extensively to date, longer-
term toxicity tests (e.g., 28-day toxicity tests with the amphipod, Hyalella azteca) will be
required in the future. More comprehensive investigations are required at sites that contain
both toxic and bioaccumulative substances (e.g., PCBs).
The results of the DSI are intended to provide the information needed to determine if the site
is legally contaminated, as defined under the WMA. Remedial action is usually required at
sites that are determined to be legally contaminated. Numerical sediment quality standards
(SQSs) provide the benchmark for establishing clean-up targets and evaluating the efficacy
of remedial measures. Numerical SQSs can be established using either of two approaches
including the criteria-based approach and the risk-based approach. Using the criteria-based
approach, the numerical SQG can be adopted directly as SQSs or site-specific SQSs may be
derived using approved procedures. Alternatively, the risk-based approach may be applied
to establish tolerable risk levels at the site. In this case, clean-up levels are often established
by determining the level of contamination that roughly corresponds to an LC20or an EC50 for
appropriately selected receptors and/or endpoints.
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 88
Al .8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action
Program
The objective of the RCRA program is to clean up hazardous waste sites to protect human
health, welfare, and the environment (USEPA 2000c). USEPA has authority to assess
whether releases from a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility have
contaminated sediments and whether corrective action is required (USEPA 1998a). Under
this program, sediments may be identified as toxic using the RCRA toxicity characterization
leaching process (USEPA 1993). Under this process, concentrations of various chemicals
in a leachate are compared to concentrations established to protect human health and the
environment. The information used to support decision-making relative to contaminated
sediments is similar to that described above for Superfund (Section A1.6; USEPA 1993).
A 1.9 Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act
Program
The objective of the FIFRA program is to evaluate the effects on non-target organisms of
new and existing chemicals registered as pesticides (USEPA 2000c). While the program
considers all potential exposure routes, contaminated sediments represent an important route
of exposure for substances that partition into this medium. For these types of chemicals, the
results of spiked-sediment toxicity tests provide the requisite information for assessing the
toxicity and bioavailability of contaminants in sediment (USEPA 2000a; ASTM 200la).
Such dose-response relationships provide a basis for determining how varying application
rates and uses of chemicals are likely to adversely affect exposed species. Information on
the fate and transport of potential sediment-associated contaminants is also collected under
this program to support decisions on the registration of pesticides (USEPA 1993).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 89
A 1.10 Toxic Substances Control Act Program
The objective of the TSCA program is to reduce the risks associated with possible releases
of existing and new chemicals that are manufactured, distributed or disposed of in the United
States (USEPA 2000c). Under TSCA, the USEPA has the authority to regulate new and
existing chemicals that have the potential to contaminate sediments, if the potential risks to
human health or the environment are judged to be unreasonable. USEPA is developing a
program to assess the environmental fate and effects of toxic chemicals that could potentially
contaminate sediments into the routine chemical review processes that are conducted under
TSCA (USEPA 1998a). In this application, the results of spiked-sediment toxicity and
bioaccumulation tests are used to determine the bioavailability of contaminants in sediment
(USEPA 2000a; ASTM 200la). Additionally, information is collected on the fate and
transportation of potential sediment-associated contaminants (USEPA 1993). Together,
these data are used to support decisions on the regulation of new and existing chemicals that
could be released into the environment.
A 1.11 Damage Assessment and Restoration Program
Pursuant to the CERCLA, OP A, and CWA, federal and state officials act as trustees for
natural resources on behalf of the public. When acting in this capacity, such officials are
authorized to conduct natural resource damage assessment and restoration programs
(NRDARs) following the discharge of oil or the release of hazardous substances into the
environment. The purpose of such assessments is to determine if natural resources have been
injured by discharges of oil or releases of other hazardous substances, to quantify any injuries
that have occurred to water or biological resources, and to determine the damages that are
associated with those injuries (including the costs associated with restoration of injured
resources and the monetary value of natural resource services that were lost prior to
restoration).
Two sets of regulations have been promulgated to guide natural resource trustees in the
assessment of injuries and damages (Weiss et al. 1997). In 1987, the Department of the
Interior (DOI) issued regulations for conducting damage assessments following the discharge
of oil or the release of hazardous substances under the authority of the CERCLA and CWA.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 90
Subsequently (1996), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued
regulations for the assessment of damages resulting from a discharge or a substantial threat
of discharge of oil. Where both oil and other hazardous substances have been released, the
DOT regulations are considered to take precedence, although the NOAA regulations may also
provide useful guidance.
The NRDAR process consists of two main steps, including a pre-assessment screen and a
damage assessment. In the pre-assessment screen, readily available data and information are
reviewed to determine if the trustees have a reasonable probability of making a successful
damage claim. If the results of the pre-assessment screen indicate that a damage assessment
is warranted, then an assessment plan is developed to guide the design and implementation
of the assessment, and to communicate the proposed assessment methods to potentially
responsible parties and to the public. Under the DOI regulations, two types of assessments
may be conducted, including Type A and Type B assessments. The Type A assessment
involves a simplified process that relies only minimally on field observations and applies to
minor, short duration releases of oil and/or other hazardous substances. The Type B
assessment comprises a more comprehensive set of studies and analyses, and applies to
major, long duration releases of oil and/or other hazardous substances (MacDonald et al.
2002a; 2002b).
The DOI is currently developing a revision to the Type B NRDAR rule which more directly
addresses sediment injury. In the context of NRDAR, sediment injury has been defined as
the presence of conditions that have injured or are sufficient to injure sediment-dwelling
organisms, fish, or wildlife (MacDonald and Ingersoll 2000; MacDonald et al. 2002a;
2002b). MacDonald and Ingersoll (2000) conducted an assessment of sediment injury in the
Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor located in southern Lake Michigan. Information
on a total of nine indicators of sediment quality conditions was collated, evaluated, compiled
from the assessment area. These indicators included the chemical composition of sediment,
pore water, and tissues, the toxicity of whole sediments, pore water, and elutriates to aquatic
organisms, the status of benthic invertebrate and fish communities, and fish health. The data
on each of these indicators were compared to regionally-relevant benchmarks to determine
if sediments, sediment-dwelling organisms, and/or fish and wildlife resources in the
assessment area had been injured due to discharges of oil or releases of other hazardous
substances. The same data and benchmarks were also used to establish the areal extent of
sediment injury (MacDonald et al. 2002a; 2002b).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 91
A 1.12 Status and Trends Monitoring Programs
There are a number of programs designed to evaluate the nature, severity, and extent of
sediment contamination on broad geographic or temporal scales. These programs include
the USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP; USEPA 1997c),
the USEPANational Sediment Quality Survey (NSQS;USEPA1997b), theNOAANational
Status and Trends Program (NSTP; Long and Morgan 1991), and the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA).
The EMAP program was established to conduct research to develop the tools necessary to
monitor and assess the status and trends of national ecological resources. The goal of EMAP
is to develop the scientific understanding needed to translate environmental monitoring data
from multiple spatial and temporal scales into assessments of ecological conditions and
forecasts of the future risks to the sustainability of natural resources. The objectives of
EMAP are to advance the science of ecological monitoring and ecological risk assessment,
and to guide national monitoring with improved scientific understanding of ecosystem
integrity and dynamics. Indicators have been developed for use in monitoring the condition
of ecological resources, and investigating multi-tier designs that address the acquisition and
analysis of multi-scale data including aggregation across tiers and natural resources. The
sediment assessment portion of the EMAP program has included whole-sediment chemistry
for major contaminants (organic and inorganic), whole-sediment toxicity testing (primarily
10-day toxicity tests), and benthic community surveys.
The NSQS was conducted to provide Congress with a comprehensive evaluation of sediment
quality conditions in the United States. More specifically, the NSQS was designed to:
• Obtain information on the extent and severity of the problem of contaminated
sediments nationwide;
• Identify areas that may be contaminated and need further assessment; and,
• Identify areas that may be associated with adverse effects to human health or the
environment.
To support the fulfillment of these objectives, the NSQS developed a database describing the
levels of chemical contaminants in river, lake, ocean, and estuary sediments. Information
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 1 -TYPES AND OBJECTIVES OF FRESHWATER SOAs - PAGE 92
from over 21,000 sampling stations in the United States were compiled to evaluate sediment
chemistry, chemical residues in edible tissue of aquatic organisms, and sediment toxicity.
The information contained in this database were then utilized to conduct a screening level
assessment of the potential for adverse effects on human and environmental health. This
database has now been updated with recently-collected information to support the second
report to Congress on sediment quality conditions in the United States (USEPA 200Ib).
The NSTP is designed to monitor spatial and temporal trends of chemical contamination and
biological responses to that contamination. Temporal trends are being monitored through
the Mussel Watch project, in which mussels and oysters are collected annually at about 200
sites throughout coastal and estuarine areas of the United States. Spatial trends have been
described on a national scale using data on the concentrations of COPCs in surface sediments
collected from 240 sites distributed throughout the coastal and estuarine United States under
both the Mussel Watch and Benthic Surveillance Projects. In addition, the Benthic
Surveillance Project has measured chemical concentrations in fish livers and performed
histological analyses offish for evidence of biological responses to chemical contamination.
The sediment assessment portion of the NSTP is primarily focused on the collection and
interpretation of data on whole-sediment chemistry for maj or COPCs (organic and inorganic
chemicals), whole-sediment toxicity tests, pore-water toxicity tests, toxicity tests with
organic extracts of sediments, and benthic community surveys.
The NAWQA program was designed to describe the status and trends in the quality of the
Nation's ground- and surface-water resources and to provide an understanding of the natural
and human factors that affect the quality of these resources. As part of the program,
investigations are being conducted in 59 areas called "study units" located throughout the
United States. These investigations are designed to provide a framework for national and
regional water-quality assessment. Regional and national synthesis of information from
study units will consist of comparative studies of specific water-quality issues using
nationally consistent information. The sediment assessment portion of NAWQA is based
primarily on whole-sediment chemistry for major COPCs (organic and inorganic chemicals).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 2 - USEPA CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - PAGE 9 3
Appendix 2 USEPA Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy
The USEPA has primary authority under a variety of statutes to manage contaminated
sediments in the United States (Table A2.1). The USEPA Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy (USEPA 1998a) established the following four goals for managing
contaminated sediments, including:
To prevent further contamination of sediments that may cause unacceptable
ecological or human health risks;
• When practical, to clean up existing sediment contamination that adversely
affects the Nation's waterbodies or their uses, or that causes other significant
effects on human health or the environment;
• To ensure that sediment dredging and the disposal of dredged material continue
to be managed in an environmentally-sound manner; and,
To develop and consistently apply methodologies for analyzing contaminated
sediments.
The USEPA plans to employ its pollution prevention and source control programs to address
the first goal. To accomplish the second goal, USEPA plans to use a range of risk
management alternatives to reduce the volume and effects of existing contaminated
sediments, including natural recovery, in situ containment, and contaminated sediment
removal. Finally, USEPA is developing tools for use in pollution prevention, source control,
remediation, and dredged material management to meet all of these goals. These tools
include national inventories of sediment quality and environmental releases of contaminants,
numerical assessment guidelines to evaluate contaminant concentrations, and standardized
methods for conducting toxicity tests to evaluate the bioaccumulation and toxicity of
sediment samples (USEPA 1997a; 2000a).
The Clean Water Act is the single most important law dealing with quality of surface waters
in the United States, with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 2 - USEPA CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - PAGE 94
Sanctuaries Act, the Marine Protection and Research Act, and the Oil Pollution Act playing
complimentary roles. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters (Clean Water Act, Section 101).
Federal and state monitoring programs have traditionally focused on evaluating water quality
issues associated with point source discharges. The results of the National Sediment Quality
Survey, Volume I of the first biennial report to Congress on sediment quality in the United
States, indicated that this focus needs to be expanded to consider the impacts associated with
contaminated sediments (USEPA 1997a). The extent and severity of sediment contamination
in the United States, as documented in the National Sediment Inventory and in various
contaminated site assessments, emphasized the need for better tools for reducing and
preventing sediment contamination (USEPA 1997a). Such tools include whole-sediment
toxicity tests, benthic community analyses, and chemically-based SQGs. Sediment toxicity
tests directly measure toxicity to test organisms under laboratory conditions and are
especially valuable because the results of these studies can be used to evaluate the interactive
effects of chemical mixtures (USEPA 2000b). Benthic community analyses are also useful
because they provide information that is directly relevant for assessing the biological
integrity of the system under investigation. Numeric SQGs represent important assessment
tools because they provide a basis for identifying the substances that are causing or
substantially contributing to toxicity. Numeric SQGs can also provide substance-specific
targets for protecting and restoring sediment quality conditions (USEPA 2000b).
The Office of Water, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, the Office
of Solid Waste, and the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response are all committed to
the principle of consistent tiered testing of contaminated sediments, as described in the
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (USEPA 1998a). Tiered testing refers to a
structured, hierarchical procedure for satisfying data needs relative to decision-making that
consists of a series of tiers, or levels, of investigative intensity. Typically, increasing levels
in a tiered testing framework involve increased information generation and decreased
uncertainty (USEPA 1998a). Consistent tiered testing is desirable because it ensures that all
USEPA programs will use similar methods to generate data (hence assuring data
comparability) and to assess risks to ecological receptors and human health. It will also
provide the basis for uniform cross-program decision-making within the USEPA. Each
program, however, retains the flexibility of deciding whether identified risks would trigger
regulatory actions.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 2 - USEPA CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - PAGE 9 5
Each USEPA program office intends to develop guidance for interpreting the tests conducted
within the tiered framework and to explain how the information generated within each tier
would be used to trigger regulatory action. Depending on statutory and regulatory
requirements, the program specific guidance will describe how decisions are to be made,
potentially involving a weight of evidence approach, a pass-fail approach, or comparisons
to reference sites. The following two approaches are currently being used by USEPA: (1)
the Office of Water-U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dredged material testing framework; and,
(2) the OPPTS ecological risk assessment tiered testing framework. USEPA and USAGE
(1998b) describes the dredged material testing framework, while Smrchek and Zeeman
(1998) summarizes the OPPTS testing framework. A tiered testing framework has not yet
been selected for Agency-wide use, but some of the components have been identified. These
components include toxicity tests, bioaccumulation tests, SQGs, and other tools for
evaluating the potential for ecological effects (such as benthic community structure,
colonization rates, and in situ testing within mesocosms; USEPA 2000a).
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 96
Appendix 3 Additional Considerations for Designing
Sediment Quality Sampling Programs
A3.0 Introduction
To be effective, a sediment quality sampling program must be designed to fulfill the specific
objectives that have been established for the assessment. The types and objectives of
freshwater sediment quality assessments were discussed in Appendix 1 of Volume II. In
addition, guidance on the design and implementation of preliminary and detailed site
investigations was provided in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of Volume n, respectively, of this
guidance manual. Furthermore, the key elements of sampling and analysis plans for
assessing contaminated sediments were identified in Chapter 5 of Volume II. The
supplemental guidance that is offered in this appendix is intended to provide additional
information on the design of sediment quality sampling programs, including the selection of
control and reference sediments. This information was obtained primarily from USEPA
(2001a), ASTM (2001c) and COM (2000).
A3.1 Selection of Sampling Stations
The study area (or site) refers to the body of water that contains the sampling station(s) to be
evaluated, as well as adjacent areas (land or water) that might influence the conditions of the
sampling station. The size and characteristics of the study area will influence the sampling
design and station positioning methods. The boundaries of the study area need to be defined
using a hydrographic chart or topographic map.
The selection of an appropriate sampling design is one of the most critical steps designing
the study. The design will be a product of the general study objectives. Station location and
sampling methods will necessarily follow from the study design. Ultimately, a study design
should control extraneous sources error to the extent possible so that data are directly
applicable for addressing the project objectives.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 97
Most projects do not have the resources to fully characterize the spatial or temporal
variability of sediment quality conditions. To address the constraints imposed by resource
limitations, sampling can be restricted to an index period when biological measures are
expected to show the greatest response to pollution stress and within-season variability is the
lowest (Holland 1985; Barbour et al. 1999). This type of sampling can be also be
advantageous for characterizing benthic invertebrate and fish community structure in the
field. In addition, this approach is useful if sediment contamination is related to high flow
events (USEPA 200la). Alternatively, investigations can focus on measurement endpoints
that exhibit less seasonal variability (e.g., sediment toxicity).
There are a number of options for selecting sampling stations; however, most of these
options fall into two major categories of design, including random sampling and targeted (or
biased) sampling. USEPA (2001a) presents a thorough discussion of sampling design issues
and detailed information on the various sampling designs, including the following
recommendations regarding sampling design:
• Historical data and the locations of sediment deposition zones should be
considered when selecting sampling stations;
• A systematic random sampling strategy may be most appropriate if the obj ective
of the program is to identify areas of toxic or contaminated sediments on a
quantitative spatial or temporal basis;
• A targeted station location design may be most appropriate if the obj ective of the
program is to evaluate the extent of sediment contamination originating from a
specific source or tributary;
• Stratified sampling should be used where historical, sediment-mapping data are
available and there are well-defined zones of different sediment types or adj acent
land uses; and,
• A probability-based random sampling design may be most appropriate for
watershed or regional assessment programs.
In systematic random sampling, the first sampling location is chosen randomly and all
subsequent stations are placed at regular intervals (e.g., 50 meters apart) throughout the study
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 98
area. Depending on the types of analyses desired, such sampling can become expensive
unless the study area is relatively small or the density of stations is relatively low.
Systematic sampling can be effective for detecting previously unknown "hot spots" in the
study area.
Targeted sampling of sediments is appropriate for situations in which any of the following
apply: (1) relatively small-scale features or conditions are under investigation; (2) small
numbers of samples (e.g., fewer than 20 observations) will be evaluated; (3) there is reliable
historical and physical knowledge about the feature or condition under investigation; (4) the
objective of the investigation is to screen an area(s) for contamination at levels of concern;
or, (5) schedule or budget limitations preclude the possibility of implementing a statistical
design (USEPA 200la).
Targeted sampling designs can often be quickly implemented at a relatively low cost. As
such, this type of sampling can meet schedule constraints that cannot be met by
implementing a more rigorous statistical design. In many situations, targeted sampling offers
an additional important benefit of providing an appropriate level-of-effort for meeting
objectives of the study within a limited budget. Targeted sampling does not allow the level
of uncertainty in the field sampling to be accurately quantified. In addition, targeted
sampling limits the inferences that can be made to the units actually analyzed and the
extrapolation from those units to the overall population from which the units were collected.
Stratified random sampling consists of dividing the target population into non-overlapping
parts or subregions (e.g., watersheds), which are termed strata, to obtain a better estimate of
the mean or total for the entire population. The information required to delineate the strata
and estimate sampling frequency needs to be known before sampling. This information is
typically obtained from historic data or by conducting a reconnaissance survey. Sampling
locations are randomly selected from within each of the strata. In stratified designs, the
selection probabilities may differ among strata.
A related design is multistage random sampling, in which large subareas within the study
area are first selected (usually on the basis of professional knowledge or previously collected
information). Stations are then randomly located within each subarea to yield average or
pooled estimates of the variables of interest. This type of sampling is especially useful for
statistically comparing variables among specific parts of a study area.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 99
Use of random sampling designs may miss relationships among variables, especially if there
is a relationship between an explanatory and a response variable. As an example, estimation
of COPC concentrations nearby an outfall requires data from a number of sampling stations,
including those located directly adjacent to the outfall and those that are located further from
the outfall. A simple random sample of stations may not capture the entire range, because
the high end of the gradient would likely be under-represented in the design.
Probability-based sampling designs avoid bias in the results of sampling by randomly
assigning and selecting sampling locations. A probability-based design requires that all
sampling units have a known probability of being selected. Stations can be selected on the
basis of a random scheme or in a systematic way (e.g., sample every 10 meters along a
randomly chosen transect). In simple random sampling, all sampling units have an equal
probability of selection. This design is appropriate for estimating means and totals of
environmental variables if the population is homogeneous. To apply simple random
sampling, it is necessary to identify all potential sampling times or locations, then randomly
select individual times and/or locations for sampling.
A3.2 Sample Size, Number of Samples, and Replicate Samples
Before starting a sampling program, the type and number of analyses and tests needs to be
determined and the required volume of sediment per sample needs to be established (ASTM
200 la; USEPA2001a; Table 5). When determining the required sample volumes, it is useful
to know the general characteristics of the sediments being sampled. For example, if pore-
water analyses are to be conducted, the percent water of the sediment will influence the
amount of water extracted. It is recommended that additional sediment (i.e., beyond the
volume that is calculated to meet the needs of the various chemical analyses and toxicity
tests) be collected at each station during the sampling program and stored in an appropriate
way in the laboratory. In this way, it will be possible to retest samples that yield anomalous
results or to provide sediment to other laboratories if samples are lost or broken during
transport. The testing laboratories should be consulted to confirm the amount of sediment
required for each toxicity test or chemical analysis.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 100
The number of samples collected is usually determined by the size of the sampling station,
type and distribution of COPCs being measured, heterogeneity of the sediment,
concentrations of COPCs in the sediments, sample volume requirements, and desired level
of statistical resolution. Accordingly, sample requirements needs to be determined on a case-
by-case basis. The number of samples to be collected will ultimately be an outcome of the
questions asked. For example, if one is interested in characterizing effects of a point source
or a gradient (e.g., effects of certain tributaries or land uses on a lake or estuary), then many
samples in a relatively small area may need to be collected and analyzed. If, however, one
is interested in identifying "hot spots" or locations that are highly contaminated within a
watershed or large water body, relatively few samples at targeted locations may be
appropriate. The number of samples to be collected usually results from a compromise
between the ideal and the practical. The major practical constraints are the logistics of
sample collection and the costs of analyses.
The objective of collecting replicate samples at each sampling station is to allow for
quantitative statistical comparison within and among different stations. Separate subsamples
from the same grab or core sample might be used to measure the variation within a sample
but not necessarily within the station. The collection of separate samples within a sampling
station can impart valuable information on the spatial distribution of contaminants at the
station and on the heterogeneity of the sediments within the station. However, the collection
of replicate samples at each station will dramatically increase the analytical chemical costs
needed for the assessment. Approaches that can be used to determine the number of
replicates required to achieve a minimum detectable difference at a specific confidence level
and power are outlined in USEP A (2001 a). Traditionally, acceptable coefficients of variation
vary from 10 to 35%, the power from 80 to 95%, the confidence level from 80 to 99%, and
the minimum detectable relative difference from 5 to 40%.
Replicate samples collected from a sampling station can be kept separate and treated as true
replicate samples, or they can be combined to generate a composite sample. A composite
sample from a sampling station is treated as a single sample. Compositing of sediment
samples within a habitat location might be desirable if resources prevent detailed spatial
characterization, if a large area is being sampled, or if split sampling is being conducted (e.g.,
comparisons of toxicity, bioaccumulation, and sediment chemistry; ASTM 200la).
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 101
A3.3 Control and Reference Sediments
Sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation tests must include a control sediment (sometimes
called a negative control) to support an assessment of test validity (i.e., acceptability). A
control sediment is a sediment that is essentially free of contaminants and is used routinely
to assess the acceptability of a test and is not necessarily collected near the site of concern
(ASTM 200la; USEPA 2000a). For example, control sediments for toxicity tests can be
obtained from the locations that the test organisms were collected. Any COPCs in control
sediment are thought to originate from the global spread of pollutants and do not reflect any
substantial inputs from local or non-point sources. Comparing test sediments to control
sediments provides a means of measuring the toxicity of a test sediment beyond that
associated with background contamination and organism health. A control sediment
provides a measure of test acceptability, evidence of test organism health, and a basis for
interpreting data obtained from the test sediments. A reference sediment is collected near
an area of concern and is used to assess sediment conditions exclusive of material(s) of
interest. Testing a reference sediment provides a site-specific basis for evaluating toxicity.
In general, the performance of test organisms in the negative control is used to judge the
acceptability of a test, and either the negative control or reference sediment may be used to
evaluate performance in the experimental treatments, depending on the purpose of the study.
Any study in which organisms in the negative control do not meet performance criteria must
be considered questionable because it suggests that adverse factors affected the response of
test organisms (i.e., other than the variables of interest, sediment contamination; ASTM
200la; USEPA 2000a). The key to avoiding this situation is to use only control sediments
that have a demonstrated record of performance for the test procedure that will be employed.
This includes testing of new collections from sediment sources that have previously provided
suitable control sediment. It is recommended by USEPA (2000a) and ASTM (200la) that
a laboratory demonstrate acceptable control responses of organisms in a minimum of five
separate tests with the control sediment and proposed test conditions.
Because of the uncertainties introduced by poor performance in the negative control, such
studies should be repeated to ensure that accurate results are generated. However, the scope
of sampling associated with some studies may make it difficult or impossible to repeat a
study (unless extra sediment was collected during the sampling program). Some researchers
have reported cases where performance in the negative control is poor, but performance
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 102
criteria are met in a reference sediment included in the study design. In these cases, it might
be reasonable to infer that other samples that show good performance are probably not toxic;
however, any samples showing poor performance should not be judged to have shown
toxicity, since it is unknown whether the adverse factors that caused poor control
performance might have also caused poor performance in the test treatments.
A3.4 Evaluation of Data Quality
Evaluation of the quality of the data that are collected in sediment sampling and analysis
programs represents an essential element of the overall sediment quality assessment process.
In general, there are five primary indicators of the quality of physical, chemical, and
biological data, including:
• Precision;
• Accuracy;
• Representativeness;
Completeness; and,
• Comparability.
The following descriptions of these data quality indicators was obtained from CDM (2000).
Precision - The precision of a measurement is an expression of mutual agreement among
individual measurements of the same property taken under prescribed similar conditions.
Precision is quantitative and most often expressed in terms of relative percent difference
(RPD). The precision of laboratory analyses is usually assessed by comparing duplicate
analytical results, where applicable. The RPD is calculated for each pair of applicable
duplicate analyses using the following equation:
Relative Percent Difference = [(S • D) - (S + D)-2)] x 100
where:
S = First sample value (original value); and,
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 103
D = Second sample value (duplicate value).
Precision of reported results is a function of inherent field-related variability and/or
laboratory analytical variability, depending on the type of QC samples that are submitted.
Data may be evaluated for precision using the following types of samples (in order of
priority): field duplicates, laboratory duplicates, laboratory control sample/laboratory control
sample duplicates (LCS/LCSDs), or matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSDs).
The acceptable RPD limits for duplicate measurements are listed in USEPA Contract
Laboratory Program, National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (USEPA
1994b) and USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Organic Data Review (USEPA 1999b).
Accuracy - Accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted
reference or true value and is a measure of the bias in a system. Accuracy is quantitative and
usually expressed as the percent recovery (%R) of a sample result. Percent R is calculated
as follows:
Percent Recovery = [SSR - (SR - SA)] x 100
where:
SSR = Spiked Sample Result;
SR = Sample Result; and,
SA = Spike Added.
Ideally, the reported concentration should equal the actual concentration present in the
sample. Data may be evaluated for accuracy using (in order of priority) certified reference
materials, LCS/LCSDs, MS/MSDs, and/or surrogates. The acceptable %R limits are
presented in USEPA National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (USEPA
1994b) and USEPA National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (USEPA
1999b). It should be noted that no procedures are currently available to evaluate the accuracy
of toxicity tests.
Representativeness - Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data
accurately and precisely represent the characteristic being measured, parameter variations at
a sampling point, and/or an environmental condition. Representativeness is a qualitative and
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 104
quantitative parameter that is most concerned with the proper sampling design and the
absence of cross-contamination of samples. Acceptable representativeness is achieved
through:
• Careful, informed selection of sampling sites;
• Selection of testing parameters and methods that adequately define and
characterize the extent of possible contamination and meet the required parameter
reporting limits;
• Proper gathering and handling of samples to avoid interferences and prevent
contamination and loss; and,
Collection of a sufficient number of samples to allow characterization.
Representativeness is assessed qualitatively by reviewing the sampling and analytical
procedures and quantitatively by reviewing the results of analyses of blank samples. If an
analyte is detected in a method, preparation, or rinsate blank, any associated positive result
less than five times the detection limit (10 times for common laboratory COPCs) may be
considered a false positive. Holding times are also evaluated to determine if analytical
results are representative of sample concentrations.
Completeness - Completeness is a measure of the amount of usable data obtained from a
measurement system compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained under correct
normal conditions. Usability is determined by evaluating the PARCC parameters excluding
completeness. Those data that are validated, evaluated and are not considered estimated, or
are qualified as estimated or non-detect are all considered to be usable. Rejected data are not
considered usable. Completeness is calculated using the following equation:
Percent Completeness = (DO - DP) x 100
where:
DO = Data Obtained and usable; and,
DP = Data Planned to be obtained.
A completeness goal of 90 percent is often applied to sediment quality assessments.
GUIDANCE ANNUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSIDERA TIONS FOR DESIGNING SQ SAMPLING PROGRAMS - PAGE 105
Comparability - Comparability is a qualitative parameter. Consistency in the acquisition,
handling, and analysis of samples is necessary for comparing results. Application of standard
methods and appropriate quality control procedures are the primary means of assuring
comparability of results with other analyses performed in a similar manner.
GUIDANCE MANUAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - VOLUME II
-------
Appendix
Tables
-------
Table A2.1. Statutory needs for sediment quality assessment (from USEPA 2000c).
Legislation
Description of Sediment Quality Assessment Need
CERCLA; BCWMA
CWA
FIFRA
MPRSA; CEPA
NEPA
TSCA
RCRA
* Assess need for remedial action with contaminated sediments; assess degree of cleanup required; disposition
of sediment.
* NPDES permitting, especially under Best Available Technology (BAT) in water-quality-limited water.
* Section 403( c ) criteria for ocean discharges; mandatory additional requirements to protect marine environment.
* Section 301( g ) waivers for publically owned treatment works (PTOWS) discharging to marine waters.
* Section 404 permits to dredge and fill activities (administered by the Corps of Engineers).
* Review uses of new and existing chemicals.
* Pesticide labeling and registration.
* Permits for ocean dumping.
* Preparation of environmental impact statements for projects with surface water discharges.
* Section 5: Pre-manufacture notice reviews for new chemicals.
* Section 4, 5, 6: Reviews for existing industrial chemicals.
* Assess suitability (and permit) on-land disposal or beneficial use of contaminated sediments considered "hazardous".
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund"); BCWMA - British Columbia Waste Management
Act (Contaminated Sites Regulation); CEPA - Canadian Environmental Protection Act; CWA - Clean Water Act; FIFRA - Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; MPRSA - Marine Protection, Resources and Sanctuary Act; NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act; TSCA -
Toxic Substances Control Act; RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
107
-------
Appendix
Figures
-------
Figure Al.l. Overview of the tiered approach for assessing the environmental
effects of dredged material management alternatives (from USEPA and
USACE 1998a).
-' •-- '. ;•'••'• '' '• ,„,„_ '••«"• >'•'•• <-'
-.-'" i •=•=*- :',:" .;V: • •" ••-•••• -*.*, Ul. • •'""
t'. -• ^-i. ,£& " ' ' • . ' ErtQ KVf*t tid/XfcMS:^ " '•' ' ^'' = ' '
***= ; , " , „-; , , ^ i^vi^^1'*-'"***-*'***'^"*^^. •• -. ; - • • ^ "••••: '-.-''^f'i'i-
WATER COLUMN
MEASURE AND
MODEL DISSOLVED
CONTAMINANTS;
COMPARE TO WQS
MEASURE TOXICITY;
MODEL SUSPENDED
PHASE; DETERMINE
TOXICITY AFTER MIXING
BENTHOS
CALCULATE THEORETICAL
BIOACCUMU LAT1ON
POTENTIAL; COMPARE
TO REFERENCE
MEASURE TOXICITY;
MEASURE
BIOACCUMULATION;
COMPARE TO FDA LIMITS
AND TO REFERENCE
CONDUCT
CASE-SPECIFIC
TOXICITY TESTS
CONDUCT
CASE-SPECIFIC
TOXICITY;
BIOACCUMULATION;
OTHER TESTS
-!!•**••• •
ri
: i j;
•:•$?•
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I',' *'*B »s~'^ •" -W
6ESSRAa*-RB»ftESgN7
EXISTING INFORMATION
TIER II
(SOLELY CONCERNED
WITH CHEMISTRY)
TIER III
(GENERIC BIOASSAY
[TOXICITY AND
BIOACCUMULATION]
TESTS)
TIER IV
(SPECIFIC BIOSSAY
[TOXICITY AND
BIOACCUMULATION]
AND OTHER TESTS)
Page 109
-------
Figure A1.2. Simplified overview of tiered approach to evaluating potential impact of aquatic disposal of dredged
material (from USEPA and USACE 1998a).
EVALUATE EXISTING INFORMATION
(4.1)
-X^^TO^EFD,^ T|ER
^^«^ (
JNO
f
*
EVALUATE POTENTIAL WATER-COLUMN 1
IMPACT (FIGURE 2) 1
^ I
EVALUATE POTENTIAL BENTHIC 1
IMPACT (FIGURE 3) 1
1 1
*
EVALUATE
WITH WQS
*
EVALUATE
WATER-COLUMN
TOXICITY
1 1 TIERS
* * ii 111 r
EVALUATE EVALUATE
BENTHIC BENTHIC
TOXICITY BIOACCUMULATION
i
I
i
KEY TO NOMENCLATURE
DM DREDGED MATERIAL
FD FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS
WQS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
MAKE FD REGARDING
WATER COLUMN IMPACT,
BENTHIC TOXICITY AND
BENTHIC BIOACCUMULATION
Page 110
-------
Figure A1.3. Illustration of the tiered approach to evaluating potential water column
impacts of dredged material (from USEPA and USACE 1998a).
TIER II
FROM FIGURE 1
EVALUATE POTENTIAL WATER-COLUMN
IMPACT
WATER-COLUMN TOXICITY
WQS SCREEN.
MODEL ASSUMED
TOTAL RELEASE OF SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANTS TO THE
WATER COLUMN
(10.1.1)
MODELED
SCREENING
CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEED WQS AFTER
NITIAL MIXING?
(5.1.1)
MEASURE DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN IN WATER COLUMN
(10.1.2)
MODEL DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN IN WATER COLUMN
(10.1.2)
EXCEED WQS AFTER
MEASURE TOXICITY
OF DM SUSPENSION
(11.1)
DIFFERENCE AND
IGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT
THAN DILUENT
WATER?
MODEL DM
SUSPENDED PHASE
IN WATER COLUMN
(11.1.7)
DM NOT
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
ACUTE WATER-
COLUMN
TOXICITY
DM
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
WATER-COLUMN
TOXICfTY
MODELED
CONCENTRATION
EXCEEDS 0.01 OF LC. OR
EC, AFTER INITIAL
MIXING?
11.1.6)
UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION
CONDUCT CASE-SPECIFIC
TOXICITY TESTS
(11.4)
DM NOT
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
WATER
COLUMN
TOXICITY
DM
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
WATER-COLUMN
TOXICITY
ARE
CASE-SPECIFIC
CRITERIA MET AFTER
INITIAL MIXING?
(7.1)
TIER III
KEY TO NOMENCLATURE
DM DREDGED MATERIAL
WQS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
LCB LETHAL CONCENTRATION TO 50% OF
TEST ORGANISMS, EQUAL TO
ACUTE TOXICITY CONCENTRATION
EC., EFFECTS CONCENTRATION; EQUIVALENT
TO LC. FOR NONLETHAL ACUTE EFFECTS
TIER IV
Page 111
-------
Figure A1.4. Illustration of the tiered approach to evaluating potential benthic
impacts of deposited dredged material (from USEPA and USACE 1998a).
FROM FIGURE 1
EVALUATE POTENTIAL BENTHIC
IMPACT
BENTHIC BIOACCUMULATION
CALCULATE THEORETICAL
BIOACCUMULATION POTENTIAL
(10.2)
DM NOT
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
BENTHIC
BIOACCUMU-
LATION
OFNPO
OTHER
CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN
DM
EXCEEDS REF?
(5.2)
MEASURE BIOACCUMULATION
(12.1)
MEASURE TOXICFTY
(11.2)
DM
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
ACUTE
BENTHIC
TOXIOTY
DM>
REF BY
MORE THAN ALLOWABLE
PERCENTAGE?
(6.2)
DM NOT
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
BENTHIC
BIOACCUMU-
LATION
DM NOT
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
ACUTE
BENTHIC
TOXICITY
DM
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
BENTHIC
BIOACCUMU-
LATION
ARE
CASE-SPECIFIC
CRITERIA MET?
(6.3)
UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
INSUFFICIENT
INFORMATION
UNUSUAL
!IRCUMSTANCES
CONDUCT CASE-SPECIFIC
TOXICITY TESTS
(11.4)
MEASURE EMPIRICAL STEADY
STATE BIOACCUMULATION
(12.2)
DM NOT
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
BENTHIC
TOXICITY
ARE
CASE-SPECIFIC
CRITERIA MET?
(7.1)
DM
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
BENTHIC
TOXICITY
DM
FIELD ORGANISMS?
(7.2)
DM
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
BENTHIC
BIOACCUMU-
LATION
DM NOT
PREDICTED
TO RESULT IN
BENTHIC
BIOACCUMU-
LATION
ARE
CASE-SPECIFIC
CRITERIA MET?
(7.2)
KEY TO NOMENCLATURE
DM DREDGED MATERIAL
REF REFERENCE SEDIMENT
NPO NONPOLAR ORGANICS
> STATISTICALLY GREATER THAN
FDA USFDA ACTION LEVELS
FOR POISONOUS AND
DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES
IN FISH AND SHELLFISH
FOR HUMAN FOOD
Page 112
------- |