905R89104
Interim Guidance for the Design and Execution of
Sediment Sampling and Testing Efforts
Relating to
Navigational Maintenance Dredging
in Region V
Environmental Review Branch
Planning and Management Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
May, 1989
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.0
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
Introduction
Overview of Design Stages
Pre-design
Historical Information
Initial Delineation
Preliminary Design Stage
Frequency of Sampling
Number of Sampling Sites
Sampling Site Locations
Type of Sample
Parameters of Testing
Special Cases
Final Design Stage
Execution
Sediment Collection Methods
Chemical Analysis
Biological Testing
Reporting of Data
Physical Data
Chemical Data
Biological Data
page
1
5
5
6
14
14
14
17
19
20
24
25
31
31
33
34
40
40
40
44
Appendix A: USACE Maintained Waterways of the Great Lakes
Appendix B: Comparison of Sample Size vs. Historical Data
Appendix C: Wastewater Characteristics of Selected Industrial Processes
Appendix D: Sampling and Testing Costs
Appendix E: USACE Contract Types
Appendix F: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Format and Requirements
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
It is the authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
to maintain all authorized navigation waterways. This includes many
harbors, channels, and reaches of rivers in Region V of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)*. Through erosional and hydro!ogical
processes, sediment deposits accumulate along these waterway areas,
interfering with navigation and requiring maintenance sediment removal
by the USACE, for maintenance of Federal navigational channels, as well
as private dredging operations.
For over a century, many of these same waterway areas have served as
centers of industrial activity, commercial expansion, and residential
development, while upstream portions of the watersheds have been subject
to agricultural activities. These waterways have received both point and
non-point source discharges containing varied amounts of natural and
man-made inputs. Many constituents of these discharges have a tendency
to become physically or chemically associated with suspended particulates,
which eventually may settle out and become incorporated into the bottom
sediments of these waterways. In the past several years, these sediments
have been clearly identified as potential sources of pollution and
environmental degradation.
Improper removal or disposal of contaminated sediments can result in an
unacceptable degree of environmental damage or degradation. In order to
prevent adverse environmental impacts from maintenance dredging, materials
from a proposed dredging project area must be accurately characterized
physically, chemically, and toxicologically before maintenance dredging
can occur. This requires the design and execution of a well-planned
sediment collection and sediment testing scheme. The data resulting
from these analyses are a basis for management decisions concerning
project-specific removal and disposal options.
There is a need to establish a consistent method for the design and
execution of sediment sampling and sediment testing efforts related to
navigational maintenance dredging within USEPA Region V. This document
was written to provide guidance and information concerning the following
aspects of a navigational maintenance dredging sediment sampling and
testing program:
1) Define the historical and background information necessary to design
and assess a proposed sampling and testing scheme.
2) Provide a rationale for various levels of sediment testing, based on
the projected suitability of materials for specific removal and
disposal options.
3) Provide a method for the establishment of sampling station locations
and the number of stations included in a project design.
4) Provide references of various procedures and protocols applicable to
the execution of sediment sampling and testing.
5) Provide a general overview of the costs associated with various sampling
and testing methods, along with a synopsis of contract options available
to the USACE for the execution of sediment sampling and testing, to
better inform Regulatory agencies involved in possible project design
modi fication.
*see Appendix A
(1)
-------
The goal of this work is to establish a consistent procedure for
the sampling and testing of sediments contained within the boundaries
of navigational maintenance dredging projects on the Great Lakes. It
should also serve as a vehicle to promote coordination and cooperation
among all State and Federal agencies involved in the dredged sediment
assessment process by stating, in a clearly defined manner, what infor-
mation is necessary and what procedures should be followed during the
design, review, and execution of a sediment sampling and testing plan.
(2)
-------
2.0 Overview of Design Stages
The design of a sediment sampling and testing plan is an iterative
process. Figure 1 (next page) provides an overview of the stages
involved in plan design, review, and execution. This document deals
with sampling project design, review, execution, and reporting of
data. The subsequent data interpretation (termed "characterization")
is a basis for management decisions concerning removal options (i.e.
hydraulic versus mechanical removal) and disposal options (i.e. open
lake disposal versus confined disposal). This document deals with
procedures up to, and including, the reporting of data resulting from
the sampling and testing effort.
The first stage considered is termed "pre-design." This entails
the acquisition of information concerning project-area water and land
use practices, as well as historical information about previous sediment
sampling efforts. This information is utilized to make initial
assumptions concerning the projected suitability of project subareas
for various removal and disposal options, a process termed "initial
delineation." Initial delineation can be very useful in avoiding
overrigorous sampling and testing of sediments where decisions concerning
removal and disposal options may already be fairly straightforward, a
valuable tool in optimizing the application of limited financial resources.
The second stage is termed "preliminary design." This involves
the development of a preliminary sampling and testing plan by the USAGE,
based on factors identified through review of historical information.
The third stage is termed "final design", requiring the interaction of
State and Federal regulatory agencies with the USAGE. These agencies
should be provided the opportunity to comment on the proposed USAGE
sampling and testing plan before it is executed. The final design of
the sampling and testing plan needs to consider the objectives of that
plan, in conjunction with what is economically achievable.
The next stage considered is the actual execution of the sampling and
testing plan. Literature references and guidance procedures are
provided for sediment collection, and handling, as well as analytical
and toxicity testing protocols.
The final section of this guidance provides a format for the reporting
of data to the regulatory agencies involved in the sediment characterization
and classification process. A standard data reporting format facilitates
a consistent and expedient review of sediment assessments.
The last two stages in Figure 1, characterization and management decisions,
are to be the focus of a future guidance document addressing the rationale
behind policy decisions concerning dredged materials management.
Characterization is a term applied to the actual interpretation of data
resulting from testing. Management decisions concerning removal and
disposal options are based upon that characterization.
This guidance is divided into sections corresponding with the above
identified stages. The first section deals with procedures encompassed
during the Pre-design stage.
(3)
-------
Figure 1. Stages of Sediment Sampling, Testing, and Characterization
STAGE
ACTION
Pre-Design
HISTORICAL PROJECT INFORMATION
INITIAL DELINEATION
Preliminary Design
DESIGN CRITERIA
Number of Stations
Location of Stations
Type of Samples
Parameters of Testing and Analysis
Final Design
COORDINATION AND REVIEW
ECONOMIC FACTORS
Execution
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Characterization
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
(4)
-------
3.0 Pre-Design Stage
The pre-design stage involves two separate phases. The first
is the assimilation of historical project data relating to the waterway
under consideration for dredging. The second phase is known as
initial delineation, where the historical project data are utilized
to make certain assumptions concerning the projected suitability of
dredged sediments for specific removal and disposal options. As will
be seen in subsequent sections, this projected suitability will effect
the overall purpose and design of the sampling and testing plan.
3.1 Historical Project Information
Certain historical project information is necessary for USAGE review
before a preliminary project design can be initiated. This includes
(but may not be limited to) the following:
a. project limits
b. project depth(s)
c. project area configuration and hydrologic patterns which influence
sediment transport and depositional processes
d. most recent bathymetric data, with contours showing depositional
areas to be removed, with mandated navigational depths indicated
e. volume determination of materials to be removed
f. location of previous sediment sampling locations, along with the
data resultant from the testing and analysis of the sediments collected
g. location/identification of municipal, industrial, and combined sewer
overflow outfalls within or above the project area
h. location/identification of loading docks, marinas, agricultural areas,
surface drainage outfalls, and other possible non-point source influences
i. identification of changes in land and water use practices which may
affect contaminant concentrations or distributions relative to previous
sediment sampling and testing efforts
Items a-f are easily attainable from USAGE records. Items g-i are
attainable with little difficulty. Item g could be provided to the
USAGE by the USEPA or State environmental agencies.
The above information can be utilized to divide a project into discrete
subareas, with each subarea requiring a different purpose for sampling
and testing, based on reason to believe that sediments from the project
area are clean or contaminated.
(5)
-------
3.2 Initial Delineation
Sediments within a given project area can span a full spectrum, ranging
anywhere from clean to heavily contaminated. Removal and disposal decisions
concerning these endpoints of the spectrum (clean or heavily contaminated)
can be relatively straightforward. Clean materials may be suitable for
beneficial uses or open-water disposal, while heavily contaminated materials
will require some type of confined disposal. If a project area has been
subject to contamination (as identified in Sec. 3.1, historical project
information), the ability to initially separate a project area into
distinct subareas, based on projected disposal suitabilities, is a useful
tool. Roth effort and cost may be conserved through the design of a
sampling and testing plan which is reflective of that projected suitability.
The conserved effort and cost may be applied toward a more intensive
acquisition of data from areas containing sediments which fall between
these two endpoints, the gray areas where materials' suitability is not
clearly demarcated.
Consider the following example. Materials located at an outer harbor
edge often result from littoral deposition of lake sands. These
materials are usually non-contaminated, and their projected method of
disposal would be either some beneficial use (i.e. beach nourishment)
or possibly open-water disposal. Sampling and testing of this type of
material should be geared toward this assumption.
Consider a second example. Based on historical sediment analysis
and current land/water use practices, certain projects may contain
sediments contaminated to levels which will obviously require some type
of confined disposal. When this is the case, sampling and testing should
be geared toward identifying sediment characteristics (i.e. settling,
elutriate, etc.) which affect removal and disposal design.
These two examples illustrate cases where management decisions
are fairly obvious. It is the materials which lie somewhere between
these two extremes which are referred to as the gray area. Inadequate
sampling and testing of these materials, whose projected suitability
for removal and disposal is uncertain, can result in: 1) environmental
damage from improper characterization and subsequent improper disposal of
contaminated materials, 2) undue expense associated with confined disposal
of non-contaminated materials, or 3) indecision and a need to repeat
sampling and testing.
Three types of sediments are identified below as Type I, Type II,
and Type III. Figure 2 shows the relative position of each Type in
a hypothetical harbor. Project configurations and hydrologic patterns
will vary from project to project, but this progression will be typical
of many situations encountered. Definitions of each Type are based
upon the origin of the material (littoral versus fluvial deposition) and
project-specific historical data. The purpose for testing' each sediment
Type and the recommended level of testing to accomplish this follow each
definition.
(6)
-------
Figure 2
Relative Position of Sediment Types in a Typical Harbor
\ (probably unpolluted)
r—i
HI I
I
(probably polluted)
-------
TYPE I Sediments
Composed primarily of sands (>80% retention by a #200 seive), Type I
sediments are generally located at the outer harbor mouth or outer channel
area. Type I sediments may also be present within some riverine dredging
projects . Historically, these sediments have been considered
non-polluted, as was defined by the 1977 Guidelines for the Pollutional
Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments (1977 Guidelines), and
past dredging exercises resulted in beneficial use or open-water disposal
of the material.
Purpose for testing - The presumption is that Type I sediments are
uncontaminated and suitable for some beneficial use or open-water
disposal. (Open-water disposal of any material requires a comparison
to materials at the proposed disposal site.) Sampling and testing are
conducted for five reasons (applicable Federal regulations are also shown):
1) Confirm the sediment is non-contaminated (401/404/NEPA);
2) Delineate the extent (area) of the material (401/404);
3) Compare physical and chemical characteristics of materials
from both the project area and proposed disposal site (404/NEPA);
4) Identify the benthic community being displaced by both the removal of
the materials and disposal of the materials (NEPA);
5) Complete testing necessary for 401 certification.
Testing Necessary:
1) Grain size analysis of project sediments to confirm >80% retention by #200 seive;
grain size analysis of proposed disposal area for comparison purposes;
2) Bulk chemical analysis of project sediments to confirm composition as
non-contaminated ; bulk chemical analysis of proposed disposal site
sediments for comparison;
3) Elutriate testing to determine the quality of discharge during the excavation
and disposal (if sediments are to be removed hydraulically);
4) Benthic invertebrate survey of both the project and disposal area to
characterize the communities being displaced by the proposed activity.
Type I materials located within a system having no identifiable
point or non-point source loadings may be considered non-contaminated
and exempted from detailed testing. Type I materials located outside
of known contaminated harbors will require more extensive testing to
confirm that the materials are non-contaminated.
(8)
-------
Type III Sediments
By definition, Type III sediments are known to be heavily contaminated
based on historical sediment analysis, and are not to be considered for
unconfined disposal. These materials are usually composed predominantly
of silts and clays of fluvial origin, located in waterways receiving
heavy industrial discharge, and possibly non-point source contamination
as well. Cases will exist where coarse-grained materials are known to be
contaminated and will qualify as a Type III material.
Purpose for testing - The presumption is that Type III sediments are
contaminated and unsuitable for unconfined disposal. Sampling and testing are
conducted for five reasons (applicable Federal regulations are also shown):
1) Confirm that the materials are contaminated;
2) Delineate the spatial distribution of the contaminated material to be
dredged (401/404/NEPA);
3) Determine if the materials are regulated under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA);
1 4) Determine if the materials are regulated under the Resource Conversation
( and Recovery Act (RCRA);
5) Define sediment characteristics necessary to assess potential impacts of
removal (NEPA);
6) Define sediment characteristics necessary to determine disposal design
options (404/401/NEPA).
Testing Necessary:
1) Grain-size analysis and other engineering analyses for assessing
removal equipment and disposal options;
2) Bulk chemical analysis for inventory and monitoring purposes;
) 3) Chemical analysis for regulatory purposes; this may include TSCA and
' RCRA regulatory analyses as appropriate;
4) Elutriate testing (if sediments are to be removed hydraulically) ;
5) Other physical and chemical testing (e.g. settling) considered
necessary for assessing potential impacts of specific removal and
disposal options.
f In cases where results of this testing indicate gross levels of contaminants,
/ further testing may be warranted. The purpose of this additional testing
(9)
-------
would be to identify the source(s) of the contamination and attempt to
have the source bear its share of the costs to dredge and dispose of
the contaminated sediments.
There are several legal theories under which such recovery might be
sought. TSCA provides authority to seek certain judicial relief against
firms which disposed of TSCA materials. RCRA's imminent hazard and
corrective action provisions, and its general liability structure, may
also provide some legal recourse against persons generating such wastes.
It is also possible that firms which are responsible for the contamination
of sediments may have some liability under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act's imminent hazard and general
liablility provisions.
(in)
-------
Type II Sediments
Composed of silts, clays, and sands (<80% retention by a #200 seive), this
material is typically located in the area of transition between Type I
and Type III sediments. These materials may be of both fluvial and littoral
origin. Historically these sediments may or may not have been suitable
for open-water disposal based on the 1977 Guidelines. Type II sediments
are considered the "gray area" often encountered in maintenance dredging.
Purpose for testing - Type II sediments are subjected to the most rigorous
testing regime, owing to the nature of their variability from project to
project and their uncertain suitability for any given removal or disposal
option. Sampling and testing are conducted for the following reasons
(applicable Federal regulations are also shown):
1) Quantify the % grain size distribution of the sediment (401/404);
2) Ouantitate the concentration(s) of contaminants present (4Q1/404/NEPA);
3) Determine the spatial distribution and the physical and chemical
characteristics of the sediments (404/401);
4) Identify the benthic community being displaced by both the removal of
the materials and disposal of the materials;
5) Determine the potential sediment toxicity to the biological community (404);
6) Characterize the potential impact of various removal techniques (NEPA); and
7) Characterize the potential impact of various disposal options
or for considerations necessary to design various disposal options
(401/404/NEPA).
Testing Necessary:
1) Grain-size analysis for comparison to proposed disposal site or for
removal and disposal design considerations
2) Bulk chemical analysis to assess the presence and concentration(s) of
contaminant(s); '
3) If appropriate, chemical analysis for regulatory purposes;
4) Benthic invertebrate survey of both the project and disposal areas to
characterize the communities being displaced by the proposed activity;
5) Bioassays to determine the potential effect of the contaminants
identified above upon the indigenous biological community inhabiting the
proposed disposal site, a necessary component for assessing the materials'
suitability for open-water disposal;
(11)
-------
6) Once bioassay testing is completed, it should provide the primary basis
for decisions (together with all other factors). During this testing,
it is mandatory under 404(b)(l) to compare the dredged material to
material from the proposed disposal site.
(In cases where results of this testing indicate gross levels of contaminants,
further testing may be warranted. A discussion of this testing is provided
on page 10, under the Initial Delineation of Type III materials.
(12)
-------
In summary, Type I materials are predominantly sands, usually
resulting from littoral deposition and usually non-contaminated.
Type III sediments are materials located in areas subject to point
and non-point source introduction of contaminants, and the materials by
definition are not suitable for unconfined disposal. Type II materials
are located in the region of transition between Type I and Type III
sediments.
There will be projects where all three sediment Types are not
present. Other case situations worth noting include (but are not
limited to):
- small outer harbor projects that contain only Type I material
- projects with only two Types present (either Type I and Type II or
Type II and Type III)
- the presence of Type I or Type II materials upstream from Type III material
- riverine or channel projects with only Type II materials present
- riverine or channel projects with only Type I materials present
- inner harbor projects with only Type II or Type III material present
Situations should seldom, if ever, arise where initial delineation
is not possible. Virtually every waterway maintained by the USAGE has
past records of sediment sampling, dredging, and disposal. Sediment
location (i.e., outer harbor mouth versus in-channel) can give clues
as to the origin of the materials and the suspected degree of influence that
point and non-point sources may have had upon sediment contaminant levels.
If there is uncertainty concerning regions of transition from one sediment
Type to the next, simple preliminary grab samples can be taken prior to
the design of the preliminary sampling scheme, and inspected visually
noting grain size, color(s), odor(s), detrital material, the presence
or absence of benthic invertebrates (see Section 4.5 for discussion of
biosurvey utility in relation to navigational maintenance dredging), etc.
This information can greatly aid in the initial delineation process.
This concludes the discussion on initial delineation, and also completes
the section on the pre-design stage. The results of the pre-design stage
will be utilized in the preliminary design of the sampling and testing
plan, the next stage to be considered.
(13)
-------
4.0 Preliminary Design Stage
This stage encompasses the designing of the sampling and testing strategy
based on information and decisions derived from the pre-design stage, and
includes decisions concerning the frequency of sampling, the number of
sampling stations, the location of those sampling stations within the
project area, the method for sampling, and the specific level of testing
and analysis to be performed once the samples have been obtained. Each
of these topics are dealt with separately in the following subsections.
Decisions concerning these parameters revolve around many variable
factors, making the formulation of a rigid and set plan impractical.
This suggested guidance was designed to be flexible to variations in
historical project data and situations encountered from project to
project.
4.1 Frequency of Sampling
Sampling should be conducted at the proposed dredging/disposal sites at
least five years prior to a given dredging project. This sampling
interval should be shortened in cases where evidence exists that the
sediment quality has recently changed sufficiently to cause the sediment
to be reclassified.
4.2 Number of Sampling Sites
Possibly the most difficult question to address in the design of
a sediment sampling scheme is that of sample number. What constitutes
an adequate number of samples to characterize a large heterogeneous
population of sediment? It was recognized that many factors can affect
and influence sample number, including (but not limited to) volume of
material to be removed, depth of deposition, surface area of deposition,
projected degree of contamination, projected degree of homogeneity, and
historical sampling data. No single parameter can dictate a required sample
number for a given project.
The method for suggesting an initial sample number is derived from
a combination of material volume, projected degree of contamination,
projected degree of material homogeneity, historical records, and literature
review. Appendix B compares these suggested sampling sizes to
historical records. The overall objective of the suggested plan is to
decrease the number of samples taken in Type I and Type III sediments
where management decisions are fairly straightforward, and to increase
the number of samples taken in the Type II sediments where the projected
suitability of the material is unknown.
(14)
-------
Projects should be subdivided (when possible) into subareas based
on the projected sediment Type(s) (I,II, or III) and volume determinations
made of the materials within each Type subarea. It should be noted
that Type II materials break into two sub-types: 1) Type II materials
which have always been judged as acceptable for open-water disposal or
beneficial use and ?,} Type II materials from areas where materials
previously were not suitable for unconfined disposal. Table I (below)
can be used to calculate the minimum number of samples to be placed
within a given Type subarea of a specified volume. Additional sampling
stations may be necessary for distinct depositional areas, known hot
spots, or in cases judged not to conform to typical project design
considerations. Special cases are considered on page 23.
(15)
-------
Table I: Number of Sampling Locations as a Function of Volume and Type
Type I
Type II
Type III
VOLUME (yd3)
<50,000
50,000-
200,000
200,000-
500,000
80% retention
by a #200 seive
one station
every 10,000yd3;
minimum of 3
one station
every 15,000yd3;
minimum of 4
one station
every
20,000 yd3
History of
unrestricted
disposal
Past history
of
contamination
one station
every
10,000 yd3
minimum of 4
one station
every
10,000 yd3
minimum of 7
one station
every
15,000 yd3
one station
every
8,000 yd3
minimum of 5
one station
every
8,000 yd3
minimum of 7
one station
every
10,000 yd3
Not suitable
for unrestricted
disposal
one station
every
10,000 yd3
minimum of 4
one station
every
15,000 yd3
minimum of 4
one station
every
15,000 yd3
(16)
-------
4.3 Sampling Site Locations
The positioning of sampling sites should reflect the purpose of testing,
based upon the projected sediment Type found in that area. Specifics to
consider (in conjunction with those listed below) include the locations
of specific depositional areas and the locations of historical sampling
sites.
Type I sediments are sampled and tested to determine grain-size character-
istics, confirm the chemical composition as uncontaminated, delineate the
exact location of the material, and compare project materials to proposed
disposal site materials. Samples should be collected in a random pattern
to characterize the material to be dredged as a whole. Another line of
samples should be taken along the projected Type I- Type II interface to
delineate the boundary between these two Types.
Type II sediments are sampled and tested to determine physical character-
istics of the material, to assess the degree (if any) the material is
chemically contaminated, to assess the potential toxicological character-
istics of the material, and to delineate the material from Type I and
Type III sediments. Samples should be collected in a random pattern to
characterize the material as a whole. A line of samples should be taken
along the projected Type II- Type I interface and another along the projected
Type II- Type III interface to delineate the boundaries between these Types.
Type III sediments are sampled to determine the physical characteristics
of materials and the worst case concentrations of contaminants. This
information is utilized to determine possible TSCA/RCRA regulation and to
design removal and disposal controls. Sampling sites should be positioned
below active or previously-active outfalls which at one time may have
been discharging specific contaminants of concern. Sampling of historical
"hot spots" is suggested. This should include areas of known chemical
spills. Another line of samples should be concentrated along the projected
Type III- Type II interface to delineate the boundary of these two Types.
Refer to Figure 3, showing the hypothetical harbor with subareas of
Type I, II, and III sediments, along with the position of sampling sites
within the various Types.
(17)
-------
Figure 3
Positioning of Sampling Sites
n
(18)
-------
4.4 Type of Sample
The following guidelines should be followed for deciding when and where
core samples are more appropriate than grab samples.
Type I materials - require core sampling if last record of dredging is
more than ten years prior to the proposed action.
Type II materials- require core sampling if last record of dredging is
more than five years prior to the proposed action
Type III materials - require core sampling if last record of dredging is
more than five years prior to the proposed action
All core samples should be taken with a piston-coring sampler. Core
depth should be extend two feet below project depth to characterize
material in the event of over-dredging and to characterize the material
exposed by the dredging event.
Each core should be divided into three foot sections, from bottom to top,
with each subsample undergoing the analysis and testing prescribed for
the sediment Type at that sampling location.
When grab samples are judged proper, three replicates should be taken
from an individual station. The three replicates should be composited
and a subsequent subsample taken for testing and analysis.
(19)
-------
4.5 Parameters of Testing
Once decisions are made concerning where and how samples are to be
taken, the question of what form of testing and analysis is most appropriate
must he addressed. Some combination of physical, chemical, and biological
testing of sediments is necessary to provide data utilized during the
process of characterization.
Physical testing, specifically grain-size analysis, provides information
relating to the origin(s) of materials from a given area. Along with
analysis of total organic carbon (TOC), it provides some indication of a
sediment's potential capacity for binding contaminants. Physical information
(e.g. settling) can also affect consideration of disposal site location
or disposal design. All materials sampled should undergo grain-size
analysis, while other physical analyses should be performed as needed for
disposal control design.
/Bulk chemical analysis provides information concerning the presence
(or absence) of specific contaminants. Historically, chemical analysis
has concentrated upon nineteen specified parameters outlined in the 1977
Guidelines for Pollutional Classification of Great Lake Harbor Sediments,
which included metals, nutrients, and polychlorinated hiphenyls (PCBs).
Recent analytical and toxicological advances have identified many additional
compounds which are capable of producing adverse environmental impacts,
including (but not limited to) polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
persistent chlorinated pesticides, dibenzofurans, and dioxins.
A standard set of chemical parameters should be tested for in all samples
collected. Additional parameters should be added to the standard set in
cases where evidence exists that other contaminants are present at the
sampling site. As an aid to determining additional parameters, all
potential sources of loading located within the watershed should be identified,
Appendix C provides a general overview of wastewater parameters associated
with selected industrial processes. More detailed information concerning
characteristics of discharge for specific industrial processes may be
obtained through examination of USEPA wastewater treatment feasibility
studies for the specific process or industry under consideration. The
proximity of agricultural lands to a project area's watershed should be
taken into account when considering analysis for pesticides. Other
factors which justify the inclusion of additional chemical contaminants
for analysis include reported chemical spills, identification of processes
discharging to municipal wastewater treatment facilities, or contaminants
historically known to be present. The standard set of chemical parameters
and the appropriate analytical methods for sediment chemistry are provided
in Section 6.0 on Execution.
(20)
-------
\oy\
/Along with bulk chemical analysis, an elutriate test should be conducted
' in instances where sediment is to be dredged hy#Łat#^t#iy and open-
lake disposal is being contemplated. The elutriate test estimates the
dissolved immediately-rej,|a^able fraction of the various chemical
contaminants in the jjrrrflqcrlJMTJrr 1i 1 as the material is being disposed.
Results of elutriate testing can be utilized when estimating whether
applicable water quality standards will be violated during the disposal
operation.
Other liquid phase (leaching) tests may be required if there is reason
to believe that the material to be dredged is hazardous as defined
under RCRA or CERCLA.
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys may be utilized for two purposes in
relation to assessment of navigational maintenance dredging projects.
The first would be to characterize the communities being displaced both
at the dredging and disposal sites. The second purpose would be to
assess the in-situ toxicity (if any) of in-place sediments, aiding in
distinguishing between Type I, II, and III sediments.
Bioassays are warranted for all materials showing any elevated level of
contamination (above background) or for which there is reason to believe
the materials may be contaminated and are still being considered
for open-water disposal. This decision is based on the reports of many
qualified experts who address the problem of assessing potential effects
associated with contaminated aquatic sediments. The final summary of the
Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP), a five year research program
conducted by the USAGE, states, "Different types of organisms will uptake
different types of contaminants such as heavy metals depending on an
apparent variety of environmental and biological factors. The complexity
of this process and the low level of predictive capability have been
controlling factors in the decisions that bioassays must be an integral
part of the evaluative criteria used in implementing the Section 404 and
103 programs. It is fully realized that bioassay tests are expensive and
time consuming, but the state-of-the-art allows no effective alternative
for determining how organisms will be affected by contaminated dredged
material." Many dredging projects encountered may contain an array of
contaminants at various concentrations, whose potential availability
and biological impact can vary depending upon the specific mixture of
contaminants present and the physical characteristics of the specific
sediment. Bulk chemical analysis alone provides no means for assessing
site-specific availability, nor does it account for synergistic, antagonistic,
or additive interactions among any specific mixture of compounds.
Bioassays, at present, provide the only valid means of assessing potential
biological impacts from site-specific contaminant mixtures.
(21)
-------
Bioassays should mimic, as closely as possible, both the route of contaminant
exposure and the type(s) of organisms subjected to that exposure in the
environment. Concern should be raised not only over the short-term impact
open-water disposal has upon the water column, but also over the potential for
impact from chronic exposure of benthic organisms to elevated levels of
contaminants. Recommended testing should include a lethal elutriate-phase
bioassay using a planktonic Cladoceran species, as well as a sublethal whole
.sediment bioassay using either the benthic midge Chironomus tentans. the
« burrowing amphipod Hyallela azteca, (frFthe burrowing mayfly genus (HexagenTajT"^
i These recommended organisms are endemic to the Great Lakes and nave neen usea
sucessfully for sediment bioassays over the past few years. Bioaccumulation
bioassays should be conducted if contaminants are present at levels of concern
which merit this consideration (i.e. PCRs, mercury, DDT, etc.). This decision
will be made on a case-by-case basis. Recommended testing protocols and a more
detailed discussion of bioassay considerations are included in the section on
Execution.
Figure 4. depicts the overall testing strategy for Type I, Type
II, and Type III sediments.
This concludes the final subsection of considerations during the
preliminary design stage. The preliminary design plan is next submitted
to State and Federal regulatory agencies involved in the process of reviewing
and commenting on navigational maintenance dredging.
(22)
-------
Figure 4. Testing Strategy for Different Sediment Types
REVISED FIGURE 4 WILL BE PROVIDED TO IPPTF ON 5/1/89
(23)
-------
4.6 Special Cases
There are specific cases which qualify for special considerations
relating to the design and applicability of a sediment sampling and testing
strategy. These include the following situations.
1) Projects with volumes with more than 500,000 yd^ of material removed
annually should establish an independent sampling and testing strategy,
coordinated through the specific USAGE district responsible for the
project, regulatory agencies within the specific State in which the
project is located, the US EPA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2) Projects consisting of only Type I materials and volumes less than
50,000 yd^ may be excluded from testing if historical records of
proper grain-size composition and no elevated levels of contamination
can be supplied
3) 404 permitting for municipal bridge repair:
a. should require a minimum of two samples, one from each side of the
project, composited before analysis
h. the required level of testing would be dependent upon the proposed
method of material removal and disposal
4) 404 permitting for slip/dock dredging
a. should require a minimum of three samples
b. the required level of testing would be dependent upon the proposed
method of material removal and disposal
c. recommended analysis should take into consideration the type(s)
of material(s) loaded or off-loaded at or around the project site
(24)
-------
5.0 Final Design Stage
The final design stage involves the regulatory review and possible revision
of the USAGE preliminary sampling and testing design. A preliminary
sediment sampling and testing plan, along with the appropriate historical
project information, should be submitted to the appropriate regulatory
agencies involved in the review of navigational maintenance dredging
projects. Review and comment by these agencies provides for a more informed
coordination, and allows regulatory agencies to indicate where they feel
deficiencies are in a sampling project before the project is executed.
Providing this opportunity for comment may help avert additional testing
at a later date because of statements of insufficient data by reviewing
regulatory agencies. This practice provides regulatory agencies the
opportunity to share relevant environmental data which may have been
previously unknown to the USAGE. Other advantages could include coordination
of monitoring events and prevention of effort duplication.
To further facilitate the level of confidence which can be placed in
a sampling and testing effort, the USAGE should provide a preliminary
Quality Assurance Project Plan (OAPP) along with the ahove mentioned
preliminary plan and information. The OAPP generates a level of confidence
which can be placed upon data resultant from testing by providing a description
of quality control and quality assurance measures which will be taken to
ensure that the sampling and testing effort is of the highest quality.
A generic OAPP for the sampling and testing of sediments has been
provided as Appendix F.
The above mentioned information should be provided to the regulatory
agencies involved in the assessment procedure before any execution phase
of the sampling and testing plan takes place. This includes the calling
for bids on any new contracts associated with sediment collection, testing, or
removal.
Specific historical project information is necessary for the design
of any proposed sediment sampling and testing scheme. This same background
information is important to the various regulatory agencies involved in
the review process. Providing consistent historical and operational information
facilitates a more rational and expedient assessment of any sampling and
testing plan, and provides the information which is the basis for USAGE
justification of project design. It is recommended that the attached
standard reporting format be adopted by the USAGE for the reporting of
historical information and the preliminary sediment sampling and testing
design. The reporting format contains information relating to project
history, preliminary sampling and testing design, as well as projected
removal and disposal methods. Rationales for all requested information
are given following the reporting forms.
(25)
-------
SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND TESTING PLAN REPORTING FORMAT
MAINTENANCE DREDGING
PLAN STATUS (circle one) : ( PRELIMINARY / FINAL )
1) Date:
2) Project:
3) Waterway:
4) Location: City: County: State:
Historical
5) Last year sampled:
6) Last year dredged:
7) Total volume removed:
8) Removal method/equipment:
9) Disposal (write in volume, method and location of disposal, where applicable):
a. beneficial use:
b. open-water disposal:
c. upland disposal:
d. confined disposal:
10) Attach sediment sampling results from last sampling event in 5)
- reporting should be site specific
a. attach map of project area showing previous sampling locations, clearly identifii
b. comments or notes outlining/discussing problems or unusual conditions.
Proposed Project
11) Attach map(s) of project area showing :
a. project limits
b. project depths
c. most recent bathymetric data, with contours, showing depositional
areas to be removed
d. projected delineation boundaries of sediment Types
e. location/identification of municipal, industrial,' and combined sewer
overflow oufalls from information supplied by USEPA
f. location/identification of loading docks, marinas, agricultural areas,
surface drainage outfalls, and other possible non-point source influences
g. proposed location of sampling sites, clearly identified
(26)
-------
SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND TESTING PLAN REPORTING FORMAT Project Name:
PAGE 2
Date:
12) Total material volume:
13) Estimated type volumes:
Type I Type II Type III
14) Attach method and calculations for volume determination(s)
*15) Total number of sampling sites:
Identify number of stations in each projected Type:
Type I Type II Type III
16) Describe any change in land or water use practices which may affect
contaminant concentrations or distributions relative to the last
previous sediment collection and testing effort:
Projected Dredging and Disposal Plan
17) Anticipated dredging method and equipment:
18) Anticipated disposal method and location:
19) Attach projected timetable for coordination, review, sampling, testing/analysis,
data assimilation and reporting, disposal site preparation (if applicable), and
actual removal/disposal operation. Indicate any operational time-window
constraints (i.e., spawning runs) which could interfere with operations.
* also complete station-specific description forms, Attachment A
(27)
-------
ATTACHMENT A
SAMPLING STATION INFORMATION
Station #:
Location:
Projected Sediment Type:
Depth of deposition at station:
Purpose for testing:
Historical Site: YES / NO
Type of sample : core / grab
Testing required: physical
settling
Additional chemical analysis:
Justification for location:
chemical biological
pore water
elutriate
Station #:_
Location:
Projected Sediment Type:
Depth of deposition at station:
Purpose for testing:
Historical Site: YES / NO
Type of sample : core / grab
Testing required:
physical chemical biological
settling pore water
Additional chemical analysis:
Justification for location:
elutriate
("Comments or notes indicating any problems or unusual conditions should be included for
each station.]
(28)
-------
Rationales for Requested Information
Item 1-4 - Identification of project
Item 5 - provides temporal sampling information
Item 6 - provides temporal dredging information
Item 7 - provides comparison to present proposed action
Item 8 - provides comparison to present proposed action
Item 9a-d - provides background as to potential suitability of material(s)
from project for a given disposal option
Item 10 - necessary to assess previous sampling effort and results
Item lla - shows boundaries of proposed action
Item lib - shows depths of proposed action
Item lie - shows depositional location and area within the project
Item lid - provides initial delineation for design of sampling effort
relevant to projected suitability
Item lie - provides point-source information; identification of potential
parameters of concern based on process; identification of
locations where worse-case conditions may exist
Item llf - provides spatial information related to other possible contaminant
source(s)
Item llg - provides information as to spatial relationship between loading
sources and sample station location
Item 12 - provides information about project size; provides basis for
(minimum) initial sample number; related to possible impact of
disposal
Item 13 - provides a more detailed breakdown of Item 12; necessary for
sample number considerations
Item 14 - necessary for confidence in assigning sample number based
(partially) upon volume considerations
Item 15 - provides 'comparison of estimated Type volume versus sampling
site number
(29)
-------
Item 16 - gives indication as to the comparability of the last sampling and
testing results versus the proposed sampling and testing plan
Item 17 - provides comparison basis with previous efforts
Item 18 - provides insight as to material's projected suitability for
a given disposal option(s)
Item 19
provides a basis for coordination among all agencies involved
in the overall assessment effort
Attachment A
provides information concerning the selection of specific
sampling locations; allows for review of sediment
type, purpose, and testing integration
The preliminary design should be reviewed in conjunction with the
historical project data. Regulatory agencies should be provided thirty
days for review, and written comments concerning the preliminary design
should be submitted to the USAGE. Any suggested changes or modifications
to the preliminary design should be justified in the written text. Regulatory
personnel should consult Appendix 0 which outlines approximate costs
for different sampling efforts, chemical analyses, and biological
testing. Economic factors can influence what is actually achievable, and
a knowledge of cost ranges may prove valuable during design modification
negotiations.
This concludes the section on Final Design. The next section deals
the execution of the sediment sampling and testing plan.
with
(30)
-------
6.0 Execution
This section provides guidance concerning procedures and protocols applicable
to sediment sample collection, chemical analysis, and biological testing.
Appendix E provides an overview of the various contract types available
to the USAGE for contracting professional services to execute the actual
sampling and testing of materials.
6.1 Sediment Collecting Methods
Regardless of how well planned a sampling program may be, analyses will
provide an inaccurate assessment if sediment samples are not properly
collected, handled, and stored. Poor collection procedures can easily
result in the collection of samples which are not truly representative
of the material from the given sampling area. Testing of cross-contaminated
samples will usually result in data indicating elevated levels of contamination
or toxicity relative to actual conditions, creating a situation where
materials might be improperly characterized, incurring higher costs for
the removal and disposal of non-contaminated materials.
Procedures for sediment collection, handling, and storage are available
in EPA/CE- 81-1 "Procedure for Handling and Analysis of Sediment and Water
Samples." The information below is provided as a supplement to this
guidance.
1) Piston-coring devices with plastic liners should not be used for collection
of samples for analysis of organics;
2) Piston-coring devices with reusable liners should not be used;
3) All sampling equipment should be cleaned using a brush and pesticide-grade
hexane between each sampling station. Each sampling event (project) should
include at least one equipment blank to ensure good equipment-cleaning
procedure. The blank should be taken by pouring high-grade distilled
water (ASTM Type I distilled water for inorganic analysis; ASTM Type I-
organic free distilled water for organic analysis) over equipment after
cleaning, and the subsequent runoff collected and analyzed. This
procedure should be followed for cleaning grab samplers, core samplers,
and sample mixing equipment. Brushes for cleaning should be used for
only one sampling effort;
4) Sample containers should be wide-mouth glass jars of 8, 16, or 32 ounce
size. For collection of organics, the cap should be teflon lined, or
hexane-rinsed aluminum foil should be placed over the mouth of the jar
before securing the top. Containers should always be new; do not reuse
old containers. Do not use aluminum foil with sediment samples for
inorganic analysis;
5) Piston corer--retainer in the mouth of sampler should be made of plastic
for the collection of samples for inorganic analysis, and of metal for
(31)
-------
the collection of samples for organic analysis; if a choice must be made
between the two, the metal retainer is more desirable. Always
check the retainer to make certain all prongs (especially plastic) are
intact after each sample has been collected. The retainer and cutting
head should be cleaned after each sample.
6) All core samples should be cut into sections using a stainless-steel
spatula. Samples should be composited in a stainless steel mixing
bowl using a stainless-steel spoon. All equipment should be
cleaned with pesticide-grade hexane and a brush after each station.
Disposable aluminum-foil mixing or baking pans may be used in place of
the stainless-steel bowl as a mixing container. This eliminates having
to re-clean the bowl after each station. An equipment blank, similar
to that described for the sampling equipment, should be collected and
analyzed if mixing bowl is cleaned and reused.
7) Site-specific safety plans should be developed for field personnel, based
upon known historical contaminants in a worst-case situation.
Considerations relating to various types of sampling equipment are available
in EPA/CE-ai-1.
(32)
-------
6.2 Chemical Analysis
'The standard chemical parameters that should be routinely tested for
include the following:
-Particle size
-Total Solids
-Volatile Solids
-Total Organic Carbon
-Chemical Oxygen Demand
-Percent Moisture
-Ammonia Nitrogen
-Cyanide
-Metals
-Arsenic
-Cadmium
-Chromium
-Copper
-Lead
-Mercury
-Nickel
-Selenium
-Zinc
-Manganese
-Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
-alpha BHC
-beta BHC
-delta BHC
-gamma BHC (Lindane)
-Chlordane
-ODD
-DDE
-DDT
-Dieldrin
-Endrin
-Heptachlor
-PCB's (arochlors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260)
\
Additional parameters should be added to the standard list in cases where
evidence exists that other contaminants are present at the sampling site.
Methods for the analysis of chemical constituents are available in
EPA/CE-81-1 "Procedure for Handling and Analysis of Sediment and
Water Samples". Other methods may be used provided they meet
detection limit specifications and regulatory approval.
Elutriate testing should be performed with site water.
Leachate testing should be performed with water simulating the
characteristics of rainwater.
(33)
-------
6.3 Biological Testing
A
-------
The functional analysis should include the following for the organisms sampled:
1) Trophic relationships (Merritt and Cummins 1984)
2) Habitat requirements (Merritt and Cummins 1984)
3) A detailed habitat description should be provided for each sample location
In doing a benthic macroinvertebrate survey, it should be kept in mind
that the area being surveyed might not be expected to support a typical
benthic community. This cannot always be attributed to sediment
contamination. Navigational channels and harbors are areas of high
agitation from ship traffic. If is quite possible to get a "false"
reading concerning environmental quality from biosurveys in these areas.
If the channel is regularly dredged, those organisms which are rapid
colonizers will likely dominate the community. Likewise, if the sediments
are organically-enriched, community diversity will drop while individual
numbers of tolerant or opportunistic species may dramatically increase.
Theoretically, sediments which contain highly-elevated levels of contaminants
may support little or no community at all. There is the possibility that
surficial sediments might be clean and support a healthy community, while
contaminated sediments are located beneath. This situation could arise
from a decreased loading of the system and a natural silting-over of
contaminated material.
Benthic community data should thus be used to complement sediment chemical
analysis and bioassay data. As shown above, placing too much emphasis on
community structure alone can be very compromising; in conjuntion with
other sediment analyses, however, the use of benthic surveys in assessing
sediment quality can be most helpful.
References for benthic invertebrate survey:
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution.
Great Lakes Entomologist 20(1): 31-39.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a
family-level biotic index. J.N. Am. Benthol . Soc. 7(1): 65-68.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins (eds.). 1984. An introduction to the
aquatic insects of North America. 2nd edition. Kendall/Hunt
Publ., Dubuque, IA. 722 p.
Ohio EPA. 1987. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life.
Volume III. Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory
methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Division
of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Monitoring
Section. Columbus, OH.
Shannon, C.E.
Tech. J.
1948. A mathematical
27: 379-423.
theory of communication. Bell. Sys.
(35)
-------
Van Horn, W. M. 1950. The biological indices of stream quality. Proc.
5th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Est. Ser. 72: 215.
Weber, C.I. (ed.). 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for
measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents.
EPA-670/4-73-001, July 1973. USEPA, Cincinnati, OH.
Bioassays
Bioassays must be included as an integral part of the testing of Type II
materials being considered for open-water disposal. This should include
both lethal and sublethal testing of sediments upon sensitive species
indigenous to the Great Lakes, as well as a test of bioaccumulation if any
of the contaminants identified as present merit such consideration. The
following tests and methods are suggested to assess potential biological
effects of dredged materials:
a) A Cladoceran (Daphnia magna, D. pulex) elutriate-phase lethal test
following the procedure outlined in Nebeker et_ a\_.( 1984). While
either of the cladocerans listed are appropriate for this test design,
tests using Jh_ magna might be the most readily available on a commercial
basis at this time.
b) A sublethal test utilizing benthic invertebrates and whole sediments.
Three species appear to have the greatest utility here, either the midge
Chironomus tentans, the amphipod Hyallela aztecaS^p_r the TJUrfowTng
mayfly HexagenTa*^ Testing with C. tentans should follow tne procedure
uuLI hitid in Adams et al. (1985,1986), Mosher et_ _al_. (1986), and
Ziegenfuss et_ a\_. "(T92i6~). Testing with H. azteca s_hnu1d follow the
procedure outlined in Nelson et al. (198Ty.^rTesting^with Hexageni^N
^snould follow the procedure outlined in Fremling et al . (1980 )^__^^
c) A test determining bioaccumulation should utilize the fathead minnow
Pimephales promelas following the methods outlined in ASTM no. E 1022-84.
Methods should be modified for the use of whole sediments rather than
water alone. Decisions concerning the utility of this test should be
decided case-by-case, based on both historical contamination and the
results of the chemical analysis.
Sediment bioassays are a rapidly developing and expanding field. It is
recommended that a committee be formed among all interested State and
Federal agencies to periodically (every 2 years) revise suggested
biological testing as information concerning sensitive species and new
methods become available.
(36)
-------
References for bioassays:
Adams, W.J., Kimerle, R.A., and R.G. Mosher. 1985. In: Cardwell, Purdy,
and Bahner (eds.). Aquatic toxicology and hazard evaluation: seventh
symposium. ASTM STP 854. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 429-453.
Adams, W.J., Ziegenfuss, P.S., Renaudette, W.J., and R.G. Mosher. 1986.
In: Poston and Purdy (eds.). Aquatic toxicology and environmental
fate: ninth volume. ASTM STP 921. American Society for Testing and
Materials. Philadelphia, PA. pp. 494-513.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard practices for
conducting bioconcentration tests with fishes and saltwater bivalve
molluscs. No. E 1022-84. Philadelphia, PA.
Fremling, C.R. and W.L. Mauck. 1980. Methods for using nymphs of burrowing
mayflies (Ephemeroptera, Hexagenia) as toxicity test organisms. In:
A.L. Buikema, Jr. and J. Cairns (eds.). Aquatic invertebrate bioassays.
ASTM STP 715. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia,
PA. pp. 81-97.
Mosher, R.G., Kimerle, R.A., and W.J. Adams. 1982. MIC environmental
assessment method for conducting partial life cycle flow-through and
static sediment exposure toxicity tests with the midge Chironomus
tentans. Monsanto Report No. ES-82-M-10. St. Louis, MO.
Nebeker, A.V., Cairns, M.A., Gakstatter, J.H., Malueg, K.W., Schuytema,
G.S. and D.F. Krawczyk. 1984. Biological methods for determining
toxicity of contaminanted freshwater sediments to invertebrates.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 3: 617-630.
Nelson, M.K. and C.G. Ingersoll. 1987. Method for conducting chronic
sediment toxicity tests with Hyallela azteca. National Fisheries
Contaminant Research Center, SOP B5.48, U.S.F.W.S. Columbia, MO.
Ziegenfuss, P.S., Renaudette, W.J., and W.J. Adams. 1986. In: Poston and
Purdy (eds.). Aquatic toxicology and environmental fate: ninth
volume. ASTM STP 921. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 479-493.
(37)
-------
Table 2: Recommended level of taxonomy for macroinvertebrate
identification
Porifera: Species
Coelenterata: Genus
Platyhelminthes: Class
Nematomorpha: Genus
Bryozoa: Species
Entoprocta: Species
Annelida
Oligochaeta: Class
Hirudinea: Species
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Isopoda: Genus
Anphipcda: Genus/Species
Decapoda: Species
Arachnoidea
Eydracarina: Class
Inseeia
Epherneroptera
Siphlonuridae: Genus
Baetidae: Genus
Oligoneuriidae: Genus
Heptageniidae: Genus/Species
Leptophlebiidae: Genus
Ephenerellidae: Species
Tricorythidae: Genus
Caenidae: Genus
Baetiscidae: Species
Potamanthidae: Genus
Ephemeridae: Genus
Polymitarcyidae: Species
Odonata
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae: Genus
Lestidae: Species
Coenagrionidae: Family/Genus
Anisoptera
Aeshnidae: Species
Gomphidae: Species
Cordulegastridae: Species
Macromiidae: Species
Corduliidae: Species
Libellulidae: Species
Plecoptera
Pteronarcyidae: Genus
Peltoperlidae: Genus
Taeniopterygidae: Genus
Nemouridae: Species
Leuctridae: Genus
Capniidae: Genus
Perlidae: Species
Perlodidae: Species
Chloroperlidae: Genus
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae: Genus
Nepidae: Genus
Pleidae: Genus
Naucoridae: Genus
Corixidae: Genus
Notonectidae: Genus
Megaloptera
Sialidae: Genus
Corydalidae: Species
Neuroptera: Genus
Trichoptera
Philopotamidae: Genus/Species
Psychor.yiidae: Species
Polycentropodidae: Genus
Hydropsychidae: Genus/Species
Rhyacophilidae: Genus/Species
Glossosomatidae: Genus
Hydroptilidae: Genus/Species
Phryganeidae: Genus
Brachycentridae: Genus
Limneohilidae: Genus
• *
Lepidostomatidae: Genus
Beraeidae: Genus
Sericostomatidae: Genus
Odontoceridae: Genus
Molannidae: Genus
Helicopsychidae: Species
Calamoceratidae: Genus
Leptoceridae: Genus/Species
Lepidoptera: Genus
(38)
-------
Table 2. Continued.
Coleoptera
Gyrinidae: Genus
Haliplidae: Genus
Dytiscidae: Genus
Noteridae: Genus
Hydrophilidae: Genus
Hydraenidae: Genus
Psephenidae: Species
Dryopidae: Genus
Scirtidae: Family
Elmidae: Genus/Species
Limnichidae: Genus
Eeterocsridae: Family
Ptilodactylidae: Family
Chryscmelidae: Family
Curculionidae: Family
Lampyridae: Family
Diptera
Tipulidae: Genus
Psychodidae: Genus
Ptychopteridae: Genus
Dixidae: Genus
Chacboridae: Genus
Culicidae: Genus
Thaumaleidae: Genus
Simuliidae: Genus
Certopogonidae: Family/Genus/Species
Chironomidae
Tanypodinae: Genus/Species
Diamesinae: Genus/Species
Prodiamesinae: Genus/Species
Orthocladinae: Genus/Species
Chironominae
Chirijnomini: Genus/Speci'es
Pseodochironomini: Genus/Species
Tanytarsini: Genus/Species
Tabanidae: Genus/Species
Athericidae: Species
Stratiomyidae: Genus
Empididae: Family
Dolichopodidae: Family
Syrphidae: Family/Genus
Sciomyzidae: Family/Genus
Ephydridae: Family/Genus
Muacidae: Species
Mollusca
Gastropoda: Family/Genus/Species
Pelecypoda: Family/Genus/Species
(39)
-------
7.0 Reporting of Data
Once analysis and testing have been completed, the USAGE is responsible
for data reduction and validation. The procedure utilized for this
process should be explained in Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the project QAPP.
Once data have been validated, USAGE shall report to the appropriate regulatory
agencies the results of all physical, chemical, and biological testing in the
formats outlined in the following pages. Other pertinent information,
including field notes, drilling logs, etc., should be included with the data.
The data should be accompanied by a preliminary statement of discussion by
the USAGE, including comparisons and contrasts of the present effort with
historical data and statistical comparisons with the proposed disposal site (if
material is being considered for open-water disposal). The USAGE should also
state its assessment of project material suitability for specific removal and
disposal options.
7.1 Physical Data
Physical data, specifically grain-size distributions, should be reported
following the format below.
Sample #
retained
#8
retained
#16
retained
#30
retained
#50
retained
#100
retained
#200
passed
#200
7.2 Chemical Data
Chemical data should be reported in the format outlined in the following
pages. Parameters listed but not analyzed should be left blank.
(40)
-------
Data Reporting Format
Physical/Nutrients/Metals
All values reported in mg/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted
Parameter
Sample no.
Samele no,
Samole no,
*0etection
Limit
Total solids (%}
Volatile solids ('
Total kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia
Total Phosphorus
Oil and Grease
COD (mg/kg)
Mercurv
Arsenic
Si Tver
Boron
Barium
BeryTlium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromi urn
Copper
Lithium
Mancanese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Tin
Strontium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Calcium
(mg/g,
Potassium (mg/g)
Magnesium (mg/g)
Sodium
(ig/g.
Aluminum (mg/g)
Iron
(mg/g)
* where applicable
(41)
-------
Data Reporting Format
Drganochlorine Compounds
All values reported in ug/'
-------
Data Reporting Format
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Miscellaneous -Organic Compounds
All values reported in ug/kg dry weight unless otherwise noted.
Parameter
Sample No
Sample No
Sample No,
Detection
Limit
TOC
Acenaphthene
Acenaohthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
8enzo( b)fluoranthene
8enzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i )perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a ,h) anthracene
Fl ouranthene
Fl uorene
I
1
j
I
Indeno(l ,2,3 ,-cd)pyrene i
Phenanthrene
Pyrene 1
Napthalene i
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Phenol
2, 4-dimethyl phenol
p-t-Butyl phenol
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
N-NitrosodijDropylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Isophorone
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
1
!
i
1
|
r^ i
i
(43)
-------
Biological Data Reporting Format
All biological data should be reported in the format presently utilized
by USAGE Buffalo District. Information should be reported in tabular form
for individual species. Synopsis of all species together should be presented
in both tabular and graphic forms.
EXAMPLE FORMAT FOR INDIVIDUAL SPECIES
Mortality of (species name) used in (state test type; i.e., acute elutriate,
sublethal, whole sediment, etc.) bioassay of (project name) sediments,
location, date.
Site Number
Number Dead
Percent Dead
1A
B
C
2A
B
C
2
4
6
1
2
3
4
2
10
20
30
5
10
15
20
10
EXAMPLE FORMAT FOR TABULAR SUMMARY OF ALL SPECIES
Summary of Bioassay Results
% Average Mortality
Site Number
Species A
Species B
Species C
1
2
3
15
20
15
45
60
45
30
30
25
An example of bar graph synoptic format is included on the next page,
(44)
-------
SITE NUMBER
<
N>
o
o
z
33
o
r
O CD
O CD
O CD > O CD
0
QJ
-3
01
cn
01
-------
APPENDIX A
USAGE Maintained Waterways in Region V
DEEP DRAFT COMMERCIAL CHANNELS & HARBORS
Alpena Harbor, MI
Ashland Harbor, WI
Ashtabula Harbor, OH
Black Rock Channel and Tonawanda Harbor, NY
Buffalo Harbor, NY
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Calumet Harbor & River, IL & IN
Channels in Lake St. Clair, MI
Channels in Straits of Mackinac
Charlevoix Harbor, MI
Cheboygan Harbor, MI
Chicago Harbor, IL
Chicago River, IL
Cleveland Harbor, OH
Conneaut Harbor, OH
Detroit River, MI
Duluth - Superior Harbor, MN & WI
Erie Harbor, PA
Fairport Harbor, OH
Frankfort Harbor, MI
Gladstone Harbor, Kipling, MI
Grand Haven Harbor, MI
Grays Reef Passage, MI
Green Bay Harbor, WI
Harbor Beach Harbor, MI
Holland Harbor, MI
Huron Harbor, OH
Indiana Harbor, IN
Kenosha Harbor, WI
Kewaunee Harbor, WI
Keweenaw Waterway, MI
Lorain Harbor, OH
Ludington Harbor, MI
Mackinac Island Harbor» MI
Manistee Harbor, MI
Manitowoc Harbor, WI
Marquette Harbor, MI
Menominee Harbor, MI & WI
Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Monroe Harbor, MI
Muskegon Harbor, MI
Ogdensburg Harbor, NY
Ontonagon Harbor, MI
Oswego Harbor, NY
Port Washington Harbor, WI
Presque Isle Harbor, MI
Rochester Harbor, NY
-------
DEEP DRAFT COMMERCIAL CHANNELS AND HARBORS (cont.)
Rouge River, MI
Saginaw River, MI
Sandusky Harbor, OH
Sheboygan Harbor, WI
St. Clair River, MI
St. Joseph Harbor, MI
St. Marys River, MI
Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan Ship Canal , WI
Toledo Harbor, OH
Two Harbors, MN
Two Rivers Harbor, WI
Waukegan Harbor, IL
SHALLOW DRAFT COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL HARBORS
Bayfield Harbor, WI
Detroit Harbor, WI (Harbors at Washington Island)
Harrisville Harbor, MI
La Pointe Harbor, WI
Leland Harbor, MI
Petoskey Harbor, MI
Port Clinton Harbor, OH
Put-in-Bay Harbor, OH
Sackets Harbor, NY
St. James Harbor, MI (Beaver Island)
COMMERCIAL FISHING AND RECREATIONAL HARBORS
Algoma Harbor, WI
Barcelona Harbor, NY
Cape Vincent Harbor, NY
Cornucopia Harbor, WI
Detour Harbor, MI
Dunkirk Harbor, NY
Grand Marais Harbor, MI
Grand Marais Harbor, MN
Grand Traverse Bay Harbor, MI
Knife River Harbor, MN
Lac La Belle Harbor, MI
Manistique Harbor, MI
Michigan City Harbor, IN
Oconto Harbor, WI
Pensaukee Harbor, WI
Port Wing Harbor, WI
Vermilion Harbor, OH
-------
RECREATIONAL HARBORS
Arcadia Harbor, MI
Au Sable Harbor, MI
Bay Port Harbor, MI
Belle River, MI
Big Bay Harbor, MI
Big Suamico River, WI
Black River Harbor, MI
Black River (Port Huron), MI
Bolles Harbor, MI
Caseville Harbor, MI
Chippewa Harbor, MI (Isle Royale)
Clinton River, MI
Eagle Harbor, MI
Great Sodus Bay Harbor, NY
Hammond Bay Harbor, MI
Inland Route, MI
Lexington Harbor, MI
Les Cheneaux Islands Channels
Little Lake Harbor, MI
Little River, NY
Little Sodus Bay Harbor, NY
Mackinaw City Harbor, MI
Morristown Harbor, NY
New Buffalo Harbor, MI
Niagara River, NY
Pentwater Harbor, MI
Pine River, MI
Point Lookout Harbor, MI
Portage Lake Harbor, MI
Port Austin Harbor, MI
Port Salinac Harbor, MI
Oak Orchard Harbor, NY
Olcott Harbor, NY
Rocky River Harbor, OH
Saugatuck Harbor, OH
Saxon Harbor, WI
Sebewaing River, MI
South Haven Harbor, MI
Tawas Bay Harbor, MI
Traverse City Harbor, MI
West Harbor, OH
Whitefish Pointe Harbor, MI
White Lake Harbor, MI
Wilson Harbor, NY
-------
APPENDIX B - Comparison of Suggested Sampling Size to Historical Data
This section illustrates how suggested sediment volumes per one sample
within different sediment Types compare to historical sampling efforts.
Historical data were obtained from the Buffalo and Chicago Districts of the USAGE.
These data were broken out into Types based on the pollutional classification of
the material and the method of material disposal. Material volume was then
compared to the number of samples used to characterize the project. Final
comparisons of suggested volumes versus historical volumes are given as percent
increases or decreases.
-------
APPENDIX B
Calculation of Volume versus Type
Type 11
Name
Conneaut
Erie
Fairport
Huron
Oak Orchard
Rochester
Rocky River
Sandusky
Vermilion
Wilson
TOTAL
Volume (yd3)
104,000
137,000
172,000
146,000
28,000
184,000
53,000
220,000
28,000
16,000
1,090,000
Number of
samples
16
16
17
16
7
14
6
17
12
6
127
1 sample
every yd3
6,500
8,562
10,117
9,757
4,000
13,142
8,833
13,058
2,333
2,666
Average = 8,583
project %
of total
volume
considered
9.5
12.5
15.8
13.4
2.5
16.9
4.9
20.4
2.5
1.5
99.9
1 sample per given volume calculation also derived by a % total volume basis, a weighted
average.
Volume = (6,500)(.095) + (8,562)( .125) + (10,117)(.158) + (9,757)(.134) + (4,000)( .025)
+ (13,142)(.169) + (8,833)(.049) + (13,058)(.204) + (2,333)(.025) + (2,666)(.015)
= 617 + 1070 + 1598 + 1307 + 133 + 2220 + 432 + 2663 +58+40
= 10,138 yd3
-------
APPENDIX B
Calculation of Volume versus Type
Type III
Name
Buffalo
Cleveland
Lorain
Calumet River
Main Stem-
Chicago River
TOTAL
Volume
230,000
526,000
121,000
207,000
70,000
1,154,000
Number of
Samples
39
29
21
14
5
108
1 Sample
every yd^
5,900
18,137
6,226
14,786
14,000
Average= 10,686
Project %
of total
vol ume
considered
20.0
45.6
10.5
17.9
6.0
100.0
1 sample per given volume calculation also derived by a % total volume basis, a weighted
average.
Volume = (5,900)(.20) + (18,137)(.456) + (6,226)(.105) + (14,786)( .179) + (14,000)(.06)
* 1180 + 8270 + 653 + 2646 + 840
= 13,589
-------
Appendix B
Type II - remember two different sample sizes are proposed based on past historical
data of Type II sediments (suitable versus non-suitable for open-water
disposal)
A. One sample every 8,000 yd3 to historical averages (material non-suitable)
Weighted average
10,138 yd3 = 8,000 yd3 x= 78% Represents a 22% decrease in volume requiring
100%x one sample
Comparison of proposed sample size to the second (weighted) average is more
representative of real situation.
B. One sample every 10,000 yd3 to historical averages (history of open-water disposalj_
Weighted average
10.138 yd3 = 10,000 yd3 x= 98% Represents a 2% decrease in volume requiring
100% x one sample
Type III
A. One sample every 10,000 yd3
Weighted average
13,589 yd3 = 10,000 yd3 x = 74% Represents a 27% decrease in volume requiring
100%x one sample
B. One sample every 15,000 yd3
Weighted average
13,589 yd3 = 15.000 yd3 x = 110% Represents a 10% increase in volume requiring
100%x one sample
-------
APPENDIX C
Significant Wastewater
Parameters for Selected
Industrial Classifications
Color
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
BOD,
Ammonia Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Chromium
Cyanide
Copper
Nickel
Iron
Zinc
Phenols
COO
Chlorides
Nitrates
Sutfate
Tin
Lead
Cadmium
Total Diaaolved
Solid*
Alkalinity
Temperature
Toxic Organic*
Free Chlorine
Fluoride
PH
Aluminum
Total Cotiforms
|
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
4
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
[ Uveaiack Feed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
N
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
!
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
^
X
X
X
X
X
i
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
i
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
\
X
X
X
X
i
&
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ł
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
j
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
\
X
X
X
J
1
X
X
X
X
'
1
J
\
X f
X'
X
X
X
X
X
(taken from Eckenfelder, W.U., Jr. 1980. Principles of Water Quality Management.
CBI Publishing Co.; Boston, Massachusetts. 717 pp.)
-------
Appendix D
Sampling Effort Costs and Considerations
Below are approximate costs for different types of sampling efforts
ranging from simple grab samples to more difficult core samples. Included
is a list of required equipment, approximate costs, and limitations
and/or advantages of each type of sampling effort. Prices listed were
taken from records of recent USAGE sampling efforts. Again, the costs
listed are not intended to be firm prices, but are included to give a
feeling for the expense involved when considering a particular sampling
program.
A. Simple Grab Sampling
1. Equipment and cost
a. small (14-20') boat
b. 2-3 man crew
c. hand-held mini-ponar
d. supplies (containers, solvents, etc.)
TOTAL
Cost
$100/day
$400/day
$ 10/day
SSO-lOO/day
$560-610/day + mobilization/
demobilizati on*
.Limitations
a. effort is restricted to protected waters, rivers, and very near-shore
lake areas
b. depth limitations (hand-held ponar)
c. accuracy of position required (sighting by eye in this case)
- if more accurate sighting required, add $25/hr + travel/per diem
for two-man survey crew
d. there is a limited quantity of sample obtainable by this method
B. Larger Boat doing Grabs
1. Equipment and cost
a. 30-60' boat with more advanced equipment
(radar, Loran C, power winch)
b. 4-6 man total crew (boat and sampling)
c. equipment
TOTAL
Cost
$300-400/day
$400-600/day
$100-200/day
S8nO-1200/day + mobilization
demobilization
2. Limitations and/or advantages
a. capability to self-fix position
b. range includes anything required for this type of sampling effort
-------
C. Simple Core Sampling
1. Equipment and cost Cost **
a. small (20-501) spud barge
b. support boat
c. tripod or Acker skid drill rig
d. 3 man crew (driller, oiler, helper)
e. sample handler
f. split spoon and casing
g. supplies
TOTAL $1500/day + mob/demob
2. Limitations and/or advantages
a. effort is restricted to protected waterways
b. restricted to shallow water depths owing to limited spud depth capability
c. coring capability down to 40' from water surface
d. requires survey crew to fix position
D. Advanced Core Sampling
1. Equipment and cost Cost**
a. large (80-150') spud barge
b. support boat
c. 5-fi man crew
d. truck-mount drilling rig
e. sampler (split spoon with casing; hollow stem auger:
piston-tube sampler; etc.)
f. supplies
TOTAL $3000-4000/day + mobilization/
demobilization***
Limitations and/or advantages
a. can work effectively in up to 30' water depth
b. can tolerate small wave action
c. difficult to assign exact location without survey crew (see A. Simple Grab)
d. have capability to use crane to collect large demonstrative samples
* mobilization/demobilization cost vary dependent upon the type operation
and the location of the project relative to the contractor's home base
** individual cost breakdowns not available for these operations
*** a recent 2-day effort collecting core samples at eight locations at Waukegan
Harbor cost approximately $14,500
-------
Appendix D
Chemical Analytical Costs
Listed below are analytical costs taken from USAGE analysis contract
records. They are included to give persons a feel for general analytical
costs and are not to be considered firm prices. Analysis of TOC is not
included in these figures, but can run between $30-40 per sample. Analysis
of PAHs, chlorinated pesticides, and all other EPA priority pollutants by
GC/MS will run around $1000 a sample. Costs will vary from vendor to
vendor, and project size will obviously influence the price per sample
(discounts may be available for a larger number of samples) and the contract
type utilized for analysis, based on that projected cost. Below are costs
per sample for analysis of the parameters listed in the 1977 Guidelines.
VENDOR DATE BULK CHEMISTRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
1-5 5-7 (with hydrometer)
Private I July,1981 $185 *
Government I April,1983 $371 $85
Private II August,1984 $420 $443 $80
Private III July,1985 $520 $468 *
Private IV July,1987 ?474 $450 $120
* sieve analysis price not stated in available list
- discount break and end points vary with vendor
- discount terms not stated in available list
Leachate costs run approximately $100 a sample.
-------
Appendix D
Benthlc Macroi'nvertebrate Survey Costs
/ Listed below are time estimates for components of a benthic macroinvertebrate
survey. Also included is a cost estimate, based on a wage of $15/hour.
Survey Component
-Sampling and washing
materials in sieves
-Sorting of sample
-Sample preparation
-Taxonomy
Hours/Sample
Total hours/ = 7-12
sample
Total costs/
sample
Cost/Sample
$15
$15-$60
$15
$60-$90
= $105-$180
Bioassay Costs
Listed on the following page are ranges of costs associated with different
toxicity testing efforts. There are a variety of bioassays available on
the market today. The tests listed are those recommended as applicable
to the Great Lakes Region in IJC (1987) "Guidance on Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediment Problems in the Great Lakes". A
more extensive discussion concerning bioassays and sediments of the Great
Lakes may be found in the same aforementioned document. Again, these are
approximate costs and will vary depending on the contracted laboratory
and the number of samples run.
-------
Test
Organism
*Cladoceran
*Cladoceran
**Ch iron onus tentans
**Hyallela azteca
Test
Type
lethal
sublethal
acute/sublethal
suhlethal/
partial 1 i fe-cycl
***Pimephales promelas accumulation
* includes Daphnia
magna, D. pulex,
Test
Medium
Time
Required
Endpoint (days)
elutriate death
sediment fecundity
sediment growth/emergence
sediment growth/reproduction
e
sediment uptake
and Ceri
odaphnia ; D. magna testi
4
in
23
28
in
ng is
Cost per
Test
$150 - $800
$son - $1500
$500 - $1500
$1000
$1500
more
readily available on a commercial scale
** these tests are applicable to bioaccumulation; add analytical costs of tissue
analysis for parameters of concern
*** additional cost associated with tissue analysis; will vary depending upon the
constituent(s) of concern
-------
Appendix E
USAGE Contract Types for Sampling and Analysis
The USAGE is responsible for the contracting of services for sediment
collection and testing. There are four possible options regarding the
contracting of services by the USAGE. Three are termed service
contracts (I,II,&III below) and the fourth type is a professional contract.
It is important that regulators have at least a brief knowledge of these
contract types, understanding the constraints and advantages of each.
Each contract type and its conditions are listed below.
Option I: Internal (within the USAGE)
- USAGE "contracts" itself to do sampling and/or analysis
- USAGE prepares the raw data into report form
- Sediment sampling method limited to grab samples only
"Contract" takes 1-2 weeks to arrange
Option II: Through other Federal Agencies
- includes USGS, USFWS, USEPA, etc.
- generally limited to grab samples
Contract takes 2-4 weeks to arrange
Option III: Through all other interested parties
- includes State agencies, universities, private laboratories, etc.
- breaks into two types dependent on the anticipated cost of services
a. less than $25,000
- requires estimates from three chosen contractors; lowest estimate
is awarded the contract
- requires laboratory inspection for QA/QC
- takes 3-5* weeks to confirm contract
b. more than $25,000
- requires public announcement and open bids
- requires 2-3* months to confirm contract
- requires laboratory inspection for QA/QC
* labor rates must be anticipated 3-4 months in advance
- requires knowledge of what personnel are required to complete the
task (i.e. chemist, lab technician, etc.)
- Labor Dept. is consulted for updated wage determination
-------
Appendix E
USAGE Contract Types
Option IV: Open-end contract
- a company/individual is retained by open-end contract
- this entity is on line to do any work for a specified period of time
- these contracts can be obtained only through anticipated need of
specific services for a given period of time; cost-efficiency must
be demonstrated
- requires 6-12 months lead time to obtain such a contract
- usually written as a one-year contract with an option to renew for a
second year
- can obtain up to $500,000/yr worth of work; individual projects are
limited to $75,000
- requires 4-5 weeks to confirm individual project contracts
-------
Appendix F
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
The following section is a generic Quality Assurance Project Plan geared
for the collection and analysis of sediments from navigational maintenance
dredging projects.
A preliminary QAPP should be submitted with the Preliminary Sampling and Testing
Plan. This should include completed Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10.1,
10.2, 14, and 15.
Once the analytical laboratory doing the sediment analysis has been contracted,
internal quality control information covered in Sections 8, 11, 12, and 13
should be submitted.
Sections 10.3, and 16 should be submitted when reporting of data occurs.
Any Section which required revision owing to a change in methods or sampling
strategy should also be submitted in its revised form at this time.
I Wen'l incUt
------- |