Sediment Evaluation Framework
for the Pacific Northwest
m
US Army Corps
of Engineers
DEO
Slate of Oregon
Department of
Environmental
Quality
f
I
V
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
Natural Resources
O
~-
o
U.8.
FlSHJkWILDUFE
SERVICE
May 2009
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
State of Washington
REGION 10
-------
SEDIMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
FOR THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - PORTLAND DISTRICT, SEATTLE DISTRICT,
WALLA WALLA DISTRICT, AND NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 10
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
MAY 2009
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
1.6 2. Current RSET Subcommittees
1.6.3. RSET Continuous Improvement/Adaptive Management
1.6.4. Regulatory/Technical Sediment Interface
1 .6.5. Region-wide Interpretation of Test Results
1.6.6. Database Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
SEDIMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PREAMBLE
CHAPTER 1. GOALS, DESCRIPTIONS, AND ORGANIZATION ....................................... 1-1
1.1. INTRODUCTION [[[ l-l
1.2. SCOPE, APPLICABILITY, AND LIMITATIONS [[[ l-l
1.3. How TO USE THIS MANUAL [[[ 1-2
1.4. FRAMEWORK OBJECTIVES [[[ 1-3
1.5. EVALUATION PROCEDURES PHILOSOPHY [[[ 1-4
1.5.1. Characteristics of the Sediment Evaluation Framework ........................................ 1-5
1.5.2. Need for Flexibility in Application of Evaluation Procedures ................................ 1-6
1.6. RSET STRUCTURE AND PROCESS [[[ 1-6
1.6.1. Roles, Relationships, and Representation [[[ 1-6
-7
-8
-8
-8
-9
1.6.7. Public Involvement/National Environmental Policy Act ........................................ 1-9
CHAPTER 2. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS .............................................. 2-1
2.1. INTRODUCTION [[[ 2-1
2.2. OVERVIEW OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) [[[ 2-1
2.2.1. Section 401 of the CWA [[[ 2-1
2.2.2. Section 404 of the CWA [[[ 2-2
2.3. OVERVIEW OF MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT (MPRSA) ..2-3
2.4. OVERLAPPING GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION OF CWA AND MPRSA ............................... 2-3
2.5. OVERVIEW OF SECTION 10 OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT ................................... 2-4
2.6. LISTING OF RELEVANT FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS ......................................... 2-5
2.6.1. Federal [[[ 2-5
2.6.2. State of Washington [[[ 2-7
2.6.3. State of Oregon [[[ 2-8
2.6.4. State of Idaho [[[ 2-8
CHAPTER 3. REGULATORY PROCESS AND SEDIMENT EVALUATION ..................... 3-1
3.1. INTRODUCTION [[[ 3-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK/SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 4-1
4.1. INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2. LEVEL 1 4-1
4.2.1. Defining the Project 4-1
4.2.2. Collect Existing Information 4-4
4.2.3. Developing a Conceptual Site Model 4-5
4.2.4. Frequency and Recency Guidelines 4-8
4.2.5. Project Ranking 4-10
4.2.6. Use of Guidelines and Level 1 Conclusions 4-12
4.3. LEVEL 2 4-12
4.3.1. Sampling and Analysis Plan Preparation 4-13
4.3.2. Testing Requirements for Special Cases 4-14
4.3.3. Other Special Evaluations 4-15
4.4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEDIMENTS UNDER CLEANUP ACTIONS 4-16
CHAPTER 5. SAMPLING PROTOCOL 5-1
5.1. INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2. SAMPLING APPROACH 5-1
5.3. POSITIONING METHODS 5-3
5.4. SAMPLING METHODS 5-3
5.5. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES 5-3
5.6. ARCHIVING ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT 5-4
5.7. DATA SUBMITTAL 5-4
CHAPTER 6. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTING 6-1
6.1. INTRODUCTION 6-1
6.2. GENERAL TESTING PROTOCOLS 6-7
6.3. CONVENTIONAL TESTING PROTOCOLS 6-7
6.4. PHYSICAL SCREENING USING GRAIN SIZE AND ORGANIC CARBON 6-8
6.5. CHEMICAL TESTING PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES 6-8
6.5.1. Standard List of Chemicals of Concern 6-9
6.5.2. Chemicals of Special Occurrence 6-9
6.5.3. Evaluation and Nomination of Emerging Chemicals 6-10
6.6. TISSUE TESTING 6-11
6.7. DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 6-12
6.7.1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 6-12
6.7.2. Analytical Sensitivity 6-12
6.7.3. Reporting of Estimated Concentrations below the SQL 6-13
6.7.4. Chemical Summations 6-13
6.8. BENTHic INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES 6-15
6.8.1. Data Sources 6-15
6.8.2. Freshwater vs. Marine Environments 6-16
6.8.3. Sediment Quality Assessment for Dredging Projects 6-16
CHAPTER 7. BIOLOGICAL (TOXICITY) TESTING 7-1
7.1. INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2. SEDIMENT SOLID PHASE BIOLOGICAL TESTS 7-1
7.2.1. Marine Bioassays 7-2
7.2.2. Freshwater Bioassays 7-3
7.2.3. Bioassay Testing Performance Standards 7-3
7.2.4. Bioassay Interpretive Criteria 7-6
7.2.5. Marine Bioassays "One-Hit" Failure 7-7
7.2.6. Marine Bioassays "Two-Hit" Failure 7-8
May 2009
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
7.2.7. Freshwater Bioassays "One-Hit" Failure 7-8
7.2.8. Freshwater Bioassays "Two-Hit" Failure 7-8
7.3. REFERENCE SEDIMENT COLLECTION SITES 7-9
CHAPTER 8. BIOACCUMULATION EVALUATION 8-1
8.1. INTRODUCTION 8-1
8.2. REASON TO BELIEVE 8-3
8.3. BIOACCUMULATIVE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN 8-3
8.4. BIOACCUMULATION INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES 8-5
8.4.1. Target Tissue Levels 8-5
8.4.2. Bioaccumulation Triggers for Sediments 8-9
8.4.3. Comparison to Background Concentrations 8-9
8.5. BIOACCUMULATION TEST METHODS 8-10
8.5.1. Laboratory Bioaccumulation Tests 8-11
8.5.2. In situ Bioaccumulation Testing 8-12
8.5.3. Collection of Field Organisms 8-13
CHAPTER 9. DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 9-1
9.1. INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.2. OVERVIEW OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL OPTIONS 9-1
9.3. DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR UNCONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 9-2
9.3.1. Unconfmed Open-water Disposal 9-2
9.3.2. Ocean Disposal 9-2
9.4. DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 9-3
9.4.1. Confined In-water Disposal (Capping) 9-3
9.4.2. Confined Aquatic Disposal 9-4
9.4.3. Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility 9-5
9.4.4. Upland Disposal 9-6
9.5. OTHER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 9-7
CHAPTER 10. SPECIAL EVALUATIONS 10-1
10.1 INTRODUCTION 10-1
10.2. HUMAN HEALTH/ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 10-1
10.2 1. Oregon State Risk Assessment Guidance 10-2
10.2.2. Washington State Risk Assessment Guidance 10-2
10 2.3 Idaho State Risk Assessment Guidance 10-2
10.2.4. Federal State Risk Assessment Guidance 10-3
10.3. ELUTRIATE TESTING 10-3
10.3.1. Water Quality at the Dredging Site 10-4
10.3.2. Water Quality at the Disposal Site 10-9
10.3.3. Mixing Zones 10-9
10.3.4. Receiving Water Impacts 10-9
10.3.5. Elutriate Bioassay Tests 10-10
10.3.6. Contingency Water Quality Controls 10-10
10.4. EVALUATION OF DREDGING RESIDUALS 10-11
10.4.1. Predicting Dredging Residuals 10-12
10.4.2. Post-Dredge Confirmation Sampling and Response Actions 10-12
CHAPTER 11. DATA SUBMITTALS 11-1
11.1. INTRODUCTION 11-1
11.2. SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION REPORT ll-l
11.3. QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) DATA REPORT 11-2
11.4. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EIM) 11-2
May 2009 iii
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
11.5. FIELD DATA COLLECTION QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 11-3
11.6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL FOR BIOLOGICAL DATA 11-3
CHAPTER 12. BENEFICIAL USES FOR SEDIMENT 12-1
CHAPTER 13. REFERENCES 13-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of Federal and State Regulations 2-9
Table 3-1. Corps of Engineers Regulatory Offices 3-10
Table 4-1. Frequency of Dredging, Recency of Data, and Confirmation Testing 4-8
Table 4-2. Management Area Ranking Definitions 4-11
Table 5-1. Sample Storage Criteria 5-2
Table 6-1. Recommended Sediment Analytical Methods and Sample Quantitation Limits 6-2
Table 6-2. Recommended Tissue Analytical Methods and Sample Quantitation Limits 6-4
Table 6-3. Bulk Sediment Screening Levels for Chemicals of Concern 6-5
Table 7-1. Interpretive Criteria and Performance Standards for Freshwater Biological Tests 7-4
Table 7-2. Interpretive Criteria and Performance Standards for Marine Biological Tests 7-5
Table 8-1. Regional Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCoCs) Lists 8-4
Table 8-2. Target Tissue Levels (TTLs) for Protection of Aquatic Life 8-6
Table 8-3. Target Tissue Levels (TTLs) for Protection of Aquatic-dependent Wildlife 8-7
Table 8-4. Target Tissue Levels (TTLs) for Protection of Human Health 8-8
Table 10-1. Elutriate Testing Triggers for Freshwater Sediment 10-6
Table 10-2. Elutriate Testing Triggers for Marine Sediment 10-8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Structure of the Regional Dredging Team 1-7
Figure 2-1. Geographic Jurisdictions of MPRSA and CWA 2-4
Figure 3-1. Federal - State Regulatory Process 3-2
Figure 3-2. Endangered Species Act Consultation 3-3
Figure 3-3. Sediment Evaluation Process 3-4
Figure 4-1. Sediment Evaluation Framework 4-2
Figure 4-2. Generalized Dredging Project Flow Chart 4-3
Figure 4-3. Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for Dredging Activities 4-6
Figure 9-1. Upland and Nearshore Confined Disposal Facilities 9-5
Figure 11-1. Project Life Cycle Components 11-3
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Sample Handling Procedures
Appendix B Biological Testing Toolbox
Appendix C Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCoCs) Lists
Appendix D Derivation of Bioaccumulation Target Tissue Levels (TTLs) and Sediment
Bioaccumulation Triggers (BTs)
May 2009 jv
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADDAMS Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System
AET apparent effects threshold
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements)
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BA Biological Assessment
BCF bioaccumulation factor
BCoC bioaccumulative chemical of concern
BiOp Biological Opinion
BMP biomagnification factor
BMP best management practice
BSAF biota-sediment accumulation factor
BT bioaccumulation trigger
BW body weight
°C degrees Celsius
CAD confined aquatic disposal
CAS Chemical Abstract Service
CBR critical body residue
CD compact disc
CDF confined disposal facility
CDFB chlorinated dioxins/furans and polychlorinated biphenyls
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CoC chemical of concern
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CSF carcinogenic slope factor
CSL cleanup screening level
CSM conceptual site model
CST column settling test
CWA Clean Water Act
CWHRS California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System
cy cubic yard(s)
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DMEF Dredged Material Evaluation Framework
DMMP Dredged Material Management Program (state of Washington)
DMMU dredged material management unit
DOTS Dredging Operations and Technical Support Program
DPS distinct population segment
DQO data quality objective
DRET dredging elutriate test
DSL Oregon Department of State Lands
dw dry weight
May 2009
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
EA Environmental Assessment
EC2o effects concentration (affecting 20% of test organisms)
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology (also WDOE)
EDL estimated detection limit
EFH essential fish habitat
EIM Environmental Information Management
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbon
ER|0 effective residue (10% mortality based on tissue residue)
ERDC Environmental Laboratory at the Engineering Research and Development Center
ERED Environmental Residue Effects Database
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESC Executive Steering Committee
ESU evolutionarily significant unit(s)
FAC fluorescent aromatic compounds
FCWA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FIR food mgestion rate
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FPM floating percentile method
g gram(s)
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
GIS geographic information system
HCp hazardous concentration percentile (p = percentile)
HPAH high-molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
IDAPA Idaho Administrative Procedures Act
IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources
Kow octanol-water partition coefficient
kg kilogram(s)
K-S Kolmogorov-Smirnoff goodness-of-fit test
LC50 lethal concentration (affecting 50% of test organisms)
LCI lower 95% confidence interval
LOAEL lowest-observable-effect level
LPAH low-molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
LRjo lethal residue (50% mortality based on tissue residue)
MDL method detection limit(s)
MET modified elutriate test
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
ML maximum level
mL milliliter(s)
May 2009
VI
-------
SEF for the Pacific Northwest
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MPRSA Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
MSA Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act (state of Washington)
N/A not applicable
NAD North American Datum
NCMA normalized combined mortality and abnormality
NDIR non-dispersive infrared detection
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
ng/kg nanograms per kilogram
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level
NRSC Navigation/Steering Committee
OAR Oregon Administrative Rule
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlonnated biphenyl
PCDD polychlonnated dibenzodioxins
PCDF polychlorinated dibenzofurans
PDF portable document format
PIANC Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses
PL public law
PM project manager
poly high-density polyethylene
ppt parts per thousand
PRO Project Review Group (states of Oregon and Idaho)
PSDDA Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
PSEP Puget Sound Estuary Program
PSWQAT Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
PTFE poly(tetrafluoroethene) or poly(tetrafluoroethylene)
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QSAR quantitative structure activity relationship
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RDT Regional Dredging Team
RfD reference dose
RPA reasonable and prudent alternative
RPM reasonable and prudent measure
May 2009
Vll
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
RSET Regional Sediment Evaluation Team
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SEF Sediment Evaluation Framework
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act (state of Washington)
SET standard elutriate test
SET AC Society of Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry
SL screening level
SMARM Sediment Management Annual Review Meeting
SMS Sediment Management Standard (state of Washington)
SOF Statement of Findings
SOP standard operating procedure
SQG sediment quality guideline(s)
SQL sample quantitation limit(s)
SQS sediment quality standard(s)
SSD species sensitivity distribution
SSL soil screening level
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
TBT tributyltm
TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-doxin
TEF toxic equivalency factor
TEF toxicity equivalency factor
TEQ toxicity equivalent
TOC total organic carbon
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRA tissue residue approach
TRY toxicity reference value
TSS total suspended solids
TTL target tissue level
TVS total volatile solids
ug/kg micrograms per kilogram
ug/L micrograms per liter
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UTL upper tolerance limit
VPH volatile petroleum hydrocarbon
ww wet weight
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
WDOE Washington State Department of Ecology (also Ecology)
WHO World Health Organization
WQC water quality criteria
May 2009
Vlll
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
SEDIMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PREAMBLE
What does this SEF do?
The assessment of sediments and dredged material is a critical component of all dredging and
dredged material disposal/management activities. The primary purpose of this SEF is to determine
the suitability of sediment for in-water disposal (or beneficial reuse). This SEF provides a
framework for the assessment and characterization, that is helpful in considering management
(disposal) options for sediments in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (defined in this document as the
Pacific Northwest). This SEF can also be used to evaluate the need for cleanup activities.
However, the development of cleanup criteria is outside of the purview of this manual, and the
states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho will exercise their regulatory authority via their cleanup
statutes.
This framework is consistent with federal and state regulations and the national manuals prepared
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for evaluation
of dredged material (Ocean Testing Manual and Inland Testing Manual), and it provides a "toolbox"
of methods that can be utilized for sediment and dredged material characterizations. It is intended
only as guidance, and best professional judgment should be exercised in determining the uses of this
SEF Nothing in this SEF alters or limits agency responsibilities, or imposes mandatory
requirements beyond existing statute or regulation. Agencies may request additional sampling
and/or analyses to clarify site conditions or to meet specific regulatory requirements.
Why is the SEF being prepared?
The SEF is being prepared to provide a regionally consistent framework for evaluating the
suitability of dredged material for in-water disposal. This SEF was derived in large part from the
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program in the state of Washington and the
national manuals, and it is being prepared to replace and expand the existing Dredged Matenal
Evaluation Framework (DMEF) and the 2006 Interim Final SEF. It also provides useful guidelines
in accordance with applicable state and federal regulatory programs that address sediment
characterization and disposal issues.
History of the SEF
To determine the need for the SEF, the Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (RSET) conducted a
3-day technical scoping workshop from September 11 to 13, 2002, which included RSET members
and other interested parties from federal and state agencies and regional Port authorities. The RSET
is an mteragency team, co-chaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, and
the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the workshop was
to develop the scope for preparing an overall plan and process for updating the existing DMEF. The
workshop was also used to gauge the level of agency support for replacing the existing DMEF and
expanding the DMEF to include evaluation of sediments throughout the entire Pacific Northwest
under a variety of regulatory programs. Since the 2002 meeting, the RSET plus technical experts,
regulators, and policy makers from the federal and state resource agencies, as well as the private
sector, worked to develop the Interim 2006 SEF.
May 2009 P-l
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
During this time period, the RSET met frequently to coordinate subcommittee activities and prepare
the SEF. Participation by affected users was sought via participation in technical subcommittees,
attendance at RSET meetings and conference calls, and review of the SEF by representatives of the
ports, mantime industries, tnbes, and other interested parties. Some of these representatives are
listed below.
• Corps of Engineers - Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla Districts and Northwestern Division;
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10;
• Washington State Department of Ecology;
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality;
• Idaho Department of Environmental Quality;
• National Marine Fisheries Service;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver USA, and Oregon International Port of Coos Bay,
• People for Puget Sound, and
• Private consulting firms including Anchor Environmental, Applied Biomonitonng, Avocet
Consulting, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Columbia Analytical Services, Ecology &
Environment, Exponent, Hart Crowser, Integral, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, MEC Analytical
Services, Newfields, Northwestern Aquatic Sciences, Parametrix, QA/QC Solutions,
TestAmerica, Tetra Tech EC Inc., URS Corporation, and Windward.
Current RSET Subcommittees
Much of the work by RSET is performed by subcommittees that prepare white papers providing
recommendations, technical information, and/or requesting policy guidance. White papers provide
the basis for RSET's deliberations The white papers can be found on the Corps of Engineers'
RSET website (located at https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp). Changes to the SEF will
require concurrence of the full RSET, as well as public review. The current RSET subcommittees
and their membership are shown below.
• Policy Committee: Corps of Engineers - Portland, Seattle and Walla Walla Districts and
Northwestern Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Anchor Environmental, Avocet Consulting,
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, and Washington Department of Ecology.
• Biological Testing Subcommittee: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (Chair), Newfields Northwest
(Co-Chair), Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Northwestern Aquatic Sciences,
Parametnx, Windward, Corps of Engineers - Seattle and Walla Walla Districts, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Bioaccumulation Subcommittee: Avocet Consulting (Chair), Washington Department of
Ecology, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Anchor Environmental, Applied
Biomomtoring, Exponent, Integral, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Newfields Northwest,
Parametrix, People for Puget Sound, Test America, Tetra Tech EC Inc., URS Corporation,
Corps of Engineers - Portland, Seattle and Walla Walla Districts, National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
May 2009 P-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
• Chemical and Analyte Subcommittee: Anchor Environmental (Chair), Washington
Department of Ecology, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Analytical Resources
Inc., Avocet Consulting, Columbia Analytical Services, Hart Crowser, Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants, TestAmerica, Corps of Engineers - Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla Districts,
National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Sediment Quality Guidelines Subcommittee: This subcommittee is working on freshwater
values and is funded by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Who should use the SEF?
The SEF is designed to help users who want to better understand and work with methodologies for
assessing and characterizing sediments. The RSET prepared the SEF to assist regulators,
permittees, stakeholders, trustees, and the public.
How will the SEF help me?
If you are a regulator, the SEF provides consistent guidance for addressing sediment and dredged
material characterization. While it is understood there may be a need to deviate from SEF
procedures because of regulatory requirements for specific programs, this SEF provides a
comprehensive "toolbox" of assessment techniques and methodologies that have been reviewed and
approved by regional experts in this field. It is recognized that individual regulatory programs (e.g.,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, state regulatory or
proprietary authorities) may have specific requirements other than those specified in the SEF.
Therefore, if there is a chance the project could fall into another regulatory program, early
coordination with RSET may be beneficial.
If you are seeking a dredging permit, the SEF provides sampling, testing, and analysis guidance that
can reduce uncertainties about the actions a regulator may require. Reducing uncertainties can help
with project scheduling, financial planning, and project management decisions.
If you are a member of the public, the SEF can help determine what information regulators require
in sediment management decisions. Within the context set by the SEF and the open and transparent
continuous improvement process, you, as a member of the public, will have enhanced access to the
process behind regulatory decision making regarding sediments.
For the state of Washington, this manual will be utilized as guidance for dredged material
management only. In Washington, the Sediment Management Standards (Washington
Administrative Code, Chapters 173-204) and the Model Toxics Control Act (Washington
Administrative Code, Chapters 173-340) will continue to be used as the regulatory tools for
sediment management and cleanup decisions.
How does the SEF become final?
The RSET expects the SEF to always be a living document with a process available to update and
incorporate advances in scientific, engineering, and regulatory fields (see Section 1.6.3 for more
information). Public comments were accepted when the draft Intenm 2006 SEF was made public in
the summer of 2005 and 2006. Comments were reviewed by representatives from each of the
participating agencies, and changes were made.
May 2009 P-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
In February 2009, a draft of this "Final" SEF was made available for public review and comment.
All commenst received were considered, leading to changes and clarifications in this final
document. A complete list of comments with RSET agency resposnses is available on the RSET
website, located at https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp.
In the future, major revisions will be presented annually by the RSET to agency staff and the
interested public for review and comment. Any necessary revisions will be posted on the SEF
website (https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp) and will be provided as supplements to
this SEF.
What are the differences between this SEF and the Interim 2006 SEF?
While the SEF is considered a living document with a process available to update and incorporate
advances in scientific, engineering, and regulatory fields, several of the following significant
changes and additions are included in this SEF.
• A consistent approach for characterizing in-place sediments and proposed dredged material,
• Draft freshwater sediment screening levels added;
• Updated information on the chemical analyte lists that will need to be evaluated in different
parts of the Pacific Northwest;
• Updated information on the analysis of polychlonnated biphenyls in sediment and tissue;
• A framework for addressing bioaccumulation, including a process for deriving scientifically
defensible bioaccumulation triggers for tissues and sediments;
• A two-level process, as opposed to the historical four-tier assessment process, consistent with
emerging national guidance (descnbed in Chapter 4);
• Elutriate test triggers added (descnbed in Chapter 10); and
• Editorial changes and clarifications.
How is the SEF organized?
The authors of the SEF organized the report to address the overall implementation strategy for the
assessment and charactenzation of proposed dredged material. The initial chapter presents the goals
and structure of the SEF. Additional chapters place the SEF within the context of federal and state
sediment management regulations, and discuss regulatory processes where the SEF can be applied.
Subsequent chapters and appendices present the specific chemical and biological tests that are
recommended with interpretation criteria.
May 2009 P-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 1. GOALS, DESCRIPTIONS, AND ORGANIZATION
1.1. INTRODUCTION
This Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF) manual provides a regional framework for the
assessment, characterization, and management (disposal) of sediments in the Pacific Northwest
(defined in this document as the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho) to determine suitability
for unconfmed in-water disposal. This document addresses the development of a comprehensive
evaluation framework governing sediment sampling, testing, and test interpretation for determining
the potential risk of dredged material (freshwater and marine sediments), as well as evaluating the
suitability of alternative management options.
The goal of this manual is to provide the technical and regulatory basis for publicly acceptable
guidelines governing environmentally safe assessment and characterization of sediments, thereby
improving consistency and predictability in dredged material/sediment management. The
establishment of these evaluation procedures is necessary to ensure continued operation and
maintenance of navigation facilities in the region, minimize delays in scheduled maintenance
dredging, reduce uncertainties in regulatory activities, and evaluate the need for cleanup activities.
For cleanup activities, the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho will exercise their regulatory
authority via their cleanup statutes (see Chapter 2). The SEF guidelines ensure consistency in
evaluation among the various programs that regulate sediment.
Reliable and cost-effective sampling and analysis procedures for characterizing sediments, which
are also protective of the ecosystem, are incorporated into the SEF for application in the Pacific
Northwest Application of the chemical/biological tests and interpretation guidelines found in the
SEF provides suitable information to determine management options, such as no action, unconfined
aquatic, unconfined upland, confined aquatic, confined nearshore, and confined upland. Some tests
may also be useful in evaluating the chemical/biological effects of dredging activities.
1.2. SCOPE, APPLICABILITY, AND LIMITATIONS
This SEF for the Pacific Northwest is the result of a cooperative mteragency/intergovemmental
program established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 10, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology/WDOE), Washington State
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ), and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). These agencies have
regulatory and proprietary responsibilities for sediment evaluation and management in the region,
and constitute the standing members of the Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (RSET).
The SEF ensures adequate regulatory controls and public accountability for the assessment,
characterization, and management of sediments. The procedures used to develop this manual were
derived from similar regional programs including the successful Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis (PSDDA) program in the state of Washington, the Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay Dredged
Material Evaluation Procedures Manual, the Corps Portland District Dredged Material Tiered
Testing Procedures, and the Regional 1998 Dredged Material Evaluation Framework (DMEF).
Documents containing justification for the guidelines and procedures in the SEF are contained in
Chapters 2 and 13. Full consideration was made of all pertinent state and federal laws, regulations,
May 2009 1-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
and guidance, including other regional sediment management programs. In addition, the SEF is
consistent with the guidelines of the national-level sediment assessment manuals.
1.3. How TO USE THIS MANUAL
The techniques described in the SEF should be useful as part of the "toolbox" of methods available
for contaminated sediment and dredged material characterizations. Chapters are written to enable
the reader to obtain information from one technical aspect, if desired, without necessarily reading
the entire manual. Many sections are cross-referenced so that the reader is alerted to relevant issues
that might be covered elsewhere in the manual. This is particularly important for certain chemical
or toxicological applications in which sample processing or laboratory procedures are associated
with specific field sampling procedures.
This first chapter presents the goals and structure of the SEF and gives an overview of agency laws,
regulations, and authorities as they relate to the assessment and characterization of sediment and the
dredging and disposal of sediments. Chapter 2 summarizes sediment management regulations for
both federal and state entities. Chapter 3 summarizes the federal and state regulatory processes
necessary to receive approval (e.g., obtaining a permit) of dredging or sediment evaluation projects
undertaken in the Pacific Northwest using the SEF manual. Not all process steps are descnbed in
detail and additional information from the regulating agency may be necessary.
The risk-based framework is discussed in Chapter 4. This risk-based framework makes use of
multiple lines of evidence to enable regulators and project proponents to reach management
decisions. Specifically, Chapter 4 describes the process to develop a conceptual site model (CSM)
to ensure that evaluations are complete in consideration and analysis of present and future
exposures, effects, and potential for human and ecological risks at the site of concern for
contaminated sediment projects or during the dredging and disposal process.
The methods used in sample collection, transport, handling, storage, and manipulation of sediments
can influence the physicochemical properties and the results of chemical, toxicity, and
bioaccumulation analyses. Addressing these methods in a systematic manner will help ensure more
accurate sediment quality data and facilitate comparisons among sediment studies. Chapters 4
through 6 provide technical approaches to perform sediment characterization studies. For example,
the development of the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) is one of the most critical steps for
dredging activities. Chapter 4 describes in detail the necessary information required in a SAP.
Chapter 5 discusses the recommended procedures for sample acquisition and handling, and Chapter
6 lists the types of sediment testing protocols required and provides the interpretive guidelines for
evaluating chemical analytical results.
Biological testing of sediment may be required when chemical testing results exceed guideline
values. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss recommended biological and bioaccumulation tests, test species,
the quality control requirements for each test, and the guidelines used for decision-making Chapter
9 provides an overview of the factors to be considered when selecting sediment disposal options.
Chapter 10 descnbes the process to follow in those rare cases when standard sediment assessment
techniques are insufficient to reach a management decision.
Chapter 11 lists the necessary documentation required to be submitted to RSET upon completion of
a sediment study. In addition to reporting the raw data from a given sediment characterization study
or analysis, the data report should include additional quality assurance information to assure the data
user that sample handling and analyses were conducted in accordance with the SAP. The use of
May 2009 1-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
consistent sediment collection, handling, and storage methods will help provide high quality
samples with which accurate data can be obtained. Chapter 12 is an introduction to the beneficial
use and its importance to the overall sediment management in the Pacific Northwest. References
are provided in Chapter 13.
The appendices provide additional technical support to the chapters. White papers, contributed by
the RSET subcommittees, can be found on the RSET website (located at
https://www.nwp.usace army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp) and allow the reader to better understand how the
SEF was developed.
The information presented in this manual should not be viewed as the final statement on all the
recommended procedures. Some of the areas covered in this document (e.g., sediment holding
times, freshwater sediment screening levels, denying target tissue levels) are actively researched
and debated. As data from sediment monitoring and research becomes available in the future, this
manual may be updated, as necessary.
1.4. FRAMEWORK OBJECTIVES
The SEF was prepared to satisfy the following five objectives:
(1) It establishes a marine and freshwater sediment characterization framework in coordination
with the public, stakeholders, and regulatory resource agencies.
The regional SEF manual establishes a sediment sampling, testing, and interpretation framework in
coordination with stakeholders, such as ports and private industries that maintain navigation access
in the study area, and resource agencies having an interest in, concern for, or some form of permit
authority relative to sediment management. Such a framework provides clarity, maximizes
consistency, and allows informed discussions to take place on the need for and extent of sediment
charactenzation for dredging and sediment management projects.
(2) It establishes a uniform framework under which the Corps will carry out federal requirements
in conducting the dredging and disposal program
The laws and regulations under which the Corps operates require the Corps, to the maximum extent
practicable, to predict dredged material types, contaminant levels, and biological effects, both in
water and sediments, before dredging and disposal actions can be considered environmentally
acceptable. This document provides the regulatory framework that will facilitate a consistent
application of regional cntena and guidelines.
(3) It establishes a uniform framework for evaluating the effects of sediment management activities
on water quality.
Project actions in one state may affect another state. Because sediment management activities affect
all states, regulation of these activities should be consistent between Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho. States have statutory control over water quality impacts resulting from a neighboring state.
Section 401 (a)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that a neighboring state be notified of
actions that may affect its water quality. In order to work most efficiently under this regulation, it
would be ideal to have uniform water quality requirements in a bi-state waterway. Section 103 of
the CWA encourages states to develop uniform laws for the prevention, reduction, and elimination
of pollution, and negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts not contrary to any laws or
treaties of the United States.
May 2009 1-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Although the laws discussed in this SEF may well be Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs), as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) for a particular CERCLA site, this SEF is not itself an ARAR. It does
not apply to any CERCLA cleanups, except to the extent determined that it is to be considered in the
CERCLA site decision document. Notwithstanding any other statements in this document, the SEF
does not govern CERCLA response actions. However, the "tools" described in the SEF may be
useful to the CERCLA program.
(4) It establishes databases to track the long-term trends in sediment quality for specific dredging
projects/locations and for the region.
Sediment management programs require the collection and maintenance of data about projects and
their characteristics. This objective includes the establishment of databases that will track sediment
quality trends over time at specific locations and for the region. Systematic database development
will provide useful input into larger planning efforts. Implementation of this framework will
generate regular reporting on sediment quality and thus raise the information level available for
making decisions on sediment management.
(5) It establishes procedures or references other regional/national guidance to assist in the
identification and evaluation of alternative sediment management options.
This manual focuses on determining suitability of sediment for in-water disposal. The manual also
recognizes the five basic dredged material disposal options: unconfmed aquatic, unconfmed upland,
confined aquatic, confined nearshore, and confined upland. It is acknowledged that different
sampling and testing requirements may be required for evaluating alternative management options.
In all disposal options, beneficial re-use (such as wetland creation and beach nourishment) of
dredged material is encouraged.
1.5. EVALUATION PROCEDURES PHILOSOPHY
Evaluation procedures consist of the sampling requirements, tests, and guidelines for test
interpretation that are to be used in assessing the quality of sediment, including dredged material,
and its management options. Evaluation procedures identify whether unacceptable adverse effects
on biological resources or human health might result from dredged material management. A
regulatory decision on acceptability of material for remediation or disposal is determined from the
test results. This manual defines the minimum requirements for evaluation of dredged material for
regulatory decision-making under the CWA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Endangered Species Act (ESA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), Magnuson Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
One of the underlying principles in the preparation of the SEF is the use of a risk-based sediment
assessment framework to guide assessments and management decisions by various regulatory
authorities. The results of the August 2002 Society of Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry
(SET AC) Pellston Workshop on the Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the
Assessment of Contaminated Sediments (SET AC 2002) were relied upon to generate the
philosophical and technical underpinnings of the assessment framework presented in this manual.
This workshop was held in Fairmont, Montana, and brought together 55 experts in the field of
sediment assessment and management from the United States, Australia, Canada, France, Germany,
May 2009 I-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Great Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands for 6 days of discussion on the use of sediment quality
guidelines (SQGs) and other sediment assessment tools.
One significant change from earlier guidance is the reduction in the number of testing levels (tiers)
recommended Previously, dredged material evaluations were conducted based on a four-tier
testing framework as presented in historical Pacific Northwest regional manuals. The two-level
testing process, as presented in the Pellston Workshop Summary, has been adopted for use with this
SEF (SETAC 2002). While the same amount of data will be collected under the SEF as for the
historical Pacific Northwest regional manuals, the two-level testing process summarized below will
be more consistent with national guidance and an understanding of the ecosystem function provided
at the site. The two-level testing process is described fully in Chapter 4.
• Level 1 includes defining the scope of the project, collecting historically available data,
developing a CSM, and providing the information used for ranking a project. If existing Level
1 data satisfies parameters in the CSM and indicate risk to receptors is minimal, then there is no
need to collect further data and management decisions can be made at the end of Level 1. The
transition from Level 1 to Level 2 occurs when data are insufficient for making a decision with
only Level 1 information and additional information is needed.
• Level 2 involves development of a SAP in order to collect new data to support a management
decision. Level 2 has two parts. Level 2A consists of analysis of sediment chemical and
physical characteristics. Data from Level 2A can either support a decision, or lead to Level 2B
biological testing, bioaccumulation testing, or other special evaluations. Level 2A and Level 2B
may be conducted concurrently to speed up project evaluations.
1.5.1. Characteristics of the Sediment Evaluation Framework
Evaluation procedures comprise the complete process of sediment assessment and incorporate a
range of scientific and administrative factors. Beyond the decision to base sediment and dredged
material evaluations on avoiding unacceptable adverse biological effects, effective evaluation
procedures should also have certain charactenstics and use best available science. The following
nine charactenstics are inherent in the evaluation process:
• Consistent - Evaluation procedures must be applicable on a uniform basis as much as possible
regardless of project or site variability.
• Flexible - Evaluation procedures must be flexible enough to allow for exceptions due to project
and site-specific concerns, and adaptable to projects of any size.
• Accountable - The need for, and cost implications of, evaluation procedures must be justifiable
to the individual stakeholder/permittee and to the public.
• Cost Effective - Evaluation procedures must be timely and cost-effective
• Objective - Evaluation procedures must be clearly stated and logical, and applicable in an
objective manner.
• Revisable - Evaluation procedures must be based upon best available technical and policy
information, and the overall approach will be revised periodically to incorporate new
information and management decisions.
• Understandable - Evaluation procedures must be clear and concise.
• Technically Sound - Evaluation procedures must be reproducible, have adequate quality
assurance and quality control guidelines, and have standardized protocols.
• Verifiable - The implementation of the evaluation procedures must be verifiable. One means of
judging effectiveness is monitoring at a disposal site.
May 2009 I-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
1.5.2. Need for Flexibility in Application of Evaluation Procedures
Although consistency is an important objective, it is recognized that flexibility must be maintained
in the way the evaluation procedures and disposal guidelines are applied. When project-specific
technical indications warrant, suitability evaluations or determinations that deviate from those
indicated by the guidelines presented in this manual may be made. Consequently, best professional
judgment is essential in reaching project-specific decisions. The evaluation procedures (including
the disposal guidelines) require full consideration of all pertinent project factors. Flexibility will be
provided by "exception." The guidelines are expected to apply in the majority of cases. Rather than
integrating flexibility into the guideline statements (by showing ranges of values or by using terms
such as "may do"), exceptions to the guidelines are allowed with technical rationale and
documentation, when such rationale warrants a different conclusion. A consensus between the
federal agencies and the affected state(s) will be required for use of this management by exception
approach. Further, this exception approach will only be used where applicable federal and/or state
law does not otherwise preclude its application.
A good example of how flexibility enters into the decision-making process using evaluation
procedures is the use of statistics and professional judgment in data interpretation. Statistics are
primarily applied in the initial data analysis stage of the disposal guidelines. Statistical significance
is used to determine if observed differences are "potentially real" when natural variability of the
parameters being measured is considered. Ultimate data interpretation requires judgment on the
part of a professional who is intimately familiar with the testing procedures, project specifics, and
initial data analysis conclusions.
Analysis of data consists of a comparison to guideline values that are developed using statistical
significance as a clear indicator of toxicity. However, ecological significance cannot be determined
by this process. Determination of ecological significance requires both an understanding of the data
and evaluation procedures, and evaluation of those test results based on best professional judgment.
1.6. RSET STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
The RSET requires a high level of knowledge concerning the laws and regulations that govern
sediments and water quality, sediment chemistry, toxicology, engineering, and other related fields.
At the same time, the science must inform a regulatory program involving numerous agencies and
statutory frameworks Therefore, RSET is designed to provide scientific advice combined with
practicable knowledge about the administrative use of the SEF to ensure science-based
recommendations. The structure and processes outlined below support the functions of RSET:
continuous improvement of methods for sediment sampling, testing, and analysis to support
regulatory management decisions at a regional level, and maintenance of the sediment quality
database. It is expected that RSET will provide a cooperative, interagency center of expertise on
sediment assessment and management that can be accessed by different agencies and programs as
needed.
1.6.1. Roles, Relationships, and Representation
The structure of the Regional Dredging Team (RDT) is shown in Figure 1-1. The Executive
Steering Committee (ESC) is composed of upper-level management at EPA Region 10, the Corps
Northwestern Division, NMFS, and USFWS.
May 2009 1-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Figure 1-1. Structure of the Regional Dredging Team
Executive Steering Committee (ESC)
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10
Regional Administrator, NMFS
Regional Director, USFWS
Division Engineer, Corps Northwestern Division
Navigation/Regulatory
Steering Committee (NRSC)
All agencies above + states and tribes
Regional Sediment
Evaluation Team
(RSET)
EPA Region 10, Corps,
NMFS, USFWS,
States of OR, WA, ID
t
OR PRG*
State Working Group
NMFS, Corps,
USFWS, EPA,
ODEQ
1
WA DUMP*
State Working Group
NMFS, Corps,
USFWS. EPA,
WDOE, WDNR
>*
ID PRG'
State Working Group
NMFS, Corps,
USFWS, EPA,
IDEQ
* For interstate waters, representation from other states may be necessary
The RSET reports to the Navigation/Regulatory Steering Committee (NRSC). The NRSC provides
both technical and policy guidance and feedback to RSET. Issues that cannot be resolved by the
RSET membership will be taken to the NRSC. As issues are elevated from local dredging teams to
the NRSC, it will often be appropriate for the RSET to advise these groups. The RSET operates by
consensus to amend the SEF and to provide guidance about the implementation of the SEF (both the
technical aspects and the interface with regulatory). The RSET also provides region-wide analysis
of sampling results to make regulatory management decisions regarding sediment characterization.
To meet these responsibilities, the RSET is composed of regional sediment experts and agency
representatives familiar with the regulatory/sediment analysis interface Experts may be invited in
as necessary, especially as members of ad hoc technical subcommittees, which are described below.
The Project Review Groups (PRGs) for Oregon and Idaho, and the Dredged Material Management
Program (DMMP) for the state of Washington work cooperatively with RSET by raising issues and
concerns to address. The PRGs/DMMP and applicants can raise issues of concern to the NRSC for
review and resolution, if necessary.
The ESC, NRSC, and RSET are each co-chaired by the Corps and EPA.
1.6.2. Current RSET Subcommittees
Much of the work by RSET is performed by subcommittees that prepare white papers providing
recommendations, technical information, and/or requesting policy guidance. White papers provide
the basis for RSET's deliberations. The white papers can be found on the RSET website (located at
May 2009
I-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp). Once a white paper is prepared by a
subcommittee, it is forwarded to the policy subcommittee. The policy subcommittee's role at that
point is to ensure the recommendations and supporting information are clear, and necessary
coordination has occurred with other subcommittees. Changes to the SEF will require concurrence
of the full RSET, as well as public review. The current RSET subcommittees are shown below.
The Policy Subcommittee may form other subcommittees to critically evaluate emerging issues.
• Policy
• Biological Testing
• Bioaccumulation
• Chemical Analyte
• Sediment Quality Guidelines
1.6.3. RSET Continuous Improvement/Adaptive Management
A very important aspect of the SEF is its ability to continuously evolve. Fundamentally, RSET
members share a strong commitment to making the SEF a "living document." As new information
becomes available, the RSET agencies will need to revise and refine all aspects of the program,
which must take place in a publicly accessible forum. The first mechanism for ensuring this is
regular meetings similar to or concurrent with the Sediment Management Annual Review Meeting
(SMARM). The RSET shall meet at least yearly. If these meetings fail to occur, any RSET
member may request, in writing to the NRCS, that such a meeting be held.
In January of each year, the Policy Subcommittee will meet and compile issues of concern and
proposed changes to the program. The team will develop white papers on those program aspects
that appear in need of revision. Any RSET member or subcommittee may use a white paper as a
means for requesting a meeting. For instance, if there is a need to address a new chemical testing
procedure, the Chemical Analyte Subcommittee would forward a white paper with
recommendations to the Policy Subcommittee chair. If the referring subcommittee has requested a
full RSET meeting to address this issue, the Policy Subcommittee shall convene the meeting within
3 months. If they fail to do so, the referring subcommittee chair may elevate the issue.
1.6.4. Regulatory/Technical Sediment Interface
The interface between regulatory agencies and technical sediment issues is described in Chapter 3.
The RSET has a responsibility to monitor the effectiveness of this interface and to make
recommendations.
1.6.5. Region-wide Interpretation of Test Results
The Pacific Northwest, as defined in this manual, roughly follows the boundaries of the regional
federal agencies signatory to this manual. The one exception is EPA Region 10's responsibility for
Alaska. The EPA has suggested that the SEF be considered for use in Alaska at a future date; this
will require a similar review process for this manual to determine its suitability for Alaska.
It is recognized that systemic region-wide interpretation of test results will be an evolving process.
Differences in test interpretation are necessary for freshwater versus marine waters, as well as due
to differing pathways of concern, species of concern, and differences in state and federal agencies
policies and regulations. The RSET will work together assessing and interpreting sediment-related
May 2009 1-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
projects. For the near term, there will be case-by-case interpretations necessary until the SEF is
fully developed. The RSET will continually update and refine the interpretation of test results with
the eventual goal of region-wide interpretation. This will require the review and approval of the
NSC and for more controversial issues, the Executive Steering Committee.
•
1.6.6. Database Management
The RSET management and the decision-making process regarding the sediment database are
discussed in Chapter 11.
1.6.7. Public Involvement/National Environmental Policy Act
The SEF is a continuation of a sediment evaluation process started in the Pacific Northwest more
than 20 years ago with the advent of the PSDDA. Updates and improvements to this process over
the years have had full public involvement and state and federal environmental compliance, either in
the form of 103 MPRSA or 401/404 CWA public notices and/or NEPA documentation. All
comments received prior to or during the public notice process were fully considered in the final
version of this manual. All of the RSET agencies are committed to using the guidelines developed
in this collaborative effort.
May 2009 1-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 2. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Several state and federal entities have regulatory authority governing the management of dredged
material and contaminated sediment in the Pacific Northwest. At the federal level, the Corps and
EPA share responsibility for the regulation of dredged material within waters of the United States
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and for the regulation of dredged material within
ocean waters under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
In the state of Washington, regulation is shared by Ecology, Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). In Oregon,
regulation is carried out by the ODEQ, Department of State Lands (DSL), and the Department of
Land Conservation and Development. In Idaho, regulation is carried out by the IDEQ, Idaho
Department of Lands, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR).
For the assessment and management of contaminated sediment cleanup, the EPA has federal
regulatory authority. The states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho exercise their regulatory
authority via their cleanup statutes. In Washington, this SEF will be used only as guidance for the
evaluation of dredged sediments. Evaluation of sediments for cleanup actions shall be in
compliance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and Sediment Management Standards
(SMS). If the SAP results from a dredged sediment evaluation show contamination above dredged
material open-water disposal levels, then the site will be referred to Ecology for evaluation in
compliance with the MTCA and SMS.
This chapter provides an overview of CWA and MPRSA regulatory responsibilities. Regulations
governing the Corps regulatory program are found in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Parts 320 to 332. Also, an overview is provided for Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act that requires a Corps permit for certain structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the
United States.
Many other federal and state laws and regulations that apply to dredging and dredged material
disposal are listed in this chapter. For example, dredged material disposal must comply with
applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In some cases, disposal
is subject to additional regulation by state governments through state water quality certification and
coastal zone consistency under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Table 2-1,
located at the end of the chapter, summarizes some of the other applicable federal and state laws and
regulations. Regulatory processes are discussed in Chapter 3.
2.2. OVERVIEW OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
2.2.1. Section 401 of the CWA
Section 404 of the CWA governs discharges of dredged material into "waters of the United States,"
which is defined as all waters landward of the baseline of the territorial sea. Section 401 of the
CWA requires the states to certify that any federally permitted project discharging into waters of the
United States will not violate state water quality standards, which are based on federal water quality
criteria. For non-federal dredging, Section 401 certification is a precondition to compliance with
the Section 404 guidelines, and is required before receiving a Corps Section 404 permit for the
May 2009 2-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
disposal of dredged or fill material. Section 401 certification is required when dredged material is
to be placed in an aquatic or nearshore environment, or when dredged material is hydraulically
placed in an upland environment where return water may affect waters of the United States.
Under Section 303 of the CWA, the states are required to develop and adopt a statewide anti-
degradation policy and to identify the methods for implementing such policy in developing water
quality standards, consistent with Section 303 (see 40 CFR 131).
2.2.2. Section 404 of the CWA
Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344; see 33 CFR Part 323) governs the discharge of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States (inland of and including the territorial sea). The
geographical limits of jurisdiction under the CWA include all waters of the United States as defined
at 33 CFR 328.3. These include wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters and navigable waters of
the United States. In tidal waters of the United States, the landward limit of jurisdiction extends to
the high tide line. Additionally, the Corps/EPA CWA jurisdiction in non-tidal waters extends to the
ordinary high water mark in the absence of adjacent wetlands, or when adjacent wetlands are
present, the jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high water mark to the limit of the adjacent
wetlands. If the waters of the United States consist only of wetlands, then the jurisdiction extends to
the limit of the wetland, if that wetland meets certain legal tests.
Section 404(b)(I) requires the EPA, in conjunction with the Corps, to promulgate guidelines for the
discharge of dredged or fill material to ensure that such proposed discharge will not result in
unacceptable adverse environmental impacts either individually or in combination to waters of the
United States. Section 404(b)(l) assigns to the Corps the responsibility for authorizing all such
proposed discharges and requires application of the guidelines in assessing the environmental
acceptability of the proposed action. The Corps is also required to examine the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative to the proposed discharge, including alternatives
to disposal into waters of the United States.
A Section 404 permit is required when dredged material is disposed of in either an aquatic or
nearshore environment, including some ocean discharges within the Territorial Sea (see Section
2.3). A Section 404 permit is also required when dredged material will be placed in an upland
environment and effluent from the disposal will be returned to waters of the United States. This can
occur where dredged matenal that is not dewatered is placed in nearshore or upland disposal sites
The Corps and EPA also have authority under the Section 404(b)(l) guidelines to identify, in
advance, that sites that are either suitable or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States The EPA is responsible for environmental oversight under Section
404 and retains permit veto authority pursuant to Section 404(c). Section 401 of the CWA provides
a certification role to the states as to project compliance with applicable state water quality
standards.
May 2009 2-2
-------
SEE for tlie Pacific Northwest
2.3. OVERVIEW OF MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES
ACT(MPRSA)
The MPRSA (also called the Ocean Dumping Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq) governs the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of disposal into ocean waters (seaward of the
baseline of the territorial sea). In accordance with Section 103 of the MPRSA, the Corps is the
permitting authority for ocean disposal of dredged material, subject to EPA review and concurrence.
Section 103 specifies that all proposed operations involving the transportation and disposal of
dredged material into ocean waters will be evaluated to determine the potential impact of such
activities. This is performed by the Corps using criteria developed by EPA (see 40 CFR Parts 227-
228). The Corps also is required to consider navigation, economic and industrial development, and
foreign and domestic commerce, as well as the availability of alternatives to ocean disposal.
Proposed ocean disposal of dredged material also must comply with the permitting and dredging
criteria in the regulations in 33 CFR Parts 320-330 and 335-338. The EPA must determine the
proposed disposal will comply with the criteria prior to disposal, and concur with the use of the site.
The EPA has a major environmental oversight role in reviewing the Corps determination of
compliance with the ocean disposal criteria. If EPA determines the criteria are not met, disposal
may not occur without a waiver of the criteria by EPA. In addition, the EPA has authority under
Section 102 to designate ocean disposal sites. The Corps is required to use such ocean disposal sites
to the extent feasible. Where not feasible, the Corps may, with the concurrence of EPA, select an
alternate ocean disposal site using the EPA site selection criteria.
2.4. OVERLAPPING GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION OF CWA AND MPRSA
In order to understand the geographic jurisdiction of the CWA and MPRSA, it is necessary to define
the baseline of the territorial sea. For purposes of both international and domestic law, the baseline
is the boundary line dividing the land from the ocean. In the United States, the baseline is the mean
lower low water line along the coast as shown on official nautical charts. The baseline is drawn
across river mouths, the opening of bays, and along the outer points of complex coastlines.
Section 404 of the CWA applies to the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
Untied States, which include waters inside the baseline of the territorial sea, as well as waters
seaward of the baseline a distance of three nautical miles. The MPRSA applies to transportation of
dredged material for the purpose of disposal into ocean waters outside the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured. Therefore, both statutes apply in the first three nautical miles seaward of
the baseline (Figure 2-1).
The regulations of EPA and Corps [40 CFR 230.2(b) and 33 CFR 336.0(b), respectively] define
which law applies in this three nautical mile belt of water seaward of the baseline. If dredged
material is placed in this area for the purpose of disposal, it is evaluated under the MPRSA. If
dredged material is discharged in the territorial sea as fill (e.g., beach nourishment, island creation,
or underwater berms), it is evaluated under Section 404 of the CWA.
May 2009 2-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Figure 2-1. Geographic Jurisdictions ofMPRSA and CWA
2.5. OVERVIEW OF SECTION 10 OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT
Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 United States Code (U.S.C.) 403; see
33 CFR Part 322], a Corps permit is required for certain structures or work in or affecting navigable
waters of the United States. A dredging project in navigable waters, with no discharge of fill
material or return flow back into the navigable waters, would require a Section 10 permit but not a
Section 404 permit.
For navigable rivers and lakes, federal regulatory jurisdiction and powers of improvement for
navigation extend laterally to the entire water surface and bed of a navigable water body, which
includes all the land and waters below the ordinary high water mark. Jurisdiction thus extends to
the edge (as determined above) of all such water bodies, even though portions of the water body
may be extremely shallow, or obstructed by shoals, vegetation or other barriers. Marshlands and
similar areas are thus considered navigable in law, but only so far as the area is subject to inundation
by the ordinary high waters (33 CFR 329.11).
Navigable waters of the United States, over which the Corps Section 10 regulatory jurisdiction
extends, includes all ocean and coastal waters within a zone that is three geographic (nautical) miles
seaward from the baseline of the territorial sea (see Figure 2-1). Wider zones are recognized for
special regulatory powers exercised over the outer continental shelf (33 CFR 329.12). The baseline
is defined as the line where the shore directly contacts the open sea; specifically, the baseline is the
line on the shore reached by the ordinary low tides.
May 2009 2-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
2.6. LISTING OF RELEVANT FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS
The following federal and state laws and regulations may be applicable to dredging and dredged
material disposal activities in the Pacific Northwest. Table 2-1 summarizes the information for key
laws and regulations.
2.6.1. Federal
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
• Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.
• Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970.
• Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance - Pollution Control Standards.
• Executive Order 11564, Transfer of Oceanographic Programs.
• Executive Order 11988, Floodplam Management.
• Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
• Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.
• Executive Order 12291, Federal Regulation.
• Executive Order 12301, Integrity and Efficiency in Federal Programs.
• Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
• Executive Order 12498, Regulatory Planning Process.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.
• Environmental Education Act of 1978.
• Environmental Programs Assistance Act of 1984.
• Clean Air Act of 1970: Section 309 (review of NEPA documents)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (amended and renamed Clean Water Act of 1977):
Section 301 - Effluent Limitations
Section 303 - Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans
Section 313 - Federal Facilities Pollution Control
Section 401 - Water Quality Certification
Section 402 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Section 403 - Ocean Discharge Criteria
Section 404 - Permits for Dredged Material or Fill
Section 405 - Disposal of Sewage Sludge
• Water Quality Act of 1987.
• Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (the Refuse Act):
Section 10 - Permits for Structures and Activities in Navigable Waters
Section 13 - Refuse Act
• Water Resource Planning Act of 1965.
• Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1979.
• Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
• Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (also called Ocean Dumping Act):
Title I - Ocean Dumping
Section 102 - EPA Permits
Section 103 - Corps Permits (provides authority to the Corps to select ocean dumping
sites in the event that EPA-designated sites are not suitable for use)
Section 106 - Relationship to Other Laws
Title II - Comprehensive Research on Ocean Dumping
Title III - National Marine Sanctuaries
May 2009 2-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
Estuary Protection Act of 1968.
National Ocean Pollution Act of 1978.
Reservoir Salvage Act of 1968.
River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1970.
Water Resources Development Act of 1976:
Section 145 - Sand Fill
Section 148 - Disposal Areas
Section 150-Wetlands
Water Resources Development Act of 1986:
Section 924 - Office of Environmental Policy
Section 933 - Cost-sharing for Disposal of Material on Beaches
Section 1135 - Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment
Section 1146 - Acceptance of Certain Funds for Mitigation
Water Resources Development Act of 1988:
Section 35 - State Funding for Section 933 Activities
Water Resources Development Act of 1990:
Section 304 - Project Modification for Improvement of the Environment
Section 306 - Environmental Protection Mission
Section 307 - Wetlands
Section 312 - Environmental Dredging (additional information and requirements are
provided on Section 312 in Policy Guidance Letter No. 35 dated 17 March 1992.)
Water Resources Development Act of 1992:
Section 202- Projects for Improvements of the Environment
Section 204- Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
Section 207- Cost-shanng for Disposal of Dredged Material on Beaches
Section 216- Dredged Material Disposal Areas
Section 333- Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
Section 345- Bank Stabilization and Marsh Creation
Section 405- Sediments Decontamination Technology
Water Resources Development Act of 1996:
Section 205- Environmental Dredging
Section 207- Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
Section 217- Dredged Material Disposal Facility Partnerships
Section 226- Sediments Decontamination Technology
Section 506- Periodic Beach Nourishment
Section 509- Maintenance of Navigation Channels
Water Resources Development Act of 1999:
Section 204- Sediments Decontamination Technology
Section 209- Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
Section 217- Disposal of Dredged Material on Beaches
Section 224- Environmental Dredging
Section 503- Contaminated Sediment Dredging Technology
Section 512- Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972:
Section 303 - Declaration of Policy
Section 307 - Coordination and Cooperation
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
May 2009 2-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Endangered Species Act of 1973: Section 7 - Interagency Cooperation.
Coastal Barrier Resource Act of 1982.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts of 1934,1956, and 1958.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977.
Water Resources Research Act of 1984.
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Antiquities Act of 1906.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.
Archeological Resources Act of 1979.
Historic Sites Act of 1935.
National Historic Preservation Acts of 1966 and 1980.
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 [Public Law (PL) 100-298].
American Folklife Preservation Act, PL 94-201.
Farmlands Protection Policy Act of 1981.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,40 U.S.C.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act as amended by the Federal Environmental
Pesticide Control Act, 7 U.S.C.
Federal Water Project Recreation Act, PL 89-72,16 U.S.C.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, PL 88-578,16 U.S.C.
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, PL 92-522, 16 U.S.C.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1928, 16 U.S.C.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918,18 U.S.C.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, PL 101-601.
Native American Religious Freedom Act, PL 95-341,42 U.S.C.
Noise Control Act, 42 U.S.C.
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.
Submerged Lands Act of 1953, PL 82-3167,43 U.S.C.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, PL 95-89,30 U.S.C.
Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment.
Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation.
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seg. as reauthorized by the Sustainable Fisheries Act
of 1996.
2.6.2. State of Washington
Section 401 Certification Program (located at
http://apps.ecv. wa.gov/permithandbook/permitdetail.asp?id=43~).
State Environmental Policy Act [Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 43.21C].
Hydraulic Project Approval (RCW Chapter 77.5).
Aquatic Lands Act (RCW Chapter 79.105).
Model Toxics Control Act (RCW Chapter 70.105D).
Shoreline Management Act (RCW Chapter 90.58).
Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (located at
http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sea/czm/).
May 2009 2-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
2.6.3. State of Oregon
• Section 401 Certification Program (located at
http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/sec401 cert/sec401 cert.htm).
Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program (located at http://www.oregon. gov/LCD/OCMP/).
Removal/Fill Law (located at http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/PERMITS/r-fintro.shtmn.
Permit for any activity on state beaches (includes placement of dredged material).
Oregon Solid and Hazardous Waste Rules [Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-100-0001].
Cleanup Authority (OAR 340-122-0115).
2.6.4. State of Idaho
Idaho Section 401 Certification Program (located at
http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/pennits forms/permitting/401 certification.cfrn').
Idaho Stream Channel Protection Act (Title 42, Chapter 38, Idaho Code).
Idaho Lake Protection Act (Section 58-142 et. seq., Idaho Code).
Environmental Protection and Health Act (Idaho Code Title 39 Chapter 1).
Hazardous Waste Management Act (Idaho Code Title 39 Chapter 44).
Idaho Water Quality Standards [Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.02].
May 2009 2-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 2-1. Summary of Federal and State Regulations
AUTHORITY
(ADMINISTERING AGENCY)
ACTIVITIES/ACTIONS
REGULATED
JURISDICTION
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
National Environmental Policy Act
(federal action agency)
Section 10 Rivers and 1 larbors Act
(Corps)
Section 404 Clean Waler Act
(EPA/Corps)
Section 103 Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act
(EPA/Corps)
Public Law 92-583 Coastal Zone
Management Act
(NMFS/slalc CZM agencies)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(federal agencies/ state wildlife
resources agencies)
• federal actions
• construction of structures in or over
navigable waters of the United Stales
• the excavation from or depositing of material
in navigable waters
• other work affecting the course, location,
condition, or capacity of navigable waters
• discharge of dredged 01 fill material into
waters of the U S
• transportation of dredged material for the
purpose of disposal in the ocean
• effective management, beneficial use,
protection, and development of coastal zone
• federal agency activities that affect the
coastal zone must he earned out m a manner
consistent to the maximum extent practicable
with the enforceable policies of the approved
state management program
• land, water and interests may be acquired by
federal construction agencies for wildlife
conservation and development
• all federal actions, including applications for federal permits or other
forms of authorization that arc not otherwise exempted from NCPA
• navigable rivers and lakes extends laterally to the entire water surface
and bed of a navigable water body, which includes all the land and
waters below the ordinary high water mark
• ocean and coastal waters within a zone three geographic (nautical) miles
seaward from the baseline (i e , the Territorial Seas)
• wider zones are recognized for special regulatory powers exercised over
the outer continental shelf
• navigable waters of the U S
• in tidal waters of the U S , the landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal
waters extend to the high tide line
• in non-tidal waters extends to the ordinary high water mark in the
absence ofadjacenl wetlands
• in adjacent wetlands, jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high water
mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands
• if only ofwetlands, then jurisdiction extends to the limit of the wetland.
if that wetland meets certain tests resulting from Supreme Court case law
• extends seaward from the baseline into the territorial sea as provided for
in the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
• WA - the IS coastal counties that front saltwater
• OR - inland to the crest of the coastal range, except for the following
along the Umpqua River where it extends upstream to Scottsburg, along
ihc Rogue River where it extends upstream to Agncss. and except in the
Columbia River llasin where it extends upstream to the downstream end
of Puget Island
• federal agency activities affecting Ihc coastal zone
• where waters or channel of a body of water are modified by a department
or agency of the United States
May 2009
2-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
AUTHORITY
(ADMINISTERING AGENCY)
Endangered Species Act
(MMFS/USFWS)
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(NMFS)
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(NMFS)
Section 106 National Historic
Preservation Act
(State Historic and Tribal
Preservation Offices)
ACTIVITIES/ACTIONS
REGULATED
• real properly under federal agency
jurisdiction or control, and no longer
required by that agency, can be utilized for
wildlife conservation by the state agency
exercising administration over wildlife
resources on that property
• actions affecting listed species and/or their
designated critical habitat
• actions resulting in the lethal take, non-lethal
take, or incidental harassment of marine
mammals
• actions al fcctmg commercial fisheries
• federal actions affecting cultural resources.
federal actions affecting tribal cultural
resources, treaty fishing access sites, usual
and accustomed areas, traditional cultural
properties and/or other resources important
to the respective tribes
JURISDICTION
• species that are endangered or threatened with extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of their range
• designated critical habitat on which they depend
• all species of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions
• marine mammal habitat
• federally managed species with designated essential fish habitat (I£FH)
• cultural and tribal resources
• federal action agency coordinates with Slate Historic and Tribal
Preservation Offices, and attempts to avoid or minimize impacts to
cultural and/or tribal resources, and mitigate unavoidable impacts
• federal action agency makes final determination of project effect
STATE OF WASHINGTON
State Environmental Policy Act
(slate agencies, counties, cities, ports,
and special districts)
Section 401 Clean Water Act
(Ecology)
Hydraulic Project Approval
(WDFW)
Aquatic Lands Act
(WDNR)
• state actions
• any federally permitted project discharging
into waters of the U S will not violate stale
water quality standards
• actions that affect the natural flow of state
waters
• discharge of dredged material on state
aquatic lands
• issuing permits for private projects
• construction of public facilities
• adopting regulations, policies or plans
• see Section 404 jurisdiction, above
• discharges in Washington or in interstate waters (e g Columbia River)
• waters under the state's jurisdiction
• lease state-owned aquatic lands for development and charge a fee for the
discharge or use of dredged material
• aquatic or nearshore disposal sites can be subject to WDNR's
management
May 2009
2-10
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
AUTHORITY
(ADMINISTERING AGENCY)
Model Toxics Control Act
(Ecology)
Washington Shoreline Management
Act (Ecology)
ACTI VITI ES/ACTIONS
REGULATED
• governs remedial actions in the state
• actions that may affect shoreline use,
shoreline natural resources, access to public
areas, and preservation of recreational
opportunities
JURISDICTION
• state remedial actions, including sediment cleanup under state Sediment
Management Standards
• shorelines of the state - all marine waters, streams > 20 cubic feet per
second mean annual How, lakes 20 acres or larger
• upland areas extending 200 feet landward from the edge of these waters
• biological wetlands and river deltas, and some or all of the 100-year
floodplam when associated with one of the above waters
STATE OF OREGON
Oregon Coastal Management Program
Section 401 Clean Water Act
(ODEQ)
Removal/Fill Law
(DSL)
State Beaches
(Oregon State Parks)
Oregon Solid and Hazardous
Waste Rules
Oregon Slate Cleanup Authority
• see Coastal Zone Management Act, above
• any federally permitted project discharging
into waters of the U S will not violate state
water quality standards
• removal, fill, or alleiations equal to or
exceeding SO cubic yards of material within
beds or banks of waters in Oregon
• placement of dredged material on state
beaches
• upland disposal of dredged material
• remedial actions within the state
• see Coastal Zone Management Act, above
• see Section 404 jurisdiction, above
• discharges in Oregon or in interstate waters (e g Columbia River)
• waters in Oregon, including wetlands
• beaches of the state
• all lands within Oregon, including the territorial sea
• contaminated sites in the state
STATE OF IDAHO
Section 401 Clean Water Act
(IDEQ)
Idaho State Contaminated Sediments
and Hazardous Waste Authorities
Lake Protection Act
(Idaho Dept of Lands)
Stream Channel Protection Act
(IDWR)
• any federally permitted project discharging
into waters of the U S will not violate state
water quality standards
• disposal of some dredged materials and any
remedial actions within the state
• projects affecting lakes and reservoirs in the
slate
• projects affecting streams in the state
• sec Section 404 jurisdiction, above
• discharges m Idaho or in interstate waters (e g Snake River)
• all lands in the state
• lakes and reservoirs in the state
• perennial waters of the stale
*Note that this table is not all inclusive.
May 2009
2-11
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 3. REGULATORY PROCESS AND SEDIMENT
EVALUATION
3.1. INTRODUCTION
As discussed in Chapter 2, there are many federal and state regulations that govern the management
of both uncontaminated and contaminated sediments. This chapter focuses on the regulatory
processes involved in sediment evaluation and project approval. This chapter also attempts to
clarify some of the key consultation and coordination procedures between the Corps and other state
and federal regulatory agencies
Sediment evaluation is a critical component to all dredging and site investigation sediment-
impacting activities (e.g., navigation-related dredging or disposal activities, habitat restoration
efforts, and others). As such, the PRGs/DMMP provide a multi-agency center of sediment expertise
that may be accessed by the members and agency programs for commenting and evaluating on
sediment projects throughout the Pacific Northwest. The PRGs/DMMP will be responsible for
providing comment on and review for dredging project permit applications evaluated under one or
more of the Corps regulatory authorities. Additionally, the PRGs/DMMP will provide review for
and comments on Corps Civil Works projects.
3.2. CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE SEF
One of the goals of the SEF is the consistent and predictable application of sediment evaluation
procedures across projects and across Corps District boundaries. Consistent application of the SEF
through the Corps District PRGs/DMMP will allow for greater predictability in the SEF and permit
review processes, improved project planning, and reduced delays caused by changes in project
scope due to sediment management issues. In addition, the application of consistent guidelines and
processes is intended to speed the regulatory review process and ultimately result in more timely
and efficient review of projects and permit applications. The process to be used by the Corps
Distncts is described in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.7.
3.3. REGULATORY PERMITS AND PROCESSES
The permit review process consists of a series of progressive steps applicable to most dredging
projects, as summarized below and in Figure 3-1. This process integrates several sub-processes,
including the ESA consultation process (Figure 3-2) and the sediment evaluation process (Figure 3-
3) described below. Other regulatory processes may have equally complex consultation or
coordination requirements, but the illustration of all of these processes is beyond the scope of this
chapter. Since the SEF process and the ESA consultation process are particularly relevant to nearly
all dredging projects, they have been included as well.
May 2009 3-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Figure 3-1. Federal - State Regulatory Process
Applicant-Identified
Dredging Need
PRE-APPLICATION (Optional)
Permit Req • Corps/ State Agencies
Sampling Req.. PRGs/DMMP
NO
Submit Application or
Additional Information to
Corps/ State Agency
Agency Completeness
Determination
Application Complete?
I
YES
CONSULTATION/
COORDINATION
PROCESSES
STATE ONLY
State Wildlife Agency
STATE AND FEDERAL
Section 401 WQ Cert Review
Other ODEQ/Ecology Reviews
State CZM Consistency Review
State Histonc Preservation Office
SEF/PRG/DMMP Review (Fig 3-3)
FEDERAL ONLY
ESA-EFH
(USFWS/NMFS)
(Fig 3-2)
r
Sediment Mgt. Recommendations (PRGs/DMMP)
Fed/ State Agency Approvals/ Opinions Issued
Corps Public Interest Factors Evaluation
Corps/ State Permits
Issued
Significant project impacts
(aquatic impacts/ ESA
jeopardy or adverse mod of
critical habitat/ other impacts)
after mitigation/ conservation
measures?
401 Cert, denied?
CZM Consistency denied7
YES
Corps/ State Permits
Denied
Proceed w/ Dredging
Project
Appeal permit decision or
redesign to resolve
adverse impacts
May 2009
3-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Figure 3-2. Endangered Species Act Consultation
Corps makes
IMo Effect"
determination
Permit application
submitted to Corps
ESA-listed species/
critical habitat in
project area?
„ YES
INFORMAL
CONSULTATION
Corps makes 'Not likely to
adversely affect"
determination
Would proposed
work affect listed
species?
NO
„ YES
Would proposed
work adversely affect
listed species?
Service
concurrence?
YES
• — -• YES
NOr
Written Service
Concurrence issued
Corps initiates formal
consultation
FORMAL
CONSULTATION
Complete Biological
Assessment?
NO
Service requests
additional information
YES
Service prepares
Biological Opinion
YES
Draft Jeopard/'
NO ,r
Review of draft
Opinion by Corps/
applicant
Review of draft BiOp
by applicant and
Corps
Applicant accepts
Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives
that would not
jeopardize ssp ?
Reasonable and Prudent
Measures incorporated
into permit. Incidental
Take Statement issued
,, YES
Opinion Finalized
Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives
incorporated into
Corps permit and
Incidental Take
Statement issued
May 2009
3-3
-------
SEFforthe Pacific Northwest
Figure 3-3. Sediment Evaluation Process
No further review
necessary, proceed
with dredging
YES
Level 1 site history
information collected
to determine
sampling & analysis
requirements
(Chapter 4)
Adequate
information to
determine sampling
and analysis
requirements''
Develop/ revise Sampling
and Analysis Plan (SAP)
mcl Level 1 site history
information (Chapter A)
YES
Sediment
Characterization Report
prepared/ revised
T
NO
Sediment sampling and laboratory
testing conducted by proponent/
Corps per the SAP
NO
SAP not followed
I'''
Approved SAP
followed'' Sediment
Characterization
Report adequate7
YES
^
Suitability review
concurrence''
NO
E
Snec
Special
evaluations
conducted
A
"JO .
ial eval /
Eva
pre
YES
procedures
not followed
1
F
PRGs/DMMP
Review
Process
Complete
YES
/NO
Special eval
procedures
followed? Report
adequate7
Special
Evaluation Report
prepared/ revised
May 2009
3-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
3.3.1. Corps of Engineers Permitting Processes
• The applicant may request that the Corps conduct a pre-application meeting to discuss the
dredging project and outline regulatory issues and processes, data requirements for the
submittal, and preliminary permitting time frames (optional).
• The Corps receives the proponent's application packet and determines if the Corps has
regulatory authority over the waterway and over the proposed activity.
o Dredging projects in navigable waters that have a discharge of dredged or fill material
(including return water) require both a Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and
Section 404 of the CWA authorization.
o Dredging projects in navigable waters where there is no return water or m-water disposal
require Section 10 authorization only.
o Dredging projects where ocean disposal is proposed in the territorial seas below the low tide
line require Section 103 authorization in addition to the requisite Section 10 and/or Section
404 authonzation(s).
o Dredging in a Section 404 water body is not regulated by the Corps, as long as there is no
discharge of dredged or fill material.
• The Corps determines what type of permit (Regional General Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter
of Permission, or Standard Permit) and level of analysis are appropriate for the project. In
general, Regional General Permits require the least amount of environmental analysis, since
impacts are typically minor, and the analysis has been done up front. Typically, Standard
Permits require the greatest amount of analysis, and the Corps must submit a public notice for
the project and prepare an environmental assessment once all comments are received.
• Within 15 days of receipt, the Corps reviews the application for completeness per 33 CFR
325.1(d)(l-9), and if the application is incomplete, the Corps requests additional information.
o To be complete, applications must include: a description of the project, including necessary
drawings, sketches, or plans sufficient for public notice; the location, purpose and need for
the proposed activity; scheduling of the activity; the names and addresses of adjoining
property owners; the location and dimensions of adjacent structures; and a list of
authorizations required by other federal, interstate, state, or local agencies for the work,
including all approvals received or denials already made.
o The proposed project must be a single and complete, stand-alone project. If the project is
part of a larger plan of development, then the applicant must apply for a permit for the
entire plan of development.
o The application must be signed by the applicant and designated agent (consultant) if any.
o Applications for dredging must also include a description of the type, composition, and
quantity of the matenal to be dredged, the method of dredging, and the site and plans for
disposal of the dredged matenal.
o If the proposed activity would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
waters of the United States or the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of
disposing of it in ocean waters, then the application must include the source of the material;
the purpose of the discharge, a description of the type, composition and quantity of the
matenal; the method of transportation and disposal of the material; and the location of the
disposal site. Certification under Section 401 is required for such discharges into waters of
the United States
• Once the application has been determined complete, the Corps may be required to
consult/coordinate with one or more of the following agencies/groups to comply with other
federal laws.
May 2009 3-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
o The Corps Regulatory Project Manager (PM) must initiate consultation with USFWS and/or
NMFS if there are federally listed species or their designated or proposed critical habitat in
the project area and the proposed project may affect the species or habitat. This process is
described in Section 3.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 3-2 (similarly for a state permit, the
permitting agency must coordinate with the relevant state wildlife and fisheries
management agency). The NMFS will also include a consultation under the MSA as pan of
their Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the project being reviewed.
o Most dredging projects will require that the Corps PM coordinate with the PRGs/DMMP in
order to evaluate site history data, determine sampling requirements to adequately
characterize the dredging project area, and develop sediment/contaminant management
recommendations based on characterization data and special evaluations This process is
described in Section 3.4 and illustrated in Figure 3-3.
o ODEQ/Ecology/IDEQ for Section 401 Water Quality Certification if there is a discharge of
dredged or fill material.
O If the project occurs in the coastal zone of Oregon or Washington, then the Department of
Land Conservation and Development or Ecology, respectively, must review for project
consistency with the state coastal zone management planning and regulations.
o The Corps PM must coordinate with the relevant State Historic Preservation Office and
tnbe(s) if there are cultural resources or tnbal issues associated with the project area.
o For dredging projects at or near a federal cleanup site, the Corps PM may coordinate
through EPA cleanup programs.
Additionally, once the application has been determined complete, within 15 days, the Corps
must issue a notice to state and federal agencies and adjacent landowners if the project is
eligible for authonzation under a letter of permission. If the project requires a standard permit
authorization, then the Corps must issue a public notice.
Once the public notice comment period has ended (typically 15 days for notice of letters of
permission and 30 days for a standard permit public notice), and all coordination, consultation,
and certifications have been concluded/issued, the Corps factors all public comments and
resulting approvals into its decision document. The Corps will typically ask the applicant to
help address public comments. The decision document is the Corps Environmental Assessment
(EA) and Statement of Findings (SOF) regarding the project's effect on public interest factors
which include, but are not limited to:
Substrate
Currents, circulation or
drainage patterns
Suspended particulates
and turbidity
Water quality
(temperature, salinity
patterns)
Flood control, storm, wave
and erosion buffers
Erosion and accretion
patterns
Aquifer recharge
Baseflow
Mixing zone
Habitat for fish and other
aquatic organisms
Threatened and endangered
species
Special aquatic sites
Biological availability of
possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material
Existing and potential water
supplies
Recreational and commercial
fisheries
Other water related recreation
Aesthetics of aquatic ecosystem
Parks, national seashores, wild
and scenic rivers, etc.
Traffic/transportation patterns
Energy consumption or
generation
Navigation
Safety
Air quality
Noise
Historic properties
(National Historic
Preservation Act)
Land use classification
Economics
Prime and unique
farmland (7 CFR Part
658)
Food and fiber
production
Mineral needs
Consideration of private
property rights
May 2009
3-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
• After consideration of these public interest factors, agency and tribal comments and/or
requirements, and generally within 60 days of receipt of a complete application for a nationwide
permit, the Corps makes a permit decision to either verify or not verify the project meets the
terms of a nationwide permit. Similarly, generally within 120 days of receipt of a complete
application for a standard permit, the Corps makes a permit decision to either issue or deny the
permit. However, other consultations (e.g., ESA, cultural resources) and the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification review may take significantly longer depending upon project location,
complexity, timing, and other factors.
• If the Corps issues a permit for the project, the conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification, the BiOp, and other agency conditions are incorporated as special conditions of
the permit.
• If the Corps denies the permit, or if the applicant disagrees with the conditions of the initially
proffered permit, the applicant may appeal the permit denial or any of the conditions of the
permit. The Corps appeals process is described in 33 CFR 331.
3.3.2. ESA Consultation Process
Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) outlines the procedures for federal interagency
cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated or proposed critical habitats.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each federal agency shall, in consultation with USFWS and/or NMFS,
ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or
proposed critical habitat. In fulfilling these requirements, each agency must use the best scientific
and commercial data available.
Under the ESA, two forms of consultation are possible: informal or formal. Due to the listing of
salmonids and other listed fish and manne mammals throughout the Pacific Northwest, dredging
project proponents should expect to go through one of these consultation processes. These
consultation processes and the "No Effect" determination are summarized below and in Figure 3-2
The data generated through the SEF process is particularly relevant to ESA consultation because
contaminants in dredged matenal can have adverse and long-term effects on aquatic life, including
ESA-listed species. The PRGs/DMMP review process (see Section 3.4) is often used by the
USFWS and NMFS to evaluate the effects of the proposed action on ESA species and their critical
habitat. The guidance outlined in this SEF, however, does not provide all the monitoring measures
or conservation measures that may be required when a project is implemented in a water body with
ESA-listed species.
3.3.2.1. No Effect Determination
It is up to the Corps to determine whether the project would have "No Effect" on ESA-listed
species. This determination can only be made if there are no ESA-listed species and/or critical
habitat in the project area, or if the proposed work would not affect ESA-listed species and/or
critical habitat. If a "No Effect" determination is made, it is incumbent upon the Corps to document
the project administrative record with the assistance of the applicant, if necessary.
May 2009 3-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
3.3.2.2. Informal Consultation
If the proposed work occurs in or directly abutting designated or proposed critical habitat, then the
proposed work would likely affect listed species. It is then up to the Corps to determine whether or
not the proposed action would adversely affect listed species or their cntical habitat. If the Corps
believes the proposed action would not result in adverse effects, then informal consultation is
appropnate. Carried to its end, informal consultation will have one of three outcomes:
1. The USFWS and/or NMFS concur with the Corps determination and issue a "May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" determination, with additional conservation recommendations to be
incorporated into the Corps permit authorization.
2. The USFWS and/or NMFS disagree with the Corps determination on project effects for ESA-
listed species and/or their designated or proposed cntical habitat, requinng the Corps to initiate
formal consultation.
3. The USFWS and/or NMFS (rarely) determine that the project as proposed would not affect
listed species or their designated or proposed cntical habitat.
3.3.2.3. Formal Consultation
Formal consultation is necessary when a project may adversely affect ESA species and/or
designated/proposed cntical habitat. The applicant will assist the Corps by prepanng a Biological
Assessment (BA) for the project. The Corps receives the BA, reviews it for content, and forwards
the document to USFWS and/or NMFS for review. If the document is incomplete, then the USFWS
and/or NMFS will require additional information. Once the BA is complete, the USFWS and/or
NMFS will use that information, along with the best available best scientific and commercial data,
to prepare a BiOp. Carried to its end, formal consultation will have one of three outcomes:
1. The USFWS and/or NMFS determine that proposed action will not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species through that portion of its range and/or adversely modify its designated
or proposed cntical habitats.
• The USFWS and/or NMFS will issue reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) in their
BiOp that the applicant must implement to ensure that the proposed action has the least
impact to ESA species possible.
• The RPMs are incorporated as special conditions into the Corps-issued permit.
• The USFWS and/or NMFS will also issue an Incidental Take Statement, which identifies
the amount or extent of take to ESA-listed species and/or their cntical habitats. Take is
defined as "to harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in such conduct."
2. The USFWS and/or NMFS determine that the proposed action will jeopardize an ESA-listed
species through all or part of its range and/or adversely modify their designated or proposed
cntical habitats. The USFWS and/or NMFS will work with the Corps and the applicant to
develop a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to the proposed action that will minimize
impacts so the species is not jeopardized.
• An Incidental Take Statement will also be issued with the BiOp.
• Assuming the applicant agrees to implement the RPA, the Corps will issue the permit.
3. If the USFWS and/or NMFS determine that the proposed action will jeopardize an ESA-listed
species through all or part of its range, and the applicant is unable to or refuses to implement the
RPA, then the Corps will deny the permit.
May 2009 3-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
3.3.3. State Permitting Processes
Prior to or concurrent with the Corps permit process, dredging proponents will be required to obtain
permits/approvals from local jurisdictions and/or state agencies.
Likely permits/approvals required in the state of Washington include:
• Shoreline Permits,
• Hydraulic Project Approval Permit,
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification; and
• Disposal site use authorization from WDNR if at an approved open-water site or if disposal
affects state-owned lands.
Likely permits/approvals required in the state of Oregon include:
• Removal/Fill Permit;
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification;
• Coastal Program Approval; and
• State Beaches.
Likely permit/approvals required in the state of Idaho include:
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification;
• Stream Alteration Permit; and
• Lake Encroachment Permit
3.4. PRGs/DMMP PROCESS
The sediment evaluation process presented herein is not a regulatory requirement in itself. Rather, it
is a process through which the Corps Regulatory offices can evaluate the public interest factors
associated with the dredging project. The sediment evaluation process is carried out by the
applicant with guidance from the Corps regulatory office and the PRGs/DMMP. It is important to
recognize that the PRGs/DMMP have no regulatory authority for projects, but the Corps and other
participating agencies do have regulatory authority. Also, the use of the PRGs/DMMP for actions
not requiring a Corps permit is discretionary for the agency or program. An information/request
will be submitted to the PRGs/DMMP either by the applicant or the Corps regulatory PM. In
addition, the PRGs/DMMP will review and comment on Corps Civil Works projects.
Each member agency of PRGs/DMMP is responsible for internal coordination and for bringing
issues and concerns regarding sediment assessment to the appropriate PRGs/DMMP team. For
Corp's permit actions, the PRGs/DMMP are organized into three teams that correspond to the Corps
regulatory offices, with the Corps assuming coordination activities as part of its regulatory and
navigation responsibilities (Table 3-1). In addition to these state teams, a regional RSET meets
quarterly to aid in coordination of activities and to identify those issues that are of regional
importance. This regional coordination will allow the agencies to leverage limited resources and
ensure consistent application of the SEF.
The sediment evaluation process is integrated into both the overall permit process and the
verification of existing permits (see Figure 3-3).
May 2009 3-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 3-1. Corps of Engineers Regulatory Offices
State and Applicable
Corps Regulatory Office
Corps
Regulatory Contact
State
Working Group
State of Washington
Corps Seattle District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District CENWS-OD-RG
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-3755
Phone. (206)764-3495
http://www.nws usace.army.mil/PublicMenu/Me
nu.cfm?sitename=REG&pagename=Home Page
Washington DMMP*
Corps, NMFS,
USFWS, EPA
WDOE, WDNR
State of Oregon
Corps Portland District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Portland District CENWP-OD-GP
333 SW First Avenue, P O. Box 2946
Portland, OR 97208-2946
Phone: (503)808-4373
httpsV/www.nwp usace.army.mil/OP/g/home.asp
Oregon PRO*
Corps, NMFS,
USFWS,
EPA, ODEQ
State of Idaho
Corps Walla Walla District
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Walla Walla District Regulatory Division
201 North 3rd Avenue
Walla Wai la, WA 99362
Phone 509-527-7154
http7/www nww usace.armv.mil/html/offices/op
/rf/rfhome.htm
Idaho PRO*
Corps, NMFS,
USFWS,
EPA, IDEQ
*Note. For interstate waters, PRGs/DMMP representation from other states may be necessary
3.4.1. Historical Information Review
Some projects will require an initial screening (i.e., nationwide permits, minor actions) to determine
if no further testing or evaluation necessary If PRGs/DMMP can make a favorable suitability
determination based upon the existing information, a memo will be prepared and signed by the
PRGs/DMMP. This initial PRGs/DMMP evaluation will be completed within 30 days of receiving
complete information from the applicant. No further sediment evaluation will be required.
3.4.2. Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Review
If the PRGs/DMMP finds that the first level information is not adequate to make a suitability
determination, the applicant will be advised to prepare and submit a proposed SAP to acquire
additional information (see Section 4.3). The SAP must be approved by the PRGs/DMMP prior to
sampling. The PRGs/DMMP may take up to 30 days for this review, with an additional 15 days for
resolution of any existing issues and completion of documentation. Once a SAP is approved, the
applicant conducts sampling and analysis of the sediment material as directed by the SAP in order
to furnish the information required in one of the subsequent levels.
3.4.3. Sediment Characterization Report
Once sampling is complete, the applicant prepares and submits a report of the results of the
sampling and analysis effort to the PRGs/DMMP. The PRGs/DMMP reviews the adequacy of the
information and prepares a decision documents and distributes it for review and concurrence by the
PRGs/DMMP. The PRGs/DMMP may take up to 30 days for this review, with an additional 15
May 2009
3-10
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
days for resolution of any existing issues and completion of documentation. Those projects
involving large and complex data sets may require additional time for review and documentation.
3.5. CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS
In instances where a permit applicant or one of the agencies disagrees with a decision made by the
PRGs/DMMP, the applicant (or agency) should first try to resolve the issue with the PRGs/DMMP.
In the event that the issue cannot be resolved, the applicant may elevate the issue, first to the
Regulatory Chief at the Corps District. If the issue cannot be resolved at the Corps District, then the
applicant may elevate it to the RSET. If the RSET is unable to resolve the issue, then the RSET
may choose to elevate it to the Navigation/Regulatory Steering Committee (NRSC). If the NRSC is
unable to resolve the issue, then it may be elevated to the Executive Steering Committee (ESC; see
Figure 1-1).
3.6. VERIFICATION OF MULTI-YEAR MAINTENANCE DREDGING PERMITS
Permits by the Corps may authorize maintenance dredging for a period of up to 10 years During
this time, no additional Corps permitting activity may be required. However, the state water quality
certification is not issued for 10 years and the project may need recertification. In addition,
endangered species consultation will need to be reinitiated within the 10-year period for any activity
that was not considered in the onginal consultation or to account for any new listed species not
covered in the original consultation. In addition, the dredged material evaluation process has a
different set of approval requirements and timelines that focus on a year-to-year evaluation of
maintenance dredging projects to ensure the matenal is still suitable for unconfmed aquatic
disposal. These requirements are covered under the concepts of "recency" and "frequency"
described in Chapter 4. Holders of permits for maintenance dredging will have to continue to
coordinate with the PRGs/DMMP to determine if additional sampling and analysis is necessary.
Each dredging event will be evaluated based on the state of the science, and new information may
change evaluation requirements.
3.7. PROCESS FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS DREDGING
The majority of current Corps Civil Works dredging involves the maintenance of existing channels
and harbor ways. The coordination of maintenance dredging in federally authorized channels is
governed by the process described in 33 CFR 335-338, Discharge of Dredged Material into Waters
of the United States or Ocean Waters; Operations and Maintenance. The coordination process for
Civil Works dredging projects mirrors the regulatory program, with a few procedural exceptions.
The conflict resolution process is similar, except Civil Works projects are not coordinated through
the Regulatory Chiefs. Corps dredging is subject to requirements under NEPA, CWA and
amendments, MPRSA, MSA, and ESA. The general steps in coordinating Corps Civil Works
dredging include the following:
1. A public notice is issued describing the proposed work. If a new sediment characterization is
necessary, data are collected and analyzed prior to the issuance of the public notice.
2. The Corps assesses a project by preparing an EA and determines whether an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted. If not, then a "Finding of No Significant Impact"
(FONSI) is prepared in conjunction with the completion of a CWA Section 404 (b)(l)
Evaluation. If an EIS is prepared for new dredging work, a Record of Decision document is
prepared to record the Corps decision to exercise its authority. A SOF, which considers all
May 2009 3-11
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
effects and benefits and determines if the project should proceed, is completed at the end of the
public coordination period.
3. For coastal zone projects, a determination of consistency with the enforceable provisions of the
state coastal zone program is prepared and submitted to the relevant state agency along with the
public notice. The federal CZMA consistency concurrence will be requested from the state.
4. If threatened or endangered species are known or suspected in the project area, a Biological
Assessment for the project will be prepared.
5. Any substantive comments received as a result of the public notice will be addressed to the
greatest extent practicable. Maintenance dredging is not initiated until all necessary
environmental coordination is completed, including the receipt of a water quality certification
from the applicable state.
3.8. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT EVALUATION
This SEF stemmed from the PSDDA program and the DMEF for the lower Columbia River;
therefore, it still holds an emphasis on dredged material evaluation to determine suitability for in-
water disposal. At this time, the SEF is not intended to be used for cleanup activities. For cleanup
activities, the EPA and the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho will exercise their regulatory
authority via their cleanup statutes (see Chapter 2). However, the premise of this SEF is a risk-
based evaluation and, as such, is an approach that could prove useful to other regulatory programs.
May 2009 3-12
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK/SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS PLAN
4.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter descnbes the process for sediment characterization for all routine dredging projects (as
regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 of the CWA, and/or Section
103 of the MPRSA), and for determining suitability for unconfmed in-water placement or the need
for managing sediments with other disposal options. Projects containing materials unacceptable for
open, in-water disposal will continue to follow SEF guidance for sediment management. Note that
other state or federal guidance and requirements may also apply (see Section 4.4).
The process for sediment characterization is shown in Figure 4-1. Level 1 (see Section 4.2)
includes defining the scope of the project, collecting historically available data, developing a
conceptual site model (CSM), providing information used for ranking a project, and a discussion for
the number of dredged material management units (DMMUs) to be delineated per project (see
Section 4.3.1). If existing Level 1 data satisfy parameters in the CSM and indicate nsk to receptors
is minimal, then there is no need to collect further data and management decisions can be made at
the end of Level 1. The transition from Level 1 to Level 2 occurs when data are insufficient for
making a decision with only Level 1 information and additional information is needed.
Level 2 (see Section 4.3) involves development of a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) in order to
collect new data to support a management decision to include discussion and decision criteria for
the number of management units to be delineated per project. Level 2 contains two parts. Level 2A
consists of analysis of sediment chemical and physical characteristics. Data from Level 2 A can
either support a decision or lead to Level 2B biological testing, bioaccumulation testing, or other
special evaluations. Levels 2 A and 2B may be conducted concurrently to speed up project
evaluations.
4.2. LEVEL 1
The Level I assessment includes defining the project, collecting existing information, developing a
CSM, and establishing or reviewing a project's rank. These requirements are discussed in the
following sections.
4.2.1. Defining the Project
The Level I report to the PRGs/DMMP must define the goals of the project and identify potential
contaminants of concern. The information provided will be used to determine what additional
information, if any, is required to further characterize sediment for final placement.
The results from the Level 1 report will be used to determine how the material, once removed from
the site, will be managed, or if the proposed approach poses unacceptable risks. The management
alternatives range broadly from unrestncted open water disposal or beneficial uses (e.g., beach
nourishment or habitat creation) for materials posing no or minimal risk, to confined in-water or
upland disposal for sediments where risks are elevated (EPA/Corps 2004). Data are needed to
evaluate both point of dredging impacts and point of disposal impacts. A generic dredging flow
chart of this process is shown in Figure 4-2.
May 2009 4-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Figure 4-1. Sediment Evaluation Framework
Define Project
Review Existing Information/Develop CSM
Yes
No
Develop SAP
T
Screening Assessments
• Collect data
• Compare to SLs and BTs
5
m
5
m
Bioassays
1
Bioaccu
i
. • OrC^IML CVMLUM
/ I
Elutriate Risk
Tests Assessments
1 ' 1
1 lUNd
\
Dredged
Residuals
i
I
s
m
i-
K>
DO
SLs = screening levels; BTs = bioaccumulation triggers
May 2009
4-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Figure 4-2. Generalized Dredging Project Flow Chart
CoCs=chemicals of concern; CDF = confined disposal facility, SQGs = sediment quality guidelines, WQC = water quality criteria
May 2009
4-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Level 1 report submissions to the PRGs/DMMP should be accompanied by project details
containing sufficient information to define the goals of the project and identify potential
contaminants of concern that, in rum, will drive and structure what important information is
required to facilitate the decision-making process. This submission should include:
• The specific location of the site;
• The objective of the project;
• The action intended;
• A plan view of the site;
• The depth and physical nature of the material to be dredged;
• The volume to be dredged, including advanced maintenance, side slope, and overdepth
dredging;
• Lengths, widths and depths of dredging;
• Proposed dredging methods;
• Proposed disposal methods and locations (e.g., unconfined or confined in-water or upland);
• Information regarding the rank of the site or area and supporting CSM development, including a
description of historical and current site activities, current and historical activities at adjacent
properties (particularly upstream properties), any available data on sediment quality adjacent to
the site, and information on location of storm water outfalls and associated drainage basins;
• The presence of ESA-listed species and critical habitat in the area; and
• Quality and configuration of the newly exposed sediment surface.
4.2.2. Collect Existing Information
Gathering existing information and data is an important part of establishing the project goals and
developing an adequate CSM (see Section 4.2.3). Existing information can include sediment and
tissue analytical data from previous characterizations at the project site, adjacent sites, or from
monitoring programs. The value of histoncal data is controlled by its reliability, which in turn
depends upon the quality, timeliness (see Section 4.2.4 for recency and frequency guidelines), and
completeness of the data. The following types of information are required to use existing data for
suitability determinations:
• Sampling and analytical methods for any chemistry or biological tests performed;
• Chemical detection limits (see Table 6-2);
• Biological test control sediment for any biological tests conducted; and
• Quality control measures for any chemistry or biological tests performed.
The agencies involved in the review and approval of dredging projects in the region (e.g.,
PRGs/DMMP) serve as a source of historical information about sediments and proposed dredging
locations. The agencies share a common responsibility to make this information available.
However, compilation of all available historical information about sediment quality or potential
sources of contamination for a specific dredging project is the responsibility of the project
proponent. Accurate compilation and reporting of histoncal data could yield substantial cost
savings. For example, historical data of good quality may eliminate or reduce the need for testing,
limit the number of contaminants tested, and reduce the amount of dredged material to be tested.
May 2009 4-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
4.2.3. Developing a Conceptual Site Model
The CSM provides the structure, organization, and flow to address dredging project risk and guide
sediment management decisions. Factors to evaluate as part of determining what management is
required include consideration of the water column (both dunng dredging and in the event of return
water from upland or nearshore placement), dredging pnsm material, disposal process, disposal site,
and the newly exposed sediment surface.
Based on available information, the CSM identifies the processes linking contaminant sources and
the physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring within the sediment that enhance
chemical release (the transfer or repartitioning of contaminants from sediment pore water and
sediment particles into the water column or air) and affect exposure. The processes for releasing
contaminants at the dredging or disposal site are primarily related to resuspension (the dislodging
bedded sediment particles and dispersal into the water column), redeposition (the resettling of
suspended particulates on the surface of the sediment after disturbance), and from creation of
residuals (contaminated sediment found at the post-dredging surface of the sediment profile, either
within or adjacent to the dredging footprint; Bridges et al., 2008).
The CSM further defines the receptors of concern, and describes how the receptors are exposed to
the contaminants associated with the sediment. A CSM provides a graphical and/or narrative
representation of the relationships between receptors and resources in the environment and the
stressors to which they may be exposed. A CSM is not necessarily derived from a computer model
and does not need to be complex. It can be a narrative and/or graphical representation of the known
information. A graphical CSM for a dredging project is presented in Figure 4-3; this CSM could be
modified for specific projects, especially when a disposal method has already been proposed.
The CSM can provide an avenue for beginning to address uncertainties in the relationships and
exposure pathways and the presence or absence of important receptors at a particular project site or
disposal location. For example, these receptors can be eliminated for many pathways if a project
will not be conducted when threatened or endangered species are known to occur or where work
area isolation or timing would limit species exposure. Another example is that bioaccumulation
may not always be of concern to upper trophic level receptors if historical information indicates
contaminants of concern are not on the bioaccumulative chemicals of concern list (bioaccumulation
testing is discussed in detail in Chapter 8). Considerable effort should be devoted to formulating
and refining specific and detailed questions that must be answered to reach conclusions about the
nature and extent of bioaccumulative nsks.
The process to develop the CSM includes gathering and documenting existing information,
including but not limited to the following:
• Site history.
• Current site use.
• Adjacent lands, especially known chemicals of concern, or hazardous waste or cleanup sites.
• Potential sources of contamination: Information may include current and historical permitted or
unpermitted point sources, or nonpoint sources from urban, residential, or agricultural areas. In
addition, information on anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic sediment transport mechanisms
such as flooding or boat traffic.
• Source control measures at the site.
May 2009 4-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Figure 4-3. Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for Dredging Activities
As mdentified in Level 1
analysis, the media where
contaminants may be
present is
The process that transports
contaminants and enhances
availability or release1 is
The potential recepors exposed
to contaminants are
Sediment Disturbed
During Dredging or
Sediment Released
During Inwaler Disposal
iResuspension
-jRedeposition3
Sediment released during
other disposal methods
Residuals'
Disposal
• Method -
The seconday media
exposed to contaminants is
Organisms are exposed
by the pathway of
The tertiary media exposed
to contaminants is
Water
Column
Surface Sediments (near
field & far field)
Direct
Contact
Direct
Contact
n
II
n S
Surface
Sediments
(e g . newly
exposed surface)
Dietary | »
Direct
Contact
1 Dialarv
(Bioaccumulation)
Tissue
(Bioaccumulation)
n n n n n en
n nn n n
• Transport Processes (Examples)
-Leaching
-Surface Runoff
-Volatilization
-Bioaccumulation
Receptor Checkbox Legend
I Pathway complete
I Potentially complete pathway
~~| Incomplete or msignifcant pathway
Consideration of these upland processess are
not addressed in the SEF
Please refer to the following guidance manuals for additional information on exposure pathways
associated with these disposal options
(1) Corps 2003 Upland Testing Manual. ERD/EL TR-03-1
(2) EPA 1998 Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediment.
EPA 905-B96-004
1 Release The process by which the dredging operation results in the transfer of contaminants from sediment pore water and sediment particles into the water column or air (i e ,
repartitionmg) Contaminants in near-surface sediments (e g , transported from redeposited sediment or residuals) may be released into water column by densilication, diffusion,
and biolurbation (Bridges et al, 2008)
Resuspcnsion The process by which dredging and attended opciations dislodge bedded sediment particles and disperse them into the water column Resuspension rates range
from <0 1% to over 5% (Bridges et al, 2008)
J Redeposition The process by which suspended particulates resettle on the surface of the sediment after disturbance Redeposition can occur in the near field (the plume area
dominated by rapid settling velocities, changes in sediment total suspended concentration, and load with distance from the dredging operation) or the far field (the area where the
total load in the plume is slowly varying and where advcclivc diffusion and settling are of the same order of magnitude)
J Residuals Contaminated sediment found at the post-dredging surface ofsedimcnt profile, either within or adjacent to the dredging footprint (Bridges et al, 2008) Examples include
contaminated surface sediments uncovered by dredging but not fully removed (c g , newly exposed surface) or contaminated sediment dislodged from nearby slopes during dredging or
slope failures Although in-water disposal does not create undisturbed residuals, resuspended sediment particles settling at a site become part of the generated dredging residuals
May 2009
4-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
• Recency of data and frequency of dredging (Section 4.2.4).
• Past permitting history.
• An overview of previous evaluations at the site, including:
o Sediment chemistry. The potential for direct sediment toxicity to benthos may be assessed
using sediment quality guidelines (SQGs). Sediment quality guidelines are intended to
provide insight as to whether or not benthic toxicity is expected from exposure to
contaminants present in sediments or as a result of disturbance and disposal. Lower
threshold SQGs (i.e., chemical levels associated with a low probability of toxicity) can be
used along with an evaluation of bioaccumulation potential to reach conclusions about the
need for further assessment. Sediment quality guidelines that identify sediments with a
greater likelihood for producing effects can be used to focus assessments or accelerate
consideration and selection of management alternatives. The manner in which SQGs are
used within an assessment framework will be determined in large measure by the objectives
and constraints of the relevant regulatory programs involved, as well as the nature of the
assessment questions developed during the Level 1 assessment from the CSM. The use of
SQGs must also be guided by a clear understanding of how the SQGs were derived, what
type and level of effects they address, their predictive ability, the assumptions behind their
use, and their recommended uses.
o Sediment toxicitv data. Recent sediment toxicity test data can be used to reach conclusions
about the need for further testing or analysis. Similarly potential nsks to receptors of
concern beyond the benthos (e.g., fish, aquatic wildlife, humans) may also trigger the need
for further testing or analysis.
o Tissue chemistry. Recent chemistry data from organisms collected at the site or in the
water body surrounding the site can be compared to existing health advisory levels and
bioaccumulation triggers (BTs) to reach conclusions about potential bioaccumulative risk.
Contaminant problems previously documented in the watershed can also be used to reach
conclusions (i.e., water quality limited status, receptors with contaminant concentrations
exceeding guidelines).
• Grain-size distribution of sediment. If sediment is associated with highly erosional areas and
largely composed of coarse-grained material, the sediment is unlikely to contain contaminants
• Hydrogeologic processes. The accumulation of materials and the erosion processes in the
vicinity may also be relevant. This will allow the assumption, to be substantiated or disputed,
that sediments far removed from sources of pollution are less likely to contain contaminants
This includes:
o Aggradation (accumulation of materials) and erosion tendencies at the site; and
o Hydrology (river flow, currents, and other dynamics that relate to dredging activities).
• Site information in relation to sediment movement and potential for contaminating ecological
and human receptors of concern.
• How receptors of concern are exposed to the contaminants associated with the sediment.
• How physical, chemical, and biological processes in the sediment could affect exposure.
• Any site bioaccumulation concerns based on "reason to believe" information (see Chapter 8).
• Other lines of evidence as posted on the RSET website. As the RSET matures, new or revised
guidance will appear on the RSET website (https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp).
Information gathered for the CSM will be the primary evidence relied upon for decisions made
during the Level 1 assessment. The CSM provides a powerful tool for both the project proponent
and the regulatory agencies to communicate ecological, human health, or other issues among
May 2009 4-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
assessors, managers, and interested parties. The CSM identifies the complete and potentially
complete exposure pathways, and provides a template to conduct exposure pathway evaluations. It
also provides a means to identify relevant receptors and potential response actions. The CSM is
dynamic in the sense that when available, additional data are used to refine and increase the
accuracy of the CSM as necessary to reflect the current understanding of the project, as well as to
guide in the decision making process.
4.2.4. Frequency and Recency Guidelines
Level I involves the review of all available historical information, and provides a description of the
information within the CSM, in order to assess if significant contamination may be present at a
proposed dredging site or if more information is needed. Included in the Level 1 evaluation is the
determination of whether the sediments to be dredged fall under "frequency and recency
guidelines " The frequency guideline relates to material that is deposited and removed on a frequent
basis. For projects with sediment characterization data, recency guidelines have a bearing on the
longevity of the information for decision purposes. The recency clause places a limit on how long a
suitability determination is valid for the sediment in a given project prior to dredging. As new
guidelines are developed (e.g., updated BTs, new SQGs, new contaminants of concern, and others),
existing data may need to be subjected to review to ensure sediments still meet the new guidelines
(i.e., when a dredging proponent collects testing data but does not remove the material until
sometime thereafter).
4.2.4.1. Qualifying for the Frequency Guideline
The frequency of dredging guideline pertains to dredging projects that occur on a frequent basis.
The frequency guideline provides a line of evidence based on historical data that can be used to
determine if a dredging project may need no further testing for specific periods of time. Such
dredging commonly reflects a situation of routine and rapid buildup of shoals with relatively
homogeneous sediments. The quality of the sediment at sites that frequently require dredging tends
to stay the same for successive years (barring any significantly changing condition at or upstream of
the site) because the material is expected to ongmate from the same source.
To qualify for consideration under the frequency guideline, a project typically requires full
characterization of sediments for two successive dredging events (see Section 6.1). Provided the
sediments are found suitable for unconfmed aquatic disposal for each dredging event, the
"frequency" of additional characterization after that will depend upon the rank of the project site
determined by the results of the first two rounds of testing.
The frequency guideline specifies a period of time in which a qualified dredging project does not
need additional testing (Table 4-1). The time durations provided by the frequency guideline are the
same as for the "recency of data" and confirmation testing guidelines (PSDDA 1988).
Table 4-1. Frequency of Dredging, Recency of Data, and Confirmation Testing
Ranking
Very Low
Low
Low-Moderate
Moderate
High
Years
10
7
6
5
2
May 2009 4-8
-------
SEF for the Pacific Northwest
4.2.4.2. Qualifying for Recency of Data Guideline
The recency of data guideline refers to the duration of time for which physical, chemical, or
biological information is considered adequate for decision making without further testing. Recency
guidelines are based on the area or project site rankings. The recency guidelines for the various
ranks are in Table 4-1. The recency or frequency guidelines do not apply when a known "changed"
condition, both physical and chemical and regulatory, has occurred since the most recent sampling
effort, such as an accidental spill or the siting of a new discharge outfall. For subsurface sediments,
the potential for contamination from groundwater sources must also be considered.
4.2.4.3. Analysis of New Surface Material Exposed by Dredging
Dredging operations can alter the condition of a project site by exposing a new surface layer of
bottom material to direct contact with biota and the water column. This aspect of dredging must be
considered during preparation of the SAP because, for some projects, the newly exposed surface
could have greater concentrations of CoCs than existed before dredging. This issue will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis during review of the SAP. The testing of newly exposed surface
matenal may be required in high, moderate, and in some cases, low ranked areas.
Several options were considered for inclusion as decision guidelines pertaining to newly exposed
surface material. One of the following courses of action may be triggered to address the disposition
of, and responsibility for, new surface material that may be left following a dredging operation:
• If dredging results in the exposure of new surface material having higher chemical
concentrations than the sediment that was dredged and exceeds screening levels, then the
dredging proponent may be required to over-dredge the site or cap the newly exposed bottom
matenal. Final decisions pertaining to the need to over-dredge or to cap will be based upon the
results of appropnate tests.
• If dredging results in the exposure of new surface matenal as clean as, or cleaner than, the
overlying sediments, then no additional requirements are triggered under this manual. There
may be additional requirements under the cleanup process.
• If surface sediments with elevated concentrations of CoCs are present adjacent to the dredging
site, but not in the site proposed to be dredged, then these sediments and the potential for side-
slope sloughing and spreading of contaminated matenal will be considered on a case-by-case
basis, depending on the regulatory context.
4.2.4.4. Confirmation Testing
The credibility of established rankings must be tested and maintained by confirmation sampling.
Confirmation sampling and analysis is primarily intended for application to frequently dredged
projects ranked very low or low, and should be completed as descnbed under the frequency
guidelines. The main purpose of confirmation sampling is to re-affirm the historical record and
show that no significant environmentally unacceptable changes have occurred to the project
sediments. Confirmation sampling is also intended to be accomplished at lesser cost, but with an
acceptable level of confidence in support of an existing project ranking or suitability determination.
Confirmation sampling shall duplicate earlier sediment testing as much as possible, thereby
providing spatial and analytical consistency between testing periods. If the results of confirmation
sampling and analysis indicate the project or shoal sediments have changed significantly for the
worse, project re-ranking to a higher level and further sampling may be necessary.
May 2009 4-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
4.2.5. Project Ranking
The process of ranking incorporates the lines of evidence from the project description, existing data,
and CSM information and allows judgments to be made on the level of risk for the site. Ranking is
used to determine the need and level of testing required to evaluate the site when future dredging
needs are identified. More than one rank could be assigned to a single project depending upon the
size of the proposed dredging area, volume proposed for dredging, and the distribution of potential
contaminant sources. After the Level 1 information is gathered, an initial ranking determination is
made for the site by the applicant and submitted to the PRGs/DMMP along with the Level 1
information (see Section 4.2.6). This initial ranking is evaluated by the PRGs/DMMP and given a
final rank, which may differ from the initial ranking. The final rank is used to evaluate the
sufficiency of data to meet the Level 1 evaluation or, if not sufficient, to develop requirements of a
SAP. Typically at least two rounds of sampling are required to confirm a final rank for a site for on-
going projects and to carry that rank forward for each dredging event (see Section 4.2.6) The
PRGs/DMMP can use the initial ranking information, CSM, and data generated from the SAP to
establish an on-going project ranking without two rounds of sampling. Rankings will be reviewed
and updated based upon the results of new sediment testing or events such as oil or hazardous waste
spills and addition of new chemicals of concern within a watershed.
Reaches or sites where sufficient information has been gathered are ranked as one of five possible
levels: very low, low, low-moderate, moderate, or high. In that order, these ranking levels
represent a scale of increasing potential for concentrations of contaminants of concern and/or
adverse biological effects (PSDDA 1988, DMMP 2008). The primary lines of evidence used for
ranking include:
1 The availability of historic or current information on the physical, chemical, and/or biological
response characteristics of the sediments from a reach or site, including the frequency of
dredging and recency of data history (see Section 4.2.4);
2. The number, kinds, and proximity of chemical sources (existing and historical) known or
suspected to occur in or near a particular reach or site;
3. The hydrological information of the reach or site in relation to the erosional or depositional
tendency within the area; and
4 The prevalence (presence and level of concern) of bioaccumulati ve contaminants in the
watershed.
Projects with ranks above the level of "very low" may be required to undergo additional evaluation
in Level 2. Table 4-2 further identifies the lines of evidence to better define these rankings.
May 2009 4-10
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 4-2. Management Area Ranking Definitions
Ranking Level
Lines of Evidence to Establish Rank
Very Low
Level 1 information indicates locations sufficiently removed from potential sources
of sediment contamination based on histoncal information and review of known or
suspected contaminated sites near the project area, or there is a limited pathway for
contaminants to reach ecological receptors of concern based on the CSM.
Bioaccumulation is not at a level of concern.' Areas characterized as highly active
or erosional (i.e., energetic) systems, and aggregating materials do not originate
near contaminated areas and typically consist of coarse-grained sediment with at
least 80 percent sand retained in a No. 230 sieve and total organic carbon content
of less than 0 5 percent ~ Typical locations include gravel bars, mamstem channels
such as the lower Columbia River or coastal inlets.
Low
Level 1 site data indicate low concentrations of contaminants of concern (at or
below SL values) and/or no significant response in biological tests Sites have
higher percentage of finer grained sediments (and associated organic material) but
few sources of potential contamination exist. Bioaccumulation is not a concern '
Depositional matenals do not originate from or near contaminated areas Typical
locations include areas adjacent to entrance channels, rural mannas, navigable side
sloughs, and small community berthing facilities.
Low-Moderate
Level 1 available data indicate a "low" rank may be warranted, but data are not
sufficient to validate the low ranking.
Moderate
Level 1 available data indicate moderate concentrations of contaminants of concern
in sediments in a range known to cause adverse response in biological tests
Locations where sediments are subject to sources of contamination, where existing
or histoncal use of the site has the potential to cause sediment contamination, or
bioaccumulation has been identified as a potential problem for higher level
receptors ' Areas characterized with aggregating matenals that could have
originated near contaminated areas Typical locations include urban mannas,
fueling, and ship berthing facilities; areas downstream of major sewer or
stormwater outfalls, and medium-sized urban areas with limited shoreline
industrial development.
High
Level 1 available data indicate one or more of the following conditions, high
concentrations of contaminants of concern in sediments and/or significant adverse
responses in at least one of the last two cycles of biological tests, locations where
sediments are subject to numerous sources of sediment contamination, including
industrial runoff, past releases, and stormwater outfalls, or where existing or
historical use of the site has the potential to cause sediment contamination,
bioaccumulation has been identified as a problem for higher level receptors' in
areas characterized with aggregating materials that originate near contaminated
areas. Typical locations include large urban areas and shoreline areas with major
industrial development
1 The CSM process will identify the potential for contaminants to reach ecological receptors at a site and identify the
pathways as complete or incomplete (e g, a receptor that is not present at a site at the project or disposal site would
have an incomplete pathway) The bioaccumulative line of evidence described here only applies to sites in watersheds
that have sufficient bioaccumulation information as identified in Chapter 8 Some sites ranked very low or low may
have a bioaccumulation problem identified in the watershed but still have an incomplete or unlikely pathway for
contaminants to reach receptors (justifications for incomplete or unlikely pathways should be described in the CSM)
2 It should be noted that the reliability of using SQGs to predict toxicity for sediment containing mostly coarse-grained
materials has not been evaluated regionally, and SQGs are not considered appropriate for characterizing sediments in
non-depositional and erosional habitats due to lack of fine gram sediments and longitudinal variations in particle size
(Wennmg and Ingersoll 2002) In these cases, the PRGs/DMMP may rely primarily on Level 1 information (i e,
distance from known sources) or recommend other testing to sufficiently characterize sediments
May 2009
4-11
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
4.2.6. Use of Guidelines and Level 1 Conclusions
The Level 1 evaluation concludes with a determination of rank and a comparison of existing or
preliminary data to applicable physical, chemical, and/or biological guidelines. There is merit in
using sediment and tissue guidelines, in combination with other sources of information, to identify
sediments that require no additional consideration because they pose little potential for risk, or to
identify sediments that require additional evaluation because they pose a higher potential for risk.
When assessment questions can be satisfactorily addressed using Level 1 information and chemicals
of concern can be managed sufficiently, sediment and tissue guidelines may be used to determine
that no further testing is required. For instance, if the applicant believes there is sufficient existing
information to support a decision, then Level 1 information (project description, historical and site
information, CSM, and rank) can be submitted to the PRGs/DMMP. If the sediment chemistry data
are sufficient (see Section 4.2.4 for recency and frequency guidance) and pass guidance for the
chemicals of concern (see Section 6.5), then the PRGs/DMMP may agree that no new data are
required for a decision. If there is insufficient information for a regulatory decision or data are
ambiguous, then the applicant must enter the Level 2 assessment and a SAP must be developed to
obtain data to adequately characterize contaminant exposure and effects.
4.3. LEVEL 2
Level 2 assessments must be undertaken when the information presented as part of Level 1 is
insufficient to support a decision, or as an option if the applicant wishes to refine the existing rank
of a site. The Level 2 process contains two parts:
Level 2A testing involves developing a SAP that will guide the acquisition of additional chemical
and physical data of sediment for the project that can be used to support a decision. Depending on
the details of the SAP, or the subsequent analytical results obtained, the applicant may wish to
transition into Level 2B.
Level 2B testing consists of biological testing (bioassays or tissue analyses) or other special
evaluations that are completed to provide more empirical evidence (beyond simple compansons to
regional or national screening levels) regarding the potential for sediment contamination in the
project area to have adverse effects on receptors. These evaluations are often undertaken when
available screening levels are exceeded, excessive uncertainty of data quality exists, or if other
analytical results that indicate a need for more detailed assessment of the sediment or water column.
Tests involving whole sediment identify potential contamination that could affect bottom-dwelling
(benthic) organisms. Tests using suspension/elutriates of dredged material are used to assess the
potential effects to the water column and associated receptors.
Biological effects testing may be necessary if physical and chemical testing evaluations indicate the
dredged material contains contaminant concentrations that may be harmful to aquatic organisms.
Level 2 biological testing of dredged material will be required when chemical testing results exceed
screening level guideline values listed in Chapter 6 and the applicant still desires in-water disposal,
or if the newly exposed sediment surface is contaminated.
A SAP addendum should be prepared to outline what special Level 2 evaluations (Level 2B
evaluations) will be conducted and how they will assist in supporting a ranking decision Both the
SAP and addendum will be reviewed by the PRGs/DMMP prior to sampling and/or conducting tests
May 2009 4-12
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
to ensure that the tests will address the regulatory needs of the involved agencies. Failure to
coordinate with the PRGs/DMMP could result in expensive re-sampling, re-testing, and/or re-
analysis if the collected data is insufficient or of unacceptable quality to allow a regulatory decision.
Upon completion of Level 2B testing, the CSM may need to be modified and refined to reflect any
new data. Such modifications allow the CSM to become more refined and relevant as the ranking
process proceeds.
4.3.1. Sampling and Analysis Plan Preparation
The basic sampling and analysis structure described in this section is patterned after those used to
evaluate environmental concerns related to dredging actions, disposal of dredged material, or
contaminated sediment projects in the Pacific Northwest. Field sampling and laboratory testing can
be the most expensive part of the sediment characterization process and should follow established
protocols. This is why a thorough, detailed, and approved SAP is essential prior to field work. The
SAP must be designed to characterize all of the material proposed to be dredged and impacts of the
dredging action itself. This includes sediments in the dredge prism, any sediments associated with
advanced maintenance dredging, and anticipated overdepth or side-slope dredging. The newly
exposed sediment surface also must be sampled.
A draft SAP must be submitted for review by the PRGs/DMMP (see Chapter 4). Note that if the
SAP requires extensive corrections and changes, re-submittal and review by the PRGs/DMMP may
be necessary prior to proceeding with sampling. The PRGs/DMMP will prepare a decision
document allowing sampling and analysis to proceed as written or with recommended corrections or
changes to the draft SAP. Such corrections and changes if needed must be reflected in the final
SAP that is submitted to the PRGs/DMMP with the report containing the results of the sampling and
analysis effort. A SAP should contain the following information:
Level 1 information (see Section 4.2). The project purpose and objectives, history of the project
site, project description, and CSM submitted in the Level 1 assessment should be updated or
modified, as needed.
DMMU information. In determining the number of samples and analyses required to fully
characterize project sediments, the concept used is a DMMU. A DMMU can represent the total
volume of sediment to be dredged for a small project, or it can be a subunit of the total volume of a
larger project. A DMMU represents a unit of sediments similar in nature that can be characterized
by a single sediment analysis. Thus, a separate decision can be made for each DMMU that can be
characterized and dredged separately from other sediment in the project. The acceptability of
dredged material for unconfmed aquatic disposal is determined for individual DMMUs
independently of other management units within the project, and is based on the results of the
analysis representing that DMMU.
In the SAP, include the identification of DMMUs and allocation of field samples, as well as
bathymetry, maps and one or more cross-sections of the dredging prism, proposed core locations,
the type and volume of sediment to be dredged, and the process to analyze new surface material.
Applicants should always check with their PRGs/DMMP in order to confirm the number of
DMMUs needed for their project.
The applicant can propose or the PRGs/DMMP can require more or less sampling based on the
Level 1 or other site specific or historical information. Within each DMMU, composite sampling
(consisting of three samples for one analysis) is preferred over discrete sampling.
May 2009 4-13
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Sampling procedures. Include information describing the field-sampling schedule, sampling
technology, positioning methodology, decontamination of equipment, sample collection and
handling protocols, core logging, sample extrusion, sample compositing and sub-sampling, sample
transport, and chain-of-custody.
This second transition into special evaluations can be triggered by exceedances of sediment
screening levels, the type and magnitude of uncertainty, or other analytical results that indicate a
need for more detailed assessment of the sediment or water column.
Chemical/physical testing (Level 2A). Testing requirements and methods are presented in Chapter
6. Although there is a standard list of chemicals of concern, applicants should check their Corps
District for guidance about special chemicals of concern that should be included in sediment
investigations for their region.
Biological testing (Level 2B). Biological testing requirements are presented in Chapters 7 and 8.
Biological effects tests may be necessary if physical and chemical testing evaluations indicate the
dredged material contains contaminant concentrations that may be harmful to aquatic organisms.
Level 2 biological testing of dredged material will be required when chemical testing results exceed
screening level guideline values listed in Chapter 7 and the applicant still desires in-water disposal
or the newly exposed sediment surface is contaminated. A set of aquatic organisms and bioassays
shall be used to make a determination regarding the suitability of the dredged matenal for aquatic
disposal. Tests involving whole sediment determine the potential effects for bottom-dwelling
organisms. Tests using suspension/elutriates of dredged material are used to assess the potential
effects on water column organisms. A bioaccumulation evaluation is required when there has been
a "reason to believe" determination that certain bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCoCs)
may pose a potential unacceptable risk to human health or ecological health in the aquatic
environments. Bioaccumulation testing is discussed in detail in Chapter 8.
Include holding time requirements, proposed testing sequence, bioassay protocols (type of media
and species), and quality assurance requirements to conduct toxicity testing (see Chapter 7) and
bioaccumulation testing, if needed (see Chapter 8).
4.3.2. Testing Requirements for Special Cases
Small Projects. Some applicants, after completion of a CSM and ranking determination for the
site, may request an exemption from testing requirements based on small dredge volumes (typically
less than 5,000 cubic yards, which represents a typical barge load). Sediment chemistry analysis for
small volumes of sediment may be determined unnecessary due to the potentially lower risk of
adverse effects at the dredging and disposal site. Because there is significant uncertainty m
evaluating risk of potentially contaminated matenals without sediment testing, the PRGs/DMMP
will need to make a decision on a case-by-case for these projects. This decision will be primarily
based on the management rank and information provided in the Level 1 report.
Furthermore, there is no exemption from testing within high ranked areas, or in areas where
threatened and endangered species are present, unless the CSM clearly demonstrates that no
reasonable pathways for contamination exist. For example, a site where the material to be removed
was from a high current or wave energy environment, predominantly composed of sand, gravel, or
other naturally occurring inert matenal (an unlikely carrier of contaminants) and with no nearby
contaminant sources would have an incomplete pathway to receptors in the CSM and may not be
May 2009 4-14
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
subject to additional testing requirements. Small volume projects will need to follow the guidelines
provided in Section 4.2.4 for establishing that there is no need for testing.
In defining what constitutes a small project, there are two key qualifiers:
1. Intentional partitioning of a dredging project to reduce or avoid testing requirements is not
acceptable.
2. Project volumes are cumulative for a site. For example, the recurring maintenance dredging of
a small marina where "project volume" will be the projected dredging volume over a 5-year
period (i.e., dredging 1,000 cy per year for 5 years would equal a project volume of 5,000 cy).
Or, a multiple-project dredging contract where a single dredging contractor conducts dredging
for several projects under a single contract or contract effort.
Large Projects For projects proposing to dredge very large volumes of materials, lower sampling
requirements may be requested after submission of a Level 1 evaluation. These projects would be
ranked very low or low and have no local sources of contaminants. Project volumes between
300,000 and 1 million cy may request a minimum of four samples; project volumes over 1 million
cy may request a minimum of five samples. Recency and frequency guidelines should inform this
decision.
4.3.3. Other Special Evaluations
These special evaluations are non-routine evaluations that require coordination with the
PRGs/DMMP to determine the specific testing required. Evaluations such as elutriate tests and
dredge residuals may be necessary based on the contaminant and considerations covered in the
conceptual site model. As part of this ongoing process, RSET will continually review new tests and
evaluation procedures that have been peer reviewed and are deemed ready for use in the regulatory
evaluation of either contaminated sediment investigations or proposed dredged material. The RSET
will subsequently make recommendations about their potential implementation and use. Physical,
chemical, and biological testing evaluations of dredged material may result in a requirement to
conduct special evaluations (see Chapter 10).
Special evaluations can be triggered by circumstances such as:
• Biological testing results (i.e., bioaccumulation tests, tissue analysis) are indeterminate;
• Sediments/tissues contain chemicals for which threshold values have not been established;
• Sediments/tissues contain chemicals for which the biological tests described in Chapters 7 and 8
are mappropnate; and
• Unresolved issues regarding potential risks to ESA-listed species.
If special evaluations are determined necessary by the PRGs/DMMP, specific tests or evaluations
and interpretive criteria will be specified in coordination with the applicant and the PRGs/DMMP.
May 2009 4-15
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
4.4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEDIMENTS UNDER CLEANUP
ACTIONS
The guidance outlined in the SEF is meant to be applied to projects once the decision to dredge has
been made, regardless of whether the project is maintenance dredging or part of a cleanup action.
The guidance regarding sample handling, storage, analysis, and various biological testing are
consistent with those used within the vanous states' cleanup programs, which ensures consistent
data quality across the programs. However, this manual does not provide guidance for
characterizing a contaminated site in order to make decisions regarding how the site will be
managed. Sediment evaluations for cleanup actions are not presented in this manual primarily due
to the different existing regulations between participating states. Additionally, sediment evaluations
for cleanup actions are to be coordinated through the cleanup programs of each state agency and
EPA Region 10.
In the state of Washington, the evaluation of sediments for cleanup actions shall be in compliance
with the MTCA and SMS. If the results from a dredged sediment evaluation show contamination
above dredge spoil open-water disposal levels, then the site will be referred to Ecology for
evaluation in compliance with the MTCA and SMS.
May 2009 4-16
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 5. SAMPLING PROTOCOL
5.1. INTRODUCTION
When required, sampling and testing must be coordinated far enough in advance of dredging to
allow time for chemical testing, possible biological testing, and data review. An accurate
assessment of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of proposed dredged sediment is
dependent upon the collection of representative samples. Steps must be taken during the sampling
process to ensure that samples accurately represent the area to be dredged. This chapter discusses
the recommended procedures for sample acquisition and handling. This is the first step in the
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process that is needed to guarantee reliable data for
dredged material evaluation. A number of regional programs have developed standard sampling
protocols. This chapter provides an overview of these widely accepted practices.
5.2. SAMPLING APPROACH
If sampling and analysis are required for a project, the applicant will be required to sample the
sediment for chemical, and if necessary, biological analyses. Pre-sampling bathytnetric surveys
should be conducted to provide information on current shoaling patterns and volumes of sediment
present at the time of sampling. The timing of sampling should be coordinated with the
PRGs/DMMP.
The recommended volume needed for each type of analysis is listed in Table 5-1. There are four
sampling approaches which the dredging proponent may take:
1. Alternative 1: Collect enough sediment for physical characterization only.
2. Alternative 2: Collect only enough sediment to conduct the physical and chemical analyses. If
biological testing is necessary, resampling will be required.
3. Alternative 3: Collect sufficient sediment for all physical, chemical, and biological tests.
Archive adequate sediment for biological testing pending the results of the chemical analysis.
4. Alternative 4. Collect sufficient sediment for all chemical and biological tests. Run these tests
concurrently.
The sampling approach should be clearly documented in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP).
The selection of either Alternative 3 or 4 is encouraged if biological analysis is anticipated, because
these alternatives provide chemical and biological data on sub-samples of a single, homogenized
sediment sample. These alternatives are also advantageous because they both eliminate the cost
involved with collection of additional sediment. Alternative 4 is the least time consuming and is
likely the most economical when the need for biological testing is expected (note the sediment
holding times in Table 5-1). For Alternative 2, biological analysis can proceed without reanalysis of
sediment chemistry. Biological samples must be taken from the same stations as the sediment
chemistry samples.
May 2009 5-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 5-1. Sample Storage Criteria
Sample Type
Archive'2'
Particle Size
Total Solids
Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
Metals
(except Mercury)
Total Mercury
Semivolatiles
(SVOCs),
Pesticides,
PCBs
Tnbutyltm141
(marine)
Tributyltin1"11
(freshwater)
TPH-Dxl4)
Volatile
Organics14"51
Ammonia'6'
Total
Sulfides'6"71
Bioassay
Testing'81
Bioaccumulation
Testing'8'
Hold Time
(4»C)
N/A
6 months
6 months
14 days
6 months
2 months'3'
14 days
until extraction,
40 days
after extraction
Same as
SVOCs
Same as
SVOCs
Same as
SVOCs
14 days
7 days
7 days
8 weeks
8 weeks
I/ Recommended minimum field sample si
Teflon8 lined lids Containers should be
should be consulted as they may request
21 For every test sediment or DMMU, an e>
allow re-testing of metals or semi volatile
3/ The PRGs/DMMP may allow longer hoi
4/ Tnbutyltm, TPH, and volatile orgamcs ai
determined by the PRGs/DMMP on a prc
5/ The volatile orgamcs jars should be fillec
6/ Ammonia and sul fides should be analyze
11 The sulfides sample will be preserved wi
S/ Headspace for biological testing samples
Acronyms and abbreviations g = grams, ml
polychlonnated biphenyls, SVOCs = semivc
diesel-range extended, poly = high-density p
Hold Time
(-18°C)
(see below)
Do not freeze
6 months
6 months
2 years
2 months'3'
1 year
until extraction,
40 days
after extraction
Same as
SVOCs
Same
as SVOCs
Same as
SVOCs
Do not freeze
Do not freeze
Do not freeze
Do not freeze
Do not freeze
Minimum
Sample Size
(wet weight)
N/A
1 00-200 g
50 g
25 g
50 g
5g
200 g
Pore-water
extraction
20 g
20 g
50 g
25 g
50 g
5 liters
10-20 liters
zes for one laboratory analysis All contain
laboratory-provided, pre-cleaned, and certi
different sample sizes than those specified
itra container will be filled and archived (fa
organic compounds if quality control or ot
ding times for mercury on a project-specific
re chemicals of special occurrence, analysis
}ject-specific basis
1 with zero head space
d if contingent biological testing is plannec
th 5 ml_ of normal zinc acetate for every 30
is purged with nitrogen
= milliliter; °C = degrees Celsius, TOC =
latile organic compounds, TPH-Dx = total
olyethylene, N/A = not applicable
Container1"
500mL(16oz.)glass
500mL(16oz.)poly
(combined with TOC)
125 mL (4 oz.) glass
125mL(4oz.)glass
(combined with metals)
500mL(16oz.)glass
2x 1 liter (2x 32 oz.)
glass or poly
(combined with SVOCs)
(combined with SVOCs)
2x 40 mL (2x 2 oz )
glass w/septa
(combined with TOC)
125 ml (4 oz)
glass or poly
5x 1 liter (5x 32 oz )
glass or poly
10-20x 1 liter
(10-20x32oz)
glass or poly
ers should have wide-mouth
fled The analytical laboratory
n this table
azen upon receipt at the lab) to
ler issues are identified
basis
of these chemicals will be
g of sediment
otal organic carbon, PCBs -
petroleum hydrocarbons,
May 2009
5-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
5.3. POSITIONING METHODS
Accurate positioning of sampling stations is essential in investigations of sediment characteristics.
All samples should be obtained as close as possible to the target locations provided in the project
SAP. All sediment sampling locations should be recorded to a horizontal accuracy of ±2 meters (or
as approved in the SAP). Such accuracy can be obtained by survey landmarks and a variety of
positional hardware. If sampling locations are referenced to a local coordinate grid, the local grid
should be tied to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) to allow conversion to latitudes and
longitudes. The use of a standard horizontal datum will allow dredging data to be accurately
mapped, including display and analysis using geographic information system (GIS) software.
5.4. SAMPLING METHODS
The goal of sediment sampling for characterization of each individual dredged material
management unit (DMMU) is to collect a sample (or a number of composited samples) that will be
representative of the DMMU. The agencies have established minimum sampling requirements
based on volumetric measurements. The type of sampling required, however, depends on the type
of project. The sampling methodology to be used should be presented in the SAP along with the
rationale for its use
Core Sampling For projects in heterogeneous areas and for most new work dredging, the
proponent will be required to take core samples from the sediment/water interface down to the
newly exposed sediment surface. There are numerous methods available for obtaining core samples
including impact corers, hydraulic push corers, Gus samplers, augers with split spoons or Shelby
tubes, jet samplers, and others. The methodology chosen will depend on availability, cost, efficacy,
and anticipated sediment recoveries.
Grab Sampling. It is anticipated that sediments in frequently dredged areas or in areas of high
energy will be relatively homogeneous. In these locations, grab samples will be considered
adequate to represent the dredged material, even if shoaling results in sediment accumulation
greater than 4 feet. A number of factors need to be considered in the selection of a grab sampler,
including type of sediment, volume needed and ease of deployment.
5.5. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES
Proper sample collection and handling procedures are vital to maintain the integrity of the sample.
If the integrity of the sample is compromised, the analysis results may be skewed or otherwise
unacceptable. Sample collection and handling include procedures for decontamination, sampler
deployment, sample logging, sample extrusion, compositing, sample transport, chain of custody,
archiving and storage, all of which need to be treated in the SAP. Guidance can be found in the
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound Estuary
Program (PSEP 1996), which contains detailed information on sample handling procedures
Project proponents are urged to contact the PRGs/DMMP for the latest protocols. General guidance
is summarized below and discussed in more detail in Appendix A.
Decontamination Procedures. Sampling containers should be decontaminated by the laboratory or
manufacturer prior to use. The intention is to avoid contaminating the sediments to be tested,
because dredged material could possibly be found unacceptable, when it otherwise would be found
acceptable for aquatic disposal.
May 2009 5-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Sample Collection. Sampling procedures and protocols will vary depending on the sampling
methodology chosen. Whatever sampling method is used, measures should be taken to prevent
contamination from contact with sources of contamination such as the sampling platform, grease
from winches, engine exhaust, and others. Core sampling methodology should include the means
for determining when the core sampler has penetrated to the required depth. The sampling location
must be referenced to the actual deployment location of the sampler, not another part of the
sampling platform such as the bridge of a sampling vessel.
Volatiles and Sulfides Sub-sampling. The volatiles and sulfides sub-samples should be taken
immediately upon extrusion of cores or immediately after accepting a grab sample for use. For
composited samples, one discrete core section or grab sample for each DMMU should be selected
for the volatiles and sulfides sampling. For heterogeneous sediments, the discrete sub-sample
should be collected from the expected worst-case location based on proximity to known or
suspected sources in the site vicinity. For homogeneous sediments with no expectation of chemical
gradients, the discrete sub-sample should be collected from a central location in the DMMU. The
location proposed for discrete sub-sampling should be identified in the SAP but may be modified in
the field based on field evidence of contamination, or to account for sample recovery limitations.
Any such modifications should be documented in the Sediment Characterization Report.
Sampling Logs. As samples are collected, and after the volatiles and sulfides sub-samples have
been taken, logs and field notes of all samples should be taken and correlated to the sampling
location map. Information to be included in the log is provided in Appendix A
Extrusion, Compositing and Sub-sampling. Depending on the sampling methodology and
procedure proposed, sample extrusion, compositing, and sub-sampling may take place at different
times and locations. More information is provided in Appendix A.
Sample Transport and Chain-of-Custody Procedures. Sample transport and cham-of-custody
procedures are discussed in Appendix A.
Sample Storage and Holding Times. Proper sample storage is critical to accurate assessment of
sediment toxicity. Table 5-1 outlines the storage and holding time requirements for each type of
analysis.
5.6. ARCHIVING ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT
In areas where the exposed sediment is anticipated to be contaminated above the in situ sediment, a
sample from the first foot below the dredging overdepth will be collected and archived. This will
allow possible future analysis to evaluate chemical concentrations in the newly exposed sediment if
this is deemed necessary by the Regional Dredging Team (RDT). The archived sediment must be
frozen. Because the holding time for mercury will likely be exceeded, and sediments for volatiles
analysis cannot be frozen, mercury and any volatile chemicals-of-concern will not need to be
analyzed for the archived sediments unless these chemicals are anticipated to be a problem in the
newly exposed sediments. In this case, analysis will need to occur immediately.
5.7. DATA SUBMITTAL
A key component of the sampling effort is the completeness of the data package submitted for
regulatory review. Chapter 11 contains information regarding submittal requirements.
May 2009 5-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 6. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTING
6.1. INTRODUCTION
The physical and chemical characterization of sediments is designed to provide a reliable screening
evaluation of the potential for adverse biological effects from dredged matenal or m-place
contaminated sediments. The pathways of concern for biological effects are through the bulk
sediment itself, through the water column dunng sediment removal or disposal activities, and
through the tissues of biological organisms. This chapter focuses on requirements and procedures
for testing and interpreting chemical analytical results of bulk sediment. Recommended chemical
analytical methods for testing biological tissue samples are also provided in this chapter; however,
the details of designing and interpreting bioaccumulation tests are provided in Chapter 8.
Guidelines for evaluating water column effects during dredging and disposal are provided in
Chapter 10.
This chapter includes a number of updates and revisions to previous guidance documents
(EPA/Corps I998a, 2000), including the following:
• Updated sediment screening levels (SLs) for characterizing dredged matenal or m-place
sediments, including apparent effects threshold (AET) guidelines for manne sediments and
floating percentile method (FPM) guidelines for freshwater sediments; in addition,
bioaccumulation triggers (BTs) are in the process of being replaced with a more rigorous
process for evaluating bioaccumulation potential, as described in Chapter 8;
• Updated chemical analytical methods and quantitation limits for sediment testing (Table 6-1);
• Development of recommended chemical analytical methods and quantitation limits for tissue
testing (Table 6-2),
• Revision of the physical screening criterion for determining chemical testing requirements,
which is now based on total organic carbon (TOC) content rather than total volatile solids
(TVS; Section 6 4);
• Inclusion of new chemicals of special occurrence [e.g., total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH),
organophosphorus pesticides; Section 6.5.2], and development of procedures for evaluating and
nominating emerging chemicals for inclusion in the SEF (Section 6.5.3); and
• More information for data quality requirements (Section 6.7 and Chapter 11).
Sediment quality guidelines for evaluating chemical analytical results consist of chemical SLs and
bioaccumulation guidelines. Screening levels have been developed for the standard list of
chemicals of concern (CoCs) and two chemicals of special occurrence, as shown in Table 6-3 The
SLs are designed to be protective of direct biological effects to benthic and aquatic organisms. The
derivation and regulatory application of SL values is described in Section 6.8.
The standard list of CoCs should normally be analyzed as part of the sediment characterization
process for dredging projects. Exceedance(s) of SLs may trigger the need for bioassay testing, as
discussed in Chapter 7. In addition, the presence of contaminants or other deleterious substances
not addressed during the development of marine or freshwater SLs may also trigger bioassay
testing.
May 2009 6-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 6-1. Recommended Sediment Analytical Methods and Sample Quantitation Limits
Parameter
Prep Method
Analysis Method
Sample Quantitation
Limit (SOL) "
STANDARD CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
Conventional;:
Total Solids (%)
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Total Sulfides (mg/kg)
Ammonia (mg/kg)
Gram Size (%)
—
PSEPI997and
Bragdon-Cook 1 993
...
...
...
EPA 2450-G
EPA 531 OB mod
or EPA 9060
PSEP 1997
Plumb 1981
PSEP 1986 or
ASTM D-422 mod
01
01
10
01
10
Metals (mg/kg):
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
EPA 6010/6020 "
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 601 0/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 7471
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 60 10/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 7471
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 6010/6020
EPA 6010/6020
05
5
05
5
5
5
005
5
05
5
Polynuclcar Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs; fig/kg):
Low-molecular weight PAHs
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
2-Methylnaphthalene
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
High-molecular weight PAHs
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-modJ'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (ug/kg):
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2- Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
EPA 3550-mod*
EPA 3550-mod*
EPA 3550-modJ'
EPA 3550^/3540
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270/8081
20
20
20
10
May 2009
6-2
-------
SEF for the Pacific Northwest
Table 6-1 (continued). Recommended Sediment Analytical Methods and Sample
Quantitation Limits
Parameter
Prep Method
Analysis Method
Sample Quantitation
Limit (SOL) "
Phthalatcs (fig/kg):
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-modJ'
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
20
20
20
20
100
20
Phenols (ng/kg):
Phenol
2 Methylphenol
4 Methylphenol
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Penlachlorophenol
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod3'
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
20
20
20
20
100
Miscellaneous E \tractables (ug/kg):
Benzyl alcohol
Benzoic acid
Dibenzofiiran
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamme
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 3550"/3540
EPA 3550-mod"
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270/8081
EPA 8270
50
100
20
20
10
20
Pesticides/PCBs (ug/kg):
DDE (p.p'-, o.p'-)
ODD (p.p'-, o,p'-)
DDT (p,p>, o.p'-)
Aldnn
Chlordane compounds'"
Dicldnn
Heptachlor
Lindane
Total PCBs
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 3540
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8082
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
CHEMICALS OF SPECIAL OCCURRENCE
Tributyltin (ppb):
TBT in pore water (ug/L ion)
TBT in sediment (ug/kg ion)
NMFS/Hoffman
NMFS
Krone 1989
Krone 1989
003
5
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg) :
TPH-diesel
TPH-residual
EPA 3630/ 3665
EPA 3630/ 3665
NWTPH-Dx
NWTPH-Dx
25
50
Dioxins/ Furans (ng/kg) :
2378-TCDD
Dioxms/Furans (other)
EPA 8290/16 13
EPA 8290/1 61 3
EPA 8290/1 61 3
EPA 8290/1613
1
1-10
" SQLs are based on dry sample weight assuming no interferences, site-specific method modifications may be required to
achieve these SQLs in some cases
27 Includes hydrochloric acid digestion per EPA 3050-B
11 EPA Method 3550 is modified to add matrix spikes before the dehydration step, not after
* Chlordane compounds include cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane In samples
with interference from PCBs, the SQLs for cis- and trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane may be elevated
mg/kg= milligrams per kilogram, ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram, Mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
May 2009
6-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 6-2. Recommended Tissue Analytical Methods and Sample Quantitation Limits
Parameter
Prep Method
Analysis Method
Sample Quantitation
Limit (SQL) "K2)
Conventionals (%)
Lipids
Bligh/Dyer
Bligh/Dyer
001
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
EPA 3050B/ PSEP
EPA 3050B/ PSEP
EPA 3050B/ PSEP
EPA 7471
EPA 3050B/ PSEP
EPA 601 0/6020/7010
EPA 60 10/6020/70 10
EPA 601 0/6020/7010
EPA 7471
EPA 6010/6020/7010
0 05 - 0 2
0 05 - 0 2
0 05 - 0 2
001-002
0 05 - 0 2
Polynuclcar Aromatic Hydrocarbons (ug/kg)
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
3540C,354lor3550B
3540C,3541or3550B
EPA 8270-SIM/8270
EPA 8270-SIM/8270
1-5
1-5
Miscellaneous Semivolatiles (fig/kg)
Hexachloro benzene
Pentachlorophenol
PentachlorophenoJ
3540C, 354lor3550B
3540C, 354lor3550B
3540C,3541or3550B
EPA 8081
EPA 8270-SIM/8270
EPA 8151
1
25
5
Chlorinated Pesticides (fig/kg)
DDE (p,p--, o.p'-)
ODD (p,p'-, o,p'-)
DDT(p,p'-,o.p--)
Chlordane compounds'3'
Dieldnn
Endosulfans
Lindane
Methoxychlor
3540C,3541or3550B
3540C,354lor3550B
3540C,354lor3550B
3540C,3541or3550B
3540C,354lor3550B
3540C,3541or3550B
3540C,3541or3550B
3540C,3541or3550B
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
EPA 8081
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (ug/kg) <4>
PCB Aroclors
PCB Congeners
PCB Congeners (Low Level)
3540C.354I or3550B
3540C,3541or3550B
EPA1668A
EPA 8082
EPA 8082
EPA 1668 A
5-10
05-2
001-01
Dioxins/Furans (ng/kg) I5)
2378-TCDD
Dioxms/Furans (other)
EPA 8290/1 613
EPA 8290/1 6 13
EPA 8290/1 61 3
EPA 8290/1 61 3
1
1-10
Organorins (ug/kg) (5>
Tnbutyltin
EPA3550BorNMFS
Krone
10
(1) All sample quantitation limits are expressed on a wet-weight basis
(2) SQLs are highly dependent on sample size Details should be confirmed with the laboratory
(3) Chlordane compounds include cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and
oxychlordane, in samples with interference from PCBs, the SQLs for cis- and trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane
may be elevated
(4) Selection of PCB analytical method will be determined on a project-specific basis
(5) Dioxms/furans and tnbutyltin are chemicals of special occurrence, analysis of these constituents will be
determined on a project-specific basis
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, ug/kg = micrograms per kilogram, ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram
May 2009
6-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 6-3. Bulk Sediment Screening Levels for Chemicals of Concern
*Nole that freshwater SLs are in the process qfjinalization and will be presented to
the public at the May 2009 Sediment Management Annual Review Meeting
Chemical
CAS (1)
Number
Marine
SL
(dry weight)
Freshwater*
SL
(dry weight)
STANDARD CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
Metals (mg/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-66-6
150
57
51
260
390
450
041
...
61
410
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Qig/kg)
Total LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
2-MethylnaphthaIene
Total HPAH
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzofluoranthenes (b+k)
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
...
91-20-3
208-96-8
83-32-9
86-73-7
85-01-8
120-12-7
91-57-6
...
206-44-0
129-00-0
56-55-3
218-01-9
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
5,200
2,100
560
500
540
1,500
960
670
12,000
1,700
2,600
1,300
1,400
3,200
...
1,600
600
230
670
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (ng/kg)
1 ,4-Dichloro benzene
1 ,2-Dichloro benzene
1 ,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
106-46-7
95-50-1
120-82-1
118-74-1
110
35
31
22
May 2009
6-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 6-3 (continued). Bulk Sediment Screening Levels for Chemicals of Concern
*Note that freshwater SLs are in the process offinalizalion and will be presented to
the public at the May 2009 Sediment Management Annual Revie\v Meeting
Chemical
CAS (1)
Number
Marine
SL
(dry weight)
Freshwater*
SL
(dry weight)
Phthalates (fig/kg)
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
131-11-3
84-66-2
84-74-2
85-68-7
117-81-7
117-84-0
71
200
1,400
63
1,300
6,200
Phenols (Mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
108-95-2
95-48-7
106-44-5
105-67-9
87-86-5
420
63
670
29
400
Miscellaneous Extractables (fig/kg)
Benzyl alcohol
Benzoic acid
Dibenzofuran
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamme
100-51-6
65-85-0
132-64-9
87-68-3
86-30-6
57
650
540
11
28
Pesticides (ug/kg)
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Aldrm
Total Chlordane
Dieldnn
Heptachlor
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Total PCBs
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
309-00-2
12789-03-6
60-57-1
76-44-8
58-89-9
_
16
9
34
...
...
...
...
...
130
CHEMICALS OF SPECIAL OCCURRENCE
Tributyltin
TBT pore water (ng/L)
TBT dry weight (ug/kg ion)
56573-85-4
015
...
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)
TPH-Diesel
TPH-Residual
N/A
N/A
[1] Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
May 2009
6-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Sediment bioaccumulation guidelines are currently under development for bioaccumulative
chemicals of concern (BCoCs). Exceedances of sediment bioaccumulation guidelines where they
exist (e.g., the DMMP) or in the interim, elevations above background, may trigger the need for
bioaccumulation testing, as described in Chapter 8. Target tissue levels are also provided in Chapter
8 for interpretation of bioaccumulation tests.
The marine SLs have been in use since 1988, with a few minor updates, and have been validated
through environmental studies of dredging, disposal, and cleanup sites. Freshwater SLs are being
developed in 2009 through a collaborative, multi-agency workgroup process. While the freshwater
SLs have not been as extensively validated, due to their recent development, they are being
subjected to reliability tests to assess false positive and false negative error rates. It should be noted
that agencies may require bioassay testing to be conducted in areas where there are few existing
data, to assess the potential toxicity of chemicals not represented in the regional database, or to
better evaluate chronic or sublethal endpomts. It is expected that these additional studies would be
focused on larger and more complex dredging projects so as not to present an undue burden on
small applicants.
6.2. GENERAL TESTING PROTOCOLS
Recommended chemical analytical methods and sample quantitation limits (or reporting limits) for
sediment testing are presented in Table 6-1. These testing and analytical protocols follow the latest
version of the Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget
Sound (PSEP 1986, 1996), Methods for Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for
Chemical and Toxicological Analyses (EPA 2001), and EPA's Standard Methods for Examination
of Water and Wastewater. The PRGs/DMMP must approve any modifications of these protocols.
Any requests for modifications to these protocols should occur during the preparation of the project
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP; see Chapter 4).
6.3. CONVENTIONAL TESTING PROTOCOLS
Conventional parameters should be analyzed according to the following specifications'
Grain size: Sediment grain size may be determined using either the PSEP (1986) or ASTM Method
D-422 (modified) These methods subdivide the fines (i.e., silt and clay fractions) using pipette and
hydrometer, respectively. The PSEP is generally recommended for site investigations but ASTM
may be preferable for engineering calculations. One of the following sieve series must be used: (1)
sieve numbers 5, 10, 18, 35, 60, 120, and 230 (PSEP), or (2) sieve numbers 4, 10, 20,40, 60, 140,
200, and 230 (ASTM D-422 modified). In all cases, material passing the No. 230 sieve determines
the percent fines The use of hydrogen peroxide is not recommended.
Water content will be determined using ASTM D 2216. Sediment classification designation will be
made in accordance with U.S. Soil Classification System, ASTM D 2487, using the results of the
grain size analysis.
Total Organic Carbon: TOC is a key index parameter that affects the adsorptive capacity and
bioavailability of organic contaminants and some metals in sediments. Sediment TOC analysis
should follow PSEP (1996) for sample preparation (i.e. sample drying, homogemzation, and
acidification to remove inorganic carbon), with modifications suggested by Bragdon-Cook (1993)
for high-temperature combustion followed by non-dispersive infrared detection (NDIR).
May 2009 6-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Acidification, combustion, and NDIR analysis should be conducted according to the instrument
manufacturer's instructions, as specified in EPA Methods 5310B and 9060A.
The analysis of other conventional parameters may also be required, as listed in Table 6-1. In
particular, analysis of ammonia and sulfides may be useful in interpreting bioassay test results (see
Chapter 7), and determining whether conventional parameters may be contributing to sediment
toxicity.
6.4. PHYSICAL SCREENING USING GRAIN SIZE AND ORGANIC CARBON
An initial screen of bulk sediment quality may be conducted using grain size and TOC content. The
purpose of this initial screen is to characterize sediments likely to have minimal amounts of fine-
grained sediment and sedimentary organic matter and therefore lower potential for adsorption and
retention of CoCs. Most commonly, this type of screen is used in large navigational dredging
projects with mid-channel sand deposition. This type of screen may not be conducted in areas
adjacent to known current or historical sources of contamination and therefore, is not suitable for
contaminated site investigations.
Sediments with TOC contents less than 0.5 percent have a high probability of no adverse effects in
bioassay tests, with the exception of certain eastern watersheds (see below). If the results are less
than 20 percent fines in the grain size analysis and less than 0.5 percent TOC, and there are no
known current or historical sources in the vicinity of the project site, the material may qualify for
unconfmed aquatic disposal based on its physical properties (see Chapter 4). If the results are
higher than 20 percent fines or greater than 0.5 percent TOC (i.e., the results exceed either or both
of the physical screening criteria), or the site may have been impacted by current or historical
sources, the sediment must undergo chemical analysis for CoCs.
Certain watersheds east of the Cascades that are influenced by mining activities will be excluded
from using this physical screening assessment and will be required to collect chemistry data. Metals
and other inorganic constituents are the predominant CoCs associated with mining, and as a result,
the toxicity of sediments in mining regions appears to be less well correlated with the organic
carbon content of the sediments.
6.5. CHEMICAL TESTING PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES
There are three categories of CoCs that are considered in developing testing requirements for
dredging projects:
1 Standard CoC List: Default list of constituents analyzed in a majority of dredging projects.
Past studies have shown that many of the CoCs on the standard list are relatively widespread in
the Pacific Northwest and may have multiple sources.
2. Chemicals of Special Occurrence: Constituents to be considered for analysis in special areas
or in association with particular sources, activities, or land uses. Testing will be required only
when those sources, activities, or land uses are present or have historically been present in the
vicinity of the project site.
3 BCoCs: Constituents with potential to bioaccumulate m higher-level organisms (e.g., humans,
fish, birds, mammals). See Chapter 8 and Appendix C for a discussion and list of BCoCs.
May 2009 6-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
6.5.1. Standard List of Chemicals of Concern
The standard CoCs are listed in Table 6-3, along with sediment quality SLs, which are discussed
later in this chapter. Recommended analytical methods and quantitation limits are presented in
Table 6-1. The standard CoCs have one or more of the following characteristics:
• A demonstrated or suspected adverse biological or human health effect (toxicity);
• A relatively widespread distribution above natural or background conditions in the Pacific
Northwest (common occurrence); and
• A potential for remaining in a toxic form for long periods (i.e., years or decades) in the
environment (environmental persistence).
In addition, certain chemicals have a propensity to enter the food chain and bioaccumulate in the
tissues of biological organisms (i.e., BCoCs). Such chemicals are discussed further in Section 6 6
and Chapter 8.
If Level 1 research on current and historical site activities, analysis of existing analytical data, or
analysis of new data, collected in accordance with SEF guidelines, shows that certain CoCs are not
present in the project vicinity, the PRGs/DMMP may not require further testing of these chemicals
unless there is a changed condition at the site.
Table 6-3 presents the dry-weight interpretive marine and freshwater SL values for standard CoCs,
as well as two chemicals of special occurrence (tributyltin and total petroleum hydrocarbons, or
TPH; see below). The derivation and use of these SL values are descnbed in Section 6.8. The SL
values in this table are predictive of direct toxicity to benthic and epibenthic organisms.
Bioaccumulation-based guidelines have not yet been developed for sediments, but will be added to
this table once they are available (see Chapter 8 for bioaccumulation testing requirements and
procedures, as well as target tissue levels for test interpretation). Table 6-1 presents recommended
preparation methods, analytical methods, and SQLs for sediments. The recommended methods
have been able to achieve the SLs required for interpretation and screening of chemical data. Other
methods may be proposed to the PRGs/DMMP for approval during the SAP review.
6.5.2. Chemicals of Special Occurrence
Chemicals of special occurrence may be associated with specific activities, industries, or land uses
They may exhibit localized concentrations, but they are not believed to be widespread in the Pacific
Northwest. The following chemicals of special occurrence will be considered for inclusion in
sediment testing programs when there is a reason to believe a current or historical source of these
chemicals is or has been present.
Butyltins (including TBT). Testing for TBT per the method of Krone et al., (1989) may be
required in areas affected by vessel maintenance and construction activities, manne shipping, and
frequent vessel traffic (e.g., shipyards, boatyards, marinas, and marine terminals). In marine
sediments, pore water analysis has been shown to improve the reliability of toxicity predictions and
is therefore required in marine environments (Michelsen et al., 1996); TBT pore water extraction
protocols are described in Hoffman (1998). In freshwater environments, TBT shall be analyzed in
bulk sediment on a dry-weight basis.
May 2009 . 6-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Dioxins/furans. Testing for polychlonnated dibenzodioxins and polychlonnated dibenzofurans
(PCDD/PCDF) may be required in areas potentially impacted by known sources of dioxin/furan
compounds, or in areas where elevated levels of dioxin/furan compounds have been demonstrated in
past testing. Dioxin is formed as an unintentional by-product of many industrial processes
involving chlorine such as waste incineration, chemical and pesticide manufacturing, and pulp and
paper bleaching. A P450 biomarker test may be used to screen for the presence of dioxin-like
compounds (associated with the induction of the Ah-receptor). However, care must be used in
interpreting the results of such a test, as other compounds that interact with the Ah-receptor, such as
PAHs and PCBs, will also show a positive result in this test. Analysis by EPA Method 1613 or
8290 is recommended.
Organophosphorus Pesticides. Testing for organophosphorus pesticides and potentially other
types of pesticides (i.e., triazines) may be considered in areas dominated by agricultural land use
and in sediments affected by cropland runoff, particularly in certain eastern drainages where large
portions of the watershed are under cultivation. Analysis by EPA Method 8141 is recommended
(see the white paper at https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp).
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs). Testing for TPH may be considered at sites where
quantities of petroleum product have been released to the aquatic environment (e.g , crude oil or
fuel spills, waterfront petroleum storage tank or pipeline leaks). NWTPH-Dx (including diesel and
residual range hydrocarbons) is the recommended method for bulk petroleum analysis in sediments.
Because sediments are often comprised of weathered and unresolved petroleum mixtures, it is
recommended that TPH be quantified using diesel and motor oil standards. Sediment samples
should be processed using sulfuric acid and silica gel cleanup steps to remove potential
interferences from other organic compounds and biogenic materials. Quantitation of bulk petroleum
using EPH/VPH analysis (extractable and volatile petroleum hydrocarbons; Ecology 1997) is not
currently recommended for sediments
Volatile, gasoline-range petroleum compounds dissipate relatively quickly in sediments and are
rarely observed at concentrations of concern unless an ongoing source of light-end petroleum is
present. As a result, the need for analysis of NWTPH-G (gasoline range hydrocarbons) or
component volatile organic compounds (e.g., ethylbenzene, xylene) is expected to be relatively rare.
Guaiacols. Guaiacol and chlorinated guaiacols may be required in areas where kraft pulp mills are
located. Only guaiacol, and not chlorinated guaiacols, will be measured near sulfite pulp mills
because these mills do not use a bleaching process.
Resin Acids. Resin acids may be required analytes in areas of pulp mills. Resin acids may include
abietic acid, dehydroabietic acid, dichlorodehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, and
sandaracopimaric acid.
6.5.3. Evaluation and Nomination of Emerging Chemicals
An "emerging chemical" may be added to the list of chemicals of special occurrence if it is found at
least occasionally in sediments of the Pacific Northwest at levels of concern likely to be associated
with ecological or human health effects, including direct effects to aquatic organisms and/or indirect
effects through bioaccumulation. If it is unclear whether the chemical is present in sediments at
potentially toxic levels, federal, state, and/or local agencies should be encouraged to collect
additional data (e.g., through regional monitoring programs or special research projects) until
sufficient data are available to evaluate the chemical for inclusion in the SEF.
May 2009 6-10
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
In considenng a candidate chemical for inclusion as a chemical of special occurrence, the regional
database and technical literature will be reviewed to determine whether a listing is warranted, not
warranted, or indeterminate because of insufficient data. The weight-of-evidence for establishing a
reason to believe the chemical is causing sediment toxicity includes the following considerations:
• Local/regional contaminant sources (usage rates, industrial associations);
• Environmental occurrence (frequency and magnitude of detection in regional monitoring data);
• Toxicity (presence in the environment above ecological or human health toxicity thresholds);
• Persistence (half life, ability to degrade); and
• Mobility (hydrophobicity, partitioning behavior).
A chemical of special occurrence may be promoted to the standard CoC list if the chemical is found
to be prevalent in sediments of the Pacific Northwest at concentrations commonly associated with
biological effects, and if a sufficient body of data has accumulated to allow the development of
reliable sediment SLs. The development of SLs will typically require 100 or more synoptic data
points (i.e., paired chemical and biological testing results) from multiple studies and aquatic
environments over a range of concentrations.
On the other hand, a chemical may be delisted from the standard CoC list if the chemical is no
longer prevalent in the Pacific Northwest at levels of concern, if the chemical is shown to have
reduced toxicity based on more recent toxicological data, and/or if concentrations have dropped
significantly below the historical levels upon which the listing was based in response to source
controls. The rationale for listing or delisting chemicals of special occurrence or standard CoCs will
be considered on a case-by-case basis using the criteria listed above dunng reviews of the SEP.
6.6. TISSUE TESTING
Tissue testing may be necessary if BCoCs are present at levels of concern (or above background
concentrations if sediment bioaccumulation guidelines are not available) and follow-up
bioaccumulation testing is warranted (see Chapter 8). Bioaccumulation testing may be conducted
using either laboratory or field exposures. Animal tissue samples are collected and analyzed from
controlled laboratory chambers or field-deployed cages, or are directly harvested from their natural
environment.
Recommended tissue analytical methods and quantitation limits are presented in Table 6-3 for
primary (List 1) BCoCs. These testing and analytical protocols follow the latest version of the
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound (PSEP
1996) and Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories (EPA
2000a). The PRGs/DMMP must approve any modifications of these protocols. Any requests for
protocol modifications should occur dunng the preparation of the project SAP (see Chapter 4).
In addition to standard methods, "micromethods" have recently been developed for analysis of
hpids, PCBs, and PAHs (Jones et al., 2005; Inouye and Lotufo 2006). Micromethods are potentially
faster, less expensive, and use only one hundredth the tissue volume of standard methods with only
a minor effect on analytical performance. As a result, micromethods are an optional analysis
method for bioaccumulation tests with small test organisms and sample volume limitations;
however, they are not recommended for fish tissue samples or other instances where sample
volumes are not limited. Unfortunately, micromethods have very limited commercial availability at
the present time.
May 2009 6-11
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
6.7. DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING
6.7.1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
To support sediment management decisions, it is imperative that QA/QC procedures be
implemented during field and laboratory activities. It is also important that the quality of the data
be evaluated and reported. Field and laboratory QA/QC requirements are tailored to the scope and
complexity of the project and the level of risk being managed.
The QA/QC measures, control limits, and contingency response procedures are outlined in a
QA/QC chapter of the SAP for dredging projects. Field QA/QC procedures are described in
Chapter 5. Standard laboratory QA/QC procedures may include, depending on the particular
method and analyte, matrix spikes/matnx spike duplicates, laboratory duplicates, method blanks,
surrogate spikes, laboratory control samples, calibration protocols, and other procedures necessary
to quantify the accuracy and precision of the analytical results. Laboratory QA/QC procedures are
prescnbed m the analytical method specifications or in laboratory standard operating procedures
(SOPs). The QA/QC information is presented in Chapter 11.
6.7.2. Analytical Sensitivity
Analytical sensitivity is characterized by method detection limits (MDLs) and SQLs (also known as
reporting limits, practical quantitation limits, and others; EPA 1989a, DOD 2005). The MDL is a
minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent
confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. The MDL studies are conducted
using ideal, laboratory-prepared samples of a spiked clean matrix. The SQL is established by the
low standard of the initial calibration curve or low-level calibration check standard. At a minimum,
the SQL should be three to five times the MDL. For analysis of dioxins and PCB congeners using
high-resolution gas chromatographic/mass spectrometnc (GC/MS) methods, the sample-specific
estimated detection limit (EDL) is analogous to the MDL, and the SQL may be estimated based on
the lower calibration limit, statistical analysis of historical method blank data, or other method
specified by the laboratory.
To generate useable data, achieve data quality objectives, and support sediment management
decisions, the SQLs should be less than the SLs listed in Table 6-3.
Regarding analytical sensitivity, the following three scenarios are possible.
1. SQL is less than SL. All reasonable steps should be taken, including additional cleanup steps,
re-extraction, etc., to keep the SQLs below the sediment screening levels. Assuming all other
QA/QC criteria are met (see Section 6.7.1), this produces data of the highest quality.
2. MDL exceeds SL. In this scenario, the analytical method used is not sufficiently sensitive to
make an informed sediment management decision. An undetected result with a MDL exceeding
the SL will be considered an exceedance of the SL unless it can be demonstrated that all
reasonable steps were taken to control the MDL and SQL, including additional cleanup
procedures, reextraction, and reanalysis as necessary. In such cases, the PRGs/DMMP may
consider the results of other analytes in the same class of compounds, site history, existing
sediment quality data from the site vicinity, and other lines of evidence to determine whether
the elevated MDL represents a significant data gap and a potential false negative error.
May 2009 6-12
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
3. MDL is less than SL; SQL exceeds SL. In some circumstances, matrix interference, high
water content, or other sample characteristics may compromise the sensitivity of the analytical
method. However, it must be shown that all reasonable steps were taken to control the SQL,
including additional cleanup procedures, reextraction, and reanalysis. These data are acceptable
for use in sediment management decisions, but will be qualified as having lower precision and
accuracy and greater uncertainty.
For undetected compounds, laboratories should report both the MDL and the SQL. If problems or
questions arise regarding the ability to achieve sufficiently low MDLs and SQLs, the project
proponent should contact the PRGs/DMMP. In all cases, sediments or extracts should be archived
under proper storage conditions until the chemistry data are deemed acceptable by the regulatory
agencies. This retains the option for re-analysis and lower-level quantitation, if necessary.
6.7.3. Reporting of Estimated Concentrations below the SQL
Laboratories have the ability to identify and provide estimated quantitations of CoCs at
concentrations below the SQL and above the MDL; however, quantitations in this region have a
lower accuracy and precision compared to quantitations above the SQL (i.e , third scenario in
Section 6.7.2). Laboratories shall be required to report estimated values between the MDL and the
SQL; typically, these values will be qualified with a "J" flag because they are below the lowest
calibration standard.
6.7.4. Chemical Summations
Several chemical groups are reported as a summation of individual compounds. Summations are
reported for total PAHs, low- and high-molecular weight PAHs (LPAHs and HPAHs), and total
PCBs. Other chemical groups (e.g., carcinogenic PAHs, PCB congeners, and dioxins/furans) are
typically summed using weighting factors proportional to the relative toxicity of the individual
constituents (see toxicity equivalency factors or TEFs below). In general, the analytical laboratory
will report results for individual chemicals, congeners, and isomers, and the data user will perform
any required summations.
The rules for chemical summation are as follows:
• The group summation is performed using all detected concentrations. Undetected results are
included in the summations at half the value of the MDL (1A MDL) for all chemical summations
except PCB Aroclors and summations involving TEFs (see below). Undetected results for PCB
Aroclors and toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) summations (PCB congeners, dioxins/furans)
are not included in the summation (zero MDL) to avoid situations in which the MDLs
overwhelm the detected data.
• The estimated values between the MDL and the SQL (i.e., J-flagged values) are included in the
summation at face value.
• If all constituents in a chemical group are undetected, the group sum is reported as undetected,
and the highest MDL and SQL of all the constituents are reported as the MDL and SQL for the
group sum.
May 2009 6-13
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
PAHs. LPAHs include the following compounds: naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene,
acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and anthracene. HPAHs include the
following compounds: fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
benzo(b+k)fluoranthenes, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and
benzo(g,h,i)perylene. Total PAHs includes the sum of all LPAH and HPAH compounds.
Total PCBs (as Aroclors). Total PCB aroclors includes the sum of the following Aroclors:
Aroclor-1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260. If present, Aroclor-1262 and Aroclor-1268
should be reported, but not included in the total PCB summation. It should be noted that total PCBs
calculated by summing PCB aroclor mixtures is not comparable to total PCBs calculated by
summing individual PCB congeners due to fundamental differences in the methods of analysis and
quantitation.
DDT Isomers. Marine SLs are reported for the individual 4,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and ODD;
no summations are performed. Freshwater SLs are reported for Total DDT, DDE, and ODD, each
of which represents the sum of the 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers.
Total Chlordane. Total chlordane is the sum of two major compounds (cis-chlordane and trans-
chlordane, also known as alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane, respectively) and three minor
compounds (cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane) derived from technical chlordane
and its metabolites (Fox and Hoffman 2007). If PCBs are present in a sample, they may interfere
with the three minor chlordane compounds, causing elevated reporting limits. If the three minor
compounds are undetected at significantly higher reporting limits compared to the major
compounds, due to PCB interference, then the PRGs/DMMP may allow the minor compounds to be
excluded from the total chlordane summation.
Toxiciry Equivalency Factor. TEF is often used in nsk assessment calculations to sum certain
chemical groups (in particular, carcinogenic PAHs, PCB congeners, and dioxins/furans) based on
the potency values of the individual compounds. Toxiciry equivalency factors have been applied to
both sediment and tissue data to provide a toxicity-based chemical index concentration; however,
there may be varying partitioning and bioaccumulation behavior of the compounds comprising the
TEF. As a result, it is recommended that sediment-tissue partitioning relationships (i.e., biota-
sediment accumulation factor or BSAF) be evaluated based on individual chemicals rather than the
summed concentrations of a chemical group.
The use of TEFs for addressing both human health and ecological risks has been approved by EPA
as well as the World Health Organization, and is therefore an acceptable approach under this SEF
For example, TEFs for dioxin-like chemicals (i.e., dioxins, furans, and coplanar PCB congeners)
can be found in the The 2005 World Health Organization Reevaluation of Human and Mammalian
Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds (Van den Berg et al., 2006).
Wildlife TEFs for dioxin-like chemicals have been developed for mammals (Van den Berg et al.,
2006), birds and fish (Van den Berg et al., 1998), and have been approved by EPA for use in
ecological risk assessment (EPA 2008).
May 2009 6-14
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
6.8. BENTHIC INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES
Chemical SLs have been developed to predict and manage potential adverse biological effects on
benthic and epibenthic organisms. For dredging projects, the SLs may be used to evaluate benthic
nsk associated with in-place sediments, for the newly exposed sediment surface after dredging, and
at the unconfined open-water disposal site, as applicable. In addition to chemical analytical data,
bioassay tests serve to integrate chemical and biological interactions of sediment contaminants,
including bioavailability, by measunng toxic effects on sensitive benthic organisms (see Chapter 7).
The SLs listed in Table 6-3 are derived from regional chemistry and toxicity data from sediment
sites in the Pacific Northwest. The regional sediment database includes paired data containing both
chemical analytical results and bioassay testing results. Each SL is derived using at least three
different biological endpomts and corresponds to a "no adverse effects level." Different statistical
approaches were used to derive marine values (AET approach) and freshwater values (FPM
approach), and as a result, the mathematical models used to derive the SL values are somewhat
different in marine and freshwater systems, but both were designed to be consistent with the same
narrative definition of no adverse effects levels.
The SL Values presented in Table 6-3 are designed to be protective of direct toxicity to benthic and
epibenthic organisms. To some extent, these SL values may also useful for protecting the
invertebrate prey base of salmonid species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The use
of amphipods and chironomids in freshwater bioassays is important as these are common prey
species for salmonids, and development of additional freshwater chronic tests is another priority for
protection of prey-base populations (see the white paper at
https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp) Development of sediment quality values for
protection of ESA-listed benthic species was reviewed by an interagency working group and was
determined not to be necessary, as there are no benthic species that are ESA-listed within the tn-
state region that are present in areas where dredging projects are likely to occur.
If a chemical is not listed in Table 6-3, or if there is no value listed for that chemical, then the
chemical is not a CoC for routine evaluations. Lack of an SL does not mean the chemical has not
been evaluated, rather it means that the chemical is not a concern for benthic organisms in the
Pacific Northwest. For unusual sites or projects where a chemical without a SL is present, with
known sources, and concentrations are significantly elevated over those typically encountered at
other sites, two approaches are possible. First, in some cases it may be possible to identify a listed
CoC with similar chemical and toxicological properties that could be used as a surrogate for the
unlisted chemical. Otherwise, bioassays would need to be conducted to directly measure site-
specific toxicity.
Note that the SLs presented in Table 6-3 do not include bioaccumulative effects. If BCoCs are
present at levels of concern, a separate bioaccumulation assessment will need to be performed (see
Chapter 8 for further discussion).
6.8.1. Data Sources
Sediment quality values for marine sediments were developed using the AET approach. These
values are well established in the Pacific Northwest and have been in use for almost two decades in
regional dredging programs (e g., EPA/Corps 1988; EPA/Corps et al., 1998a), federal cleanup
programs (e.g., Commencement Bay, EPA 1989b), and state of Washington cleanup programs (per
May 2009 6-15
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
SMS 1995, Chapter 173-204 WAC). The marine screening levels in Table 6-3 are derived from the
state of Washington SMS to the extent they are available. However, whereas some of the SMS
values for nonpolar organic compounds are normalized to organic carbon, the equivalent dry-weight
values will be used in the SEP. These dry-weight values were calculated using the same regional
database and the same AET methodology as the carbon-normalized values, but were derived using
the unnormalized dataset (see PSEP 1988). Dry-weight and carbon-normalized SLs have been
shown to provide similar levels of predictive reliability. Finally, because the SMS has not
promulgated marine sediment quality values for chlorinated pesticides, these values were taken
from the lowest AETs reported by the Corps (1996a).
More recently, the state of Washington developed and published an initial set of freshwater
sediment quality guidelines using the FPM approach, which strives to optimize the balance between
the sensitivity and reliability of the guidelines (Ecology 2003). Updated freshwater FPM values,
which include greater geographic scope (including projects on both the east and west sides of the
Cascades in Washington and Oregon) and acute and chronic/sublethal bioassay endpomts, were
developed in 2008 through a multi-agency workgroup process and will be posted when accepted.
6.8.2. Freshwater vs. Marine Environments
The selection of the set of SLs will be based on the location at which sediment toxicity is being
evaluated, i.e , the effects of m-place sediments or newly exposed surface material will be evaluated
at the project site, and the effects of open-water disposal of dredged material will be evaluated at the
disposal site. The PRGs/DMMP will follow the specifications of the Inland Testing Manual
(EPA/Corps 1998c) in defining these environments: salinities less than 1 part per thousand (ppt) are
considered freshwater, salinities greater than 25 ppt are considered marine, and salinities between 1
and 25 ppt are considered estuanne. In esruarine environments, the PRGs/DMMP should be
consulted to determine which set of chemical SLs (freshwater or manne) to use.
If sediments are proposed for open-water disposal, the sediment testing program should be
structured to determine potential impacts to the aquatic community at the point of disposal. For
example, if freshwater sediments are proposed to be dredged and disposed at an open-water manne
site, marine SLs, and test organisms are appropnate for assessing impacts of dredged material at the
disposal location. However, freshwater SLs and test organisms are appropriate for assessing
impacts of in situ sediments or newly exposed sediments left behind at the project site.
6.8.3. Sediment Quality Assessment for Dredging Projects
The SL values are intended to identify chemical concentrations that are at or below levels at which
there is no reason to believe exposures to in-place sediments or dredged material disposal sites
would result in unacceptable adverse effects to benthic organisms. In addition to the benthic
screening level assessment presented in this chapter, a separate bioaccumulation assessment will
also need to be performed if there is reason to believe BCoCs are present at levels of concern (see
Chapter 8).
Sediments in dredged material management units (DMMUs) containing chemical concentrations at
or below SL levels and bioaccumulation guidelines (or background, in the interim) are judged to be
suitable for unconfined open-water disposal. Sediments proposed for open-water disposal with one
or more chemical concentrations exceeding SL levels and/or bioaccumulation guidelines will
require follow-up bioassay testing and/or bioaccumulation testing, respectively.
May 2009 6-16
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Biological testing provides a more site-specific measurement of the potential for sediments to cause
biological effects to aquatic life or higher-level receptors. In such cases, biological testing results
will take precedence and "override" the chemistry results. If one or more chemicals are present at
concentrations above SL levels or bioaccumulation guidelines, and follow-up biological testing is
not pursued, the associated DMMU will be determined unsuitable for open-water disposal.
Sediments that exceed SL levels or bioaccumulation guidelines and fail follow-on biological testing,
if such testing is pursued, will need to be managed in an alternative and more protective manner
such as a confined disposal facility (CDF; e.g., confined aquatic disposal site, nearshore fill site,
upland disposal facility, or commercial landfill). If dredged sediments are intended to be placed in a
CDF, and thus removed from direct contact with the aquatic environment, bioassay and
bioaccumulation testing will not be necessary. However, other tests will likely be required for these
sediments (e.g., effluent elutriate tests to characterize return flow from an impoundment, or leachate
tests to characterize impacts to groundwater migrating through the confined sediments) depending
on the location and configuration of the confined disposal facility (EPA/Corps 2003; also see
Section 9.4.3).
Whether designated for open-water or confined disposal, short-term water quality effects may be
caused by the disturbance and resuspension of sediments, especially contaminated sediments, by
dredging and related construction activities at the dredging site. The evaluation of water column
effects during dredging is described in Section 10.3. Dredging residuals, if sufficiently thick and
contaminated, may linger beyond the dredging activity and contribute to long-term risk at the
project site location, potentially including bioaccumulative risk. Dredging residuals are discussed
further in Section 10.4. Other exposure pathways at the dredging and/or disposal site may be
identified in the conceptual site model and should be evaluated as necessary (see Section 4.2.3).
May 2009 6-17
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 7. BIOLOGICAL (TOXICITY) TESTING
7.1. INTRODUCTION
Level 2B biological testing of sediment (see Section 4.3) will be required when chemical testing
results indicate the potential for unacceptable adverse environmental or human health effects. A
standard suite of bioassays is used evaluate the potential toxicity to bottom-dwelling (benthic)
organisms and is required when one or more sediment screening levels (SLs; see Table 6-3) are
exceeded in the dredged material. The results of these sediment bioassays are used to make a
determination regarding the suitability of dredged sediment for aquatic disposal. A Level 2B
bioaccumulation evaluation is required when there is an established "reason to believe" that
bioaccumulation endpoints may pose a potential risk to human health or ecological health in the
aquatic environment through the bioaccumulation exposure pathway (see Section 8.5 for additional
information on bioaccumulation-related biological tests).
Prior to the 1980s, the assessment of water and sediment quality was often limited to physical and
chemical characterizations. However, quantifying chemical concentrations alone is not always
adequate to assess potential adverse environmental effects from interactions among chemicals or
from bioavailabihty of chemicals to aquatic organisms. Because the relationship between total
chemical concentrations and biological availability is poorly understood, when regulatory guideline
values or risk screening criteria are exceeded, controlled laboratory bioassay and bioaccumulation
tests are performed to provide additional lines of evidence for evaluating potential environmental
effects.
The approach most often adopted is to expose representative aquatic/benthic species to test media to
assess lethal and sublethal effects and, if appropriate, conduct an evaluation of bioaccumulation
potential. These tests provide information about different possible adverse biological effects in the
environment. In addition, testing using multiple species reduces uncertainty about the results and
limits errors in interpretation of these tests.
This chapter includes information on recommended bioassay tests and species, quality control
requirements for Level 2B sediment tests, and the interpretive criteria used for decision-making.
For the recommended bioassay tests, references are provided for more detailed information on test
protocols and test interpretation. Additional information on bioassays available to address project
specific needs/evaluations is provided in Appendix B. In addition, Section 8.5 provides information
on bioaccumulation tests.
7.2. SEDIMENT SOLID PHASE BIOLOGICAL TESTS
Biological testing can be conducted to measure effects on organisms exposed to the water column or
to whole sediment. The biological testing suite discussed in this section addresses solid phase
toxicity testing using whole sediment in general. Both marine and freshwater species used for
bioassay testing are specified. Several additional biological tests are under development or review
and may be added in the future. Marine tests species may be selected based on criteria such as
salinity at the open-water disposal site considered for the dredged material, fines or clay content of
sediments, and seasonal availability of organisms.
For dredging projects in freshwater systems that plan on the use of the manne/ocean disposal sites,
marine bioassays will be required (if such biological testing is necessary). Additionally, biological
May 2009 7-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
test species may be selected based on environmental characteristics at the dredging site if there is
concern regarding the sediment quality of residuals or for other regulatory (e.g., cleanup program)
requirements.
7.2.1. Marine Bioassays
Marine bioassays are required when the test sediments and/or the proposed disposal location for
dredged material are in a brackish or saline environment, as opposed to freshwater environments
(see Section 7.2.2). The recommended suite of marine sediment bioassays for use in the Pacific
Northwest normally includes an acute amphipod test, a chronic Neanthes test, and a sediment larval
test:
• 10-day Amphipod Acute Mortality Test
> Rhepoxymus abronius
> Ampelisca abdita
> Eohaustorius estuanus
• Chronic Test
> Neanthes arenaceodentata (Los Angeles karyotype) 20-day growth test
• Sediment Larval Test
> Echinoderm
• Dendraster excentricus
• Strongylocentrotits purpuratus
• Strongylocentrotiis droebachiensis
> Bivalve
• Crassostrea gigas
• Mytilus species
The marine bioassay protocols are described by the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) and can
be found in the Recommended Guidelines for Conducting Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound
Sediments (PSEP 1995). These protocols are consistent with national guidance on bioassay testing.
Amphipod Species. Amphipod selection is based on test sediment gram size and salinity.
Rhepoxynius abronius, a free-burrowing amphipod, requires a porewater salinity of at least 25 ppt,
has been shown to be sensitive to sediments with high (>60%) fines particularly those with high
clay content and has been shown to exhibit mortalities greater than 20 percent in clean, reference
area sediments with greater than 60% fines (DeWitt et al., 1988; Fox 1993). Eohaustorius
estuanus, also a free-burrowing amphipod, can tolerate a broad range of porewater salinities
[approximately 0-36 ppt (EPA 1994; Redmond et al., 2000; ASTM 2008)], and is suitable for use
for the full range of grain sizes, except that there is some evidence that its survival is affected by
high percent clay [>20% (DMMP 2008) or >70% (Environment Canada 1992)]. Ampelisca abdita,
a tube-dwelling amphipod, can be used with porewater salinities from 0 to 34 ppt if overlying water
is at least 28 ppt (EPA 1994), and for sediments with at least 10% fines (EPA 1994, ASTM 2008),
but is not native to the Pacific Northwest and may not be available from suppliers at the specified
juvenile life stage year-round. Proposed species must be submitted to the relevant regulatory
agency prior to use, and must be documented in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the
proposed dredging project or site investigation/risk assessment.
Echinoderm Species. Echinoderm species selection is primarily based on seasonal availability of
individuals in spawning condition.
May 2009 7-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Bivalve Species. Mussels, Mytilits sp., are available in spawning condition most of the year.
Oysters, Crassostrea gigas, can also be tested, but care should be taken to not use triploid
organisms. Oysters may also be more restricted for use than mussels due to seasonal availability of
individuals in spawning condition.
7.2.2. Freshwater Bioassays
The following freshwater bioassays will be required when the test sediment and/or the proposed
disposal location for dredged material is in a low salinity environment [5 ppt or below].
Amphipod - Hyalella azteca 10-day mortality test.
Midge - Chironomus dilutus1 10-day mortality and growth test
Standard protocols exist for each of these tests, established both by ASTM and EPA (EPA 1994,
ASTM 1995). Either protocol may be used for the freshwater bioassays. Adherence to the protocol
performance standards aids in interpreting bioassay responses by limiting effects from factors other
than sediment toxicity due to the contaminants of interest. Additionally, longer-term biological tests
have been developed by ASTM (ASTM 2000) and may be required under certain circumstances by
the regulatory agencies. These include the Hyalella azteca 28-day mortality and growth test and the
Chironomus dilutus 20-day mortality and growth test. Performance standards for reference and
control sediment, as well as interpretive criteria for these longer-term freshwater tests, are provided
in this chapter.
In addition, the Microtox® 100 Percent Sediment Porewater Extract Test, which is a 15-mmute
toxicity test that assesses decreased luminescence of the bacteria Vibrio fischeri exposed to a pH,
dissolved oxygen and salinity-adjusted 100 porewater extract of the freshwater sediment sample,
has been recently used in the state of Washington's SMS program. While its use in dredging
programs is still under evaluation, information on for this test is provided here as its use has been
increasing in the state of Washington. Protocols for the test are provided in Appendix C of
Ecology's Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix (Ecology 2008a; available at
http.//www.ecv. wa.gov/biblio/Q309043.htmn.
7.2.3. Bioassay Testing Performance Standards
This section contains the specific QA/QC requirements for solid phase biological testing. The
parameters covered include:
• Negative control and reference sediment;
• Quality control limits for the negative control treatment;
• Quality control limits for the reference treatment;
• Positive control; and
• Water quality monitoring.
1 Chinnomus dilutus is the new name for the Chironomus teutons; there has been no change m the species
recommended for testing
May 2009 7-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
General procedures are given first, followed by specific performance standards for each bioassay.
These standards aid in interpreting the bioassay responses because they control for environmental
effects that may produce confounding factors not associated with the toxicity of the contaminants of
interest. Table 7-1 summanzes the performance standards for negative controls and reference
sediment for freshwater toxicity tests and Table 7-2 provides the same information for
marine/estuarine toxicity tests. Additional QA/QC information for sediment toxicity tests are
provided in Ecology's Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix (Ecology 2008a).
Table 7-1. Interpretive Criteria and Performance Standards for Freshwater Biological Tests
Toxicity Test
Hyalella azteca
1 0-day mortality
Hyalella azleca
28-day mortality
Hyalella azteca
28-day growth
Chironomns dilutus
1 0-day mortality
Chironomus dilutus
1 0-day growth
Chironomus dilutus
20-day mortality
Chironomus dilutus
20-day growth
Micro tox® decrease
in luminescence
Negative Control
Performance
Standard
C Z 20%
C < 20%
CF>0 I5mg/md
C 0 48 mg/md
CF/CI £ 0 72
Reference
Sediment
Performance
Standard
R < 25%
R Z 30%
RF>0 15 mg/md
R < 30%
RF/CF > 0 8
R<35%
RF/CF>08
RF/CF £ 0 8
1-Hit
Criteria
T-R>25%
and
T vs. R SS
(P=.05)
T-R>25%
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T/R<06and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T-R>25%
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T/R<07and
TVS R SS
(P=05
T-R>25%
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T/R < 0 6 and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T/R < 0 75
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
2-Hit
Criteria
T-R>10%
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T-R> 10%
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T/R < 0 75
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T-R>10%
and
TVS R SS
(P=05
T/R < 0 8
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T-R>15%
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T/R < 0 75
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
T/R < 0 85
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
C = Control, Cl = Control Initial, CF = Control Final
R = Reference, RF = Reference Final, T = Test Sample, SS = Statistically Significant
Negative Controls. Negative control sediments are used in bioassays to check laboratory
performance. Negative control sediments are clean sediments in which the test organism normally
lives (or are cultured) and which are expected to produce low mortality. The sediment larval test
utilizes a negative seawater control rather than a control sediment. Negative control reliability must
be demonstrated.
May 2009
7-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 7-2. Interpretive Criteria and Performance Standards for Marine Biological Tests
Toxicity Test
Amphipod acute
1 0-day mortality
Juvenile infaunal
20-day growth
Sediment larval
normalized combined
mortality/abnormality
(NCMA)
DMMP
Negative Control
Performance
Standard
CSIO%
mortality
C S 10%
mortality
CO > 0 38 mg/ind/day
(Kendall 1996)
normal
survivors
DMMP
Sediment
Performance
Standard
R 20%
and
T-R>IO%
and
TVS R SS
(P=05)
TG/CG < 80%
and
TG/RG < 70%
and
TO vs RG SS
(P=OS)
TN/SC < 80%
and
RN/SC-TN/SC>I5%
and
TN/SC vs RN/SCSS
(p=10)
DMMP
2-llit Criteria
Dispersive
Disposal Site
T-C>20%
and
T vs R SS
IP 05)
TG/CG < 80%
and
TGvs RGSS
(p=05)
TN/SC <. 80%
and
TN/SC vs RN/SC SS
(p=10)
DMMP
l-Hit Criteria
Nondispersivc
Disposal Site
T - C > 20%
and
T-R>30%
and
TVS R SS(p=05
TG/CG < 80%
and
TG/RG < 50%
and
TO vs RG SS
(P=05)
TN/SC < 80%
and
RN/SC - TN/SC > 30%
and
TN/SC vs RN/SC SS
(P=IO)
DMMP
2-IIit Criteria
Nnndispcrsive
Disposal Site
T-C>20%
and
TVS R SS(p=05)
TG/CG < 80%
and
TG/RG < 70%
and
TG vs RG SS
(P=05)
TN/SC S 80%
and
TN/SC vs RN/SCSS
(P= 10)
C = Control, CG = Control Growth Rate, SC = Seawater Control - Normal Larvae, SS =
R = Reference, RG = Reference Growth Rate, RN = Reference - Normal Larvae
T = Test Sample, TG = Test Growth Rate. TN = Test - Normal Larvae
Statistically Significant
Kendall, D 1996 Neanthes 20-Day Growth IBioassay - Further Clarification on Negative Control Growth Standard. Initial Size, and feeding Protocol
PSDDA/SMS Clarification Paper
May 2009
7-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Reference Sediment. Agency regulations prescribe the use of bioassay reference sediments for test
companson and interpretations that closely match the grain size characteristics of the test or
disposal site sediments. The reference sediment provides a point of comparison for evaluating the
potential effects of the test sediment. If chemical concentrations in the reference area are not well
documented, a complete chemical characterization may be required. However, all reference
sediments should be analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC), ammonia, sulfides, and grain size
(PSEP 1995).
All bioassays have performance standards for reference sediments. Failure for reference sediments
to meet these standards may result in the requirement to retest the dredged material. In some cases,
control sediments can be substituted for reference sediments if they have similar characteristics or if
the PRGs/DMMP agree that this is appropriate (PSEP 1995, DMMP 2008), and the data will be
interpreted accordingly (DMMP 2008).
Replication. For marine bioassays, five laboratory replicates of test sediments, reference
sediments, and negative controls will be run for each bioassay. For freshwater bioassays, eight
laboratory replicates of test sediments, reference sediments, and negative controls will be run for
each bioassay (per ASTM and EPA guidance).
Positive Controls. A positive control (sometimes called the reference toxicant test) will be run for
each bioassay. Positive controls are chemicals known to be toxic to the test organism and provide
an indication of the sensitivity of the particular organisms used in a bioassay. Positive controls are
performed on spiked fresh/sea water and compared with historical laboratory reference toxicity test
results to confirm that organism responses are within control limits established by the testing
laboratory.
Water Quality Monitoring. Water quality monitoring of the overlying water should be conducted
for the bioassays. For the marine biological tests, daily measurements of salinity, temperature, pH,
and dissolved oxygen should be conducted for the amphipod and sediment larval tests. These
measurements should be made every 3 days for the 20-day Neanthes growth test. Ammonia and
total sulfides should be measured at test initiation and termination for all three tests where either of
these chemicals is suspected as being a problem (Ecology 2008a). For the freshwater biological
tests, daily measurements of temperature and dissolved oxygen should be conducted for the
amphipod and midge tests. Conductivity, hardness, and alkalinity should be measured at test
initiation and termination for the amphipod and midge tests. Momtonng of ammonia and total
sulfides should be measured at test initiation and termination where either of these chemicals is
suspected as being a problem (Ecology 2008a). Parameter measurements must be within the limits
specified for each bioassay (DMMP 2008, Ecology 2008a).
7.2.4. Bioassay Interpretive Criteria
The response of bioassay organisms exposed to composited sediment representing each DMMU
will be statistically compared to the response of these organisms in reference treatments (or default
to control treatments if the reference sediment does not meet specified performance standards).
This evaluation will determine whether dredged material is suitable or unsuitable for unconfmed
aquatic disposal.
Biological test interpretation in the Pacific Northwest relies on two levels of observed response in
the test organisms These are known as "one-hit" or "two-hit" failures. The bioassay-specific
guidelines for each of these response categories are listed below. In general, a one-hit failure is a
May 2009 7-6
-------
SEE for the Pacific Northwest
marked response in any one biological test. A two-hit failure is a lower intensity of response. It
must be found in two or more biological tests for the test sediment to potentially cause adverse
impacts to ecological receptors, or found unsuitable for aquatic disposal in a dredged material
situation. The "one-hit" and "two-hit" nomenclature was developed for the PSDDA program and is
used for interpreting manne/estuanne toxicity tests (see Table 7-2). Similarly for freshwater
toxicity tests, criteria presented in Table 7-1 correspond to "one-hit" and "two-hit" failures.
One-Hit Failure. When any one biological test shows a test sediment response relative to the
negative control and reference sediment that exceeds the one-hit failure bioassay-specific response
guidelines and the difference from the reference response is statistically significant, the DMMU is
judged to be unsuitable for aquatic disposal. The acceptable methods for determining statistical
significance are provided in the DMMP Users' Manual (DMMP 2008).
Two-Hit Failure. When any two biological tests show test sediment responses, which are less than
the one-hit failure bioassay-specific guidelines, but shows a test sediment response relative to the
negative control and reference sediment that exceeds the two-hit failure bioassay specific response
guidelines, and the difference from reference response is statistically significant, the DMMU is
judged to be unsuitable for aquatic disposal.
The method for determining statistical significance is discussed in DMMP Users' Manual (DMMP
2008). This reference also contains a description of the BIOSTAT bioassay software developed by
the Seattle Distnct. This software contains the statistical tests to determine sediment suitability.
Table 7-2 provides a summary of interpretive criteria as well as negative control and reference
sediment performance standards for the marine bioassays. Table 7-1 provides the same information
for the freshwater bioassays. A narrative summary of the interpretive criteria are provided in the
following sections.
7.2.5. Marine Bioassays "One-Hit" Failure
Amphipod Bioassay. For the amphipod bioassay, mean test mortality greater than 20 percent
absolute over the mean negative control response, and greater than 10 percent (dispersive) or 30
percent (nondispersive) absolute over the mean reference sediment response, and statistically
different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure.
Juvenile Infaunal Growth Test. Juvenile Neanthes growth test results that show a mean test
individual growth rate less than 80 percent of the mean negative control growth rate, and less than
70 percent (dispersive) or 50 percent (nondispersive) of the mean reference sediment growth rate,
and statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure.
Sediment Larval Bioassay. For the sediment larval bioassay, test and reference sediment
responses are normalized to the negative seawater control response. This normalization is
performed by dividing the number of normal larvae from the test or reference treatment at the end of
the exposure period by the number of normal larvae in the seawater control at the end of the
exposure period, and multiplying by 100 to convert to percent. The normalized combined mortality
and abnormality (NCMA) is then 100 minus this number.
NCMA (in percent) = 100% - (number of normal larvae from test or reference
treatment / number of normal larvae from seawater control) x 100.
May 2009 7-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Nortliwest
If the mean NCMA for a test sediment is greater than 20 percent, is 15 percent (dispersive) or 30
percent (nondispersive) absolute over the mean reference sediment NCMA, and is statistically
different from the reference (alpha = 0.10), it is considered a one-hit failure.
7.2.6. Marine Bioassays "Two-Hit" Failure
When any two biological tests (amphipod, juvenile infaunal growth, or sediment larval) exhibit test
sediment responses which are less than the bioassay-specific reference-comparison guidelines
described above for a one-hit failure, but are statistically significant compared to the reference
sediment (and less than 70 percent of the mean reference sediment growth rate for the Neanthes
bioassay for nondispersive sites), the DMMU is judged to be unsuitable for unconfmed open-water
disposal.
7.2.7. Freshwater Bioassays "One-Hit" Failure
Amphipod 10-day Survival Bioassay. For the amphipod bioassay, mean test mortality greater
than 25 percent over the mean reference response, and statistically different from the reference
(alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure.
Amphipod 28-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. For the amphipod 28-day survival bioassay, mean
mortality in test sediment greater than 25 percent over the mean reference response, and statistically
different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure. For the growth test, a
mean reduction in biomass greater than 40 percent and statistically different from the reference
(alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure.
Midge 10-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. For the midge 10-day mortality test, a mean mortality
in test sediment of 25 percent over reference and statistically different from reference (alpha = 0.05)
is a one-hit failure. For the midge 10-day growth test, a mean reduction in biomass greater than 30
percent and statistically different from reference (alpha = 0.05) is considered a one-hit failure.
Midge 20-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. For the midge 20-day mortality test, a mean mortality
in test sediment of 25 percent over the mean reference response, and statistically different from the
reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure. For the growth test, a mean reduction in
biomass greater than 40 percent and statistically different from reference (alpha = 0 05) is
considered a one-hit failure.
Microtox® Luminescence Bioassay. For the Microtox bioassay, a mean relative reduction in
luminescence in test sediment porewater of 25 percent over the mean reference response, and
statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a one-hit failure.
7.2.8. Freshwater Bioassays "Two-Hit" Failure
Amphipod 10-day Survival Bioassay. For the amphipod bioassay, mean test mortality greater
than 10 percent over the mean reference response, and statistically different from the reference
(alpha = 0.05), is considered a two-hit failure.
Amphipod 28-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. For the amphipod 28-day survival bioassay, mean
mortality in test sediment greater than 10 percent over the mean reference response, and statistically
different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a two-hit failure. For the growth test, a
mean reduction in biomass greater than 25 percent and statistically different from the reference
(alpha = 0.05), is considered a two-hit failure.
May 2009 7-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Midge 10-day Survival/Growth Bioassay For the midge 10-day mortality test, a mean mortality
in test sediment of 10 percent over reference and statistically different from reference (alpha = 0.05)
is a two-hit failure. For the midge 10-day growth test, a mean reduction in biomass greater than 20
percent and statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.05) is considered a two-hit failure.
Midge 20-day Survival/Growth Bioassay. For the midge 20-day mortality test, a mean mortality
in test sediment of 15 percent over the mean reference response, and statistically different from the
reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a two-hit failure. For the growth test, a mean reduction in
biomass greater than 25 percent and statistically significance is considered a two-hit failure.
Microtox® Luminescence Bioassay. For the Microtox bioassay, a mean relative reduction in
luminescence in the test sediment porewater of 15 percent over the mean reference response, and
statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a two-hit failure.
7.3. REFERENCE SEDIMENT COLLECTION SITES
Bioassays must be run with reference sediments that are well matched to the test sediments for gram
size and other sediment conventionals such as TOC. In some areas of the Pacific Northwest region,
the Corps and EPA have identified locations suitable for use as reference sites. Reference site
grain-size should match, as closely as possible, that of the test sediment and/or the disposal
environment. While there is no specified criteria established as to how closely the test and reference
sediments should match in grain size and/or total organic carbon levels, one "rule of thumb"
provided in DMMP Clarification Papers and in the DMMP User's Manual (DMMP 2008) suggests
that an ideal reference sediment would have less than 25 percent difference in percent fines and less
than a 1 percent difference in TOC than that of the test sediment and/or the disposal environment.
Reference site selection and reference sample collection must be coordinated with the
PRGs/DMMP, as well as any other state or federal agency with regulatory interest in the bioassay
results. For the Puget Sound Region and for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay in the state of
Washington, the DMMP User's Manual (DMMP 2008) provides additional information on
identified reference sediment collection sites, as well as sampling guidelines for use at these
collection sites.
For freshwater environments, approved reference sediment collection sites are not currently
available. However, a DMMP Clarification Paper was prepared (Stirling and RSET 2008) that
provides a process for the identification of freshwater reference sediment collection sites (also
provided in a white paper available at https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp). It is
recommended that the project proponents use this process in identifying project or area specific
freshwater reference sediment collection locations If the control sediment is similar in grain size
and in TOC levels to the test sediment, then it can be considered an acceptable substitute for the
reference sediment and the data will be interpreted accordingly (DMMP 2008).
May 2009 7-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 8. BIOACCUMULATION EVALUATION
The Clean Water Act, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, and other authorities
require the assessment of the potential for bioaccumulation. This chapter was developed by an
interagency Bioaccumulation Subcommittee composed of scientists representing agencies,
consulting firms, and laboratories throughout the Pacific Northwest to address this requirement.
To the best of the Subcommittee's knowledge, the resulting values and approaches represent best
available science and are based on, and consistent with, federal and state agency risk assessment
guidance
The proposed approach in this chapter represents a change to the way in which bioaccumulation
testing would be required and evaluated, in large part by elevating the significance of
bioaccumulation within the overall testing framework and potentially increasing the frequency of
bioaccumulation testing.
This chapter has identified default target tissue levels (TTLs) but does not provide sediment
bioaccumulation triggers (BTs). Both agencies and applicants are encouraged to consider potential
exposure pathways in determining whether testing is appropriate and what values to use for
evaluation when considering bioaccumulation impacts. If you have any questions regarding this
chapter, please contact your PRG/DMMP to determine what bioaccumulation test may be necessary
for your project
The RSET agencies are committed to continuing work with regional and national technical experts
and stakeholders to further develop and evaluate approaches to assessing bioaccumulation impacts
to meet our legal responsibilities in a manner that is scientifically defensible yet does not present an
undue hardship on the regulated community However, until these approaches are more fully
reviewed, the existing approaches as described by the DMMP or the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) will be considered as viable options and available to applicants to
assess bioaccumulation until the approach outlined in this chapter is fully developed and reviewed
for its regulatory applicability, reliability, and impacts
The regulatory agencies in the state of Washington have been involved in executive-level
discussions on open water disposal guidelines for dredged material containing dioxins in Puget
Sound. A preferred option for assessing and managing risks for dioxm has been identified by
agency staff and is currently under public review In addition, the ODEQ has an approach as
described in its Guidance for Assessing Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern in Sediment (2007)
These efforts may or may not be directly applicable to coastal, freshwater, or riverine environments
or to dispersive sites, which may require their own approach.
8.1. INTRODUCTION
Contaminants defined as "bioaccumulative" are those that accumulate in the bodies of receptor or
food species at levels higher than those in their environment. Some of these compounds also
"biomagnify" or increase in concentration up the food chain. A bioaccumulation evaluation is
conducted if there is a reason to believe that chemicals present in sediments may contribute to levels
in the aquatic food chain that could be harmful to fish or shellfish, or to wildlife or humans eating
fish or shellfish. Federal- or state-listed threatened and endangered species are of particular
concern, such as salmon and orca whales. Health effects to sensitive human populations, such as
tribal and urban subsistence consumers, pregnant women, and children are also of concern.
May 2009 8-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
A bioaccumulation evaluation is conducted as follows:
1. Determe whether there is a reason to believe that a bioaccumulation evaluation needs to be
conducted (Section 8.2).
2. Identify bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCoCs) that are present or likely to be present
in project sediments (Section 8.3).
3. Compare the concentrations of these BCoCs to interpretive guidelines for sediments or tissues
(Section 8.4).
4. Conduct bioaccumulation tests or collect and measure concentrations in organisms in the area
(Section 8.5).
Bioaccumulation tests are considered optional, and could be conducted under the following
circumstances:
• Sediment BTs are exceeded and the project proponent wishes to over-nde that determination
through comparison of test results to TTLs.
• Sediment BTs do not exist for some BCoCs in project sediments, and there is a reason to
believe they are present and could bioaccumulate (alternatively, a comparison to background
could be conducted).
Although frequently conducted as a Level 2B, the project proponent may opt to conduct
bioaccumulation testing concurrently with sediment chemistry if it appears likely that it will
eventually be required or if other project constraints exist, such as to avoid delay by a second round
of sampling.
Currently, certain aspects of this evaluation are still conducted on a case-by-case basis. While
protective tissue concentrations have been identified (TTLs), contaminant concentrations in
sediments that may be harmful have not been fully evaluated or finalized. Currently, the SEF does
not provide BTs for sediments; when they are developed, it may be on a distnct-by-district basis for
for differing environments, as need and staff resources dictate. In the meantime, existing BTs may
be used if they are protective and consistent with the concepts presented in this chapter. The ODEQ
has established sediment BTs for use in Oregon, and the Seattle Distnct also has bioaccumulation
guidance. In areas without sediment BTs, or for individual chemicals for which bioaccumulation-
based BTs are not yet available, a comparison to background concentrations should be conducted
(see Section 8.4.3). Some existing BTs may be out of date or not fully protective; however, it is
expected that there will be an interim timeframe in which districts are updating their existing
guidance and conducting public review of the new values.
Impacts associated with dredging residuals may also occur at the point of dredging or downstream.
These are difficult to quantify, yet there is an increasing awareness that this route of exposure can
be important. The RSET agencies will continue to discuss the best methods of controlling and
assessing the impacts of dredging residuals containing BCoCs (see Chapter 10).
This chapter includes information on establishing reason to believe for triggering a bioaccumulation
evaluation, the identification of BCoCs, the interpretive criteria (TTLs) used for decision-making,
recommended bioaccumulation tests, and species and the quality control requirements for each test.
References are provided for more detailed information on test protocols and test interpretation.
Appendix C provides information on the development of the BCoC lists for each Corps Distnct, and
Appendix D describes the derivation of the TTLs in detail.
May 2009 8-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
8.2. REASON TO BELIEVE
The approach used to evaluate reason to believe will become more focused over time as sediment
BTs become available. A fundamental assumption behind bioaccumulation-based sediment BTs is
that there is a demonstrated relationship between concentrations of bioaccumulative contaminants in
sediments and in tissues of aquatic life living in the area. However, the exact concentration in
sediment that will lead to unacceptable levels of bioaccumulation in aquatic life is unknown and
vanes among and within water bodies due to many site-specific factors.
To move forward in the face of these unknowns, the RSET will rely on a weight of evidence
approach using the factors listed below to develop a reason to believe that a bioaccumulation
evaluation is or is not needed for an individual dredging project.
Reason to believe for dredging projects will be based on the following factors:
• The overall ranking for the area (see Chapter 4), indicating the likelihood that contaminated
sediments are present.
• Known sources and existing sediment or tissue data at or near the project.
• Agency experience with past projects in the area.
• Comparison of any existing sediment or tissue data to the regional BCoC list (see Section 8.3),
TTLs (Section 8.4), and sediment BTs (once developed). If sediment BTs are not available or
are below background, comparison of sediment concentrations to background concentrations
will be used to determine whether BCoCs are elevated (see Section 8.4.3).
In general, the agencies will conduct the initial determination of reason to believe upon receipt of a
dredging application, and inform the applicant of specific bioaccumulation concerns. The BTs
and/or background concentrations specific to the Corps District will be used as part of this
evaluation. If there is no existing chemistry or fish tissue data for the project area, a reason to
believe determination for bioaccumulation may need to be delayed until sediment chemistry data are
collected.
The project proponent may also present information indicating that there is no reason to believe that
one or more chemicals are likely to be present at levels of concern in aquatic life. Types of
information that could be used include:
• Comparison of existing sediment data to sediment BTs or background concentrations.
• Comparison of existing bioaccumulation test results for other projects in the area to the TTLs.
• Collection/compilation of tissue data from the area and companson to the TTLs.
• A project design that would reduce concentrations of bioaccumulative chemicals below levels
of concern (e.g., dredging into native sediments followed by upland disposal). In this case,
impacts during dredging would still need to be evaluated and should include consideration of
potential bioaccumulation impacts.
8.3. BIOACCUMULATIVE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
The BCoC lists (Appendix C) are used along with existing data (if available) to identify reason to
believe for a new project in the same area In addition, the BCoC lists are used along with the
project chemistry data to identify chemicals for which a bioaccumulation evaluation should be
conducted.
May 2009 8-3
-------
SET for the Pacific Northwest
Three regions have been identified, each with their own BCoC list generally corresponding to the
three Corps of Engineers Districts: (1) Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and coastal
Washington; (2) Eastern Washington and Idaho; and (3) Oregon, including coastal areas,
Willamette River, and the Columbia River where it borders Oregon and Washington. The regional
BCoC lists for these areas are similar, but have minor differences related to chemical usage and
detection in the three areas. The RSET-wide list (all chemicals listed in Table 8-1) is available as a
default for areas where more specific data are not available. The analytical methods and detection
limits associated with the BCoCs listed in Table 8-1 are provided in Chapter 6.
Detailed information on how the lists were derived can be found in Appendix C. In general, these
chemicals meet all three of the following cntena: (1) they have a high enough Kow (or known
toxicity of the contaminants to human and ecological receptors) to be bioaccumulative (or have
organic forms, in the case of metals); (2) they are known to have human health and/or ecological
risks; and (3) they are found in sediments and/or tissues in the region with sufficient frequency to be
of concern.
Agencies may opt to conduct or require bioaccumulation testing for additional BCoCs, if there is
reason to believe they may be present. Similarly, cleanup sites are not limited to the regional BCoC
lists developed to streamline dredging evaluations.
Table 8-1. Regional Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCoCs) Lists
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Tnbutyltm
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Pyrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total Chlordanes
DDTs - Total
Dieldrin
Total Endosulfans
gamma-HCH (Lmdane)
Methoxychlor
Total PCB Aroclors"
Total PCB Congeners"
Dioxms/Furans
Seattle
District
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Portland
District
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Walla Walla
District0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
' BCoC list developed based on multiple lines of evidence due to limited sediment and tissue data, contact Walla Walla
District for more information and see Appendix C
b Aroclors would typically be analyzed for sediments, while congeners would be analyzed in tissues
May 2009
8-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
8.4. BlOACCUMULATION INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES
Currently, bioaccumulation testing is required when there is reason to believe that specific CoCs
may be present at levels that will lead to bioaccumulation at unacceptable levels at disposal sites.
Reason to believe has previously been established by comparing sediment concentrations to BTs.
However, most of these existing sediment BTs were based on the PSDDA program's SLs and
maximum levels (MLs), which were themselves derived from sediment toxicity tests rather than
bioaccumulation tests or bioaccumulation-based risk evaluations (PSDDA 1988). Therefore, there
has been a recognized need to update the BTs to be directly reflective of potential toxicity through
bioaccumulation exposure pathways.
As a first step toward developing sediment BTs, TTLs have been developed to be protective of three
exposed populations - aquatic life, aquatic-dependent wildlife, and human populations. Tissue and
sediment data can be used together to denve biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs), which
can in turn be used to develop sediment BTs for dredging or cleanup.
The most significant obstacle in pursuing this approach is establishing BTs for sediments that are
scientifically defensible, because of the site-specific nature of BSAFs. Nevertheless, this is a
desired goal of the dredging program, as it will simplify the decision process for applicants and
reduce the cost of testing. Ultimately, the RSET envisions that disposal site-specific or region-
specific BSAFs will be available for development of sediment BTs. In the meantime, TTLs are
provided below.
8.4.1. Target Tissue Levels
The Bioaccumulation Subcommittee identified several groups of receptors for which TTLs should
be established:
• Aquatic life including Endangered Species Act (ESA) and special-status species (fish, mussels,
snails, etc.);
• Wildlife consumption offish and invertebrates; and
• Human consumption offish and shellfish.
Tissue levels for the first two sets of receptors are based on back-calculation using established nsk
assessment techniques and receptors common in the Pacific Northwest (see Appendix D). Tissue
levels for protection of aquatic life are based on tissue-residue-effects data contained in databases,
such as the Environmental Residue Effects Database (ERED), once quality assurance has been
applied. Each of the above receptor groups is protected under the regulatory programs addressing
sediments; therefore, it is assumed that the lowest of the applicable levels will be used. However,
the approaches and input values used to denve each of the levels are provided in Appendix D to
support project- or site-specific evaluation. For example, fish consumption rates may vary by
region, disposal site, or watershed, as may the wildlife and ESA receptors present.
Dredging agencies and site managers may modify these values based on best available science and
site-specific factors, as recorded in a project decision document such as a suitability determination
or record of decision. In addition, the SEF itself includes several sets of TTLs for different
purposes. For example, human health exposure scenarios may be very different at an ocean disposal
site than in an urban waterway.
May 2009 8-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
8.4.1.1. Target Tissue Levels to Protect Aquatic Life
The TTLs shown in Table 8-2 for fish and other aquatic life were calculated using the species-
specific life history parameters and the TRVs for the BCOCs identified in Appendix D, Section D. 1.
Two types of values are shown in Table D-4, based on their method of derivation. These values are
based on the species sensitivity distribution (SSD) approach, and additional interim values are also
presented that were calculated from water quality criteria and bioconcentration factors (ODEQ
2007). These interim values can be used until enough data are available to apply the SSD approach
for all chemicals.
Table 8-2. Target Tissue Levels (TTLs) for Protection of Aquatic Life
Chemical
Arsenic1"
Leadb
Mercury
Selenium
Tnbutyltmc
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Pyrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total Chlordanes"
DDTs - Total
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
Dieldnn
Total Endosulfans
gamma-HCH (Lmdane)
Methoxychlor
Total PCB Aroclors
Dioxms/Furans/coplanar PCBs
SSD Derived
TTL"
0.11 mg/kg ww
7.9 mg/kg dw
0 02 mg/kg ww
0 19 mg/kg ww
0001 mg/kg ww
0 09 mg/kg ww
1 4 mg/kg lipid
AWQC Interim TTL
Freshwater/Marine
(mg/kg ww)
66/16
012/0.40
19
NA
10
32
006/0056
0.054
0054
026
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not available, ww = wet weight
" Because these TTLs are compiled from the literature, they do not all have the same units
b Where two values are shown, the first is a freshwater value and the second is a marine value
c Two values are presented for tnbutyltin, one based on effects to gastropods and one based on an evaluation of multiple
species (see Table D-1)
8.4.1.2. Target Tissue Levels to Protect Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
The TTLs for aquatic-dependent wildlife shown in Table 8-3 were calculated using the species-
specific life history parameters and the TRVs for the BCoCs identified in Appendix D, Section D.2.
Values are presented for ESA species [based on the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL)]
and for population-level protection of other wildlife species in the Pacific Northwest [based on the
May 2009
8-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
lowest-observable-effect level (LOAEL)]. The lowest of the species-specific values are shown in
Table 8-3 below for two different types of environments:
• TTLDW is based on protection of marine species expected to be found in the vicinity of deep
water, nondispersive disposal sites, such as the deeper sites in Puget Sound and ocean disposal
sites offshore of Oregon. It includes bald eagle, osprey, northern sea otter, and orca whale.
• TTLNs is based on protection of species that may be found in shallower coastal and inland
areas, which would apply to marine or riverine dispersive disposal sites, projects in nearshore
marine or estuarine areas, projects in freshwater areas, or beneficial use projects. It includes a
much wider variety of species, such as great blue heron, belted kingfisher, hooded merganser,
black-necked stilt, American avocet, spotted sandpiper, bald eagle, osprey, nver otter, northern
sea otter, American mink, and harbor seal.
To select individual species representative of a specific disposal site, project area, or cleanup site,
see the species-specific TTLs presented in Appendix D, Tables D-5 through D-8.
Table 8-3. Target Tissue Levels (TTLs) for Protection of Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Tnbutyltin
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Pyrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total Chlordanes
DDTs - Total
Dieldnn
Total Endosulfans
gamma-HCH (Lmdane)
Methoxychlor
Total PCB Aroclors
Dioxms/Furans/coplanar PCBs
TEQ*
Deep Water
1 lLo\v ESA
(mg/kg ww)
11
7.8
006
14
28
7.4
790
74
NA
32
1.2
001
034
NA
NA
NA
0.04
9.6 x 10-7
TTLDW Pop.
(mg/kg ww)
53
39
012
6.9
42
36
3900
36
NA
160
5 1
0.05
1.7
NA
NA
NA
0.18
26xlO'5
Nearshore
TTLNS ESA
(mg/kg ww)
2.7
2.0
0.02
0.35
8.2
3.8
410
3.8
NA
81
0.26
001
009
NA
NA
NA
0.04
SOxlO'7
TTLNs Pop.
(mg/kg ww)
14
10
0.03
18
21
19
2000
19
NA
41
13
005
042
NA
NA
NA
018
8 5 x ID*
NA = Not available
Bold, italicized values are known to be near or below MDLs or SQLs See Chapter 6 for tissue SQLs
* Methods for calculating dioxin/furan/PCB TEQs are presented in Appendix D, Section D 2 6 15
May 2009
8-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
8.4.1.3. Target Tissue Levels to Protect Human Health
Table 8-4 shows the TTLs protective of human health. Three columns are available depending on
project- or site-specific human uses as shown below (see Appendix D for details of the derivation of
these values):
• TTL1 is protective of the general population, and should only be used in areas that are not tribal
or urban subsistence areas and which do not have active recreational or commercial fishenes.
• TTL2 is protective of recreational anglers, most Asian and Pacific Islander groups, and mid-
range tribal consumption rates.
• TTLS is protective of high-end tribal consumption; for example, those who obtain most of their
protein or food intake from fishing or shellfish collection.
The values listed in Table 8-4 are protective of both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxic
effects, and represent the lower of the two values where both exist for a chemical.
Table 8-4. Target Tissue Levels (TTLs) for Protection of Human Health
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Tnbutyltin
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Pyrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total Chlordanes
DDTs - Total
Dieldnn
Total Endosulfans
gamma-HCH (Lmdane)
Methoxychlor
Total PCB Aroclors
Dioxms/Furans/coplanar
PCBs TEQa
TTL1
(nag/kg ww)
0.002
NA
013
6.5
0.39
52
52
39
00019
0.025
00086
0.0089
0.00019
78
00023
65
0.0015
2.3 xKr*
TTL2
(mg/kg ww)
0.00027
NA
0.040
20
012
16
16
12
0.00025
0.0033
0.00] I
0.0012
0.000025
2.4
0.00031
2.0
0.00020
3.1 x Iff9
TTL3
(mg/kg ww)
0.00008
NA
0.012
0.6
0.036
4.8
4.8
36
0.000075
0.001
0.00034
0.00035
0.000007
0.72
0.000092
0.6
0.00006
9.2 x Iff"
NA - not available, lead is known to be toxic at very low levels, but EPA has not established toxicity values
Bold, italicized values are known to be near or below MDLs or SQLs See Chapter 6 for tissue SQLs
" Methods for calculating dioxm/furan/PCB TEQs are presented in Appendix D, Section D 3 3
ww = wet weight, TEQ = toxicity equivalent
May 2009
8-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
8.4.2. Bioaccumulation Triggers for Sediments
At this time, BTs for sediments have not yet been developed and will likely be finalized taking into
account localized differences in disposal environments such as salinity and currents. Appendix D
provides general guidance for developing BSAFs and associated sediment BTs on a regional- or
project-specific basis. Some areas have existing sediment BTs, reflecting various derivation
methods. Some of these are consistent with the methods outlined in this chapter, and others need to
be updated. Where BTs are protective and bioaccumulation-based, they may be used; otherwise, a
comparison to background concentrations may be conducted. It is anticipated that there will be an
interim period when the RSET agencies are updating their evaluation procedures and conducting
public review. Therefore, the PRGs/DMMP should be contacted for the latest guidance on sediment
BTs and/or evaluation procedures applicable to specific projects.
8.4.3. Comparison to Background Concentrations
Derivation methods for TTLs and sediment BTs contain conservative assumptions and methods that
may result in very low values, although every attempt is being made to derive values that are
realistic while still being protective and in compliance with state and federal regulations. Some of
the TTL calculations do result in values that are below background concentrations and detection
limits, and it is expected that the same will be the case for the sediment BTs. In these cases, the use
of a TTL or sediment BT may be replaced by a comparison to background levels, or detection limits
if background or risk-based levels are undetected.
The first step in this process is to establish background concentrations suitable for the disposal site
and project area in question. The specific definition of background that applies often depends on
state regulations, and may include natural concentrations and in some cases, globally distributed
anthropogenic compounds. In most areas, the agencies will have collected this information on a
regional basis, rather than a project-specific basis. Freshwater disposal or project environments may
require more detailed evaluation than marine waters, as freshwater areas vary considerably over
short distances, particularly with respect to natural metals concentrations. The Corps and other
agencies are actively evaluating suitable sampling areas and background concentrations within their
districts, and should be contacted for project-specific recommendations.
Once background concentration distributions have been identified for a region, whether on a
programmatic or site-specific basis, these distributions will be used for comparison to project data.
In most cases, the agencies will determine one or more threshold values that represent the upper end
of the background distribution. In addition, the background data set used to calculate the
threshold(s) will be available for comparison. If projects have less than 10 samples, each sample
must be individually compared to the threshold(s) calculated by the agencies. If projects have more
than 10 samples, the single-sample comparison approach described above may be used, or project
proponents have the additional option of comparing the project distribution to the background
distribution directly, without using a threshold.
The specific statistical methods to be used are as follows, based on a statistical experts' workshop
conducted on October 7, 2008 in Seattle, Washington (the complete report can be found at
https://www.nwpusace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp):
• Nonparametric methods that do not rely on specific distributions are to be used. Substitutions
for non-detects are not required and should not be conducted. See the experts' workshop report
for nonparametnc, non-substitution methods of calculating sums for classes of compounds such
as dioxm/furan TEQ.
May 2009 8-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
• For calculation of an upper threshold concentration based on a background data set with 10 or
more samples, an upper tolerance limit (UTL) based on the 90th upper confidence limit on the
90th percentile is recommended. This corresponds roughly to containing 95 percent of the data
in the background data set. The UTL should be calculated using the Kaplan-Meier
nonparametric method.
• For calculation of an upper threshold concentration based on a background data set with less
than 10 samples, ad hoc methods based on upper percentiles are recommended. The specific
percentile will be based on the nature of the data set and agency discretion.
• For single-sample comparisons, project samples will be compared to the UTL (or other
threshold, as appropriate), and if equal to or less than the UTL, the sediments will be considered
suitable for open-water disposal. If above the UTL, the sediments will be considered
unsuitable. A similar comparison could be conducted to evaluate whether a sample at a cleanup
site exceeds background.
• Alternatively, the agencies may choose to conduct compansons on a volume-weighted basis,
with volume-weighted average concentrations not to exceed the UTL and an upper threshold for
individual DMMUs. This approach takes into account the area-wide nature of bioaccumulation
exposures and allows for limited averaging within and/or among projects disposed at the same
time.
• For comparisons of project distributions to background distributions, both populations must
have at least 10 samples. The comparison is to be made with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney
nonparametric test (or Gehan's test if multiple detection limits are present). If the project
distribution is not statistically greater than the background distribution, the project sediments
represented by the distribution will be considered suitable for open-water disposal. An
additional comparison of the tails of the distributions may be conducted at agency discretion
using a quantile test to determine whether individual project samples may be unrepresentative
of the upper tail of the background distribution.
All statistical tests should be conducted using ProUCL 4.0, R, or an equivalent professional
statistical package that contains the non-parametric tests described above.
Basing reason to believe on tissue and sediment elevations above background in the interim before
BTs can be established, while somewhat unavoidable based on state and federal regulatory
requirements, is likely to increase the number of bioaccumulation evaluations that will be required.
These additional evaluations and testing results will provide the data needed to back-calculate
sediment BTs over time. It is recognized that this may present challenges for smaller projects; for
these projects, see Section 4.3.2.
8.5. BIOACCUMULATION TEST METHODS
Bioaccumulation testing is normally conducted using multiple species, which reduces uncertainty
about the results and limits errors in interpretation of these bioassays. There are three basic methods
that can be used to evaluate bioaccumulation potential:
• Laboratory Bioaccumulation Testing. Sediments from the site or project area are collected
and taken to a laboratory, where several species are exposed to the sediments under controlled
conditions. At the end of the test, tissue concentrations are measured and compared to the TTLs
listed in Section 8.3, provided steady-state conditions are achieved or can be estimated. This is
the most common approach used in the dredging program.
May 2009 8-10
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
• In Situ Bioaccumulation Testing. Organisms of the tests species are placed in the field in
webbing or cages and exposed to sediments at the site or project area for a specified length of
time. This approach more accurately represents conditions in the field, but can be more time-
consuming and may not address contaminated subsurface sediments that might be dredged.
• Collection of Field Organisms. Fish and/or benthic infauna (frequently shellfish) may be
collected from the site or project area for chemical analysis of contaminants in tissues. Species
to be collected are selected based on their site fidelity, representativeness of feeding guilds at
the site, exposure and feeding strategies, and commercial, recreational, and cultural
significance. This approach can be less costly and time-consuming, but is primarily applicable
to evaluation of the bioaccumulative effects of sediments in place, or those where the highest
concentrations are known to be at the surface.
Laboratory bioassays are most appropriate when the bioaccumulation potential of material proposed
for dredging needs to be assessed and concentrations are likely to be higher in the subsurface
sediments than at the surface. Because in situ tests and field organisms are primarily exposed to
surface sediments, these approaches are more appropriate for evaluating sediments that may remain
in place, such as those proposed for natural recovery or those already deposited at a dredged
material disposal site. The bioaccumulation testing approach should be selected to address all the
potential routes of exposure identified in the conceptual site model.
8.5.1. Laboratory Bioaccumulation Tests
The Ocean Testing Manual (EPA/Corps 1991) and the Inland Testing Manual (Corps/EPA 1998c)
provide information on bioaccumulation tests for freshwater and marine sediments. Two
bioaccumulation tests are required, utilizing species from two different trophic niches representing a
suspension-feeding/filter-feeding and a burrowing deposit-feeding organism.
For marine sediments, a 28-day bioaccumulation test will be conducted with both an adult bivalve
(Macoma nasutd) and an adult polychaete (Nereis virens, Nepthys, or Aremcola marina).
For freshwater sediments, the test will be conducted with the oligochaete (Lumbriculus variegatus)
and a second species to be determined at the time of testing. Selection of additional approved
species for freshwater bioaccumulation testing is in progress; this section will be updated once a
recommendation has been reached and public review has taken place.
The test exposure duration will be normally be 28 days utilizing the EPA protocol (Lee et al., 1989),
after which a chemical analysis will be conducted of the tissue residue to determine the
concentrations of BCoCs. However, some high-Kow contaminants (e.g., PCBs, TBT, and DDT)
may not reach equilibrium between the sediments and tissues of the test species over the duration of
a 28-day test. In these cases, modifications to the test may be required to extend its duration to up
to 45 days (DMMP 2000). Alternatively, the residue measured at the end of a 28-day test could be
adjusted upward using an estimate of the proportion of the final steady state concentration reached
in 28 days. The extrapolation of measured tissue concentrations to steady-state concentrations for
these chemicals should be conducted (using chemical-specific information from published studies)
prior to using this data to judge sediment suitability. Discussions should occur between the project
proponent and the PRGs/DMMP and other relevant agencies to determine an appropriate study
design based on the constituents of interest.
Protocols for tissue digestion and chemical analysis will follow the PSEP recommended procedures
for metals and organic chemicals (PSWQAT 1997b, c).
May 2009 8-11
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Laboratory testing is the method of choice when subsurface sediments are to be dredged or cleaned
up, because subsurface sediments may have higher concentrations than surface sediments. Each of
the following two methods assesses primarily surface sediments, and can be used when surface
exposure is the only exposure pathway of concern or when surface sediments have similar or higher
concentrations than subsurface sediments.
8.5.2. In situ Bioaccumulation Testing
Consensus-based ASTM (2001) protocols have been developed for in situ caged bivalves that can
be used to assess bioaccumulation potential and associated biological effects from contaminants in
marine, estuarine, and freshwater species. In situ testing can help integrate toxicity and
bioaccumulation testing because effects endpoints such as survival, growth, and reproduction have
been developed for some bioaccumulation test species, and can be measured in the same organisms.
The main advantage of this approach is the ability to characterize exposure and effects over space
and time and under environmentally realistic test conditions at the specific project or site in
question. The main disadvantage is the cost, although costs do not increase incrementally with time
as in laboratory toxicity or bioaccumulation tests because daily maintenance in the field is not
required. Other disadvantages include the potential for confounding factors in the field, the
difficulty of locating suitable reference sites, and the lack of exposure to subsurface sediments that
may be a concern in dredging projects.
In situ test organisms other than bivalves are also available, and these methods are evolving in both
marine and freshwater environments (see the white paper at
https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp for a complete discussion of marine and freshwater
species that are available and the basis for the recommendations below).
8.5.2.1. Marine/Estuarine //rs/fc/Tests
Marine and estuarine bivalves have long been used in monitoring programs throughout the United
States and internationally, and protocols for their use are well-established (see ASTM 2001).
Species that are indigenous to the Pacific Northwest and appropriate for estuarine or marine
salinities include:
Mussels: Mytilus trossulus, M californianus, M galloprovmcialis (M edulis also frequently used).
Oysters: Crassostrea gigas, Ostrea lurida.
Clams: Macoma balthica, Protothaca staminea, Venerupis japomca.
Other selections are also possible; see ASTM (2001) for a complete list of marine and estuarine
species, their geographic distnbutions, and salinity tolerances.
8.5.2.2. Freshwater In situ Tests
Because fewer freshwater in situ projects have been completed in the Pacific Northwest, a thorough
review was conducted to evaluate which species may be appropriate. Based on the criteria
identified above, three groups of organisms are recommended as satisfying the criteria and being
present in the Pacific Northwest. In order of preference (Salazar and Salazar 1998), these include:
(1) bivalves; (2) gastropods; and (3) decapods (crayfish). Freshwater protocols are also provided in
ASTM (2001).
May 2009 8-12
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Corbiculaflummea is recommended as the first choice for in situ freshwater assessments of
bioaccumulation potential because it has been used extensively in laboratory testing, field
monitoring, and in situ assessments of both toxicity and bioaccumulation potential (however,
Corbicula should not be used in areas where it has not yet been introduced). Either a gastropod or
freshwater crayfish would be potentially useful as a second species. A gastropod test may be
recommended for areas where threatened, endangered, or candidate species of snails occur, such as
in some waterways of Idaho. Lumbricuhis variegatus (an oligochaete) has also been suggested by
several agencies as a potential species that could be used. Further identification of in situ species
will be conducted by RSET, as needed.
8.5.3. Collection of Field Organisms
This assessment involves measurements of tissue concentrations from individuals of the same
species collected from the project site and a suitable reference site. A determination is made based
on a statistical comparison of the magnitude of contaminant tissue levels in organisms collected
within the boundaries of the reference site with organisms living at or near the project site. The
selection of species to target for field collection is an important component of study design. Life
history parameters such as trophic status, feeding guilds, habitat preferences, and foraging ranges
should be considered and discussed with the PRGs/DMMP and/or other relevant agencies prior to
conducting such a field program to ensure consistency with project objectives.
However, collecting a sufficient number of individuals of the same species, size range, and age at
both the reference site and the project site can make this type of assessment difficult. Temporal and
spatial trends in bioaccumulation can violate steady-state assumptions and further confound data
interpretation. For these reasons, steady-state bioaccumulation tests are performed in the laboratory.
Nevertheless, field measurements of tissue burdens are often a critical part of the weight of evidence
in a bioaccumulation assessment and can be designed to address specific questions required for
regulatory decision-making.
Recommended guidelines for collection and processing of tissue samples can be found in PS WQAT
(1997a), and guidelines for analysis of metals and organics in tissue samples can be found in
PSWQAT(1997b,c).
May 2009 8-13
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 9. DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
9.1. INTRODUCTION
The need for a conceptual site model (CSM) and sampling and analysis procedures to enable sound
management decisions were discussed in previous chapters. This chapter discusses dredged
material disposal site identification to further focus data collection and evaluation to ensure the
characterization is adequate to meet disposal objectives. This chapter is not intended to evaluate
disposal options or make engineering recommendations, but rather to introduce the reader to the
potential options and concepts that govern their use. The Corps and EPA have written many
guidance documents on disposal and the factors that need to be evaluated to determine the best
disposal option. Refer to the Dredging Operations and Technical Support Program (DOTS) website
located at http://el.erdc.usace.armv.mil/dots/ for guidance documents and publications.
Dredging for maintenance of navigational depths, deepening of berthing areas, or removal of
contaminated sediments is typically conducted in urban areas where a general understanding of the
sediment quality is known. While the majority of dredged materials are considered acceptable for a
wide range of disposal alternatives, contaminant levels in some sediment have produced concern
that dredged material disposal, especially in open waters, floodplains, and wetlands may adversely
affect water quality and aquatic life (PIANC 1990). Determining a disposal option can be one of
the most costly, time-consuming, and controversial aspects of the project. Thus, having at least an
initial understanding of the preferred disposal alternative will be valuable dunng the
charactenzation and permitting process.
Understanding the requirements of the proposed disposal location is an important step to include in
the CSM because sediment evaluation should always have a clearly defined purpose and
objective(s). To assist in this evaluation, many agencies like the Corps and EPA and technical
subcommittees like the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC)
have developed comprehensive, yet simplified approaches to the identification, development,
evaluation, and selection of environmentally and economically preferable alternatives for the
handling and treatment of dredged matenal. The following sections summarize the likely
alternatives for dredged matenal disposal, and discuss much of the relevant information needed to
assess and develop dredged material disposal alternatives.
9.2. OVERVIEW OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL OPTIONS
The removal, transport, and placement of dredged sediments are the primary components of the
"dredging process." Each part of the process must be closely coordinated to ensure a successful
dredging operation (EPA/Corps 2004). Planning for maintenance dredging projects involving
uncontaminated sediment can be quite different than planning for a project involving contaminated
sediments. The main goal of a maintenance dredging project is to remove sediment to navigational
depth and most of the planning tends to be directed to meeting this goal. The main goal for
contaminated sediment dredging projects is usually the improvement and protection of the
environment, as well as navigation. Therefore, managers for these projects are often forced to plan
for all situations to be discussed with the regulatory and scientific community.
The primary disposal options m the Pacific Northwest are shown below. Other management options
may also exist (e.g., natural recovery), but are not discussed in detail in this chapter.
May 2009 9-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
• Unconfmed Open Water
• Beneficial Use (see Chapter 12 for additional details)
• Confined In-water (Capping)
o Thin Cap
o Thick Cap
• Dredging with Confined Disposal
o Confined Aquatic Disposal
o Nearshore Fill
• Upland Disposal
Permitting and regulatory requirements for these various options vary from state to state, and
between options. It is beyond the scope of this manual to detail regulations and permitting
requirements for each of these options. Applicants should coordinate with their federal and/or state
agency contacts to determine what regulations apply and what permits may be required. However,
any discharge of dredged or fill material (all in-water disposal options) into waters of the United
States will require authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which will also
require a Section 401 water quality certification.
9.3. DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR UNCONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
9.3.1. Unconfined Open-water Disposal
Open-water disposal is the placement of dredged material in rivers, lakes, estuaries, or oceans via
pipeline dredging or release from a hopper dredge or barge. Dredged matenal can be placed in an
approved open-water site using direct pipeline discharge, direct mechanical placement, or release
from hopper dredges. Open-water disposal sites can be either predominantly nondispersive or
dispersive. At nondispersive sites, most of the material is intended to remain on the bottom
following placement. At dispersive sites, matenal may be dispersed either during placement or
eroded from the bottom over time by current and/or wave action.
In some non-ocean waters and waters subject to the CWA, there may be interagency selected,
operated, and monitored dredged material disposal sites. In Washington, the Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) agencies are responsible for certain sites. Locations and disposal site
descriptions for these sites in Puget Sound are available at
http //www nws usace armv.mil/PublicMenu/Menu cfm7sitename=DMMO&paeename=Users Manual.
9.3.2. Ocean Disposal
In 1972, Congress enacted the MPRSA to prohibit the dumping of matenal into the ocean that
would unreasonably degrade or endanger human health or the marine environment. Virtually all
matenal that is ocean dumped today is dredged matenal (sediments) removed from the bottom of
water bodies in order to maintain navigation channels and berthing areas.
Ocean dumping of dredged matenal cannot occur unless a site is either selected temporanly by the
Corps or permanently designated by EPA. For the transport of dredged matenal to an ocean
disposal site, a permit is issued by the Corps, with EPA's concurrence, under the MPRSA.
Permitting and site selection using EPA's environmental criteria are subject to EPA's concurrence.
Mav 2009 9-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
For all other types of materials (non-dredged material, vessels, fish waste, etc.), EPA is the
permitting agency for ocean dumping and is responsible for designating ocean dumping sites.
The criteria and procedures for ocean dumping permits for dredged material are covered by EPA's
ocean dumping regulations at 40 CFR Parts 220 to 229. These regulations also cover the criteria
and procedures for designation and management of ocean dumping sites.
All proposed dredged material disposal activities regulated by the MPRSA and CWA must also
comply with the applicable requirements of NEPA and its implementing regulations. In addition to
the MPRSA, CWA, and NEPA, many federal laws, executive orders, policies, and guidance must be
considered, as well as state environmental laws and regulations.
The geographical jurisdictions of the MPRSA and CWA are shown in Figure 2-1. As shown in this
figure, an overlap of jurisdiction exists within the territorial sea. The regulatory guidelines for the
specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material lying inside of the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured, or into the territorial sea, are found at 40 CFR 230.2(b) and 33 CFR
336.0(b). The discharge of dredged material into the territorial sea is governed under MPRSA and
the regulatory criteria at 40 CFR parts 220 to 228. In general, dredged matenal discharged as a
structure or fill (e.g., beach nourishment, island creation, or underwater berms) and placed within
the territorial sea is evaluated under the CWA and applicable state laws and regulations, while
material disposed within the territorial sea as a "wasting" action is evaluated under the MPRSA.
The EPA-designated ocean dredged material disposal sites in the region are codified at 40 CFR
228.15(n). Coordinates for these ocean disposal sites, as well as restrictions and conditions for their
use, are listed in that section. The use of EPA-designated dredged matenal disposal sites are further
governed by site management and monitoring plans.
9.4. DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Identification of reasonable disposal sites for contaminated sediments must take into account
scientific methods that evaluate multiple criteria, including ecologic, geologic, hydrogeologic,
economic, social, and other factors. The CWA and MPRSA generally prohibit the disposal of
contaminated matenal into ocean waters (ocean waters are those waters seaward of the baseline).
Contaminated sediment disposal regulations generally apply to the assessment of contaminated
sediment and potential disposal scenarios in non-ocean waters, and they may differ for each state
within EPA Region 10. Coordination with the appropnate state and federal agencies will be needed.
Contaminated sediments can be removed by dredging, either through mechanical means (i.e.,
clamshell) or with suction (i.e., hydraulic cutterhead dredge).
9.4.1. Confined In-water Disposal (Capping)
The principle behind confined in-water disposal (capping) is that when the sediments are capped,
the contaminants will no longer be bioavailable or transferred within the environment (Palermo et
al., 1998). Capping may be considered as an option when the costs of removal are deemed greater
than the benefit, and navigation depths are not of pnmary concern. There are two types of caps:
• Thin Cap. A thin cap typically occurs in areas with lower sediment contamination and consists
of clean sands/silts less than 3 feet thick without armoring.
May 2009 9-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
• Thick Cap. A thick cap typically occurs in areas with greater sediment contamination and
consists of clean sands/silts greater than 3 feet thick with armoring to protect from scouring.
9.4.1.1. Capping Benefits
Capping is one method to isolate contaminated sediment from the surrounding aquatic environment.
Chemical contamination is isolated from the environment. Over time, and coupled with successful
source control, the waterways can be expected to constitute much-improved habitat for
invertebrates, fish, and birds.
9.4.1.2. Thin Cap
Thin capping, also known as enhanced natural recovery, is often used where hazards presented by
contaminated sediment to human health and the environment is low. Thin capping improves the
chemical or physical properties of the upper sediment bed, which constitute the biologically active
zone. Thin capping typically has a target thickness of 3 feet or less and is used in low-energy
environments. The cap material would be determined during design. The added matenal
supplements natural sedimentation and enhances the natural recovery process, producing variation
in the coverage depths and allowing for considerable mixing between the contaminated and clean
layers. The result is a sediment bed consisting of mounds of clean material and areas where no cap
is evident Enhanced natural recovery has been successfully applied to the West Harbor Operable
Unit of the WyckoffTEagle Harbor Superfund Site located off Bambridge Island, Washington (see
EPA website at http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfrn?id=l 000612).
9.4.1.3. Thick Cap
Placement of a thick cap over a problem area is intended to effectively contain and isolate the
contaminated sediments from the benthic community in surface sediments, overlying water column
and habitat. In navigation areas where the total thickness of contaminated sediment is not removed,
a thick cap could be placed over the dredged area. The cap needs to be thick enough to resist
erosion from mechanical scour, wave action, or burrowing organisms. In addition, the cap needs to
be designed to prevent contaminant migration through the cap into the surrounding water body.
Minimum cap thickness is developed in the engmeenng evaluation, but it is typically greater than 3
feet. The most common type of capping material is a dredged sand or upland sand. Placement of a
thick cap in areas where it would raise the channel bottom above the required navigational depth
would require modification of the navigation channel or limiting the size of ships and vessel traffic.
The potential for scour (e.g., boat scour, tidal or river fluctuations, and erosive outfall discharges)
may require the placement of armoring. Armoring typically consists of quarry spalls or light, loose
riprap obtained from an upland quarry or pit. A filter material may be required between the cap and
armor layers to prevent the armor from sinking into the cap.
9.4.2. Confined Aquatic Disposal
Confined aquatic disposal (CAD) is defined as placing sediments in an existing subaquatic pit or
excavated pit and capping it with a thick cap section. The primary long-term contaminant transport
pathway for a CAD is contaminant migration through the cap and re-exposure of contaminants to
the aquatic environment. This can occur through contaminant migration, bioturbation, or cap
erosion. Thus, a CAD may be of limited value in areas where future dredging would disturb the site
May 2009 9-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
or where currents, wave climate, and/or physical disturbance by navigation (e.g., anchor dragging or
propeller wash) could impact the cap. The primary design components of a CAD are the physical
(i.e., thickness and gradation) and chemical quality of the cap, depth, topography, and currents at the
site. A CAD can be built without a net loss of habitat and in some instances, a net gain.
9.4.3. Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility
A nearshore confined disposal facility (CDF) typically involves placing the sediments designated
for confinement in the shallow subtidal/intertidal environment surrounded by an engineered
structure (berm or dike) for containment of dredged material. The confinement dikes or structures
in a CDF enclose the disposal area above any adjacent water surface, isolating the dredged material
from adjacent waters during placement (Figure 9-1). In this document, nearshore confined disposal
does not refer to subaquatic capping or CAD.
Figure 9-1. Upland and Nearshore Confined Disposal Facilities
Nearshore confined disposal facilities provide an opportunity to confine the dredged material and
incorporate development of upland areas to improve berthing areas. Filling a basin with dredged
sediment must consider the potential effects on existing structures in the adjacent upland area
because the weight of the fill could cause compression of underlying and immediately adjacent
soils. The result could be settlement of the upland ground surface in the vicinity of the filled area.
Existing structures in the immediate area that are pile-supported could expenence a lesser degree of
settlement, primarily resulting from compression that occurs in soils underlying the pile tips, as well
as down-drag of compressing soils along the pile sides.
Nearshore confined disposal facilities may result in a net loss of aquatic habitat that may require
mitigation. Management options may be needed to meet the requirements of direct physical impacts
and CDF site capacity. These options involve dewatering, consolidating, or reducing the size of
dredge, or enlarging the site by previous excavation, higher dikes, or larger area. Geotechmcal
considerations also need to be taken into account if the site is going to be used as a berthing area or
shore-side facility. Permits may be challenging to obtain, with the primary issues being loss of
habitat and mixing zones. Oregon requires a solid waste disposal permit or permit exemption for
disposal or placement of dredge sediment in a nearshore or upland confined disposal site.
May 2009
9-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
9.4.4. Upland Disposal
Upland disposal facilities can include either existing municipal landfills (mixed), or on-site
monofills that are dedicated solely to the sediment remediation project. For either type of landfill,
the sediments would need to be hauled to the site via a truck or hydraulic line with effluent
discharge back to the water body, and subsequent dewatering would be required.
9.4.4.1. Solid Waste Landfills
Existing solid waste landfills may accept contaminated sediments, as long as those sediments do not
designate as hazardous waste. Sediments that are hazardous waste must be sent to a Subtitle C
landfill. These landfills have evaluation methods, acceptance criteria, and standards for transport
and disposal. Landfill operators should be contacted directly to determine sampling, testing, and
reporting requirements. Existing landfills have means and methods to handle the sediments and
ameliorate the potential contaminant transport pathways.
9.4.4.2. Upland Confined Disposal Facilities
Upland CDFs are defined as disposal facilities that are developed on site or adjacent to the dredge
location where the project proponent has responsibility for the development and management of the
facility. The mam challenge of a CDF is to eliminate contaminant transport pathways. Primary
pathways for short-term contaminant transport are loss to the water column during transport,
rehandling, and dewatenng at the upland disposal site. The primary long-term transport pathway is
loss through the containment media (dike material, liners, or ground surface). Upland disposal can
be turned into a benefit by filling low spots or capping other more contaminated soils and then
sequestering the sediments by placing a permanent cap (e.g. asphalt), thus allowing use of the
remediated site.
In the state of Washington, upland disposal facilities need to be designed and constructed in
accordance with current state solid waste regulations. Oregon requires that upland disposal
facilities receive a solid waste disposal permit or permit exemption for disposal or placement of
dredge sediment at an upland site. Design and construction requirements will be addressed through
Oregon's solid waste permit.
Characteristics used to evaluate upland disposal sites include the following:
• Site configuration and access;
• Topography, runoff patterns, and adjacent drainage;
• Groundwater levels, flow, and direction;
• Soil properties;
• Design and construction characteristics such as structural integrity and slope stability to prevent
any leaching, migration, washout, seeps, capping or other means of preventing contaminant
transport and exposure to contaminants; and
• Proximity to ecologically sensitive areas and/or human resources.
May 2009 9-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
9.5. OTHER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Natural Recovery. Natural recovery of contaminated sediment may occur over time through a
combination of several processes, including chemical degradation, diffusion from the sediment
matrix into the water column, burial of contaminated sediment under newly deposited clean
material, and mixing of contaminated sediment with clean sediments above and below through
bioturbation. Models are often used to predict natural recovery within a given time frame. A
monitoring program verifies natural recovery.
The suitability for natural recovery is a function of many factors, including the contaminant type,
enrichment ratio, sedimentation rate, source inputs, currents, and mudline slope. Natural recovery
can be a relatively cost-effective remedial solution for areas in which low to moderate enrichment
ratios are predicted to reduce over time to below the defined sediment quality objectives based on
modeling. However, in more highly contaminated sediments, natural recovery or enhanced natural
recovery may not successfully remediate the sediment to below the sediment quality objective
within a negotiated time frame, so more active remedial methods need to be considered.
May 2009 9-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 10. SPECIAL EVALUATIONS
10.1. INTRODUCTION
Chapters 4 through 8 provide a framework for the assessment and characterization of freshwater and
marine sediments for dredging projects and contaminated sediment investigations. In most cases,
the methods and procedures provided will be sufficient to evaluate the potential environmental
effects of dredging and disposal activities, as well as the potential risk of in-place sediments left
behind at the dredge site. However, in some cases additional information may be needed beyond
the standard suite of physical, chemical, and biological tests to make informed sediment
management decisions. This chapter briefly describes the types of special evaluations that may be
required on a case-by-case basis. Because of their unique and site-specific nature, the design of
sampling and analytical procedures for special evaluations will require close coordination with the
PRGs/DMMP. For example, the following circumstances may warrant conducting special
evaluations to resolve ambiguities or uncertainties in the sediment management decision-making
process:
• Biological testing results (i.e., bioassay tests, bioaccumulation tests, tissue analyses) are
indeterminate;
• Sediments and/or tissues contain chemicals that are likely present in toxic amounts, but for
which screening levels or threshold values have not yet been established;
• Sediments and/or tissues contain chemical mixtures that are suspected of causing synergistic or
antagonistic effects;
• Sediments and/or tissues contain chemicals for which the biological tests described in Chapters
7 and 8 are inappropriate;
• Additional information is needed regarding potential risks to ESA-listed species, particularly if
spawning areas or highly functional juvenile rearing areas may be impacted by project
• activities;
• Dredging, disposal, or other in-water construction activities have the potential to cause
unacceptable water quality impacts; or
• Site conditions and/or dredging methods could potentially generate significant quantities of
contaminated dredging residuals.
If special evaluations are determined necessary by the PRGs/DMMP, site-specific tests or
evaluations and interpretive criteria will be specified in coordination with the applicant. Special
evaluations may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Human Health/ Ecological Risk Assessment (Section 10.2),
• Elutriate Testing (Section 10.3), and
• Evaluation of Dredging Residuals (Section 10.4).
10.2. HUMAN HEALTH/ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
When deemed appropriate by the PRGs/DMMP, a human health and/or ecological risk assessment
may be requested to evaluate a particular chemical of concern (CoC), such as dioxin, mercury,
PCBs, and others. National guidance on chemicals such as dioxin is subject to rapid changes as new
information becomes available. Project-specific risks to human health or ecological health should
be evaluated using the best available current technical information and risk assessment models.
May 2009 10-1
-------
SEE for the Pacific Northwest
A risk assessment must be developed on a case-specific basis and be formulated with all interested
parties participating. If a risk assessment is the method of choice for a special evaluation, either as a
stand-alone task or in conjunction with bioassay tests and/or tissue analysis, it must be
accomplished with the PRGs/DMMP and all parties actively participating.
Available state and federal risk assessment guidance documents are summarized below.
10.2.1. Oregon State Risk Assessment Guidance
The state of Oregon's cleanup law emphasizes nsk-based decision-making. State statute and rules
require that human health and ecological risk be given equal consideration. The ODEQ oversees
cleanup of contaminated sites, including those involving sediments via a process that parallels the
EPA Superfund process. A remedial investigation, risk assessment, and feasibility study are
completed to provide the basis for selecting a remedy. Oregon has specific rules defining
acceptable risk, which can be found at OAR 340-122-0115.
The ODEQ has developed an ecological risk assessment process that utilizes a multi-level approach.
The multi-level approach, with review at each major decision point, is intended to facilitate more
efficient use of resources, which ensures necessary work is done and risk managers receive
information sufficient to support effective remedial action decisions. The guidance for Ecological
Risk Assessment can be downloaded at http://www.deastate.or.us/lq/cu/ecorisks.htm.
For human health risk assessment, both statute and rules provide the option of performing either a
deterministic risk assessment or a probabilistic risk assessment. The ODEQ has developed a
guidance document for each of these options. The guidance documents for Human Health Risk
Assessment can be downloaded at http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/health.htm.
10.2.2. Washington State Risk Assessment Guidance
The state of Washington has adopted SMSs as Chapter 173-204 WAC. The standards were
promulgated for the purpose of reducing and ultimately eliminating adverse effects on biological
resources and significant health threats to humans from surface sediment contamination. They
apply to marine, low salinity, and freshwater surface sediments within the state of Washington, and
can be found at the following website: http://www.ecv.wa gov/biblio/wac 173204.html.
Copies of Ecology's Human Health Risk Assessment guidance documents as Chapter 173-340
WAC under MTCA can be downloaded at the following website
http://www.ecv.wa.gov/biblio/9406.html.
10.2.3. Idaho State Risk Assessment Guidance
The IDEQ's Risk Evaluation Manual presents a roadmap for evaluating risk from discovery through
cleanup. This manual presents a description of the steps in the risk evaluation process and general
information related to the data requirements and implementation of the nsk evaluation process. It is
a manual to determine whether groundwater, surface water, or soil at a particular location is
contaminated to the extent it poses a human health risk. It will help evaluate whether an
investigation or cleanup is needed and, if so, what its scope and nature should be. This manual
provides a consistent method for addressing contamination. A copy of the manual can be
downloaded at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/Applications/Brownfields/index.cfin?site=nsk.htm.
May 2009 10-2
-------
SEFfor tlie Pacific Northwest
10.2.4. Federal State Risk Assessment Guidance
In addition to the state-specific guidance cited above, the following EPA and Corps documents may
also be consulted for additional guidance on nsk assessment procedures and parameters.
EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R095/002F. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. Available at
http.//cfoub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid= 12460.
EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part A, Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/0002. Publication 9285.7-01 A. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington D.C. Available at
httpV/www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ragsa/pdfyrags-voll-pta complete.pdf.
EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (interim final). Environmental Response Team,
Edison, NJ. Available at http-//www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecorisk/econsk.htm.
Corps. 1999. Risk Assessment Handbook Volume I: Human Health Evaluation. EM 200-1-4.
Available at http://www.usace.armv.mil/publications/eng-manuals/em200-l-4/toc.htm.
Corps. 1996b. Risk Assessment Handbook Volume II: Environmental Evaluation. EM 200-1-4.
Available at http://www.usace.armv.mil/publications/eng-manuals/em200-l-4vol2/toc.htm.
Cura, J.J., Heiger-Bemays, W., Bndges, T.S., and D.W. Moore. 1999. Ecological and Human
Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Aquatic Environments. Technical Report DOER-4,
Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center, Dredging Operations and
Environmental Research. Available at httpV/el.erdc.usace.armv.mil/dots/doer/pdf/trdoer4.pdf.
10.3. ELUTRIATE TESTING
Water quality effects caused by the introduction of sediment and sediment-associated contaminants
into the water column must be considered at the point(s) of dredging and point(s) of disposal, as
applicable. Laboratory elutriate tests, designed by the Corps Environmental Laboratory at the
Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC; see below), are used to predict water
quality effects during dredging and disposal activities, particularly when contaminated sediments
are being disturbed as part of the proposed activities
Water column effects caused by dredging and related in-water construction activities (e.g., capping,
disposal) are intermittent, discontinuous, and relatively short-lived. Therefore, water column effects
associated with these activities and simulated by elutriate tests do not pose a long-term
bioaccumulation concern (EPA/Corps 1998c). Dredging residuals, on the other hand, may
contribute to long-term site risk, potentially including bioaccumulation risk if residuals deposits are
sufficiently thick and extensive (Bridges et al., 2008). Dredging residuals are generated when
contaminated sediments are resuspended dunng dredging and redeposited on the surface of the
project area where they may continue to be exposed to the aquatic community after the construction
work is completed. Dredging residuals are discussed in Section 10.4.
May 2009 10-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
10.3.1. Water Quality at the Dredging Site
Water quality effects at the point of dredging are evaluated using a dredging elutriate test (DRET;
Di Giano et al., 1995) in conjunction with chemical partitioning calculations. As an initial
screening evaluation, sediment concentrations that are not expected to cause adverse water quality
effects when resuspended at the point of dredging may be estimated using EPA National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable).
equilibrium partitioning rules, and agency-recommended partitioning coefficients, as specified in
EPA guidance documents (EPA 1996; 2002a, b; 2003 a, b, c; 2005). Level 2B secondary water
quality criteria derived by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL 1997) were used if National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria were not available.
Bulk sediment concentrations derived in this manner may be used as guidance values to determine
when DRET testing is required during site characterization (i.e., elutriate testing triggers) A
summary of relevant water quality criteria, EPA-recommended partitioning coefficients, and
elutriate testing triggers are compiled in Table 10-1 (freshwater) and Table 10-2 (marine). Dredging
of bulk sediment concentrations below the elutriate testing trigger values would not be expected to
exceed water quality criteria at the dredging site.
Elutriate testing triggers for metals are derived using the following equation:
ETme,a, = Kd x WQC
where.
Kd is the metal partitioning coefficient in L/kg.
WQC is the acute water quality criterion in ug/L.
The calculation of elutriate testing triggers for organic constituents is modified in two important
ways. First, the equilibrium partitioning coefficients are a function of the organic carbon content of
the sediments:
Kd = Koc x foe
where
KOC is the organic carbon-partitioning coefficient in L/kg-oc.
foe is the decimal fraction of organic carbon in kg-oc/kg-sed.
Second, because organic constituents are regulated on a "total" basis (whereas metals are regulated
on a "dissolved" basis), both the dissolved and the paniculate fractions of the water column
concentration should be considered.
WCdd. - SEDbulk / Kd
WCpart = SEDbulk x TSS1DC x ID'6
May 2009 10-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
where.
WC,OU1| WCdlss and WCpan are the total, dissolved, and participate water column concentrations
in ug/L, respectively.
ik is the bulk sediment concentration in the dredge prism in ug/kg.
TSS,nc is the incremental added mass of suspended solids in the water column generated by the
dredging action in mg/L.
10"6 is a conversion factor of milligrams per kilogram of sediment.
Rearranging these equations, solving for SEDbuik, and setting WCtooi to the applicable WQC yields
the following equation for deriving elutriate testing triggers for organic constituents:
ETorganic = WQC / [(TSSmc x ID'6) + (Koc x foe)'1]
In Tables 10-1 and 10-2, elutriate testing triggers for organics are presented for a range of
sedimentary organic carbon contents (examples are provided for 1 percent and 5 percent TOC) and
dredging-induced TSS concentrations (examples are provided for 10 mg/L and 100 mg/L TSS).
The site-specific TOC content is determined from chemical analysis of the dredge prism, as
discussed in Chapter 6. The site-specific TSS concentrations generated by the dredging action may
be predicted using computer models, as discussed in Section 10.3.3. The range of TSS
concentrations used in these tables was derived from a literature survey of TSS concentrations
measured during various dredging projects, as compiled by the Los Angeles Contaminated
Sediments Task Force (2003). The TSS concentrations at distances of 100 to 300 feet from the
dredges, which is consistent with typical mixing zone dimensions, ranged from about 10 mg/L to
100 mg/L. If significantly different TOC or TSS concentrations are expected at the project site,
partitioning calculations should be modified accordingly.
Elutriate testing triggers derived in this manner are expected to be conservatively protective for the
following reasons:
• The contaminant mass on the sediments is assumed to be an infinite source. In reality, as the
mass on the sediment particles is depleted through desorption to the water column, decreasing
equilibrium concentrations will be observed in both water and sediments.
• When sediments are resuspended during dredging, equilibrium concentrations in the water
column are assumed to be achieved instantaneously. In reality, sediment desorption kinetics
may delay the achievement of equilibrium, causing water column concentrations to be less than
their theoretical maximum values.
• Equilibrium water column concentrations are estimated for the point of dredging. Typically,
contaminant concentrations are further attenuated to between one-half and one-tenth of their
initial values as a result of mixing within the construction zone, between the dredge and the
water quality point of compliance (see Section 10.3.3).
May 2009 10-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 10-1. Elutriate Testing Triggers for Freshwater Sediment
METALS
Chemical
Acute
WQC
(Hg/L)"1
Reference
LogKd
(Log-L/kg)
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
340
20
570
13
65
1 4
470
32
120
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
40
47
51
47
56
53
46
49
51
Reference
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
ORGANICS TOC (%)
TSS (mg/L)
Chemical
Acute
WQC
(ug/L)
Reference
Log Koc
(Log-L/kg)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (ug/kg)
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
2-Methylnaphlhalene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzofluoranthenes (b+k)
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
807
1,277
233
162
79
87
300
30
42
92
83
27
40
1 2
1 2
1 8
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (Mg/kg)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
180
260
700
Phthalates (ug/kg)
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
1,800
190
X
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[1]
330
317
394
414
449
446
379
500
484
558
562
618
600
661
660
640
336
337
394
246
453
718
Miscellaneous Scmivolatiles (ug/kg)
fentachlorophenol
Dibenzofuran
19
66
[1]
[4]
277
400
Reference
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[5]
[5]
[5]
[5]
[5]
[6]
[6]
[5]
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(mg/kg)
3,400
100
71.759
652
25,877
279
18,711
254
15,107
= 1%
= 10
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(ug/kg)
16,099
18,885
20.276
22.331
24,338
25.019
18,486
29,703
28,857
33,696
33,216
35,494
36,364
34.735
34.170
36.137
4.123
6,094
60.914
5,191
64,163
X
112
6,593
1%
100
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(ug/kg)
16,070
18,860
20.118
22.058
23,682
24.388
18,384
27,273
27,177
25.342
24.420
16,258
20,000
9,635
9,591
12,875
4,114
6,081
60,441
5,190
62,270
X
112
6,535
5%
10
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(ug/kg)
80,429
94,371
101.027
111,045
120.209
123.672
92.205
142,857
140,427
146,952
143,161
116,310
133,333
80,486
79,873
100,211
20,594
30,439
303,516
25,953
316,539
X
559
32,836
5%
100
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(ug/kg)
79,714
93,748
97,233
104,592
105,730
109.644
89.723
100,000
107,945
60,286
56,090
23,849
33,333
11,438
11,426
16,673
20,384
30,122
292,116
25,919
275,266
X
558
31,429
May 2009
10-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 10-1 (continued). Elutriate Testing Triggers for Freshwater Sediment
ORGANICS TC
TSS(
Chemical
Acute
WQC
Pesticides (fig/kg)
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDT
Aldnn
Chlordane
Dieldnn
Heptachlor
gamma-BHC (Lmdane)
Total PCBs
019
1 1
30
24
024
052
095
20
Tributyllin3'
TBT dry weight (ug/kg)
046
Notes:
[a] Water quality criteria for some metals (Cd, Cr
these criteria should be adjusted to the site-sp
References:
[1] EPA National Recommended Water Quality (
[2] EPA 2005, Partition Coefficients for Metals i
[3] EPA 2003, Equilibrium Partitioning Sedimen
[4] Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1996, Toxico
[5] EPA 2002, Equilibrium Partitioning Sedimen
[6] EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance User's G
[7] EPA 2002, Equilibrium Partitioning Sedimen
[8] State of Oregon OAR 340-04 1 , Tables 20 and
[9] EPA Region 10, 1996, Recommendations for
X = Toxicity data shows DEHP is not toxic to aq
Reference
[4]
[1]
[1]
Ml
[1]
[1]
[1]
[8]
[1]
,Cu,
ecific
;nter
nSut
t Ben
ogic
tGui
uide
tGui
33A
Scret
jatic
Log Koc
(Log-L/kg)
600
665
642
639
508
528
615
367
549
440
Pb,Ni,Ag,2
hardness of
la (2006)
face Water, S
chmarks PA
il Benckmart
delmes Noni
EPA-540/R-
delines Dielt
>mng Level fo
organisms at
ice
X>) =
mg/L) =
Reference
[6]
[6]
[6]
[6]
[6]
[7]
[6]
[5]
[6]
[9]
n)ar
there
oil. a
HML
sfor
onic
J6/01
inn
rTri
or be
1%
10
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
1,727
22,908
59,127
2.851
449
6,436
44
5,995
115
1%
100
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(us/kg)
950
7,970
21,316
2,576
384
3,045
44
4,722
113
5%
10
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(MS/kg)
6,333
62.487
165.311
13,609
2,088
21,524
222
26.767
571
5%
100
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(us/kg)
1.583
10,223
27,740
9,011
1,171
4,555
217
12,142
513
e based on an assumed hardness of 1 00 mg/L,
ceivmg water, as per Reference [ I ]
nd Waste EPA-600/R-05/074
aures EPA-600/R-02/013
Effects on Aquatic Biota
Organic! EPA-822/R-02/042
8
EPA-822/R-02/043
mtylnn in Puget Sound Sediment
ow its solubility limit, see Reterence [I]
May 2009
10-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table 10-2. Elutriate Testing Triggers for Marine Sediment
METALS
Chemical
Acute
WQC
(ug/L)
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
69
40
1,100
48
210
1 8
74
1 9
90
ORGANICS
Chemical
Acute
WQC
(ug/L)
Miscellaneous Semivolatiles (fig/kg)
Penlachlorophenol 1 3
Pesticides (fig/kg)
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDT
Aldnn
Chlordane
Dieldnn
Heptachlor
gainma-BHC (Lindane)
Total PCBs
013
1 3
009
071
0053
016
10
Tributyltin3'
TBT dry weight (ug/kg) 042
Notes:
Freshwater sediment screening levels should be u
References:
[1] EPA National Recommended Water Quality (
[2] EPA 2005, Partition Coefficients for Metals I
[3] EPA 2003, Equilibrium Partitioning Sedimen
[4] Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1996, Toxico
[5] EPA 2002, Equilibrium Partitioning Sedimen
[6] EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance User's G
[7] EPA 2002, Equilibrium Partitioning Sedimen
[8] State of Oregon OAR 340-04 1 , Tables 20 and
[9] EPA Region 10, 1996, Recommendations for
Reference
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
Reference
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[8]
[1]
sedf
>ltCT
nSur
I Ben
ogic
tGu
uide
i GUI
33A
Scret
LogKd
(Log-L/kg)
40
47
51
47
56
53
46
49
5.1
Reference
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
TOC (%)
TSS (mg/L)
Log Koc
(Log-L/kg)
277
600
665
642
639
508
528
615
367
549
440
or any organic
la (2006)
•lace Water. S
chmarks PA
il Benchmark
delmes Norn
EPA-540/R-
delmes Diek
'ning Level fo
Reference
[6]
[6]
[6]
[6]
[6]
[6]
m
[6]
[5]
[6]
[9]
:s not se
oil, and
HMatu
sfor /•
omc Orj
J6/018
Inn EP
r Tnbut
Elutriate
Testing
Trigger
(mg/kg)
690
2,005
138,482
241
83,603
359
2,946
151
11,330
= 1% 1%
= 10 100
Elutriate Elutriate
Testing Testing
Trigger Trigger
(Ug/kg) (ug/kg)
5% 5%
10 100
Elutriate Elutriate
Testing Testing
Trigger Trigger
(fig/kg) (Ug/kg)
77 77 383 382
2,707 942 7,385 1,208
25,622 9,237 71,635 12,021
107 97 510 338
1,328 1,136 6,176 3,464
656 310 2,194 464
7 7 37 37
29,977 23,608 133,835 60,710
105 103 521 469
parately listed in this table
Waste EPA-600/R-05/074
res EPA-600/R-02/013
feels on Aquatic Biota
tonics EPA-822/R-02/042
V822/R-02/043
ylnn in Pugel Sound Sediment
May 2009
10-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
10.3.2. Water Quality at the Disposal Site
Elutriate tests have also been developed to characterize water quality at the point of disposal.
Different tests may be applicable, depending on the type of disposal site and the nature of disposal
methods, including the following:
• Standard elutriate test (SET) to assess open-water disposal of dredged material (EPA/Corps
1977).
• Modified elutriate test (MET) and column settling test (CST) to assess discharges from a
confined dredged material disposal facility (Palermo 1986, Palermo and Thackston 1988).
These tests are described in more detail in the Inland Testing Manual (EPA/Corps 1998c) and
Upland Testing Manual (EPA/Corps 2003). These manuals and the PRGs/DMMP should be
consulted to determine when to perform these tests.
10.3.3. Mixing Zones
The guidelines at 40 CFR 230.10(b) state in part that, "No discharge of dredged or fill material shall
be permitted if it: (1) causes or contributes, after consideration of disposal site dilution and
dispersion, to violations of any applicable State water quality standard." This requirement applies at
the edge of a state designated mixing zone (EPA/Corps 1998c).
Elutriate test results are intended to simulate water quality conditions at the point of discharge. For
water quality CoCs, hydrodynamic modeling may be needed to characterize the degree of dilution
and dispersion that occurs between the point of discharge and the mixing zone boundary, per the
guidelines at 40 CFR 230.10(b).
Hydrodynamic modeling results are typically expressed in terms of a dilution factor, which
describes the reductions in water column concentrations that occur during transport through the
mixing zone. The ADDAMS modeling system (Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives
Modeling System, Schroeder et al. 2004,
httpV/el.erdc.usace army.mil/products.cfm?Topic=model&Tvpc=drgmat'). developed by the Corps
Environmental Laboratory at ERDC, includes several computer modules to assist in the design and
evaluation of dredging and disposal operations. In particular, the program modules DREDGE
(Hayes and Je 2000) and STFATE (EPA/Corps 1998c) predict water quality effects associated with
dredging and open-water disposal operations, respectively. These models have benefited from
nearly two decades of field calibration and validation studies under a variety of operational and site
conditions. Standard dilution models such as PLUMES (Fnck et al., 2001) and CORMIX (Jirka et
al., 1997) may be used to evaluate mixing and dilution of point-source discharges (e.g., outfalls
conveying dredging elutriate return flows from upland or nearshore confined disposal facilities).
These dilution models are recommended for use in state water quality programs in Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho (ODEQ 2007, Ecology 2008b, IDEQ 2008).
10.3.4. Receiving Water Impacts
The elutriate testing and hydrodynamic modeling results are used to estimate water column
concentrations in the receiving water at the point of compliance, typically the authorized mixing
zone boundary as specified in the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the project. The
estimated water column concentrations are compared to water quality standards or criteria that are
May 2009 10-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
based on exposure durations consistent with the duration of the construction activity. Because
dredging and related in-water construction activities (e.g., capping, disposal) are intermittent and
discontinuous in time and space, acute water quality criteria are considered appropnate for such
evaluations (EPA/Corps 1998c). The agency responsible for issuing the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification will establish the specific water quality standards and criteria that will be used to
regulate the project.
If there is sufficient reason to believe based on bulk sediment ennchments that elutriate testing
should be conducted on constituents that do not have state promulgated or nationally recommended
water quality criteria, the PRGs/DMMP will use best professional judgment to determine criteria to
use in evaluating potential water quality effects. This may include consideration of standards or
criteria in use in other EPA regions, states, or in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
10.3.5. Elutriate Bioassay Tests
If water quality criteria are predicted to be exceeded at the mixing zone boundary based on elutriate
test chemistry and predicted mixing zone dilution and dispersion, the project proponent may elect to
perform serial-dilution bioassay tests on the elutriate water, as specified in the Inland Testing
Manual (EPAyCorps 1998c, Sections 6.1 and 11.1). Alternatively the project proponent may elect
to forego bioassay testing and instead implement engineering controls as needed to comply with
water quality criteria and the conditions of the Water Quality Certification (see Section 10.3.6)
Elutriate bioassay tests are designed to provide a more site-specific measurement of water column
toxicity and contaminant bioavailability. If the receiving water of concern is freshwater and
contains salmonid species, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) should be included as one of the
test species for elutriate bioassay testing whenever possible. Before elutriate bioassay testing is
conducted, an addendum to the SAP must be prepared for review and approval by the PRGs/DMMP
that describes the proposed test organisms, test design, laboratory methods, and evaluation criteria.
If, after allowance for mixing, the predicted water column concentration does not exceed 0.01 of the
toxic (LCso or EC5o) concentration as determined from the elutriate bioassay tests, the dredged
material is predicted not to be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms (EPA/Corps 1998c).
10.3.6. Contingency Water Quality Controls
If unacceptable water quality effects are predicted to occur outside the authonzed mixing zone, the
project proponent must consult with RSET to determine what additional water quality controls or
best management practices (BMPs) should be implemented to mitigate these effects. Additional
water quality controls may also be required if water quality effects are difficult to predict or highly
uncertain. These controls may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Deployment of silt curtains, absorbent booms, or other physical containment devices;
• Modification of operational procedures or equipment to minimize contaminant releases to the
water column (e.g., use of environmental dredge buckets, slower dredging rates, etc);
• Restriction of in-water construction activities to periods when more favorable mixing and
dilution can be achieved; and
• Specifying a more rigorous water quality monitoring program during construction that could
include "early warning" stations, contingency plans, and adaptive management of construction
operations to anticipate and avoid development of unacceptable water quality effects.
May 2009 10-10
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
10.4. EVALUATION OF DREDGING RESIDUALS
Dredging operations inevitably leave behind some residual contamination in the dredged area as
well as in adjacent areas through dispersion and transport of the dredged sediments (EPA 2005).
There are two distinct types of dredging residuals: (1) leftover contaminated sediment below the
dredge cutline that was never removed, and (2) sediment disturbed or resuspended during dredging
that settles back to the sediment bed. The first type of undisturbed residual contamination,
sometimes called "undredged inventory," may be minimized during the site characterization and
engineering design process by developing an accurate CSM supported by adequate sampling density
that describes the nature and extent of contamination, and faithfully captures the details of the
contaminant distribution in the dredge plan.
This section is focused on the second type of dredging residuals, sometimes called "generated
dredge residuals," that may require adaptive management during and following the dredging action
if accumulated residuals are found to contribute unacceptably to ongoing site risk. Whereas water
column effects during dredging are associated with intermittent and relatively short-term exposures,
dredging residuals may contribute to long-term site risk, potentially including bioaccumulative risk
if the residuals deposits are sufficiently thick and extensive (Bridges et al, 2008).
A variety of processes contribute to generated dredge residuals, including:
• Sediment dislodged by the dredge head that falls back to the bottom, such as sediment that falls
from an overfilled bucket or from the outside of the bucket;
• Sediment resuspended during dredging that settles back to the bottom near the point of dredging
or in down-current areas;
• Sediment that sloughs into the dredge cut from adjacent areas; and
• Sediment that spills back to the water during handling and transport (e.g., during barge filling or
shore-to-land transfer).
A number of site-specific factors can affect the thickness and concentration of generated dredge
residuals, including:
• Thickness and contaminant profile of the dredge pnsm;
• Dredging equipment and operations (i.e., type of bucket or cutterhead, production rate, lift
thickness, sequencing, etc);
• Local hydrodynamics (e.g. currents, tides);
• Steepness of dredge cuts and proximity to side slopes;
• Nature of underlying material and feasibility of over-dredging into less contaminated material;
and
• Extent of debris and obstructions.
Although not strictly "dredging" residuals, it should be noted that residual deposits of contaminated
sediments can also be generated at certain types of disposal sites. When placing sediments through
the water column into a confined aquatic disposal site, for example, care must be taken to minimize
sediment waves, resuspension, and spillage during transport. Otherwise, contaminated residuals
may be dispersed outside the disposal site boundanes.
May 2009 10-11
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
10.4.1. Predicting Dredging Residuals
Responding to sediment recontamination caused by dredging residuals can result in unforeseen
impacts to project schedules and budgets if the project design does not adequately anticipate and
plan for the possibility of residuals. Although dredging residuals are of greatest concern on
contaminated sediment remediation projects, residuals may also need to be evaluated on some types
of navigation dredging projects, especially larger projects that are cutting into more contaminated
material at depth.
Currently, there is no commonly accepted method to accurately predict dredging residuals
concentrations, but research in this area is ongoing (see Bridges et al., 2008). Recent work has been
focused on developing consistent assessment methods for use over a range of project conditions in
efforts to develop a residuals management decision framework. Although there remains a need for
additional post-construction monitoring data focused on characterizing residuals, a review of the
growing database of empirical measurements collected over the last decade, including several
projects in the Pacific Northwest, allows some generalizations to be made. Further data collection
and evaluation is being performed by a number of parties at environmental dredging sites across the
United States to improve our understanding of dredging residuals, as well as our predictive
capabilities.
Review of data from several environmental dredging case studies (including sites in
Commencement Bay, Duwamish Waterway, and other sites throughout the country) indicates
contaminant concentrations in residuals are similar to the depth-averaged contaminant
concentrations in the overlying dredge prism (Bridges et al., 2008). The empirical data from pilot
and full-scale environmental dredging projects also suggest that the mass of generated residuals
(both total solids and contaminants) remaining after completion of dredging has ranged from about
2 percent to 9 percent of the total mass in the dredge prism, averaging about 5 percent of the dredge
pnsm mass (Patmont and Palermo 2006; Bndges et al., 2008). However, total residuals (including
undisturbed and generated fractions) have been measured up to 20 percent at sites with problematic
field conditions. Problematic field conditions may include such factors as presence of debris, steep
slopes, hardpan/bedrock layers, and relatively high water content sediments (an inherent
characteristic of generated residuals and thus a concern for second-pass dredging), all of which
contribute to increases in dredging residuals. To date, these case studies have not shown
pronounced differences in levels of generated residuals between hydraulic and mechanical dredging
methods.
Currently, mass balance calculations have been used to provide estimates of the thickness and
concentration of generated residuals, considering the range of empirically determined mass release
rates (averaging 5 percent, see above). Such calculations may need to account for changes in
sediment density (i.e., generated residuals are lower density, higher water content) In some cases,
however, residuals may consolidate to near in situ sediment density within days or weeks.
10.4.2. Post-Dredge Confirmation Sampling and Response Actions
The nature and extent of dredging residuals may be delineated using a post-dredge confirmation
sampling program. Post-dredge confirmation sampling is routinely performed at sediment cleanup
sites, but may also be required for some navigation dredging projects where thick sequences of
contaminated sediments are being removed, where more highly contaminated sediments are being
uncovered at depth, and/or where the depth of contamination is not well defined. Typically grab
samples are collected and analyzed for CoCs on the newly exposed sediment surface In some
cases, however, short core samples may be needed to distinguish residuals caused by leftover
May 2009 10-12
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
undredged inventory from generated residuals caused by disturbance and resuspension of sediments
during dredging.
The nature and thickness of the residuals will influence the selection of a response action if a
response action is warranted. If residuals are found to contribute unacceptably to ongoing site risk,
the following response actions may be considered (Bridges et al., 2008; Patmont and Palermo
2006):
• Natural recovery, in areas with relatively thin and/or low-risk residual concentrations;
• Thin covers or engineered caps, in areas where water depths can accommodate additional
shoaling (i.e., where navigation, habitat, or other depth-dependent uses will not be impacted),
and/or where additional dredging is impracticable or ineffective; and
• Additional dredging passes in areas with thicker and higher concentration residuals, if
significant additional mass removal may be effectively accomplished.
In summary, dredging residuals are a reality of dredging technology. They should be anticipated
and planned for during design and construction.
May 2009 10-13
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 11. DATA SUBMITTALS
11.1. INTRODUCTION
The RSET recognizes that this chapter of the SEF only briefly describes the data submittal and
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process. The RSET will be working to develop a
regional approach to data submittal and QA/QC, including QA2. In the meantime, applicants
should contact their respective PRO or DMMP to get specific information on QA/QC procedures, if
needed.
Data obtained from a qualified sampling and testing effort should be submitted to the PRGs/DMMP
covering the following categories of information:
• A sediment characterization report, which includes the items listed in Section 11.2. The report
will be scanned or the file added to the SEF website or a linked website so that the data will be
available publicly (after quality assurance of the data and the suitability determination
completed). The preferred method of sediment quality report publication is in digital Adobe®
PDF (portable document format). Compact discs (CDs) of the reports should be available upon
request or downloadable from the author agency's website.
• Quality assurance (QA1) and QA2 reports should be submitted to the PRGs/DMMP on one or
two CDs (see Section 11.3).
• Other documents are extremely useful as part of the data submittal. These may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
o SAP,
o Habitat Protection Plan,
o CWA Section 404(b)( 1) Evaluation, and
o Contractor report with QA data included.
11.2. SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
The preferred format for the sediment characterization report is the standard five-section scientific
report. A good example is found in the following book:
Ambrose, H.W. and Amborse, K.P. 1987. A Handbook of Biological Investigation,
Fourth Edition. Hunter Books, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
The sediment characterization report should include the following items:
1. QA report documenting deviations from the SAP and effects of QA deviations on test results;
2. A plan view showing the actual sampling locations;
3. The sampling coordinates in latitude and longitude, including the projection standard, units, and
datum used;
4. Methods used to locate the sampling positions within an accuracy of 2 meters;
5. The compositing scheme;
May 2009 11-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
6. The type of sampling equipment used, the protocols used during sampling and compositing, and
an explanation of any deviations from the sampling plan;
7. Sampling logs with sediment descriptions;
8. Chain-of-custody procedures used;
9. Chemical and biological testing results including quality control information; and
10. Explanation of any deviations from the analysis plan.
11.3. QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) DATA REPORT
The term "quality assurance" describes the system of activities intended to provide evidence to the
producer or user of a product or service that it meets predefined standards of quality with a stated
level of confidence (Taylor 1987). To facilitate timely decision-making, the "data completeness"
(QA1) must be submitted with the sediment evaluation report.
Additional information regarding the QA/QC for the Portland requirement area can be found in the
following reference:
PTI Environmental Services. 1989. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Guidance Manual:
Data Quality Evaluation of Proposed Material Disposal Projects (QA-1). Prepared for
Department of Ecology Sediment Management Unit, Contract C0089018, Olympia, WA.
This reference is located on the RSET webpage at https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/e/rset.asp.
For the Seattle area, the Dredge Material Management Plan (DMMP) may be used for QA/QC
procedures.
Additional QA data are needed to fully validate the chemical and biological testing data. These data
are used in the data quality comparison, and.are referred to as "QA2." These include such
information as chromatograms, calibration curves, and others. The QA2 data may be submitted up
to 3 months following sampling and should be sent directly to the PRGs/DMMP.
11.4. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EIM)
The EIM database is a sediment quality management and analysis database that stores physical,
chemical, and biological data, and has statistical and special tools for analyzing the data. The
database contains both aquatic and upland data and has additional features for upland environmental
cleanup projects. The merger of the former sediment quality database (SEDQUAL) with the EIM
database will improve functionality and database maintenance; Ecology will no longer be
supporting SEDQUAL. The Corps Portland District will be using SEDQUAL as ongoing
coordination efforts with Ecology continue.
The EIM is a web-based program available to interface from the Ecology website at
http://www.ecv.wa.gov/eim/. Users will need to establish an account and use the import module
located at http://fortress.wa.gov/ecv/eimimport/submit.htm. Users will need to access the data using
the Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or above. Other browser clients or versions will be supported
May 2009 11-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
by the EIM import module. Users are encouraged to download the EIM submittal guidelines
manual and the EIM data dictionary.
Since EIM is a web-based program, data will be uploaded directly to the database using the web-
based user interface. Data downloads or queries are also accomplished using the web-based users
interface. Ecology warns there is a limitation on the physical size of the data query due to capacity
of the servers. Special studies requiring extensive data studies should be requested via email at eim
data coordinator(5)ecv.wa.gov or by telephone at (360) 407-6258.
11.5. FIELD DATA COLLECTION QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Chapter 5 provides the minimum sampling protocols. The sampling process is but one component
to the overall program of obtaining quality data. Collecting a representative sample can be difficult,
but it is the most crucial in the process of obtaining valid data (ODEQ 1997). Proper planning and
development of data quality objectives (DQOs; EPA 2006) are an integral component to obtaining
quality field data (Figure 11-1; EPA 2000c). During this process, specific quality acceptance
criteria should be documented. Data packages, QA/QC reports, and the sediment quality report
should contain evaluations of the field DQOs to provide a full picture of QA. Special attention
should be paid towards study error control (EPA 2006).
Figure 11-1. Project Life Cycle Components
Systematic
Planning
(e.g., DQO
Process)
PLANNING
—
QA
Project
Plan
* IMPLEM
ENTA
Data
Verification
and
Validation
TION *
| Defensible Products and Decisions
I*_
'
Data
Quality
Assessment
11.6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL FOR BIOLOGICAL DATA
Chapter 7 covers the minimum requirements for biological testing. Standardization of data
reporting is strongly recommended. To best facilitate the standardization of biological data, the
Puget Sound protocols (PSEP) procedures for data reporting will continue to be used. A PDF of the
PSEP protocol references can be found at
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/protocols/protocol.html. Currently, the SEDQUAL templates
will be used until such time that EIM templates have been developed for bioassay data.
May 2009
11-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 12. BENEFICIAL USES FOR SEDIMENT
This chapter provides an introduction to beneficial use and its importance to overall sediment
management in the Pacific Northwest. For example, coordinating dredging activities in the coastal
zone for the purposes of retaining sand in the littoral system to foster more balanced, natural system
processes and for potentially reducing disposal costs is important to regional sediment management.
The RSET agencies are responsible for sediment management in the Pacific Northwest. One
management option is beneficial use. Beneficial use is defined as the use of dredged material as a
resource for productive purposes (e.g., habitat creation, mitigation, beach nourishment, restoration,
etc). While the term "beneficial" indicates some benefit is gained by a particular use, the term has
come to mean any use of dredged material other than deep-water disposal of the material. The
descriptor "beneficial" depends on one's perspective; therefore, in this manual the definition has
been kept general to encourage a wide array of potential projects, consistent with regulatory
requirements that may apply to a given project.
Natural sand movement and replenishment of the littoral cells along the coasts and in nvers has
been greatly altered by dams and coastal developments in the Pacific Northwest. One goal of
managing dredged material is consider dredged material as a resource to be managed in a watershed
context. Consistent with the goals of regional sediment management, use of dredged material to
support coastal processes and other enhancements, discussed below, should be fostered wherever
possible. While dredged matenal disposal locations/facilities/sites will always be needed in some
capacity for sediments, especially contaminated sediments, in the spirit of resource conservation, re-
use, and recycling, it is imperative to evaluate and cultivate emerging beneficial use strategies to
ensure a practical, productive, and integrated long-term program for the management of non-
contaminated dredged sediments.
Depending on its characteristics, particularly grain size and degree of contamination, dredged
sediments may be suitable for beach nourishment projects, structural or non-structural fill, landfill
cover(s), habitat development projects, wetland enhancement/ restoration projects, capping open
water disposal areas, or a variety of other uses. The use of suitable dredged material in habitat and
wetland creation, enhancement, and restoration offers a unique opportunity to use sediments as a
resource and, at the same time, restore, and improve degraded habitats in ocean, riverine, estuarine,
and adjacent uplands. Degraded lands such as active and inactive landfills, brownfield sites, and
quarry sites can offer another unique opportunity to combine the use of dredged material with the
environmental and economic restoration of otherwise unproductive or contaminated properties. All
of these sites have disturbed environments and limited natural resource value in their present
condition. Many of these sites also generate leachate and surface water runoff that contaminate
surrounding soils, aquifers, and surface water. The beneficial use of dredged sediment for land
remediation under properly controlled conditions and in conjunction with engineering and
institutional controls can provide a safe and economical way of remediating these sites.
Beneficial use is strongly supported by the agencies. When considering dredged material for a
beneficial use, issues regarding allowable contaminant concentrations, intensity of sampling to
charactenze the physical character of the material, and timing considerations should be addressed.
Applicants should be encouraged to coordinate with their regional federal and state agency contacts
when considering beneficial uses of dredged material.
May 2009 12-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Three technical manuals and guidance documents have been issued on both the federal and state
levels on beneficial use of dredged material. The most recent is the joint EPA and Corps
publication, Identifying, Planning, and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged Material
Beneficial Use Planning Manual (http://el.erdc.usace.armv.mil/dots/budm/pdfinPlanningManual.pdf)
that provides guidance for planning, designing, developing, and managing dredged material for
potential beneficial uses. Other sites with useful information regarding beneficial use of dredged
sediments include the Great Lakes Dredging Team (http://www.glc.org/dredging) and the Corps
Engineer Manual No. 1110-2-5026, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
(http://www.usace.arniv.mil/publications/eng-manualsA.
May 2009 12-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
CHAPTER 13. REFERENCES
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2008. Standard Test Method for Measuring
the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates.
ASTM Standard Method No. £1367-03(2008). In: 2008 Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Volume 11.06, Biological Effects and Environmental Fate; Biotechnology. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2001. Standard Guide for Conducting In Situ Field Bioassays with Cage Bivalves.
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM E2122-02.
ASTM. 2000. Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with
Freshwater Invertebrates. ASTM El706-00. American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 1995. 1995 Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Section 11; Volume 11.05 Biological Effects
and Environmental Fate; Biotechnology; Pesticides. Standard Test Method E 1706. ASTM 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Bragdon-Cook, K. 1993. Recommended Methods for Measuring TOC in Sediments. Clarification
Paper presented at Sediment Management Annual Review Meeting, Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis Program.
Bridges, T.S. and C.H. Lutz. 1999. Interpreting Bioaccumulation Data with the Environmental
Residue-Effects Database. Dredging Research Technical Note EEDP-04-30, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Bridges, T.S., S. Ells, D. Hayes, D. Mount, S.C. Nadeau, M.R. Palermo, C. Patmont, and P.
Schroeder. 2008. The Four Rs of Environmental Dredging: Resuspension, Release, Residual,
and Risk. ERDC/EL TR-08-4. Final Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research
and Development Center, Washington, D.C.
Bridges, T.S., D.W. Moore, V. McFarland, T.D. Wnght, J.R. Wilson, and R.M. Engler. 1996.
Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes: Proposed New Guidance for Interpreting
the Consequences of Bioaccumulation from Dredged Material. EEDP-01-41, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1999. Risk Assessment Handbook Volume I: Human
Health Evaluation. EM 200-1-4.
Corps. 1996a. Progress Re-evaluating Puget Sound Apparent Effects Thresholds (AETs), Vol. 1:
1994 Amphipod and Echinoderm Larval AETs.
Corps. 1996. Risk Assessment Handbook Volume II: Environmental Evaluation. EM 200-1-4.
Cura, J J., W. Heiger-Bemays, T.S. Bridges, and D.W. Moore. 1999. Ecological and Human Health
Risk Assessment Guidance for Aquatic Environments. Technical Report DOER-4, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Dredging Operations and
Environmental Research. Available at: http://el.erdc.usace.annv.mil/dots/doer/pdfytrdoer4.pdf.
May 2009 13-1
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
DeWittT.H., G.R. Ditsworth, and R.C. Swartz. 1988. Effects of natural sediment features on the
phoxocephalid amphipod, Rhepoxynius abronius: implications for sediment toxicity testing.
Marine Environ Res. 25:99-124.
DMMP (Dredge Material Management Program). 2008. Dredged Material Evaluation and Disposal
Procedures (Users' Manual). Dredged Material Management Program.
DMMP. 2000. Clarifications to the DMMP Bioaccumulation Protocol. Prepared by David R.
Kendall (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Russ McMillan (Department of Ecology) for the
DMMP/SMS agencies.
DOD (Department of Defense). 2005. DOD Quality Systems Manual for Environmental
Laboratories, DOD Environmental Data Quality Workgroup, Department of Navy, Version 3,
Washington, D.C.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008a. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan
Appendix. Guidance on the Development of Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plans Meeting
the Requirements of the Sediment Management Standards (Chapters 173-204 WAC). Ecology
Publication No. 03-09-043 (available at http7/www.ecv.wa.gov/biblio/0309043htmn.
Ecology. 2008b. Water Quality Program Permit Writer's Manual. Publication No. 92-109.
Available at http://www.ecv.wa.gov/pubs/92109.pdf.
Ecology. 2003. Development of Freshwater Sediment Quality Values for Use in Washington State:
Phase II Report; Development and Recommendations of SQVs for Freshwater Sediments in
Washington State. Publication Number 03-09-088, Olympia WA.
Ecology. 1997. Analytical Methods for Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Publication No. ECY 97-602,
Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia, WA.
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.
Ecology. 1991. Sediment Cleanup Standards User Manual (SCUM2). First Edition. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Sediment Management Unit, Olympia, WA.
Environment Canada. 1992. Biological Test Method: Acute Test for Sediment Toxicity Using
Marine or Estuarine Amphipods. EPS l/RM/26.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2008. Framework for Application of the Toxicity
Equivalence Methodology for Polychlorinated Dioxins, Furans, and Biphenyls in Ecological
Risk Assessment. Office of the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/100/R-08/004.
EPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA
QA/G-4, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005).
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA-540-R-05-012. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/guidance.htm.
May 2009 13-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
EPA. 2003a. Framework for Application of the Toxicity Equivalence Methodology for
Polychlorinated Dioxins, Furans, and Biphenyls in Ecological Risk Assessment. External
Review Draft. EPA/630/P-03/002A.
EPA. 2003b. A Compendium of Chemical, Physical, and Biological Methods for Assessing and
Monitoring the Remediation of Contaminated Sediment Sites. National Exposure Research
Laboratory.
EPA. 2003c. Analyses of Laboratory and Field Studies of Reproductive Toxicity in Birds Exposed
to Dioxin-like Compounds for Use in Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/600/R-03/114F. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for chemical and
lexicological Analyses: Technical Manual. Office of Water. EPA 823-B-01-002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/librarv/collection.html.
EPA. 2000a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisones.
Available at http://www.epa gov/waterscience/fish/guidance.html.
EPA. 2000b. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
(TCDD) and Related Compounds, Part II: Health Assessment for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Chapter 9: Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF) for
Dioxin and Related Compounds. SAB Review Draft, NCEA-I-083.
EPA. 2000c. EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs. 5360 Al, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA EPA/630/R095/002F 01 April
1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C.
Available at http://cfpub epa gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid= 12460.
EPA. 1997 Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (interim final). Environmental Response Team,
Edison, NJ.
EPA. 1996. Recommendations fora Screening Level forTributyltin in Puget Sound Sediment.
Prepared for EPA Region 10 Superfund Program by Roy F. Weston, Inc., Seattle, WA.
EPA. 1994. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-associated Contaminants with
Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA 600/R-94-025. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/librarv/sediment/marinemethod.pdf.
EPA 1993a. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I-II. EPA/600/R-93/187a. Office of
Research and Development, Washington D.C.
EPA. 1993b. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. EPA/600/R-93/C89. Office of Research and Development.
May 2009 13-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part A, Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/0002. Publication 9285.7-01A. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/nskassessment/ragsa.
EPA. 1989b. Record of Decision for Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tidefiats CERCLA Site.
EPA/Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2004. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged
Material Management Alternatives - A Technical Framework. EPA 842-B-92-008.
EPA/Corps. 2003. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal at Island, Nearshore, or
Upland Confined Disposal Facilities (Upland Testing Manual). ERCD/EL TR-03-1, U.S. Army
Engineers Research and Development Center.
EPA/Corps. 2000. Dredged Material Evaluation and Disposal Procedures, User Manual for the
Puget Sound Dredged Material Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Program.
EPA/Corps and others. 1998a. Dredged Material Evaluation Framework, Lpwer Columbia River
Management Area.
EPA/Corps. 1998b. Great Lakes Dredged Material Testing and Evaluation Manual. Prepared by
EPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, Great Lakes National Program Office, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.
EPA/Corps. 1998c. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S.
Inland Testing Manual. EPA 823-B-98-004.
EPA/Corps. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual. EPA 503/8-
91/001.
EPA/Corps. 1988. PSDDA Report: Evaluation Procedures Technical Appendix - Phase I (Central
Puget Sound).
EPA/Corps. 1977. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into Ocean
Waters: Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532 (Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972). U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
ERED (Environmental Residue Effects Database). 2003. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.wes.armv.mil/el/ered/
Exponent. 1998. Review of Bioaccumulation Methods for Fish and Shellfish. Bellevue,
Washington. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Fox, D. 1993. Reference Sediment Performance Analysis. Clarification paper prepared for PSDDA
agencies for Annual Review Meeting, Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Program.
Fox, D and E. Hoffman. 2007. Chlordane Analysis and Reporting. Dredged Material Management
Program (DMMP) Clarification Paper. Available at
http://www.nws.usace.armv.mil/PublicMenu/documents/DMMO/chlordane clarification paper
2June07 final.pdf.
May 2009 13-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Frick, W.E., P.J.W. Roberts, L.R. Davis, J. Keyes, D.J. Baumgartner, and K.P. George. 2001. Draft
Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges, 4th Edition (Visual Plumes), EPA Environmental
Research Division, NERL, ORD, Athens, GA.
Hayes, D.F., and C-H Je. 2000. Draft DREDGE Module User's Guide. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Utah. Available at
http.//el.erdc.usace.armvmil/elrnodels/pdf/dredge.pdf.
Hoffman, E. 2005. The Technical Basis for Revisions to the DMMP's BCoC List (in preparation).
EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA
Hoffman, E. December 22, 1998. Tributyltin Analysis: Clarification of Interstitial Water Extraction
and Analysis Methods - Interim. DMMP Clarification Paper and SMS Technical Information
Memorandum.
IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2008. DRAFT Mixing Zone Technical
Procedures Manual. Available at
http://www.deq state id.us/water/data reports/surface water/monitoring/mixing zone manual
draft 0808.pdf).
Inouye, L.S. and G.R. Lotufo. 2006. Comparison of macro-gravimetric and micro-colonmetnc hpid
determination methods. Talanta 70(3)'584-7.
Jarvmen, A.W. and G.T. Ankley. 1999. Linkage of Effects to Tissue Residues: Development of a
Comprehensive Database for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Inorganic and Organic Chemicals.
SET AC Press, Pensacola, FL.
Jirka, G.H., R L Doneker, and S.W. Hmton 1997. User's Manual for CORMIX: A Hydro-Dynamic
Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface
Waters. EPA 823/B-97-006.
Jones, R.P., R.N. Millward, R.A.Karn and A.H. Harrison. 2005. Microscale analytical methods for
the quantitative detection of PCBs and PAHs in small tissue masses. Chemosphere
62(11):1795-1805.
Kendall, D. 1996 Neanthes 20-Day Growth Bioassay - Further Clarification on Negative Control
Growth Standard, Initial Size, and Feeding Protocol. PSDDA/SMS Clarification Paper.
Krone, C.A., D.W. Brown, D.G. Burrows, R.G. Bogar, S.L. Chan, and U. Varanasi. 1989. A method
for analysis of butyltin species in measurement of butyl tins in sediment and English sole livers
from Puget Sound. Marine Environmental Research 27:1 -18.
Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force. 2003. Literature Review of Effects of
Resuspended Sediments Due to Dredging Operations. Prepared by Anchor Environmental,
CALP. Available at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sediment/Lit-ResuspendedSediments.pdf.
Lee, H. II, B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Wmsor, D.T. Specht and R.C. Randall. 1989. Guidance
Manual: Bedded Sediment Tests. EPA-600/X-89-302, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Pacific Ecosystems Branch, Bioaccumulation Team, Newport, OR.
May 2009 13-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
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. Technical Memorandum
NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.
Michelsen, T., T.C. Shaw, and S. Stirling. 1996. Testing, Reporting, and Evaluation of Tnbutyltm
Data in PSDDA and SMS Programs. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Issue
Paper and Sediment Management Standards (SMS) Technical Information Memorandum.
ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratories). 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision.
ES/ER/TM-95/R3. Oak Ridge, TN.
ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Guidance for Assessing
Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern in Sediment. Updated April 3,2007.
ODEQ. 2008. Regulatory Mixing Zone Internal Management Directive, Part 2. Document ID: 07-
WQ-013. Available at http://www.deQ.state.or us/wQ/pubs/imds/rmz/RMZ-IMDpart2.Ddf.
ODEQ. 1997. Field Sampling Reference Guide, Revision 5.0. Portland.
Palermo, M.R. 1986. Development of a Modified Elutriate Test for Estimating the Quality of
Effluent from Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas. Tech. Report D-86-4. U S. Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Palermo, M.R., J.E. Clausner, M.P. Rollings, G.L. Williams, T.E. Myers, T.J. Fredette, R.E.
Randall. 1998. Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping.
Palermo, M.R., and E.L. Thackston. 1988. Refinement of Column Settling Test Procedures for
Estimating the Quality of Effluent from Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas. Tech.
Report D-88-9, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Patmont, C., and M. Palermo. 2006. Dredging Residuals Overview. Presented at the 4 Rs Dredging
Workshop, April 25-27, 2006, Vicksburg, MS.
PIANC (Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses). 1990. Management of
Dredged Material from Inland Waterways, Report of Working Group No. 7 of the Permanent
Technical Committee I, Supplement to Bulletin No. 70. Brussels, Belgium.
Plumb, R.H. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water
Samples. U.S Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory.
PSDDA (Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis). 1988. Evaluation Procedures Technical
Appendix - Phase I (Central Puget Sound). Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA.
PSEP (Puget Sound Estuary Program). 1996. Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected
Environmental Variables in Puget Sound Estuary Program. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
May 2009 13-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
PSEP. 1995. Recommended Guidelines for Conducting Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound
Sediments. Prepared by Washington Department of Ecology.
PSEP. 1988. 1988 Update and Evaluation of Puget Sound AET. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Puget Sound Estuary Program, Seattle, WA.
PSEP. 1986. Recommended protocols for measunng conventional sediment variables in Puget
Sound. In: Recommended Protocols and Guidelines for Measuring Selected Environmental
Variables in Puget Sound. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Puget Sound
Estuary Program, Seattle WA.
PSWQAT (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team). 1997a. Recommended Guidelines for
Sampling Marine Sediment, Water Column, and Tissue in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water
Quality Action Team. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.
PSWQAT. 1997b. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Water,
Sediment, and Tissue Samples. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA.
PSWQAT. 1997c. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Organic Compounds in Puget Sound
Water, Sediment, and Tissue Samples. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA.
PTI Environmental Services. 1995. Analysis of BSAF Values forNonpolar Organic Compounds in
Finfish and Shellfish. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, Washinton. Prepared for
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
PTI Environmental Services. 1989. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Guidance Manual:
Data Quality Evaluation of Proposed Material Disposal Projects (QA-1). Prepared for
Department of Ecology Sediment Management Unit, Contract C0089018, Olympia, WA.
Redmond, M.S., G.J. Irissarri, G.A. Buhler, and R.S. Caldwell. 2000. Does rapid salinity change
stress Eohaustorius estuariusl Presented at 9* Annual Meeting, Pacific Northwest Chapter,
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, May 11-13, 2000, Lacey, WA.
Salazar, M.H. and S M Salazar. 1998. Using Caged Bivalves as Part of an Exposure-dose-response
Tnad to Support an Intergrated Risk Assessment Strategy. In: Proceedings: Ecological Risk
Assessment: A Meeting of Policy and Science. A. de Peyster and K. Day (eds). SET AC Press,
Pensacola, FL. pp 167-192.
Schroeder, P.R., M.R. Palermo, T.E. Myers, and C.M. Lloyd. 2004. The Automated Dredging and
Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS), EEDP-06-12. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
SET AC (Society of Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry). 2002. SET AC Pellston Workshop on
the Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated
Sediments. Fairmont, Montana.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985.
Guidelines for Denying Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. EPA 822-R85-100. Washington, D.C.
May 2009 13-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Stirling, S.K. and RSET (Regional Sediment Evaluation Team). 2008. Reference Areas for
Freshwater Bioassays. Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) Clarification Paper,
Final. September 21,2008.
Taylor, J.K. 1987. Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements, Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, MI.
Van den Berg M, L. Bimbaum, A. Bosveld, B. Brunstrom, P. Cook, M. Feeley, J. Giesy, A.
Hanberg, R. Hasegawa, S. Kennedy, T. Kubiak, J. Larsen, F. Rolaf van Leeuwen, A. Dkien
Liem, C. Nolt, R. Peterson, L. Poellinger, S. Safe, D. Schenk, D. Tillitt, M. Tysklind, M.
Younes, F. Waern, and T. Zacharewski. 1998. Toxic equivalency factors for PCBs, PCDDs,
PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(12):775-792.
May 2009 13-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Appendix A
Sample Handling Procedures
May 2009
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
This appendix provides detailed information concerning the sample handling procedures discussed
in Chapter 5 of the SEP. All sample handling procedures should be specified in the Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP).
Decontamination Procedures
It is recommended that all sampling equipment and utensils, such as spoons, mixing bowls,
extrusion devices, sampling tubes, cutter heads, etc., be made of non-contaminating materials and
thoroughly cleaned pnor to use. The intention is to avoid contaminating the sediments to be tested,
because dredged material could possibly be found unacceptable when it otherwise would be found
acceptable for open-water disposal. While not strictly required, an adequate decontamination
procedure is highly recommended. The dredging proponent assumes a higher nsk of sample
contamination by not following an established protocol. The following procedure has been used
successfully for other dredging projects:
• Wash with brush and Alconox soap;
• Double rinse with distilled water;
• Rinse with nitnc acid;
• Rinse with metal-free water; and
• Rinse with methanol
While methylene chloride has been used extensively in the past as an organic solvent, and is
recommended by the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP), its use is discouraged by the dredging
regulatory agencies because of its status as a potential carcinogen and its impact on the ozone layer.
After decontamination, sampling equipment should be protected from recontammation. Any
sampling equipment suspected of contamination should be decontaminated again or rejected. If
core sampling is being conducted, extra sampling tubes should be available on site to prevent
interruption of operations should a sampling tube become contaminated. Sampling utensils should
be decontaminated again after all sampling has been conducted for a dredged material management
unit (DMMU) to prevent cross-contamination. Disposable gloves are typically used and
decontaminated or disposed of between DMMUs.
Volatiles and Sulfides Subsampling
The volatiles and sulfides subsamples should be taken immediately upon extrusion of cores or
immediately after accepting a grab sample for use. For composited samples, one core section or
grab sample should be selected for the volatiles and sulfides sampling. Sediments that are directly
in contact with core liners or the sides of the grab sampler should not be used.
Two separate 4-ounce containers should be completely filled with sample sediment for volatiles.
No headspace should be allowed to remain in either container. Two samples are collected to ensure
an acceptable sample with no headspace is submitted to the laboratory for analysis. The containers,
screw caps, and cap septa (silicone vapor barriers) should be washed with detergent, rinsed once
with tap water, nnsed at least twice with distilled water, and dried at greater than 105 degrees
celsius (°C). A solvent rinse should not be used because it may interfere with the analysis.
May 2009 A-l
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
To avoid leaving headspace in the containers, sample containers can be filled in one of two ways. If
there is adequate water in the sediment, the vial should be filled to overflowing so that a convex
meniscus forms at the top. Once sealed, the bottle should be inverted to verify the seal by
demonstrating the absence of air bubbles. If there is little or no water in the sediment, jars should be
filled as tightly as possible, eliminating obvious air pockets. With the cap liner's PTFE side down,
the cap should be carefully placed on the opening of the vial, displacing any excess material.
For sulfides sampling, 5 milliliters (mL) of two normal zinc acetate per 30 grams of sediment
should be placed in a 4-ounce sampling jar. The sulfides sample should be placed in the jar,
covered, and shaken vigorously to completely expose the sediment to the zinc acetate.
The volatiles and sulfides sampling jars should be clearly labeled with the project name,
sample/composite identification, type of analysis to be performed, date and time, and initials of
person(s) preparing the sample, and referenced by entry into the log book. The sulfides sampling
jars should indicate that zinc acetate has been added as a preservative.
Sampling Logs
As samples are collected, and after the volatiles and sulfides subsamples have been taken, logs and
field notes of all samples should be taken and correlated to the sampling location map. The
following information should be included in this log:
• Date and time of collection of each sediment sample;
• Names of field supervisors and person(s) collecting and logging in the sample;
• The sample station number and individual designation numbers assigned for individual core
sections;
• Quantitative notation of apparent resistance of sediment column to conng;
• The water depth at each sampling station (this depth should then be referenced to mean lower
low water [MLLW NAD 1983] through the use of an on-site tide gage);
• Length, depth interval (referenced to the sediment/water interface), and percent recovery of core
sections;
• Weather conditions;
• Physical sediment description, including type, density, color, consistency, odor, stratification,
vegetation, debris, biological activity, presence of an oil sheen, or any other distinguishing
characteristics or features; and
• Any deviation from the approved sampling plan
Extrusion, Compositing, and Sub-sampling
Depending on the sampling methodology and procedure proposed, sample extrusion, compositing,
and subsampling may take place at different times and locations. If core sampling is conducted,
these activities can either occur at the sampling site (e g., on board the sampling vessel) or at a
remote facility Grab samples will be processed immediately upon sampling. If cores are to be
transported to a remote facility for processing, they should be stored at 4°C on board the sampling
vessel and during transport. The cores should be sealed in such a way as to prevent leakage and/or
May 2009 A-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
contamination. If the cores will be sectioned at a later time, thought needs to be given to core
integrity during transport and storage to prevent loss of stratification. For cores or split-spoon
sampling, the extrusion method should include procedures to prevent contamination.
For composited samples, representative volumes of sediment should be removed from each core
section or grab sample comprising a composite. The composited sediment should be mixed until
homogenized to a uniform color and consistency, and should continue to be stirred while individual
samples are taken of the homogenate. This will ensure the mixture remains homogenous and
settling of coarse-grained sediments does not occur.
At least 6 liters of homogenized sample needs to be prepared to provide adequate volume for
physical, chemical, and biological laboratory analyses. Bioassays require approximately 4 liters of
sediment, while chemical testing requires approximately 1 liter of sediment. Both chemistry and
bioassay samples should be taken from the same homogenate. Portions of each composite sample
will be placed in containers obtained from the chemical and biological laboratories. See Table 5-1
in the main report for container and sample size information. In high ranked areas, the sample taken
from the foot beyond the dredging overdepth should be placed in a 250 mL glass jar and frozen for
possible future analysis.
After compositing and subsampling are performed, the sample containers should be refrigerated or
stored on ice until delivered to the analytical laboratory. The samples reserved for bioassays should
be stored at 4°C in a nitrogen atmosphere, i.e., nitrogen gas in the container headspace, for up to 56
days pending initiation of any required biological testing. Each sample container should be clearly
labeled with the project name, sample/composite identification, type of analysis to be performed,
date and time, initials of person(s) preparing the sample, and referenced by entry into the log book.
Sample Transport and Chain-of-Custody Procedures
Sample transport and chain-of-custody procedures should follow the PSEP protocols, which include
the guidelines described below.
If sediment cores are taken in the field and transported to a remote site for extrusion and
compositing, chain-of-custody procedures should commence in the field for the core sections, and
track the compositing and subsequent transfer of composited samples to the analytical laboratory. If
compositing occurs in the field, chain-of-custody procedures should commence in the field for the
composites, and track transfer of the composited samples to the analytical laboratory.
• Samples should be packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations as specified at 49 CFR 173.6 and 49 CFR 173.24.
• Individual sample containers should be packed to prevent breakage and transported in a sealed
ice chest or other suitable container.
• Ice should be placed in separate plastic bags and sealed, or blue ice used.
• Each cooler or container containing sediment samples for analysis should be delivered to the
laboratory within 24 hours of being sealed.
• A sealed envelope containing chain-of-custody forms should be enclosed in a plastic bag and
taped to the inside lid of the cooler.
• Signed and dated chain-of-custody seals should be placed on all coolers prior to shipping.
May 2009 A-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
• The shipping containers should be clearly labeled with sufficient information (name of project,
time and date container was sealed, person sealing the container and consultant's office name
and address) to enable positive identification.
• Upon transfer of sample possession to the analytical laboratory, the chain-of-custody form
should be signed by the persons transferring custody of the sample containers. The shipping
container seal should be broken and the condition of the samples should be recorded by the
receiver.
• Chain-of-custody forms should be used internally in the lab to track sample handling and final '
disposition.
May 2009 A-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Appendix B
Biological Testing Toolbox
May 2009
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Biological Testing Methods Evaluation
(Instructions follow the table)
Measurement
Endpolnts
Marine,
Estuarine, or
Freshwater
Sublethal
Endpolnt
Ease
of
Use
Repeat-
ability
Organism
Availability/
Seasonahty
Field Current
Holding I Protocol I Valid- Interp.
Solid Phase Sediment Toxicity Tests (relevant for In-place sediments, effects at disposal site)
Constraints Status ation Criteria Cost
Bivalve larvae (oyster-
Crassostrea gigas)
Bivalve larvae
(Mytilus spp )
Sea Urchin
(Strongylocentrotus
purpuratus)
Sand dollar
(Dendraster
excentncus)
Ampelisca abdita
Eohaustonus
estuanus
Rhepoxymus
abromus
Grandidierella
laponica
Leptocheirus
plumulosus
Corophium spp
Neanthes
arenaceodentata
48-h
48-h
48-h
48-h
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
Normal
survival
Normal
survival
Normal
survival
Normal
survival
Survival
Survival
Survival/
rebunal
Survival
Survival
Survival
Survival
Marine
Marine
Manne
Marine
Manne,
estuanne
Marine,
estuanne
Manne
Manne,
estuanne
Manne,
estuanne
Manne,
estuanne
Manne,
estuanne
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
2.3
2.3
2
4
CS
cs
CS
cs
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N/Y
N/Y
N
N
N
N
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2
1
1
1
1
2
only one
supplier
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
size/age
7
size/age
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
Y
Y
Y
Y
W
W
W
W
N,W
N,W
N.W
N
N.W
N
N, W
M
LM
LM
LM
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
May 2009
B-l
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
TOOlf
Test Species
Mysid shnmp
Shrimp (Panaeus,
Pelomonetes)
Hyalella azteca
Chironomus spp ' -
Midge
Lumbnculus
vanegatus
Tubifex tubifex
Pnstina spp (naidia
oligochaete)
Hexagenia spp
(mayfly larvae)
Anodonta spp
(freshwater mussel)
Neanthes
arenaceodentata
Amandia brews
Leptocheirus
plumutosus
Hyalella azteca
Method
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
10-day
20-day
28-day
28-day
28-day
Measurement
Endpoints
Survival
Survival
Survival
Survival.
growth
Survival
Survival
Survival
Survival
Survival
Survival &
growth
Survival &
growth
Survival/
growth/
repro
Survival &
growth
Marine,
Estuarine, or
Freshwater
Marine,
estuanne
Marine
Estuanne,
freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Marine,
estuanne
Marine
Marine,
estuanne
Estuanne,
freshwater
Reference
No.
5
2
2.6,7
2.6,7
2
2
2
2
2
1,4
8, 9, 10,
11
3,12
7
Acute /
Chronic/
Chronic
Surrogate
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
Sublethal
Endpolnt
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Ease
of
Use
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1/2
2
2/3
2
Repeat-
ability
1
1
1
1
1
1
?
?
7
1
7
1/2
2
Organism
Availability/
Seasonallty
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
only one
supplier
3
1
1
Holding
Constraints
N
7
N
N
N
N
7
7
?
size/age
age
size/age
N
Protocol
Status
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
Field
Valid-
ation
Y
(EPA
2000D)
Y
Y
Y
(EPA
2000b)
Current
Interp.
Criteria
?
N
N, W
N. W
N
N
N
N
N
N. W
7
N, W
N
Cost
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
May 2009
B-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
TOO)/
Test Species
Hya/e/fa azteca
Chironomus spp • -
Midge
Chironomus spp ' -
Midge
Chironomous
npenus
Hexagema spp -
Mayfly
Daphma,
Cenodaphma
Diporeiaspp -
Amphipod
Tubifex tub/fax
Method
42-day
20-day
40-day
10- to
30-day
21- day
7-day
28-day
28-day
Measurement
Endpoints
Survival &
growth
Survival &
growth
Life cycle
Survival,
growth, head
capsule width.
emergence
Survival &
growth
Survival,
growth.
repro
Survival &
behavior
Survival &
repro
Marine,
Estuarine, or
Freshwater
Estuarine,
freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Reference
No.
7
7
6.7
6
6
6
6
6
Acute /
Chronic/
Chronic
Surrogate
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Sublethal
Endpolnt
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Ease
of
Use
2
1
1
2
1
Repeat-
ability
2
2
2
2
1
Organism
Availability/
Seasonahty
1
1
1
1
3
1
2/3
1
Holding
Constraints
N
age
age
age
age
N
N
N
Protocol
Status
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Field
Valid-
ation
Y
Y
Currant
Interp.
Criteria
N
N, W
N
N
N
N
N
N
Cost
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Elutriate/Suspended Particulate (relevant for disposal site and effects during dredging event)
Shnmp
(Pafaemonates
sp , Penaeus sp )
Cladocerans
(Daphma,
Cenodaphma)
Fish, manne (Memdia.
Cypndon, Leurethes)
Fish, freshwater
(Pimephales,
Lepoms,
Onchyrynchus.
Ictalurus)
96-h
96-h
96-h
96-h
Survival
Survival
Survival
Survival
Marine
Freshwater
Manne
Freshwater
2
2
2
2
A
A
A
A
N
N
N
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1/2
1/2
N
N
N
N
2
3
3
3
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
May 2009
B-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Tool/
Teat Species
Speckled Sandab
(Cithanchtys
stigmaeus)
Cladocerans
(Daphnia.
Cenodaphma)
Opossum Shnmp
(Mysidops/s bahia or
Holmesimysis coslala)
Microtox (Northwest
method)
Method
96-h
7-day
96-h
15-mm
Measurement
End points
Survival
Survival &
repro
Survival
Bioillumination
Marine,
Estuarine, or
Freshwater
Marine
Freshwater
Marine,
estuanne
Manne,
estuanne, &
freshwater
Reference
No.
2
6
2
1
Acute/
Chronic/
Chronic
Surrogate
A
C
A
CS
Sublethal
Endpolnt
N
Y
N
Y
Ease
of
Use
1
1
1
3
Repeat-
ability
1
1
1
1
Organism
Availability/
Seasonally
1
1
1
1
Holding
Constraints
N
N
N
N
Protocol
Status
3
3
3
3
Field
Valid-
ation
'Y
Current
Interp.
Criteria
N
N
N
W
Sediment Bioaccumulatlon (Laboratory assay)
Bivalve (Macoma
nasuta. Yolinda sp ,
7apes sp)
Nereis wrens,
Aremcola manna
Nepthys caecoides
Neanthos
arenaceodentata
Lumbnculus spp
Armandia brevis
Diporeia spp -
Amphipod
28-day
28-day,
45-day
28-day.
45-day
28-day
28-day
28-day
28-day
Tissue
burden
Tissue
burden
Tissue
burden
Tissue
burden
Tissue
burden
Tissue
burden
Tissue
burden
Manne
Manne
Manne
Manne
Freshwater
Manne
Freshwater
1. 13
1.13
1
2
13
9
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1
2
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
only one
supplier
1
3
3
N
N
N
size/age
Y
age
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
N, W
N
N. W
N
N,W
N
Cost
M
L
M
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
* Recent literature notes that two species of Chironomous have likely been used in toxicity testing, all under the name of Chironomous dilutus Since then is no way to detenmne which species may have been used in
assays used to develop the FWSQGs, anther species is acceptable, but correct species identification should be reported See ASTME1 706-05
May 2009
B-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Instructions for Biological Testing Methods Evaluation
Provided below are definitions of categories and their ranking codes.
Method. This category refers to the test duration.
Measurement Endpoints. This category refers to the possible test endpoint; however, some of
these endpoints may not be used in every case (for example reburial).
Marine, Estuarine, Freshwater. No explanation necessary.
Reference No. Numbers refer to the References Section in this appendix.
Acute/Chronic/Chronic Surrogate. A = acute; C = chronic; CS = chronic surrogate.
Sublethal Endpoint. A yes/no question - does the test have a sublethal endpoint?
Ease of Use. 1 = easy, no special training; 2 = moderately hard, requires experience; 3 = difficult or
tricky, requires special training.
Repeatability. 1 = round-robin tests or established control charts indicate a robust test - used
frequently and shown to be reliable; 2 = endpoint is a little tricky and results variable; 3 = lack of data
regarding repeatability.
Organism Availability/Seasonality. 1 = readily available year-round; 2 = readily available during a
particular season; 3 = difficult to acquire.
Holding Constraints. A yes/no question - some animals are not held, so although they may be
difficult to hold prior to testing, this is not an issue.
Protocol Status. 1 = experimental; 2 = a protocol has been established; 3 = standard test that is
applied routinely or commercially.
Field Validation. Has there been a field validation study conducted to evaluate whether this tool is
protective of the environment? A yes in this category does not imply that the field validation study
indicated that the tool was indeed effective
Current Interpretive Criteria. Do interpretive criteria exist for this method? If so, are there criteria in
the Pacific Northwest (W) or anywhere else in the U.S. (N)?
Cost. L = <$200-$300 per sample; M = <$1,000 per sample; H = >$1,000 per sample. Of course
this can vary depending on number of samples and special circumstances. Note that
bioaccumulation tests are all considered expensive - but even with bioaccumulation tests, there is
variation depending on the length of test, test volume, and test species.
May 2009 B-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Biological Endpoints
These endpoints are not commonly used in dredged sediment evaluations.
For reviews and selected assays, please see the References Section that follows this table.
I Tool/Test Species I Reference No.
Sublethal Cellular Assays/Biomarkers
Genotoxiaty - Anaphase Aberration
Genotoxicity DMA Damage Index/Adducts
Genotoxicity - Micronucleii
Mixed-Function Oxygenases (MFOs) - EROD Activity
MFOs - Benzopyrene hydroxylase (BPH)
Glutathione-S-transferase
P-glycoprotein
Oxidative Stress - Catalase
Oxidative Stress - Superoxide dimutase (SOD)
Glutathione peroxidase
Glutathione reducatase
Glutathione redox states
Total glutathione (GSH)
Liquid peroxidation - thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS)
Metallothioneins
Heat-shock proteins
Achetylcholmesterase inhibition (AChE)
General overviews: biomonitoring
General bioassessment, freshwater
General bioassessment. estuanne/marine
General overview, estuanne biomarkers '
General overview, markers of Oxidative stress
1
14
15
16,17,18
19
18, 20, 21
22
19,23
19,23,24
18,25
18,25
18
25,26
25,26
27
28
20
29,30
31
32
33
34
May 2009
B-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
References
Reference
ID
Citation
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PSEP 1995. Recommended Guidelines for Conducting Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound
Sediments. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
EPA/USACE 1998 Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U S -
Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual) EPA-823-F-98-005
ASTM 2003. Standard Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants
with Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates ASTM E1367-03e1 American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken PA
ASTM 2007 Standard Guide for Conducting Sediment Toxicity Tests with Polychaetous Annelids ASTM
E1611-00(2007) American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken PA
Cripe.GM.RS Carr.SS Foss, PS Harris, and R.S Stanley 2000. Effects of Whole Sediments from
Corpus Chnsti Bay on Survival, Growth, and Reproduction of the Mysid, Americamysis bahia (formerly
Mysidopsis bahia) Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 64 (3)-426-433
ASTM 2005 Standard Test Method for Measunng the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants
with Freshwater Invertebrates. ASTM E1706-05e1 Amencan Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken PA
EPA. 2000 Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment Associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Editon EPA-600-R-99-064 U S Environmental
Protection Agency Washington D C
Meador, JP andCA Rice 1991 Impaired growth in the polychaete Armandia brevis exposed to
tnbutyltin in sediment Environmental Research 51:113-129.
Meador, JP,C A Krone, DW Dyer, and U Varanasi 1991. Toxicity of sediment-associated tributyltin to
infaunal invertebrates species comparison and the role of organic carbon. Marine Environmental
Research 43(3) 219-241
Meador, J P 1995 Comparative toxicokmetics of tnbutyltin in five marine species and its utility in
predicting bioaccumulation and acute toxicity Aquatic Toxicology 37 307-326
Rice, CA.PD Plesha, E Casillas, DA Misitano, and J P Meador 1995 Growth and survival of three
manne invertebrate species in sediments from Houston-Rantan estuary, New York. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 14(11) 1931-1940
EPA 2001. Methods for Assessing the Chronic Toxicity of Manne and Estuanne Sediment Associated
Contaminants with the Amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus EPA-600-R-01-020 US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington D C
ASTM 2007 Standard Guide for Determination of the Bioaccumulation of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants by Benthic Invertebrates ASTM 1668-OOa Amencan Society for Testing and Matenals,
West Conshohocken PA
Nacci, DE,S Cayula, and E Jackim 1996 Detection of DMA damage in individual cells from manne
organisms using the single cell gel assay Aquatic Tox. 35 197-210
Mersch, J andM.N Beauvais 1997 The micronucleus assay in the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha
to in situ monitor genotoxiaty in freshwater environments Mut.Res 393.141-149
Prough, RA.MD Burke, and RT Mayer 1978 Direct fluonmetric methods for measuring mixed
function oxidase activity Methods Enzymol. 52C.372-377
Williams, D E , R R Becker, D W Potter, F P Guengench, and D R. Buhter 1983 Purification and
comparative properties of NADPH-cytochrome P-450 reductase from rat and rainbow trout differences in
temperature optima between reconstituted and microsomal trout enzymes Arch. Biochem Biophys
225-55-63
Morales-Caselles, C , L. Martin-Diaz, I Riba, C Sarasquete, and T.A DelValls 2008 The role of
biomarkers to assess oil-contaminated sediment quality using toxicity tests with dams and crabs. Env.
Tox Chem In Press
Nasci, C., L DaRos, G Campesan, ES VanVleet, M Salizzato, L Spemi.andB Pavoni 1999 Clam
transplantation and stress-related biomarkers as useful tools for assessing water quality in coastal
environments Mar. Poll Bull 39 255-260
May 2009
B-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Reference
ID
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Citation
Crane, M , W Sildanchandra, R Kheir, and A Callaghan 2002 Relationship between biomarker activity
and developmental endpomts in Chironomus nparius Meigen exposed to an organophosphate insecticide
Ecotox Env Safety 53 361-369
Napierska, D , J Kopecka, M Podolska and J Pempkowiak 2006 Hepatic glutathione S-transferase
activity in Rounder collected from contaminated and reference sites along the Polish coast Ecol Env
Safety 65 355-363
Keppler. C and AH Rmgwood 2001 Expression of P-glycoprotem in the gills of oysters. Crassostrea
virgmica seasonal and pollutant related effects Aquat Tox 54 195-204
Ferreira, M , P Moradas-Ferreira, and M A Reis-Hennques Oxidative stress biomarkers in two resident
species, mullet (Mugil cephalus) and flounder (Platichthys flesus), from a polluted site in River Douro
Estuary, Portugal Aquat Tox 71 39-48
Taglian, K C , R Cecchini, J A V Rocha, and V M F Vargas 2004 Mutagenicity of sediment and
biomarkers of oxidative stress in fish from aquatic environments under the influence of tanneries Mut
Res/Gen Tox Env Mut 561 101-117
Doyotte. A,C Cossu, MC Jacqum, M BabutandP Vasseur 1997 Antioxidantenzymes,glutathione
and lipid peroxidation as relevant biomarkers of experimental or field exposure in the gills and the
digestive gland of the freshwater bivalve Unto tumidus Aquat Tox 3993-110
Cheung, C C C , G J Zheng, AMY Li, B J Richardson and P K S Lam 2001 Relationships between
tissue concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and antioxidative responses of marine mussels,
Perna vmdis Aquat Tox 52 189-203
Amiard, J C , C Amiard-Tnquet, S Barka, J Pellenn and P S Rainbow 2006 Metallothionems in aquatic
invertebrates their role in metal detoxification and their use as biomarkers Aquat Tox 76160-202
Oberdoerster, E , M Martin, C F Ide, andJA McLachlan 1999 Benthic community structure and
biomarker induction in grass shrimp in an estuanne system Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 37512-518
NAVFAC Risk Assessment Workgroup and Argonne National Laboratory 2007 Biomonntonng Guide for
the use of biological endpomts in monitonng species, habitats, and projects TR-2284-ENV
LeBlanc, GA andLJ Bain 1997 Chronic toxicity of environmental contaminants sentinels and
biomarkers Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl 1) 65-80
Barbour, M T, J Gemtsen, B D Snyder, and J B Stnblmg 1999 Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use
in Streams and Wadeable Rivers Penphyton, Benthic Macromvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition EPA
841-B-99-002 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D C
Gibson, G R , M L Bowman, J Gemtsen, and B D Snyder 2000 Estuanne and Coastal Manne Waters
Bioassessment and Biocntena Technical Guidance EPA 822-B-00-024 U S Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington D C
Monserrat, J M , P E Martinez, L A Geracitano, L L Amado, C M G Martins, G L L Pmho, I S Chaves,
M Ferreira-Cravo, J Ventura-Lima, and A Bianchmi 2007 Pollution biomarkers in estuanne animals
Critical review and new perspectives Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C Toxicology &
Pharmacology 146(1-2) 221-234
Valavamdis, A , T Vlahogianm, M Dassenakis, and M Scoullos 2006 Molecular biomarkers of oxidative
stress in aquatic organisms in relation to toxic environmental pollutants Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety 64(2) 178-189
May 2009
B-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Appendix C
Bioaccumulatlve Chemicals of
Concern (BCoCs) Lists
May 2009
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCoCs) Lists
The RSET adopted the approach for identifying BCoCs outlined in Hoffman (2007'; see
http://www.nws.usace.armv.mil/PublicMenu/documents/DMMO/Final BCOC Technical Appendi
x 010807.pdf). This approach relies on a review of the occurrence of contaminants in sediments
and tissue, chemical properties of contaminants such as Kow or the known toxicity of the
contaminants to human/ecological receptors, and comparison of tissue levels to available residue-
effects levels. Contaminants are placed on one of four lists depending on the amount of information
available and the weight-of-evidence indicating their potential to bioaccumulate, prevalence in the
region, and toxicity. Because many bioaccumulative guidelines are below detection limits, our
ability to definitively determine that contaminants are not present at risk-based levels is limited.
The lists are described below and are periodically reviewed to determine if adjustments are needed.
List 1: Primary Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern. These are the primary chemicals
expected to be addressed as part of a bioaccumulation evaluation. Chemicals are placed on List 1
based on hydrophobicity, frequency of detection in sediments and tissues, and known human health
and ecological nsks.
List 2: Candidate Bioaccumulative Chemicals. Chemicals are placed on List 2 because they
meet some of the above criteria and may be BCoCs, but not enough data are available on their
occurrence in the region to place them on List 1. Emerging chemicals of concern can often be
found on this list. The RSET agencies may request analyses for one or more of these chemicals if
there is a strong reason to believe that they may be significant for a given project.
List 3: Potentially Bioaccumulative Chemicals. Chemicals are placed on List 3 when they do not
meet any of the definitions of the other three lists. Typically List 3 chemicals are just beginning to
receive national attention due to their potential for persistence and/or being detected in monitoring
programs. Chemicals are often placed on this list because it is not yet known if they present nsks to
human health and the environment.
List 4: Not Currently Considered Bioaccumulative. Chemicals are placed on List 4 if they are
not likely to bioaccumulate due to their chemical properties or if they have been analyzed for but
not found/only infrequently found in regional sediments and tissues.
The RSET made one modification to the approach outlined in Hoffman (2007). In the onginal
approach, all standard divalent metals were placed on List 1 because they have been measured in
tissues at concentrations exceeding residue-effects levels. It is recognized that aquatic species
bioaccumulate trace metals to varying degrees and with varying toxicological consequences
depending on their ability to regulate trace metals. Thus, many of these metals do not substantially
bioaccumulate, and retaining them on List 1 would likely lead to an unnecessary number of
bioaccumulation evaluations. Thus, metals were divided into those likely to bioaccumulate based
on having organic forms or those not likely to bioaccumulate, and were placed on List 1 or List 4
accordingly. This provides a more consistent treatment of metals and organic chemicals and a
better reflection of the actual tendency to bioaccumulate. The Seattle District reviewed and adopted
this update in 2009.
Complete lists for all three Corps Districts, along with accompanying notes, are provided below.
1 Hoffman, E 2007 The Technical Basis for Revisions to the Dredged Material Management Program's Bioaccumulative
Contaminants of Concern List Prepared for the Dredged Material Management Program Agencies, Seattle, WA
May 2009 C-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
SEATTLE DISTRICT
The Seattle District lists are excerpted from Hoffman (2007). Technical definitions for each list,
along with the supporting data, are located at
http://www.nws.usace.armv.mil/PublicMenu/documents/DMMO/Final BCOC Technical Appendi
x 010807.pdf.
Seattle District List 1: Primary Bipaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
Arsenic Pentachlorophenol
Chlordane PCBs - Total Aroclors
DDTs - Total Pyrene
Dioxins/Furans Selenium
Fluoranthene Tributyltin
Hexachlorobenzene
Lead
Mercury
Seattle District List 2: Candidate Bioaccumulative Chemicals
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Parathion
4-Nonylphenol, branched Pentabromodiphenyl ether
Benzo(e)pyrene Pentachloronaphthalene
Biphenyl Perylene
Chromium VI Tetrachloronaphthalene
Chlorpyrifos Tetraethyltin
Dacthal Trichloronaphthalene
Diazinon Trifluralin
Endosulfan
Ethion
Heptachloronaphthalene
Hexachloronaphthalene
Kelthane
Mirex
Octachloronaphthalene
Oxadiazon
Seattle District List 3: Potentially Bioaccumulative Chemicals
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene C2-phenanthrene/anthracene
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene C3-chrysenes/benzo(a)anthracene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene C3-dibenz(a,h)anthracene
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene C3-fluorenes
1-methylnaphthalene C3-naphthalenes
1 -methylphenanthrene C3-phenanthrene/anthracene
2,6-Dimethyl naphthalene C4-chrysenes/benzo(a)anthracene
2-methylnaphthalene C4-naphthalenes
4,4'-Dichlorobenzophenone C4-phenanthrene/anthracene
4-bromophenylphenyl ether Chrysene
May 2009 C-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Seattle District List 3 (continued): Potentially Bioaccumulative Chemicals
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC/Alpha-benzenehexachloride
Anthracene
Antimony
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Cl -chrysenes/benzo(a)anthracene
Cl -dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Cl -fluoranthene/pyrene
Cl-fluorenes
Cl-naphthalenes
C1 -phenanthrene/anthracene
C2-chrysenesftenzo(a)anthracene
C2-dibenz(a,h)anthracene
C2-fluorenes
C2-naphthalenes
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzothiophene
Dieldrin
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Endosulfan sulfate
Ethoxylated nonylphenol phosphate
Fluorene
Gamma-BHC/Gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobutadiene
Indeno( 1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Methoxychlor
Nonylphenol
Pentachloroanisole
Phenanthrene
Polybrommated terphenyls
Polychlonnated alkenes
Polychlorinated terphenyls
Pronamide
Tetradifon
Toxaphene
Seattle District List 4: Not Currently Considered Bioaccumulative Chemicals
1,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Bromoxynil
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
Dimethyl phthalate
Diuron
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
Fenitrothion
Guthion
Heptachlor
Hexachloroethane
Methyl parathion
Methyltin trichloride
Naphthalene
Nickel
N-nitroso diphenylamine
Phenol
Silver
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tnphenyltin chloride
Zinc
May 2009
C-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
PORTLAND DISTRICT
Comprehensive tissue data was not available from all areas regulated by the Portland District.
However, the following list was generated through a review of the Portland Harbor tissue data for
fish and shellfish, and is considered likely to capture any contaminants likely to be present in most
areas. The same criteria used in Seattle District were used to develop the'Portland District lists.
Some List 3 chemicals on the more comprehensive Seattle District list were added to List 3 for
Portland District for completeness.
Portland District List 1: Primary Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
Dieldrin Pyrene
Dioxin/furan TCDD toxicity equivalent Selenium
Fluoranthene Total Chlordanes
Fluorene Total DDTs
gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane Total Endosulfans
Hexachlorobenzene Total PCB Aroclors
Mercury Total PCB Congeners
Methoxychlor Tributyltin
Portland District List 2: Candidate Bioaccumulative Chemicals
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Kelthane
4-Nonylphenol, branched Octachloronaphthalene
Arsenic Oxadiazon
Benzo(e)pyrene Parathion
Biphenyl Pentabromodiphenyl ether
Chlorpyrifos Pentachloronapthalene
Chromium VI Perylene
Dacthal Tetrachloronapththalene
Diazinon Tetraethyltin
Ethion Trichloronapththalene
Heptachloronaphthalene Trifluralin
Hexachloronaphthalene
May 2009 C-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Portland District List 3: Potentially Bioaccumulative Chemicals
1 -Methylnaphthalene
1 -Methylphenanthrene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
4,4'-Dichlorobenzophenone
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Aldrin
Alkylated PAHs
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Anthracene
Antimony
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Beryllium
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Butyltin ion
Carbazole
Chrysene
delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibutyl phthalate
Diphenyl
Endrin ketone
Ethoxylated nonylphenol phosphate
Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Nonylphenol
Pentachloroanisole
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Polybrominated terphenyls
Polychlorinated alkenes
Polychlorinated terphenyls
Pronamide
Retene
Tetrabutyltin
Tetradifon
May 2009
C-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Portland District List 4: Not Currently Considered Bioaccumulative Chemicals
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylphenol
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3-Nitroaniline
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
Aniline
Azobenzene
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloro-l-methylethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bromoxynil
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Dibutyltin ion
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diuron
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Ethylbenzene
Fenitrothion
Guthion
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Lead
Methyl parathion
Methyltin trichloride
Mirex
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
Oxychlordane
Phenol
Silver
Tetrachloroethene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethene
Triphenyltin chloride
Zinc
May 2009
C-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
WALLA WALLA DISTRICT
Comprehensive tissue and sediment data were not available from all areas regulated by the Walla
Walla District. Therefore, the approach used for the Seattle and Portland Districts cannot be applied
until more data become available. The following list was generated through the use of multiple
lines of evidence. A review of published toxicity, half-life, bioaccumulation factors, peer-reviewed
literature, and use patterns was conducted, but no single line of evidence was considered definitive.
Information on industrial and manufacturing chemicals of concern is extremely limited due to the
lack of industrial development in the Walla Walla District. Considerable information on use
patterns and environmental fate is available for agricultural chemicals for southeast Washington,
Idaho, and eastern Oregon. The criteria used to develop the four lists were based on multiple lines
of evidence for each constituent and do not rely on discreet cut-off values. A more detailed report
describing the multiple line-of-evidence evaluation is in preparation; please contact the Walla Walla
District for more information.
Walla Walla District List 1: Primary Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
Arsenic
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Dioxins/Furans
DDTs - (includes ODD and DDE degradation products)
Fluoranthene
Hexachlorobenzene
Lead
Mercury
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene
Selenium
Walla Walla District List 2: Candidate Bioaccumulative Chemicals
Cypermethrin Tnphenyltin
lambda-cyhalothrin Zeta cypermethrin
Walla Walla District List 3: Potentially Bioaccumulative Chemicals
DCPA
Fenbutatin
Ethyl parathion
May 2009 C-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Walla Walla District List 4: Not Currently Considered Bioaccumulative Chemicals
Abamactin
Aceflourfen
Acefate
Acetamiprid
Acebenzolar
Aceflourfen
Acifluorfen*
Aclonifen*
Acrolein*
Ametryn
Amitriz
Azadirachtin
Azoxystrobin
Benefin
Benomyl
Benzyladenine
Bifenthrin
Bifenzate
Boscalid
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Buprofezin
Butylate
Cadmium
Calcium polysulfide
Carbofuran
Carfetrazone ethyl
Clorimuron
Chlorsulfuron
Chromium
Clethodim
Clodinafop-propargil
Clofentazine
Clomazone
Clopyralid
Copper
Copper salts
' Cyanamid
Cyanazine
Cycloate
Cyfluthrin
Cymoxanil
Cymorazine
Cyprodinil
Desmedipham
Dicamba potassium salt
Dicamba sodium salt
* Chemicals are not used or not detected in the area.
Diclofop methyl
Dicloran
Dicofol
Difenzoquat
Diflufenzopyr sodium
Dimethipin
Dimethomorph
Disulfoton
Diuron
Dodecadien
Dodecanol
Endothal
Esfenvalerate
Ethalfluralin
Ethephon
Ethion
Etoxazole
Famoxadone
Finamidone
Fenamiphos
Fenarimol
Fenbuconazole
Fenhexamid
Fenoxaprop P
Fenpropathrin
Fipronil
Fluazifop P butyl
Flucarbazone
Fludioxnil
Flumetsulam
Fluoxypr 1-methyl hex
Flutolanil
Formesafen
Fonofos
Foramsulfuron
Formetanate
Fos'etyl al
Gibberelic acid
Giberellins A4 A7
Glufonisate ammonium
Halosulfuron
Harpin
Hexazinone
Hexythiazox
May 2009
C-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Walla Walla District List 4 (continued): Not Currently Considered Bioaccumulative
Chemicals
Imazamthabenz
Imazamox
Imazapyr
Imazethapyr
Imidacloprid
Indoxacarb
Isoxaflutole
Rresoxim methyl
Lactofen
MCPA sodium salt
MCPB
Mesosulfuron methyl
Mesotrione
Metalaxyl
Methidathion
Methomyl
Methoxychlor
Metasulfuron methyl
Mevinphos
Monocarbamide
Myclobutanil
NAA
NAD
Naled
Napropamide
Naptalam
Nicosulfuron
Nickel
Oryzalin
Oxydementon methyl
Oxytetracycline
Oxythioquinox
*PCBs - Total Aroclors
Phenmedipham
Phosphamidon
Picloram
Piperonyl butoxide
Primsulfiiron
Prohexidione calcium
Propachlor
Propamocarb hydrochloride
Propaconazole
Prosulfuron
Pymetrozine
* Chemicals are not used or not detected in the area.
Pyrazon
Pyrethrins
Pyridaben
Pyridate
Pyrimethanil
Pyriproxyfen
Quizalofop
Quizalofop ethyl
Rimsulfuron
Sethoxydim
Silver
Spinosad
Spiromesifen
Streptomycin
Streptomycin sulfate
Sulfentrazone
Sulfosulfuron
Tebufenozide
Tebuprimphos
Tefluthrin
Terbacil
Tetradecanol
Thiamethoxam
Thifensulfuron
Thiodicarb
Tralkoxydim
Triadimefon
Triasulfuron
Triazole
Tribenuron
*Tributyltin
Tridiphane
Trifloxystrobin
Triflumazole
Trifluralin
Triflusulturon methyl
Triforine
Vemolate
Vinclozolin
Z, 8, Dodecanol acetate
Z, 8, Dodecanol
Zinc
Zinc phosphide
Zoxamide
May 2009
C-10
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Appendix D
Derivation of Bioaccumulation Target
Tissue Levels (TTLs) and
Sediment Bioaccumulation Triggers (BTs)
May 2009
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Appendix D
Derivation of Bioaccumulation Target Tissue Levels (TTLs)
and Sediment Bioaccumulation Triggers (BTs)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
D.I. TTL FOR AQUATIC LIFE D-l
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
. 1. CHEMICALS FOR WHICH AQUATIC TISSUE QUALITY GUIDELINES CAN BE DERIVED ... D-3
.2. PROTOCOLS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TTLs D-4
.3. USING EXISTING CRITICAL BODY RESIDUE (CBR) VALUES AND SPECIES SENSITIVITY
DISTRIBUTION (SSD) APPROACH D-4
.4. SSD APPROACH D-5
.5. TOXICITY-BlOACCUMULATION MODELING APPROACH D-6
.6. FACTORS TO CONSIDER D-7
.7. SUMMARY OF AQUATIC LIFE TTLs D-8
D.2. TTL FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC-DEPENDENT WILDLIFE D-8
D.2. l. SELECTION OF AQUATIC-DEPENDENT WILDLIFE RECEPTORS D-9
D.2.2. CALCULATION OF TTLs D-10
D.2.3. TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES (TRVs) D-ll
D.2.4. AQUATIC-DEPENDENT WILDLIFE RECEPTORS PARAMETERS D-ll
D.2.5. TRVs FOR AVIAN RECEPTOR SPECIES D-18
D.2.6. TRVs FOR MAMMALIAN RECEPTOR SPECIES D-22
D.2.7. TTLS FOR AQUATIC-DEPENDENT WILDLIFE D-27
D.2.8. TTLs USING EGG-BASED TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUE STUDIES D-31
D.3. TTL FOR HUMAN HEALTH D-33
D.3.1. SELECTION OF A TARGET RISK AND HAZARD INDEX D-34
D.3.2. EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS D-35
D.3.3. COMPOUNDS WITH A COMMON Toxic MECHANISM D-38
D.4. SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TRIGGERS D-40
LIST OF TABLES
Table D-1. Aquatic Life TTLs Based on SSDs
Table D-2. Aquatic Life TTLs based on AWQC (ODEQ 2007)
Table D-3. Common Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors in Freshwater and Marine Systems
Table D-4. Life History Parameters for Common Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors in
Freshwater and Marine Systems
Table D-5. Avian TRVs
Table D-6. Mammalian TRVs
Table D-7. NOAEL Based TTLs for Avian Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Table D-8. LOAEL Based TTLs for Avian Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Table D-9. NOAEL Based TTLs for Mammalian Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Table D-10. LOAEL Based TTLs for Mammalian Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Table D-ll. Parameters and TTLs for Egg-based Prey Tissue TTLs
Table D-l2. Carcinogenic Slope Factors and Reference Doses
Table D-l3. WHO 2005 TEFs for Dioxins, Furans, and PCBs
May 2009 D-i
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Derivation of Bioaccumulation Target Tissue Levels (TTLs)
and Sediment Bioaccumulation Triggers (BTs)
This appendix identifies the methods used for calculating target tissue levels (TTLs) for each of the
three identified exposure pathways in Sections D. I to D.3 below. The TTLs will be used as part of
reason to believe, to periodically review the regional bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCoC)
lists over time, and as criteria against which the results of bioaccumulation testing can be compared to
determine whether sediments are suitable for open-water disposal or require cleanup.
Derivation methods for TTLs contain conservative assumptions and methods that may result in very
low values, although every attempt will be made to derive values that are realistic while still being
protective and in compliance with state and federal regulations. Some of the calculations do result in
TTLs that are below background concentrations and detection limits. In these cases, the use of a TTL
will default to a comparison to background tissue levels, or detection limits if background levels are
undetected. The agencies are currently involved in extensive regulatory, legal, technical, and
stakeholder discussions around this issue, and further developments can be expected before the
2009/2010 dredging season, which will be subsequently incorporated into the SEP.
While sediment bioaccumulation triggers (BTs) have not yet been developed by RSET, Section D.4
discusses derivation methods that could be used on a regional, site-, or project-specific basis to do so.
In addition, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) recently developed sediment
BTs that can be used (ODEQ 2007).
D.I. TTL FOR AQUATIC LIFE
This section presents the approach used to develop TTLs for aquatic life. This TTL represents the
concentration or target level of a bioaccumulative contaminant in tissue that is considered protective of
aquatic organisms (fish and invertebrates). The tissue residue approach (TRA) has been used to
generate protective TTLs that can be applied to both laboratory bioaccumulation tests and field
collected organisms, where sufficient data was available to do so.
In addition, DEQ has recently derived TTLs for fish, shellfish and aquatic organisms for 19
constituents based on the regional BCOC list (ODEQ 2007). Seventeen of these TTLs were derived
using the Water Quality Criteria Bioaccumulation Factor Approach (WQC-BCF) described in Section
D 1.5 and two were derived using the RSET recommended Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD)
Approach as descnbed in Section D. 1.4.
The following sections provide information on the TRA methodology and the two specific methods
for deriving TTLs that were used for the values presented in the SEP. The final section and Table D-l
present the currently proposed TTLs for aquatic life. Table D-2 presents the aquatic life TTLs from
the ODEQ sediment bioaccumulation guidance (ODEQ 2007) for constituents not included in Table
D-l. These can be used as interim values until aquatic life TTLs can be denved for these constituents
based on the RSET recommended methodology.
There is no regulatory consensus on some of the specific details of the SSD methodology that RSET is
recommending for the development of aquatic life TTLs. For example, there are differences in
opinion amongst regulatory agencies as to which hazardous concentration percentile (HCP) should be
selected for identifying a protective aquatic life TTL. For the purpose of this version of the SEF, the
rationale for the selected HCP is provided (see Section D.I.4). It is expected that as the use of SSDs to
develop aquatic life TTLs become more widespread, greater consistency in the application of the
May 2009 D-l
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Nortliwest
methodology will emerge amongst regulatory agencies. It is also expected that the aquatic life TTLs
will be revised m the future to reflect the standard of practice in the use of this methodology.
Table D-1. Aquatic Life TTLs Based on SSDs
Chemical
TCDD (TEQ)
Mercury
Tnbutyltm
Tnbutyltin
Selenium
Total PCBs
(Aroclors)
DDT
Chlorophenols"
Pentachloro-
phenol
All hydrophobic
orgamcsb
Responses
Mortality
Mortality,
growth,
reproduction,
behavior
Growth
Reproduction
Sublethal
All
Mortality,
growth,
reproduction
Mortality
All sublethal
Mortality
Species
Fish ELS
Fish
All spp
Gastropods
Fish ELS
and
juveniles
Salmomds
Fish adult
All spp.
All spp
All spp
TRVHCos
0.039 ng/g
lipid
0.1 1 mg/kg
ww
0.1 9 mg/kg
ww
0.02 mg/kg
ww
7.91 mg/kg
dw
1.4 mg/kg
lipid
0 09 mg/kg
ww
0011
umol/g ww
0 001 mg/kg
ww
2 16 umol/g
lipid
HCos
Method
From
paper
From
paper
BurrhOZ
BurrliOZ
From
cntenon
BurrliOZ
From
paper
BurrliOZ
BurrliOZ
BurrliOZ
Citation for
Data
Steevens
et al , 2005
Beckvar et al ,
2005
Meador
et al , 2002b
Meador
et al , 2002b
EPA 2004
Meador et al ,
2002a
Beckvar et al.,
2005
Meador 2006
Meador 2006
Di Toro et al ,
2000
"-several compounds (2 CP,3 CP,4 CP, 2,3 DCP, 2,4DCP, 2,5 DCP, 2,6 DCP, 3,5 DCP, 2,3,5 TCP, 2,4,5
TCP, 2,4,6 TCP, 2,3,4,6 TeCP, CP is chlorophenol, DCP, TCP, and TeCP and di-, tn-,tetra chlorophenol).
b - based on several compounds (1,2 and 1,4 dichloro-, difluoro-, and dibromobenzene, 1,2,3 and 1,2,4
tnchlorobenzene, 1,2,3,4 tetrachlorobenzene, pentachlorobenzene, 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane, naphthalene
and fluoranthene).
ELS = early life stage, dw = dry weight; ww = wet weight
May 2009
D-2
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-2. Aquatic Life TTLs based on AWQC (ODEQ 2007)
Chemical
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
4,4'-DDE
4,4 '-DDD
Dieldnn
Lead
Pyrene
Flouranthene
Hexachlorobenzene
CASRN
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
57-74-9
72-55-9
72-54-8
60-57-1
7439-92-1
129-00-0
206-44-0
118-74-1
Freshwater TTL
(rag/kg) ww
6.6
0.15
0.06
0.054
0.054
026
0.12
1.0
19
32
Marine TTL
(mg/kg) ww
1.6
0.15
0.056
0.054
0.054
026
0.40
1.0
19
32
ww = wet weight, refer to ODEQ (2007) for additional information on these TTLs
D.I.I. Chemicals for Which Aquatic Tissue Quality Guidelines Can Be Derived
In theory, tissue TTLs can be derived for any chemical or compound that is bioaccumulated into
aquatic biota tissues. As shown by McCarty et al. (1991), for organic chemicals with a log K.QW < 1.5,
the chemical concentration in the water phase of the organism dominates toxicity, and total body
residues associated with toxicity should be similar to the respective water-based toxicity metnc.
Tissue TTLs should not be derived for chemicals that fall into three rather broad categories:
1. Chemicals that do not appreciably bioaccumulate.
2 External toxicants and irritants.
3. Bioaccumulative compounds that do not result in measurable tissue residues due to rapid
biotransformation.
Some chemicals are quite toxic without appreciable bioaccumulation. Cyanide is one example of a
highly toxic chemical with a low bioaccumulation potential. Many chemicals in this group have high
water solubility that may not preferentially partition from water to tissues, resulting in low tissue
concentrations associated with toxicity.
External toxicants do not need to enter the body of an organism to elicit toxicity. These chemicals,
such as contact herbicides and some imtants, act by destroying the cell wall or inducing mucus that
can suffocate the gills. Many metals at high external exposure concentrations can also act this way.
Additionally, iron and aluminum are two chemicals which, under certain conditions of water quality,
form flocculent materials that coat the gills of aquatic species, causing death by suffocation without
entering the body of the organism.
One example of rapidly biotransformed compounds are the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Because PAHs are extensively transformed in vertebrates, a tissue residue response curve can not be
determined for fish; however this can be accomplished for invertebrates due to a weak cytochrome
P450 system. For PAHs, recent work has demonstrated that fluorescent aromatic compounds (FACs)
in bile can be used to assess bioaccumulation and toxicity. Meador et al. (2006, 2008) found a high
May 2009
D-3
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
correlation between bile FACs, dietary intake of PAHs, and toxicity in juvenile salmon. Biliary FACs
are a surrogate measure of the internal tissue concentration and would be appropriate for
characterizing exposure and toxicity in fish. The PAH metabolites in bile will be considered by RSET
in future evaluations once candidate thresholds are developed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
D.1.2. Protocols for the Development of TTLs
Two approaches are described here for the development of tissue TTLs:
1. Using existing critical body residue (CBR) values. Chemical specific values are considered as a
mean or preferably analyzed with a species sensitivity distribution (SSD). From the SSD, a
protective tissue TTL is determined.
2. Predicted tissue-residue toxicity metrics using existing or modeled exposure media toxicity
metrics and bioaccumulation factors (e.g., WQC-BCF approach).
Tissue TTLs can be developed for some chemicals using existing residue-effects information from the
technical literature. The preferred approach is to examine the data as a SSD; however, if only a few
data points are available (< 4), a mean and standard deviation may be determined and used as the
chemical specific TTL. For chemicals without sufficient residue-effects information, a
bioaccumulation model may be used to develop tissue TTLs; however, these values will have a higher
level of uncertainty.
The strengths and limitations of each of the two primary tissue TTL development methods are
described below, as are some of the available options within the two approaches.
D.1.3. Using Existing Critical Body Residue (CBR) Values and Species Sensitivity Distribution
(SSD) Approach
The first step in this method for deriving TTLs is to identify existing CBR values The Environmental
Residue Effects Database (ERED; Badges and Lutz 1999) and Jarvinen and Ankley (1999) are the
two primary sources of residue-effects information that could be used to develop SSDs. One difficulty
with using measured residue effects data to derive tissue TTLs is data availability. There is simply
less information available in the literature on tissue residues associated with toxicity than there is on
water column or sediment concentrations associated with toxicity. The EPA AQUIRE database, the
repository of toxicity data for chemicals in water, contains over 180,000 records. In contrast, the
ERED database contains approximately 4,000 records. This does not preclude the use of literature
data to denve tissue TTLs, but the limited available information for many chemicals in turn limits both
the number and reliability of tissue TTLs derived from the literature.
The ERED database contains primarily results from studies examining survival, growth, and
reproductive endpoints and has not compiled much of the available residue-effects literature on other
responses, such as biochemical, physiological, morphological, and behavioral effects of
bioaccumulated chemicals. Other specialized databases on tissue residues are being developed and
introduced, such as the PCB residue database summarizing residue-effect data for dioxin-lilce toxicity
in fish, mammals, and birds (EPA 2008).
In addition, the methods by which the residue-effects information is published and reported impose
additional restrictions on the ability of scientists to evaluate and draw inferences from the existing
data. Unlike water-based toxicity data, nearly all of which is reported as dose-response statistics (e.g.
LC50, EC2o, etc.), relatively little of the residue-effects literature is reported as such. Unfortunately, a
May 2009 D-4
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
large percentage of the available tissue-based toxicity metrics are expressed as lowest observed effects
residues (LOERs), which are determined as the lowest dose producing a statistically significant
adverse response compared to the control. The LOERs are dependent on the quanta! nature of
allocating exposure concentrations (often few and far between), a function of sample size (often low),
highly prone to Type II error (finding no effect when in fact an effect exists), low power of the test,
and a bright-line significance value (a = 0.05) that ignores biologically important results.
Occasionally the no observed effects residue (NOER) is used, which also exhibits potential flaws
because it is not based on a toxicity response but represents negative evidence. The NOER values do
not provide reliable information regarding the probability that a given toxicant concentration will not
cause a biological response, and therefore should not be used directly to calculate TTLs.
Empirical Data
Once all available studies have been examined, those that are deemed acceptable are used to compile a
list of values (e.g., LR50, ER|0, LOER values). From these data, basic statistics, such as mean,
variance, and confidence intervals, are produced with the algorithms. For tissue-residue toxicity data,
many of the datasets are expected to follow a normal distribution because of the expected uniformity
across species. For example, the LR50 data for chlorophenols and tributyltin as well as the TBT
growth CBRs presented in this review are normally distributed (Meador 2006). When chemical-
specific datasets are normally distributed, a mean and standard deviation may be calculated; however,
these data can be subjected to an SSD evaluation (see below). If data sets contain less than 4 CBRs it
is appropriate to simply calculate a mean and the lower 95% confidence interval (LCI) of the mean for
use as the TTL. For those TTL values that are determined as a simple mean, a TTL for these data
would be the lower 95% confidence limit of the mean. If the data are not normally distributed, an
SSD approach is preferred (see below). For those chemical specific CBRs that are lognormally
distributed, the appropnate algorithms also should be used because the standard equations are biased.
Gilbert (1987) provides algorithms for calculating these basic statistics for log-normally distnbuted
data.
D.1.4. SSD Approach
The SSD approach has been used extensively to examine toxic responses (Posthuma et al., 2002a). It
has been used in various forms to determine water quality in Europe, water quality criteria (WQC) in
the United States by the EPA (Stephan et al., 1985), to derive sediment quality guidelines (Long and
Morgan 1991), and in various frameworks for ecological risk assessment.
The SSD can be strictly an empirical cumulative distribution function or a line may be fitted to the
data based on the known distribution (e.g., lognormal) using the mean and standard deviation for the
data. In recent years, the hazardous concentration percentile (HCP; p = percentile) has become the
standard way to select a concentration for protection. In many applications, the HCos, or that
concentration representing the 5th percentile of the SSD is selected to protect the 100 - p percentile of
all species. The HCP for protection may be simply the 5th percentile of the observed data or an
interpolated value from a fitted distribution One major drawback to the latter approach is the
selection of the best distribution to fit the data. Goodness of fit tests (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smimoff; K-
S) can be used to test the chosen distribution. If the K.-S test fails, alternate methods are
recommended. Recently, bootstrap techniques have been applied to data sets to determine HCP values
(Newman et al., 2000). The main advantage of bootstrapping is that it is applied to the raw data and is
non-parametric (no distribution is assumed), however, relatively large datasets are required (i.e., > 20
values).
May 2009 D-5
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
There is one software program (BurrhOZ) that can be used to fit toxicity data to species sensitivity
distribution. This program was developed by the CSIRO in Australia
(http://www.cmis.csiro.au/envir/Burrlioz). This program will fit the entered values to the Burr Type 3
(Shao 2000), log-logistic, and lognormal distributions. BurrliOZ also calculates the HCP effect
concentration at various percentiles and the percent confidence interval for that HCp.
When an SSD is used to derive tissue TTLs, a policy decision is required to determine at what level of
effect (or the proportion of species to be protected) the TTL should be set. For consistency with
EPA's WQC derivation methodology and several ERA frameworks, the 5th percentile of the adverse
effects data for survival, reproduction, and growth is used as the selected TTL in the SEF (Stephan et
al., 1985, Posthuma et al., 2002a).
The minimum number of values required for a chemical-specific, tissue-based SSD has not been
determined. The number of data points needed to characterize the toxicity response is a function of
the variability among species and the randomness of the selection. Most SSDs are constructed with
media-based exposure metrics that are more variable than those based on tissue residues. For media
exposures, the European Union Technical Guidance Documents prescribes 10 values from at least 8
taxa and the Netherlands requires four values from four taxa (Posthuma et al., 2002b). In some cases,
an SSD with few data points will not change appreciably when more points are added. A minimum of
four data points from four taxa for generation of an SSD has been selected for calculating TTLs under
RSET. This value is also supported by Pennington (2003), who examined sample size on SSDs and
HC05 determinations.
The aquatic life TTLs presented in Table D-l are based on the HC0s point estimate as discussed above.
Table D-l also provides the source of the HCos point estimate, either the original literature reference
or the BurrliOZ software program descnbed above.
D.1.5. Toxicity-Bioaccumulation Modeling Approach
A more general modeling approach for calculating TTLs may be used as was done by ODEQ for the
development of the majority of the aquatic life TTLs presented in the Sediment Bioaccumulation
Guidance (ODEQ 2007). For this method, a tissue CBR is derived from the product of an established
water quality criterion and a generic bioconcentration factor (or bioaccumulation factor) that has been
calculated using toxicokinetics, quantitative structure activity relationships (QSARs), or that
represents the 95th percentile of all BCFs for that chemical. As many water quality criteria and
bioconcentration factors are already available, this approach can be used to quickly generate tissue
TRVs for a number of chemicals. The ODEQ used readily available BCFs from EPA's water quality
criteria documents (ODEQ 2007).
Tissue toxicity reference values (TRVs) derived using the WQC-BCF approach have many
uncertainties. These uncertainties include the accuracy of water quality criteria used as an input to the
model and using a single BCF (or BAF) to derive applicable tissue TRVs. Addressing these
uncertainties during tissue TRV development may result in TRVs with large safety factors relative to
the safety factors of tissue TRVs derived from SSDs. This is the less preferred of the two methods
described in this section.
May 2009 D-6
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
D.1.6. Factors to Consider
Biological Responses
One issue of concern that applies to both the bioaccumulation modeling and SSD generation
approaches is selection of the toxicological endpomts to incorporate into TTL derivation. The list of
endpoints to be considered is dependent on the statute. The Clean Water Act (CWA), the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) each prescribe a different approach for protecting species and they
allow for a different set of biological responses in the derivation of such protective concentrations.
The standard set of adverse responses includes effects on survival, reproduction, and growth. Other
endpoints are available for consideration when developing tissue TTLs. Examples of additional
endpoints to consider include toxicant effects on behavior, physiology, morphology, and biochemistry.
Evaluation of these additional endpoints in TTL development may be of particular importance for fish
species such as salmonids, where contaminant impacts on swimming behavior or olfactory ability may
have significant adverse effects on the ability of the fish to return to their natal streams to spawn.
If sufficient data are available, separate TTLs should be developed for fish and invertebrates. This is
desirable because these two major groups often exhibit differences in the abundance and affinity of
receptors for some toxicants and they often exhibit different biological responses for the same dose.
One example of this is dioxin toxicity, which is far more important for fish and less so for
invertebrates. Additionally, these two groups may detoxify toxicants differently resulting in major
differences in the biologically effective internal dose. This is the case for metals and some organics
that are metabolized at different rates.
Endangered Species
Threatened and endangered species listed under the ESA are an important concern. Salmonids are one
of the most commonly listed aquatic species that occur at many sites where the RSET framework will
be applied. For media based exposure, salmonids are often one of the most sensitive species because
of their high rates of prey ingestion and ventilation. For this reason, a species in the family
Salmonidae is required for determination of a water quality criterion (Stephan et al., 1985). There are
very few data for testing this hypothesis with tissue-residue toxicity statistics. In theory, it is expected
that salmonids would exhibit similar sensitivity as other species; however, this is not certain. One
review of tissue-residue toxicity metrics for chlorophenols and pentachlorophenol did show that some
salmonids were more sensitive than other species, but not in every case (Meador 2006). It is highly
recommended that residue-effects data for a surrogate species for an ESA listed species (e.g., rainbow
trout for listed salmonids) be considered during any tissue TTL development.
For the SEF, two approaches will be used to develop TTLs protective of ESA species. First, for those
TTLs which are derived using SSDs, the species included in the SSD will be evaluated to determine
whether a salmonid or other ESA surrogate species was included and whether the corresponding TTL
derived is protective of that species. If so, then the TTL will be considered protective of ESA species.
For situations where ESA species or a surrogate toxicity data are not available, the TTL will be
denved based on a NOER calculated using uncertainty factors as descnbed in detail below. This
analysis is still being conducted and ESA protective TTLs will be added to the SEF in the future
revisions/updates to this document.
May 2009 D-7
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Uncertainty/Safety Factors
There is always uncertainty in developing guidelines or threshold values to be used for environmental
protection. This uncertainty often necessitates the use of uncertainty (safety) factors to account for
variability and to ensure that the proposed values will protect the intended species under most
circumstances. Potential factors to be considered include laboratory to field uncertainty,
predominance of mortality metrics, extrapolations of effect to no effect values, temporal factors, and
species factors (ecologically or economically important species and ESA-listed species).
If a TTL is based mostly on mortality, it will not be useful for field assessments. Once organisms
reach tissue concentrations likely to cause mortality, the population impacts will be severe and the
probability of finding those individuals in field collections will be very small. A tissue TTL should be
based on sublethal responses so that there is the possibility of observing those tissue concentrations in
the field and evaluating when the levels are approaching important effect concentrations.
In situations where the low effect values are not based on an ESA species or surrogate, to derive an
ESA-protective TTL, a low effect value (e.g., 5th percentile of LOERs) should be extended to a no
effect value (NOER), which can be accomplished with a safety factor (uncertainty factor). In many
applications, a factor of 10 has been applied (Chapman et al., 1998; Duke and Taggart 2000);
however, in some cases that value is higher (Pennington 2003).
For the current framework, it is recommended that the 5th percentile (HCos) of sublethal values be
used. Any mortality-based toxicity metrics used in the derivation of a TTL will be subjected to a
default lethal-to-sublethal ratio (LSR) of 10.
D.1.7. Summary of Aquatic Life TTLs
At this stage of the RSET process, it is recommended that existing tissue TTLs be used that have been
developed for various toxicants and groups of species. Available TTLs are presented in Table D-I.
Some of these values were used as recommended by the authors, when consistent with the
recommended RSET approach. Other data sets were used with the BurrliOZ program to calculate
HCos values and the LCI of that value. Species mean values were determined where multiple values
occurred in the data set. In situations where TTLs were based on mortality endpoints, a LSR of 10
was used to calculate a LOER value.
The TTLs presented in Table D-l were derived based on the recommended empirical data-SSD
approach. In addition, the ODEQ Sediment Bioaccumulation guidance (ODEQ 2007) has an aquatic
life TTL for cadmium based on an SSD approach.
Aquatic Life TTLs for compounds for which SSD-based TTLs were not available but for which
ODEQ has calculated TTLs based on the WQC-BCF methodology and the cadmium SSD TTL based
on the HCos point estimate are provided in Table D-2.
D.2. TTL FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC-DEPENDENT WILDLIFE
This section presents the approach used to develop TTLs for aquatic-dependent wildlife. This TTL
represents the concentration or target level of a bioaccumulative contaminant in prey items that are
considered protective of birds and mammals that prey on aquatic species such as fish or invertebrates.
Thus, contaminants present in prey items at or below the trigger level are predicted not to harm the
most sensitive life stage of bird or mammal predators. Because it can be difficult and costly to directly
May 2009 D-8
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
measure tissue concentrations in higher order receptors, prey items are considered in this framework,
which can be monitored to determine if action is warranted to protect aquatic-dependent wildlife from
bioaccumulative chemicals in a watershed. Though sediment ingestion is another pathway by which
chemicals can enter aquatic dependant wildlife, the dietary (food ingestion) pathway tends to be the
dominant source for bioaccumulative chemicals (Bridges et al., 1999).
It is important to note that TTLs for aquatic-dependent wildlife may not be protective of the prey
species themselves (TTLs to protect prey species were developed above in Section D. 1). However,
TTLs that are protective of upper trophic level species are typically protective of species lower in the
food chain. These TTLs are derived based on dietary toxicity reference values (TRVs) previously
established and reported for the protection of sensitive life stages of higher trophic level species.
Therefore, TRVs for the receptors (or surrogate species) identified in a watershed, must be available to
calculate TTLs for specific aquatic-dependent wildlife (see Section D.2.3 for a list of available TRVs).
D.2.1. Selection of Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors
Candidate aquatic-dependent wildlife receptors for freshwater and marine systems were identified by
the Bioaccumulation Subcommittee to be considered "representative" or "sentinel" wildlife receptors
based on feeding guilds expected for aquatic dependent wildlife in this region. These are presented in
Table D-3, and include several avion and mammalian species that consume large amounts offish
and/or shellfish in their diets.
Most of these receptors are found in both freshwater and marine environments. Depending on the type
of water body under consideration, shorebirds (such as the stilt, avocet or sandpiper) may also serve as
representative receptors because these birds typically consume aquatic invertebrates including insects
and crustaceans, which may bioaccumulate metals/metalloids to a higher degree than fish consumed
by predominantly fish-eating birds. Mammals that commonly feed on crustaceans and fish in
watersheds include river otter, sea otter, and mink.
Recognizing the difficulties of developing TTLs on a site-specific basis, guidance is provided here for
developing TTLs for wildlife prey items that are more broadly applicable to a wide range of areas. If
the wildlife sentinel species discussed herein are for some reason less appropriate for a particular site
or project, the same general approach may then be used to develop TTLs for the prey items of
additional wildlife species. However, it is likely that the concepts presented in this appendix will be
applicable to most if not all areas where BCoCs that could impact higher trophic level wildlife are
present.
May 2009 D-9
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-3. Common Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors in Freshwater and Marine Systems
Candidate Wildlife
Receptors
Scientific Name
Present in
RSET Region?
Dominant
Food Items
Birds
Great Blue Heron
Belted Kingfisher
Hooded Merganser
Black-Necked Stilt
American Avocet
Spotted Sandpiper
Bald Eagle
Osprey
Ardea herodias
Ceryle alcvon
Mergiis serrator
Himantopus mexicanus
Recurvirostra americana
Actitis macularia
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pandion haliaetus
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(summer)
Yes
(summer)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fish, crustaceans, small mammals
Fish and crayfish
Small fish and invertebrates
Aquatic (including emergent)
insects, small fish
Mostly crustaceans and insects
(including emergent)
Aquatic insects, mollusks, worms,
crustaceans
Fish, fish-eating and non-fish
eating birds, some mammals
Fish
Mammals
North American
River Otter '
Northern Sea Otter Zl3
American Mink '
Harbor Seal 2
Orca Whale 2
Littra canadensis
Enhydra lutris lutris
Mustela vision
Phoca vitiiluna
Orcinus orca
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fish predominantly; also
crustaceans (crayfish)
Marine shellfish and invertebrates
Crustaceans (crayfish), fish
Marine fish, salmon,
macroinvertebrates
Fish, marine mammals
1 Predominantly a freshwater species
2 Predominantly a marine species
3 Washington State only
D.2.2. Calculation of TTLs
Target tissue levels for selected receptor species were calculated using one of the following two
equations. In instances where an estimate of the daily food ingestion rate (FIR) is available on a total
mass basis (e.g., kg wet weight), the following equation was used to calculate the TTL:
TTL» =
TRY..
(FIR/BW)
Equation D-l
where.
TTLW = aquatic-dependent wildlife tissue bioaccumulation trigger (mg/kg, wet weight)
TRVW = toxicity reference value for wildlife receptor (mg/kg body weight/day)
FIR = daily food ingestion rate for wildlife receptor (kg wet weight/day)
BW = body weight for wildlife receptor (kg)
In instances where an estimate of the FIRa was estimated using an allometric scaling calculation that
provides a daily FIRa in units of kg/kg-body weight/day, the following equation was used to calculate
the TTL:
May 2009
D-10
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
TRV
TTL» = 7 2_ Equation D-2
(FIRa)
where:
TTLW = aquatic-dependent wildlife tissue bioaccumulation trigger (mg/kg, wet weight)
TRVW = toxicity reference value for wildlife receptor (mg/kg-body weight/day)
FIRa = daily food mgestion rate for wildlife receptor (kg wet weight/kg-body weight/day)
Food mgestion rates and body weights of site-specific wildlife species of interest were selected from
available literature sources, including EPA's Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 1993b).
Similarly, allometnc scaling equations to calculate food ingestion rates for site-specific species were
taken from EPA (1993b) and Nagy (2001).
D.2.3. Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs)
The TRVs used to calculate TTLs were selected from the identified primary literature sources that are
protective of the receptors. The TRVs provide information about the likelihood of biological effects to
aquatic-dependent wildlife (e.g., reduced survival, growth, and reproduction), and address what level
of bioaccumulation constitutes an "unacceptable adverse effect." Additional site- or project-specific
parameters can be used to fine-tune the model and potentially adjust the TTL in an area, if warranted.
The use of TRVs in this document is consistent with the ODEQ's Guidance for Assessing
Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern in Sediment (2007). The ODEQ (2007) uses the lowest-
observable-effect-level (LOAEL) as the basis for calculating TTLs protective of populations of the
site-specific receptor and the no-observed-adverse effect level (NOAEL) to be protective of
individuals of the site-specific receptor.
Additionally ODEQ (2007) uses several extrapolations if the desired toxicity threshold was not
identified in the literature. The NOAELs were extrapolated to LOAELs by multiplying the NOAEL
by 5. The LOAELs were extrapolated to NOAELS by multiplying the LOAEL by 0 1 (ODEQ 2007).
The hierarchy of sources of TRVs for use in the development of aquatic-dependent wildlife TRVs as
determined by the Bioaccumulation Subcommittee is as follows:
1. EPA avian and mammalian NOAEL TRVs identified in the soil-screening level (SSL) guidance
documents (EPA 2005-2007); and
2. ODEQ (2007) avian and mammalian NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs selected for use.
D.2.4. Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors Parameters
As presented in Equations D-l and D-2, the life history parameters required for the selected
representative receptor species are body weight (BW) and food ingestion rate (FIR). The body weight
selected for TTL calculations were based on mean female body weights, when available, as the
NOAEL TRVs are frequently based on reproductive endpomts from exposure to female organisms. If
mean female body weights were not available, mean adult body weights were used
The following sections of text summarize the information used to select representative BW and FIR
for aquatic-dependent wildlife species for which TTLs were calculated. These parameters are
summarized in Table D-4.
May 2009 D-ll
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-4. Life History Parameters for Common Aquatic-dependent Wildlife Receptors in
Freshwater and Marine Systems
Candidate Wildlife
Receptors
Body
Weight (kg)
Food Ingestion Rate
(FIR)
Birds
Great Blue Heron
Belted Kingfisher
Hooded Merganser
Black-Necked Stilt
American Avocet
Spotted Sandpiper
Bald Eagle
Osprey
2.2
Q.147
054
0160
0.312
00471
45
1.88
0.388 kg ww/day
0 50 kg/kg -BW/day
0.200 kg ww/day
0 089 kg ww/day
0.1 38 kg ww/day
0 039 kg ww/day
0.54 kg ww/day
0.395 kg ww/day
Mammals
North American River Otter
Northern Sea Otter 2
American Mink'
Harbor Seal 2
Orca Whale
770
242
0.974
765
7,500
0 759 kg ww/day
2.02 kg ww/day
0.156 kg ww/day
0.458 kg ww/day
280 kg ww/day
1 Predominantly a freshwater species
2 Predominantly a marine species
Great Blue Heron
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Hartman (1961) and Palmer (1962), as cited in EPA (1993b), report that adult males (mean = 2.57 kg)
are slightly heavier in weight than adult females (mean = 2.20 kg). Using the mean adult female body
weight and the following regression equation referenced in EPA (1993b) relating the amount of food
ingested per day to body weight for wading birds, the daily food ingestion rate was calculated to be
0.388 kg wet weight/day.
log(FIR) = 0.966 log(BVV) - 0.640 Equation D-3
where:
FIR = daily food ingestion rate for wildlife receptor (g wet weight/day)
BW = body weight for wildlife receptor (g)
Diet Composition
Various studies referenced in EPA (I993b) confirm that the vast majority of a great blue heron's diet
consists offish. Other prey items identified include amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, insects, birds,
and mammals (EPA 1993b).
May 2009
D-12
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Belted Kingfisher
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Salyer and Lagler (1946), as referenced in EPA (1993b), reported that the sexes are similar in size,
although the female tends to be slightly larger. The BW selected to calculate the TTL is the mean of
the adult BWs provided in EPA (1993b) which is 0.147 kg. The EPA (1993b) reports a FIRa of 0.50
kg/kg-body weight/day for this species.
Diet Composition
The EPA (1993b) summarizes the literature with regards to belted kingfisher dietary habits. Belted
kingfishers feed on fish that swim near the surface or in shallow waters. However, the diet of the
belted kingfisher varies with availability of prey items and when fish are not available, have been
shown to consume crayfish, other crustaceans, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles.
Hooded Merganser
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Dunning (1993) reported adult female hooded merganser BWs ranging from 0.54 to 0.68 kg and adult
male body weights range from 0.68 to 0.91 kg. The BW selected to calculate the TTL is the lower of
the adult female BWs provided in EPA (1993b) which is 0.54 kg. The daily food ingestion rate was
estimated as a function of body weight using the following allometric equations developed for
carnivorous birds (Nagy 2001).
= 3.048xB\V»« Equation D-4
where'
FIR = daily food ingestion rate for wildlife receptor (g wet weight/day).
BW = body weight (g).
Using the lower of the average female body weight reported in Dunning (1993; 0.54 kg), the
calculated food ingestion rate was 0.200 kg wet weight/day (using Equation D-4).
Diet Composition
Hooded mergansers feed primarily by diving for whatever small fish are abundant, but they will also
eat aquatic invertebrates, especially as hatchlmgs (Csuti et al., 2001). They are also known to feed on
crustaceans, aquatic insects, and small fish (Bendell and McNicol 1995).
Black-Necked Stilt
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Robinson et al. (1999) reported that the weight of an adult black-necked stilt can range from 0.136 to
0.220 kg. The BW selected to calculate the TTL is the mean of the adult BWs provided in Robinson
et al. (1999) which is 0.160 kg. The daily food ingestion rate was estimated as a function of body
weight using the following allometric equations developed for carnivorous birds (Nagy 2001).
May 2009 D-13
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
FIR = 3.048xBW"* Equation D-4
where.
FIR = daily food ingestion rate for wildlife receptor (g wet weight/day)
BW = body weight (g)
Using the mean adult BW (0.160 kg) reported in Robinson et al. (1999) the calculated food ingestion
rate was 0.089 kg wet weight/day (using Equation D-4).
Diet Composition
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CWHRS 2005) reported that the black-necked
stilt forages in shallow water for insects, crustaceans, mollusks, other aquatic invertebrates, and some
small fish.
American Avocet
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Robinson et al. (1999) reported that the weight of an adult American avocet can range from 0.275 to
0.350 kg. The BW selected to calculate the TTL is the mean of the adult BWs provided in Robinson
et al. (1999) which is 0.312 kg. The daily food ingestion rate was estimated as a function of body
weight using the following allometric equations developed for carnivorous birds (Nagy 2001).
FIR = 3.048XBW""15 Equation D-4
where.
FIR = daily food ingestion rate for wildlife receptor (g wet weight/day).
BW = body weight (g).
Using the mean BW of 0.312 kg reported in Robinson et al. (1999), the calculated food ingestion rate
was 0.138 kg wet weight/day (using Equation D-4).
Diet Composition
The CWHRS (2005) reported that the American avocet forages on mudflats, salt or alkali flats, in
shallow-pond areas, and in salt ponds. Preferred foods include aquatic insects, crustaceans, snails,
worms, and occasionally seeds of aquatic plants (Cogswell 1977 referenced in CWHRS 2005).
Spotted Sandpiper
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Maxson and Oring (1980), as presented in EPA (1993b), reported average adult female and male body
weights to be 0.0471 and 0.0379 kg, respectively. The BW selected to calculate the TTL is the mean
of the adult female BW of 0.0471 kg. The daily food ingestion rate was estimated as a function of
body weight using the following allometric equations developed for carnivorous birds (Nagy 2001).
May 2009 D-14
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
3.048xBW«s Equation D-4
where:
FIR = Daily Food Ingestion Rate for wildlife receptor (g wet weight/day).
BW = body weight (g).
Using the average adult female body weight of 0.0471 reported in EPA (1993b), the calculated food
ingestion rate was 0.039 kg wet weight/day (using Equation D-4).
Diet Composition
Spotted Sandpipers feed primarily on terrestrial and aquatic insects (Bent 1929; Csuti et al., 2001).
They may occasionally feed on other benthic macroinvertebrates such as crustaceans, mollusks, and
worms (Bent 1929; Csuti et al., 2001) or on leeches, small fish, and carrion (Oring et al., 1983).
Bald Eagle
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Wiemeyer (1991) as cited in EPA (1993b), reported average adult female and male body weights for
bald eagles to be 4.5 and 3.0 kg, respectively. The food ingestion rate was represented as 12% of the
body weight on a wet-weight basis, based on a study by Stalmaster and Gessaman (1982), as cited in
EPA (1993b), of free-flying eagles in Washington. Using the average female bald eagle body weight,
the calculated food ingestion rate was 0.54 kg wet weight/day.
Diet Composition
Bald eagles are opportunistic foragers with site-specific food habits based on available prey species
(Anthony et al., 1999; Buehler 2000). In most regions, bald eagles seek out aquatic habitats for
foraging and prefer fish (Ehrlich et al., 1988; Buehler 2000). Bald eagles also eat carrion, various
water birds, and small mammals (Csuti et al., 2001).
Osprev
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Poole (1983), as cited in EPA (1993b), reported that the average adult female and male osprey body
weights during courtship were 1.88 and 1.48 kg, respectively. The food ingestion rate was reported as
21% of the body weight on a wet weight basis, based on studies of adult female osprey in
Massachusetts (Poole 1983, as cited in EPA 1993b). Using the average female osprey body weight of
1.88 kg, the calculated food ingestion rate was 0.395 kg wet weight/day.
Diet Composition
Osprey tend to feed solely on fish, primarily on slow-moving fish that swim near the water surface
(Csuti et al., 2001). They may occasionally eat other types of vertebrate prey such as birds, reptiles,
and small mammals, and they only rarely feed on invertebrates.
May 2009 D-15
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
River Otter
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
The life history parameters selected for river otters are based on the accepted parameters for this
species that is being used for the Portland Harbor Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Windward
2005). Average adult female and male river otter body weights in western Oregon and Washington
have been reported for trapped otters submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey (Grove 2004). Body
weights were reported without pelts, and weights were adjusted to estimate body weight with pelts
using a methodology agreed upon by EPA, EPA's partners, and the Lower Willamette Group in the
preparation of the Ecological Preliminary Risk Evaluation (Windward 2005).
Estimated pelted body weights for adult female and male river otters were 9.46 and 11.15 kg,
respectively. The daily food ingestion rate for river otter was estimated as a function body weight
using the following allometric equation presented in Nagy (2001). Nagy (2001) provides two
allometric equations for carnivorous mammals under the group "carnivora" and "carnivores." The
allometnc equation for the group "carnivora" was used for calculating the FIR as Nagy reports that the
mammalian "carnivore" group excludes fish eating mammals (Nagy 2001).
FIR = 0.348XBW"" Equation D-5
where
FIR = daily food ingestion rate (g wet weight/day).
BW = body weight (g).
Using the female adult nver otter body weight of 9.5 kg, the calculated female food ingestion rate was
0.91 kg wet weight/day.
Diet Composition
River otters are opportunistic carnivores that take advantage of food that is most abundant and easiest
to catch, although fish are their primary prey (EPA 1993b). Other components of their diet may
include aquatic invertebrates (including crayfish, mussels, clams, and aquatic insects), frogs, snakes,
turtles, and occasionally scavenged small mammals and birds (Coulter et al, 1984; Csuti et al., 2001).
Northern Sea Otter
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Kenyon (1969) as cited in WDFW (2004) reported average adult female and male sea otter body
weights during to be 37.9 and 24.2 kg, respectively. The daily food ingestion rate for the sea otter was
estimated as a function body weight using the following allometric equation developed for carnivorous
mammals (Nagy 2001).
FIR = 0.348xB\V»" Equation D-5
where.
FIR = daily food ingestion rate (g wet weight/day).
BW = body weight (g).
May 2009 D-16
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Using the female juvenile river otter body weight of 24.2 kg, the calculated female food ingestion rate
was 2.02 kg wet weight/day.
Diet Composition
Sea otters are a highly generalized consumer; most individuals specialize in one to four prey types and
prey types differ among individuals (WDFW 2004). Observation of Washington State sea otters
indicated that they preyed exclusively on invertebrates including clams, chitons, sea cucumbers,
octopus, crabs, and sea urchins (WDFW 2004).
American Mink
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Homshaw et al. (1983), as presented in EPA (1993b), reported average farm-raised adult female and
male BWs for mink in the summer to be 0.974 and 1.734 kg, respectively. The daily food ingestion
rate was estimated as 16% and 12% of body weight on a wet weight basis, based on studies of farm-
raised female and male mink in Michigan (Bleavins and Aulerich 1981), as presented in EPA (1993b).
Using the female mink parameters, the calculated food ingestion rate for females was 0.156 kg wet
weight/day.
Diet Composition
Mink are opportunistic feeders and consume a range of prey including muskrats, fish, frogs, crayfish,
small mammals, and birds found near water (Csuti et al., 2001). The prey items of Mink are largely
dependent on availability, and portions offish in the mink diet vary widely across field studies.
Harbor Seal
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
Body weights for adult male and female harbor seals (84.6 and 76.S kg, respectively) were based on
Pitcher and Calkins (1979), as cited in EPA (1993b). The FIR for harbor seals was calculated using an
allometric equation (Equation D-5) developed by Boulva and McClaren (1979), as cited in EPA
(1993b).
FIR = 0.089xBW°" Equation D-6
where:
FIR = daily food ingestion rate (g wet weight/day)
BW = body weight (g)
Using the adult female harbor seal body weight of 76.5 kg, the calculated female food ingestion rate
was 0.458 kg wet weight/day.
Diet Composition
The harbor seal's diet varies seasonally and includes bottom-dwelling fish and species that can be
caught in periodic spawning aggregations (e.g., herring, lance, and squid; EPA 1993b).
May 2009 D-17
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Orca Whale
Body Weight and Daily Food Ingestion Rate
The NMFS (2008) reported that adult male killer whales can reach weights up to 10,000 kg and female
killer whales can reach weights up to 7,500 kg. The daily food ingestion rate for the orca whale
was estimated as a function body weight using the following allometric equation developed
for carnivorous mammals (Nagy 2001).
FIR = 0.348xBW"» Equation D-5
where:
FIR = daily food ingestion rate (g wet weight/day).
BW = body weight (g).
Using the female adult orca whale body weight of 7,500 kg, the calculated female food ingestion rate
was 280 kg wet weight/day.
Diet Composition
Literature information on the diet composition of resident orca's in Puget Sound indicates that both
northern and southern resident killer whales eat Chinook salmon preferentially (Ford 2006). Chum
salmon becomes the primary salmonid in the diet September-October once the other species of salmon
return to the rivers. Very little is known about what the resident whales eat during the other months of
the year.
D.2.5. TRVs for Avian Receptor Species
The following sections present the avian wildlife TRVs that were used for the calculation of wildlife
TTLs. As discussed above, NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs were selected using the hierarchy of sources
presented in Section D.2.3. The selected avian wildlife TRVs are summarized in Table D-5.
D.2.5.1. TRY for Arsenic
The avian NOAEL TRV for arsenic selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in
EPA's Eco-SSL Report for Arsenic (EPA 2005a). The avian NOAEL TRV for both carnivorous and
insectivorous birds was reported to be 2.24 mg arsenic/kg body weight/day. This TRV was reported to
be the lowest NOAEL value for the reproduction, growth, or survival endpomts.
The avian LOAEL TRV for arsenic selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in
ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRV is reported to be 11.2 mg arsenic/kg body weight/day and
was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRV by multiplying by 5.
May 2009 D-18
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-5. Avian TRVs
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
TBT
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Total Chlordanes
Dieldnn
Total Endosulfan
gamma-HCH (Lmdane)
Total PCBs Aroclors
Dioxms/Furans/coplanar
PCBs TEQ
Avian NOAEL
TRY (mg/kg/day)
2.24
1.63.
0013
0.29
6.8
~
—
~
6.73
~
0.227
0.227
0227
—
0.214
0.0709
—
—
0.2
1.4X10"6
Avian LOAEL TRV
(mg/kg/day)
11.2
82
0.026
1.4
17
~
—
—
33.6
~
1.14
1.14
1.14
-
1.07
0.35
-
—
0.6
7.0 xlO'6
Reference
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1) EPA Soil Screening Level Reports, LOAEL values extrapolated from NOAEL TRVs by multiplying by 5
(2) ODEQ (2007).
~ = not available
D.2.5.2. TRV for Lead
The avian NOAEL TRV for lead selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in EPA's
Eco-SSL report for lead (EPA 2005c). The avian NOAEL TRV for both carnivorous and
insectivorous birds was reported to be 1.63 mg lead/kg body weight/day. This TRV was determined
based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs.
The avian LOAEL TRV for lead selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in ODEQ
(2007). The avian LOAEL TRV is reported to be 8.2 mg lead/kg body weight/day and was
extrapolated from the NOAEL TRV by multiplying by 5.
D.2.5.3. TRV for Mercury
The avian NOAEL TRV for methylmercury selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007) The avian NOAEL TRV was originally cited in EPA's Eco-SSL report
(EPA 2006). The avian NOAEL TRV was reported to be 0.013 mg mercury/kg body weight/day.
May 2009
D-19
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
The avian LOAEL TRY for methylmercury selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The Avian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in EPA's Eco-SSL report
(EPA 2006). The avian LOAEL TRY was reported to be 0.026 mg mercury/kg body weight/day.
D.2.5.4. TRV for Selenium
The avian NOAEL TRV for selenium selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented m
EPA's Eco-SSL report for selenium (EPA 2007e). The avian NOAEL TRV for both carnivorous and
insectivorous birds was reported to be 0.29 mg selenium/kg body weight/day. This TRV was
determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs.
The avian LOAEL TRV for selenium selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL was calculated
using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRV is 1.45 mg
selenium/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRV by multiplying by 5.
D.2.5.5. TRVforPAHs
The availability of avian TRVs for the PAHs identified as BCoCs (fluorene, fluoranthene, and pyrene)
were evaluated by reviewing the Eco-SSL document for PAHs (EPA 2007d). The conclusion of the
Eco-SSL evaluation of avian TRVs for PAHs was that there was insufficient information to derive
TRVs for PAHs.
D.2.5.6. TRV for Pentachlorophenol
The avian NOAEL TRV for pentachlorophenol selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in EPA's Eco-SSL report for pentachlorophenol (EPA 2007c). The avian NOAEL TRV for
both carnivorous and insectivorous birds was reported to be 6.73 mg pentachlorophenol/kg body
weight/day. This TRV was reported to be the lowest NOAEL for the reproduction, growth, or survival
endpoints.
The avian LOAEL TRV for pentachlorophenol selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL was
calculated using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRV is 33.7
mg pentachlorophenol/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRV by
multiplying by 5.
D.2.5.7. TRV for Hexachlorobenzene
No avian TRVs for hexachlorobenzene were identified from the sources used to derive wildlife TTLs
D.2.5.8. TRV for DDT and Metabolites
The availability of avian TRVs for DDT and its metabolites, DDD, and DDE were evaluated by
reviewing the Eco-SSL document for DDT and metabolites (EPA 2007a). This report states that there
were sufficient data for the derivation of avian NOAEL TRV for DDT and that this TRV was also
applicable for the metabolites of DDT (e.g., DDD and DDE). Therefore, for the calculation of wildlife
TTLs for DDT and its metabolites, the NOAEL TRF value in EPA (2007a) was used.
The avian NOAEL TRV for DDT and its metabolites used in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented
in EPA's Eco-SSL Report for DDT and its metabolites (EPA 2007a). The avian NOAEL TRV for
May 2009 D-20
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
both carnivorous and insectivorous birds was reported to be 0.227 mg DDx/kg body weight/day. This
TRY was determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs.
The avian LOAEL TRY for DDT and its metabolites selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL
was calculated using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRY is
1.135 mg DDx/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY by multiplying by 5.
D.2.5.9. TRY for Methoxychlor
No avian TRVs for methoxychlor were identified from the sources used to derive wildlife TTLs.
D.2.S.10. TRY for Total Chlordanes
The avian NOAEL TRY for total chlordanes selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The avian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in Sample (1996) and was
reported as a NOAEL value for the red-winged blackbird. The ODEQ divided this NOAEL value
with an uncertainty factor of 10 to account for interspecies variability. The resulting NOAEL TRY for
total chlordanes was 0.214 mg chlordanes/kg body weight/day.
The avian LOAEL TRY for total chlordanes selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in Sample (1996) and was
reported as a LOAEL value for the red-winged blackbird. The ODEQ divided this LOAEL value with
an uncertainty factor of 10 to account for interspecies variability. The resulting LOAEL TRY for total
chlordanes was 1.07 mg chlordanes/kg body weight/day.
D.2.5.11. TRY for Dieldrin
The avian NOAEL TRY for dieldrin selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in
EPA's Eco-SSL report for dieldnn (EPA 2007b). The avian NOAEL TRY for both carnivorous and
insectivorous birds was reported to be 0.0709 mg dieldrm/kg body weight/day. This TRY was
determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs.
The avian LOAEL TRY for dieldrin selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL was calculated
using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRY is 0.35 mg
dieldrin/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY by multiplying by 5.
D.2.5.12. TRY for Total Endosulfan
No avian TRVs for total endosulfan were identified from the sources used to derive wildlife TTLs.
D.2.5.13. TRY for gamma-HCH (Lindane)
No avian TRVs for lindane were identified from the sources used to derive wildlife TTLs.
D.2.5.14. TRY for Total PCB Aroclors
The avian NOAEL TRY for total PCB aroclors (as aroclor 1254) selected for use in calculating the
wildlife TTL is presented in ODEQ (2007). The avian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in EPA
(1995) and was reported as the NOAEL value for aroclor 1254 developed for the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative. The NOAEL TRY for total PCB aroclors (as aroclor 1254) was 0.2 mg PCBs/kg
body weight/day
May 2009 D-21
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
The avian LOAEL TRY for total PCB aroclors (as aroclor 1254) selected for use in calculating the
wildlife TTL is presented in ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in EPA
(1995) and was reported as the LOAEL value for aroclor 1254 developed for the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative. The LOAEL TRY for total PCB aroclors (as aroclor 1254) was 0.6 mg PCBs/kg
body weight/day.
D.2.5.15. TRY for Dioxin/Furan/PCB Congeners TEQs
The avian NOAEL TRY for dioxin/furan/PCB congeners selected for use in calculating the wildlife
TTL is presented in ODEQ (2007). Dioxin, furan, and PCB TEQs are expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalents; therefore, toxicity studies involving exposure of birds to 2,3,7,8-TCDD were reviewed.
The avian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in EPA (1995) and was reported as the NOAEL value for
2,3,7,8-TCDD developed for the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative. The NOAEL TRY for
dioxin/furan/PCB congeners was 1.4 x 10"6 mg TEQ/kg body weight/day.
The avian LOAEL TRY for dioxin/furan/PCB congeners selected for use in calculating the wildlife
TTL is presented in ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRY was extrapolated from the NOAEL value
by multiplying by 5. The LOAEL TRY for dioxin/furan/PCB congeners was calculated to be 7.0 x
10"6 mg TEQ/kg body weight/day.
D.2.5.16. TRY for Tributyltin (TBT)
The avian NOAEL TRY for tributyltin selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in
ODEQ (2007). The avian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in Sample (1996) and was reported as a
NOAEL value for the Japanese quail. The form of tnbutyltin used in this study was reported to be
bis(tributyltin)oxide (TBTO). The resulting NOAEL TRY for tributyltin was 6.8 mg tributyltm/kg
body weight/day.
The avian LOAEL TRY for tnbutyltin selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in
ODEQ (2007). The avian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in Sample (1996) and was reported as a
LOAEL value for the Japanese quail. The form of tributyltin used in this study was reported to be
bis(tnbutyltm)oxide (TBTO). The resulting LOAEL TRY for tributyltin was 16.9 mg tnbutyltm/kg
body weight/day
D.2.6. TRYs for Mammalian Receptor Species
The following sections present the mammalian wildlife TRVs that were used for the calculation of
wildlife TTLs. As discussed above, NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs were selected using the hierarchy of
sources presented in Section D.2.3. The mammalian wildlife TRVs are summarized in Table D-6.
May 2009 D-22
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-6. Mammalian TRVs
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
TBT
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Total Chlordanes
Dieldnn
Total Endosulfan
gamma-HCH (Lindane)
Total PCBs Aroclors
Dioxms/Furans/coplanar
PCBs TEQ
Mammalian NOAEL
TRV (mg/kg/day)
1.04
47
0.016
0143
234
656
0.615
0.615
8.42
-
0147
0.147
0147
0.458
0.015
-
-
0.12
8.0 xlQ-8
Mammalian LOAEL
TRV (mg/kg/day)
52
24
0027
0.72
3.5
328
305
305
421
~
074
0.74
074
0.94
0.08
—
~
0.23
2 2 x 1Q-*
Reference
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
0)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1) EPA Soil Screening Level Reports, LOAEL values extrapolated from NOAEL TRVs by multiplying by 5
(2) ODEQ (2007).
~ = not available
D.2.6.1. TRV for Arsenic
The mammalian NOAEL TRV for arsenic selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented
in EPA's Eco-SSL report for arsenic (EPA 2005a). The mammalian NOAEL TRV for both
carnivorous and insectivorous mammals was reported to be 1.04 mg arsenic/kg body weight/day. This
TRV was determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs.
The mammalian LOAEL TRV for arsenic selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented
in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRV is reported to be 5.2 mg arsenic/kg body weight/day
and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRV by multiplying by 5.
D.2.6.2. TRV for Lead
The mammalian NOAEL TRV for lead selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in
EPA's Eco-SSL report for lead (EPA 2005c). The mammalian NOAEL TRV for both carnivorous and
insectivorous mammals was reported to be 4.70 mg lead/kg body weight/day. This TRV was
determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs.
May 2009
D-23
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for lead selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented in
ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY is reported to be 23.5 mg lead/kg body weight/day and
was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY by multiplying by 5.
D.2.6.3. TRY for Mercury
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for methylmercury selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in EPA (1995) and
was reported as the NOAEL value for methylmercury developed for the Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative. The NOAEL TRY for methylmercury was 0.016 mg methylmercury/kg body weight/day.
The mammalian LOAEL TRY was for methylmercury selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL
is presented in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in EPA (1995) and
was reported as the LOAEL value for methylmercury developed for the Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative. The LOAEL TRY for methylmercury was 0.027 mg methylmercury/kg body weight/day.
D.2.6.4. TRY for Selenium
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for selenium selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in EPA's Eco-SSL report for selenium (EPA 2007e). The mammalian NOAEL TRY for
both carnivorous and insectivorous mammals was reported to be 0.143 mg selenium/kg body
weight/day. This TRY was determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based
TRVs.
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for selenium selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL was
calculated using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY
is 0.715 mg selenium/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY by multiplying
by 5.
D.2.6.5. TRVforPAHs
The availability of mammalian TRVs for the PAHs identified as BCOCs (fluorene, fluoranthene, and
pyrene) were evaluated by reviewing the Eco-SSL document for PAHs (EPA 2007d). The Eco-SSL
evaluation for mammalian TRVs for PAHs was separated into two classes of PAHs; low-molecular
weight PAHs (LPAH) which includes fluorene and high-molecular weight PAHs (HPAH) which
includes fluoranthene and pyrene.
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for LPAH selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented
in EPA's Eco-SSL report for PAHs (EPA 2007d). The Mammalian NOAEL TRY for both
carnivorous and insectivorous mammals was reported to be 65.6 mg LPAH/kg body weight/day. This
TRY was determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs. This TRY
will be used for fluorene.
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for HPAH selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is presented
in EPA's Eco-SSL report for PAHs (EPA 2007d). The mammalian NOAEL TRY for both
carnivorous and insectivorous mammals was reported to be 0.615 mg HPAH/kg body weight/day.
This TRY was determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs. This
TRY will be used for fluoranthene and pyrene.
May 2009 D-24
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for LPAH selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL was
calculated using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY
is 328 mg LPAH/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY by multiplying by
5. This TRY will be used for fluorene.
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for HPAH selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL was
calculated using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY
is 3.05 mg HPAH/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY by multiplying by
5. This TRY will be used for fluoranthene and pyrene.
D.2.6.6. TRY for Pentachlorophenol
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for pentachlorophenol selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL
is presented in EPA's Eco-SSL report for pentachlorophenol (EPA 2007c). The mammalian NOAEL
TRY for both carnivorous and insectivorous mammals was reported to be 8.42 mg
pentachlorophenol/kg body weight/day. This TRY was reported to be the geometric mean of NOAEL
values for the reproduction and growth endpoints.
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for pentachlorophenol selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL
was calculated using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL
TRY is 42.1 mg pentachlorophenol/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY
by multiplying by 5.
D.2.6.7. TRY for Hexachlorobenzene
No mammalian TRVs for hexachlorobenzene were identified from the sources used to derive wildlife
TTLs.
D.2.6.8. TRY for DDT
The availability of mammalian TRVs for DDT and its metabolites, DDD, and DDE were evaluated by
reviewing the Eco-SSL document for DDT and metabolites (EPA 2007a). This report states that there
were sufficient data for the derivation of mammalian NOAEL TRY for DDT and that this TRY was
also applicable for the metabolites of DDT (e.g, DDD and DDE). Therefore, for the calculation of
wildlife TTLs for DDT and its metabolites the NOAEL TRY value in EPA (2007a) was used.
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for DDT and its metabolites selected for use in calculating the wildlife
TTL is presented in EPA's Eco-SSL report for DDT and its metabolites (EPA 2007a). The
mammalian NOAEL TRY for both carnivorous and insectivorous mammals was reported to be 0.147
mg ddx/kg body weight/day. This TRY was determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting
NOAEL-based TRVs
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for DDT and its metabolites selected for use in calculating the wildlife
TTL was calculated using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ's sediment bioaccumulation
guidance (ODEQ 2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY is 0.735 mg ddx/kg body weight/day and was
extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY by multiplying by 5.
It should be noted that the TTLs for total DDTs presented in Table 8-3 of the main report (TTLs for
protection of aquatic-dependent wildlife) are based on the egg-based TRY presented in Section
D.2.8.1.
May 2009 D-25
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
D.2.6.9. TRY for Methoxychlor
No mammalian TRVs for methoxychlor were identified from the sources used to derive wildlife TTLs.
D.2.6.10. TRY for Total Chlordanes
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for total chlordanes selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in Sample (1996) and
was reported as a NOAEL value for the mouse. The ODEQ divided this NOAEL value with an
uncertainty factor of 10 to account for interspecies variability. The resulting NOAEL TRY for total
chlordanes was 0.458 mg chlordanes/kg body weight/day.
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for total chlordanes selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in Sample (1996) and
was reported as a LOAEL value for the mouse. The ODEQ divided this LOAEL value with an
uncertainty factor of 10 to account for interspecies variability. The resulting LOAEL TRY for total
chlordanes was 0.915 mg chlordanes/kg body weight/day.
D.2.6.11. TRY for Dieldrin
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for dieldrin selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in EPA's Eco-SSL report for dieldnn (EPA 2007b). The mammalian NOAEL TRY for both
carnivorous and insectivorous mammals was reported to be 0.015 mg dieldrin/kg body weight/day.
This TRY was determined based on EPA (2003) guidance for selecting NOAEL-based TRVs
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for dieldrin selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL was
calculated using the extrapolation method provided in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY
is 0.075 mg dieldrin/kg body weight/day and was extrapolated from the NOAEL TRY by multiplying
by 5.
D.2.6.12. TRY for Total Endosulfan
No mammalian TRVs for total endosulfan were identified from the sources used to derive wildlife
TTLs.
D.2.6.13. TRY for gamma-HCH (Lindane)
No mammalian TRVs for lindane were identified from the sources used to derive wildlife TTLs.
D.2.6.14. TRY for Total PCB Aroclors
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for total PCBs selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in Millsap (2004) and
was reported as the NOAEL value for total PCBs developed for mink. The NOAEL TRY for total
PCBs was 0.12 mg PCBs/kg body weight/day.
The mammalian LOAEL TRY was for total PCBs selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in Millsap (2004) and
was reported as the LOAEL value for total PCBs developed for mink. The LOAEL TRY for total
PCBs was 0.23 mg PCBs/kg body weight/day.
May 2009 D-26
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
It should be noted that the TTLs for Total PCBs Aroclors presented in Table 8-3 of the mam report
(TTLs for protection of aquatic-dependent wildlife) are based on the egg-based TRY presented in
Section D.2.8.1.
D.2.6.15. TRY for Dioxin/Furan/PCB Congeners TEQ
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for dioxin/furan/PCB congeners TEQ selected for use in calculating
the wildlife TTL is presented in ODEQ (2007). Dioxin, furan, and PCB TEQs are expressed as
2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents The mammalian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in Tillit (1996) and
was reported as the NOAEL value developed for mink. The NOAEL TRY for dioxin/furan/PCB
congeners was 8.0 x 10"8 mg TEQ/kg body weight/day.
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for dioxin/furan/PCB congeners TEQ selected for use in calculating the
wildlife TTL is presented in ODEQ (2007). Dioxin, furan, and PCB TEQs are expressed as 2,3,7,8-
TCDD equivalents. The mammalian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in Tillit (1996) and was
reported as the LOAEL value developed for mink. The LOAEL TRY for dioxin/furan/PCB congeners
was 2.2 x 10'6 mg TEQ/kg body weight/day.
It should be noted that the TTLs for dioxin/furan/PCB congeners TEQ presented in Table 8-3 of the
main report (TTLs for protection of aquatic-dependent wildlife) are based on the egg-based TRY
presented in Section D.2.8.1.
D.2.6.16. TRY for Tributyltin (TBT)
The mammalian NOAEL TRY for tnbutyltm selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented m ODEQ (2007). The mammalian NOAEL TRY was originally cited in Sample (1996) and
was reported as a NOAEL value for the mouse. The form of tributyltin used in this study was reported
to be bis(tributyltm)oxide (TBTO). The ODEQ divided this NOAEL value with an uncertainty factor
of 10 to account for interspecies variability. The resulting NOAEL TRY for tributyltin was 2.34 mg
tnbutyltin/kg body weight/day.
The mammalian LOAEL TRY for tributyltin selected for use in calculating the wildlife TTL is
presented in ODEQ (2007). The mammalian LOAEL TRY was originally cited in Sample (1996) and
was reported as a LOAEL value for the mouse. The form of tributyltin used in this study was reported
to be bis(tnbutyltin)oxide (TBTO). The ODEQ divided this NOAEL value with an uncertainty factor
of 10 to account for interspecies variability. The resulting LOAEL TRY for tributyltin was 3.5 mg
tnbutyltin/kg body weight/day.
D.2.7. TTLs for Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
The TTLs for aquatic-dependent wildlife were calculated using the species-specific life history
parameters selected in Section D.2.4 combined with the TRVs for the BCoCs identified in Sections
D.2.5 and D.2.6. As previously discussed, TTLs for wildlife were calculated using either Equation D-
1 or Equation D-2 depending on how the FIR was calculated for the selected sentinel wildlife species.
The TTLs for aquatic-dependent wildlife are presented in Tables D-7 through D-10.
May 2009 D-27
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-7. NOAEL Based TTLs for Avian Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
TBT
Fluorene
Fluoranlhene
Pyrene
Pentachloro-
phenol
Hexachloro-
benzene
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Total
Chlordanes
Dieldnn
Total
Endosulfan
gamma-UCH
(Lindane)
Total PCBs
Aroclors
Dioxms/Furans/
coplanar
PCBsTEQ
Great Blue
Heron
127
924
007
16
38
--
--
-
38
-
13
13
13
--
121
040
--
-
1 13
79X10"6
Belted
Kingfisher
45
33
003
058
14
-
-
-
14
-
045
045
045
-
043
014
--
-
040
28x 10*
Hooded
Merganser
61
44
004
078
18
-
--
-
18
--
061
061
061
--
058
019
--
-
054
3 8 x \Q*
Black-
necked Stilt
40
29
002
052
12
-
-
--
12
•-
041
041
041
-
038
013
--
--
036
2 5 x lO*
American
Avocct
51
37
003
066
15
-
--
-
15
-
051
051
051
-
048
016
-
-
045
32x10-*
Spotted
Sandpiper
27
20
002
035
821
-
-
--
813
-
027
027
027
-
026
009
-
-
024
1 7x 10-*
Bald
Eagle
19
14
Oil
24
57
-
--
-
56
-
19
19
19
-
18
059
-
-
1 7
1 2 x 10J
Osprey
11
78
006
1 4
32
-
--
-
32
-
1 1
1 1
1 1
--
10
034
--
--
095
6 7 x \0*
TTLs in units of mg/kg wet weight; — = not available
May 2009
D-28
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-8. LOAEL Based TTLs for Avian Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
TBT
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Pentachloro-
phenol
Hexachloro-
benzene
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Total
Chlordanes
Dieldnn
Total
Endosulfan
gamma-HCH
(Lmdane)
Total PCBs
Aroclors
Dioxins/Furans/
coplanar
PCBsTEQ
Great Blue
Heron
63
46
015
822
96
-
-
-
191
-
65
65
65
-
61
19
.
-
34
3.9 xlO"5
Belled
Kingfisher
22
16
0.05
2.9
34
-
-
-
67
-
23
23
23
-
21
070
-
-
1.2
1 4 x 10"'
Hooded
Merganser
30
22
007
39
46
-
-
-
91
-
3 1
31
31
-
2.9
095
-
-
16
I9x 10'5
Black-
necked Stilt
20
15
005
26
31
-
-
-
60
-
21
2.1
21
-
19
063
-
-
1 1
1 3 x tO"5
American
Avocct
25
19
006
33
38
-
-
-
76
-
26
2.6
26
-
24
079
-
-
14
1 6 x 10'5
Spotted
Sandpiper
14
99
003
18
21
-
-
-
41
-
14
14
14
-
13
042
-
-
072
85x10*
Bald
Eagle
93
68
022
12
140
-
-
-
280
-
95
95
9.5
-
89
2.9
-
-
50
5 8 x 10J
Osprcy
53
39
012
69
81
-
-
-
160
-
54
54
54
-
51
1.7
-
-
29
3 3 x IO'5
TTLs in units of mg/kg wet weight, - = not available
May 2009
D-29
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-9. NOAEL Based TTLs for Mammalian Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
TBT
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Total Chlordanes
Dieldnn
Total Endosulfan
gamma-HCH (Lmdane)
Total PCBs Aroclors
Dioxms/Furans/
coplanar PCBs TEQ
North American
River Otter
11
49
017
1 5
24
684
64
64
88
--
1 5
1 5
1 5
--
48
016
--
--
1 2
83xlO'7
Northern Sea
Otter
12
563
019
1 71
28
786
74
74
101
-
18
18
18
--
5.5
018
-
--
14
96x10"'
American
Mink
65
29
010
089
15
410
38
38
53
--
0.92
092
092
-
29
009
-
-
075
SOxlO'7
Harbor
Seal
174
785
267
2389
391
10957
102
102
1406
-
245
245
245
-
765
251
-
-
20
13x 10'5
Orca
Whale
28
126
042
38
63
1757
165
165
225
--
39
39
39
-
123
040
-
--
32
2 1 x IO*
TTLs in units of mg/kg wet weight, — = not available
May 2009
D-30
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Table D-10. LOAEL Based TTLs for Mammalian Aquatic-dependent Wildlife
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
TBT
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Total Chlordanes
Dieldnn
Total Endosulfan
gamma-HCH (Lmdane)
Total PCBs Aroclors
Dioxins/Furans/
coplanar PCBs TEQ
North American
River Otter
54
250
028
75
36
3400
32
32
439
--
77
77
77
--
98
084
--
-
24
2 3 x ID'5
Northern Sea
Otter
62
288
032
86
42
3900
36
36
504
-
89
89
89
--
II 2
09
--
--
27
26xlO-5
American
Mink
32
1 50
017
45
22
2000
19
19
260
--
46
4.6
46
--
59
050
--
--
14
140x Iff3
Harbor
Seal
868
4009
4.5
120
585
54800
509
509
7032
-
124
124
124
-
157
134
-
-
384
37X10"1
Orca
Whale
139
643
072
19
94
8800
82
82
1128
--
20
20
20
--
25.2
21
--
-
62
59x 1Q-5
TTLs in units of mg/kg wet weight, -- = not available
D.2.8. TTLs Using Egg-Based Toxicity Reference Value Studies
In addition to providing dietary-based TTLs protective of aquatic dependent wildlife, TTLs were also
calculated using bird egg-based TRVs. Some types of chemicals such as DDE, PCBs, "dioxin-hke"
compounds, mercury, and selenium have demonstrated effects on avian development at the level of the
egg. In these cases, developing TTLs based on eggs may be more appropriate than the dietary
pathway because the reproductive effects and corresponding TRVs are based on concentrations in bird
eggs rather than in the diet, as the dietary pathway model may not result in TTLs that are sufficiently
protective of reproductive effects The following egg-based model for developing tissue trigger levels
was used to develop the egg-based TTLs.
= TRVegg/BMFegg
Equation D-7
where •
TTL = tissue concentration in prey protective of avian predators (mg/kg, wet weight).
TRVegg = egg-based toxicity reference value (mg/kg).
BMFegg = biomagnification factor from prey to egg (unitless); includes biomagnification from prey
to adult, followed by adult to egg.
May 2009
D-31
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
The greatest challenge for developing egg-based TTLs at this time is the lack of available egg-based
TRVs and prey-to-egg BMFs. For egg-based TRVs, the TRY values provided in ODEQ's Guidance
for Assessing Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern in Sediment (ODEQ 2007) were used. The .
ODEQ (2007) presents NOAEL and LOAEL egg-based TRVs for dioxins/furans congeners (as
2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs), PCBs as Aroclor 1254, DDE (applied to total DDT), and mercury.
D.2.8.1. Egg-Based Toxicity Reference Value
The egg-based TRVs used to calculate egg-based TTLs are summarized in Table D-11.
Table D-11. Parameters and TTLs for Egg-based Prey Tissue TTLs
Chemical
Mercury
DDT (total)
Dioxms/
Furans/
coplanar
PCBs TEQ
Total PCBs
Aroclor
Egg-
based
NOAEL
TRV
05
10
3 Ox 10J
40
Egg-
based
LOAEL
TRV
(mg/kg)
25
42
40 x IO-1
20
Ref.
(1)
(D
(D
(1)
BMP.,,
Bald
Eagle
28
75
16
110
Osprey
28
87
10
11
Ref.
(1)
(1)
(D
(1)
NOAEL
Bird Egg
TTL
(Bald
Eagle)
018
001
19x 10s
004
LOAEL
Bird
Egg
TTL
(Bald
Eagle)
089
006
25x 10s
018
NOAEL
Bird
Egg
TTL
(Osprey)
018
001
30x I05
036
LOAEL
Bird
Egg
TTL
(Osprey)
089
005
40x 10s
18
TTLs in units of mg/kg wet weight, Reference (1) - ODEQ 2007
TRVforDioxin/Furan/PCB Congeners TEQ
Egg-based TRVs for dioxin/furans/PCB congeners TEQ were selected from those values provided in
ODEQ (2007). Dioxin/furan TRVs are expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents; therefore, the egg-
based TRV presented for 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs in ODEQ (2007) were selected.
The egg-based NOAEL TRV for dioxin/furans/PCB congener TEQ was reported to be 0.0003 mg/kg
The egg-based LOAEL TRV for dioxin/rurans/PCB congener TEQ was reported to be 0.0004 mg/kg.
TRV for Total PCBs
Egg-based TRVs for total PCB (as aroclor 1254) were selected from those values provided in ODEQ
(2007). The egg-based NOAEL TRV for PCB TEQs was reported to be 4.0 mg/kg. The egg-based
LOAEL TRV for PCB TEQs was reported to be 20.0 mg/kg.
TRV for DDE (applied to Total DDT)
Egg-based TRVs for total DDT were selected from those values provided in ODEQ (2007). The egg-
based NOAEL TRV for total DDT was reported to be 1.0 mg/kg. The egg-based LOAEL TRV for
total DDT was reported to be 4.2 mg/kg.
May 2009
D-32
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
TRVfor Mercury
Egg-based TRVs for mercury were selected from those values provided in ODEQ (2007). The egg-
based NOAEL TRV for mercury was reported to be 0.5 mg/kg. The egg-based LOAEL TRV for
mercury was reported to be 2.5 mg/kg.
D.2.8.2. Biomagniflcation Factor (BMFegg) from Prey to Egg
The BMFegg values for deriving egg-based TTLs were selecting using the same sources presented
above for the selection of egg-based TRVs. The ODEQ (2007) presents BMFegg values for both the
bald eagle and osprey for the following compounds: PCB TEQs, total PCBs as aroclors, DDE, and
mercury. As there are BMFegg values provided for all compounds for which egg-based TRVs were
available, the ODEQ values were selected for the calculation of TTLs. The BMFegg values from
ODEQ (2007) are presented in Table D-l 1.
D.2.8.3. Prey Tissue Bioaccumulation Triggers
Prey TTLs developed using egg-based TRVs were calculated using Equation D-5 and the species
specific (bald eagle or osprey) BMFegg Factors provided in ODEQ (2007). The calculated TTLs are
presented in Table D-11.
D.3. TTL FOR HUMAN HEALTH
This section describes how the TTLs presented in Table 8-2 of the main report were derived for
protection of human health. For the purposes of this assessment, only human health risks associated
with consumption of bioaccumulative chemicals in fish or shellfish are considered. For dredged
material disposal, particularly in deep-water areas, this will be the only complete exposure pathway.
At some sediment sites, it may be necessary to also consider other potential pathways (e.g, direct
human contact with sediments). However, where fish and shellfish consumption is one of the
potential exposure pathways, the food-related pathway typically is a more substantial contributor to
site risks than direct contact with sediments. Thus, the initial focus on fish and shellfish consumption
is appropriate.
The TTLs address both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of BCoCs through application of a
carcinogenic slope factor (CSF) for carcinogenic effects and a reference dose (RfD) for non-
carcinogenic effects. The EPA-approved toxicity values are described on the EPA Integrated Risk
Information System web site2 and EPA's Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund.3
Additional interim toxicity values can be obtained by contacting EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment.4 The TTLs for carcinogenic effects of BCoCs were calculated using the
following equation and exposure assumptions:
r^r , „ > TRxATxBW
TTLH (mg/kg)=-c-
EFxEDxFIxIRx 0.001 kg/g x CSF
~ httpV/www.epa eov/ins/search htm
3 http //hhpprtv ornl gov/
4http.//cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/aboutncea.cFm?ActTvpe=AboLitNCEA
May 2009 D-33
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
where.
TTLH = target tissue level in fish or shellfish tissue (mg/kg wet weight)
TR = target risk for individual carcinogens (1x10"6)
ATC = averaging time (70 years x 365 days/year)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
0.001= conversion of grams fish to kg
EF = exposure frequency (365 days/year)
ED = exposure duration (30 or 70 years)
FI = fraction of intake assumed from site (1.0)
IR = ingestion rate for fish and shellfish (54,142, or 584 g/day)
CSF = carcinogenic slope factor [chemical-specific; (mg/kg-day)"1]
For non-carcinogenic effects, the following equation and exposure assumptions were used to denve
TTLs for fish and shellfish tissue:
7T, / /z > THQxBWxAT.xRfD
TTL H (mg/kg) = •
EF x ED x FI x IR x 0.001 kg/g
where
TTLH = target tissue concentration in fish or shellfish (mg/kg wet weight)
THQ = target hazard quotient (1)
ATn = averaging time (30 or 70 yrs x 365 days/year)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
0.001 = conversion of grams to kg
EF = exposure frequency (365 days/year)
ED = exposure duration (30 or 70 years)
FI = fraction of intake assumed from site (1.0)
IR = ingestion rate for fish and shellfish (54,142, or 584 g/day)
RfD = reference dose for non-cancer effects (chemical-specific; mg/kg-day)
D.3.1. Selection of a Target Risk and Hazard Index
For carcinogenic effects of BCoCs, a total cumulative target risk level of 10"5 (upper-end) was used,
consistent with regulatory requirements set by ODEQ and Ecology. This risk level represents the
middle of the risk range (10~4 to 10"6) typically identified as acceptable by EPA and allows for
exposure to multiple carcinogenic BCoCs. To achieve this risk level, TTLs for individual BCoCs
were set at risk levels of 10"6.
In denving TTLs for non-cancer endpomts, a cumulative hazard index of 1.0 was used. TTLs for
individual BCoCs were also denved through application of a hazard quotient of 1.0. Where multiple
BCoCs are present at concentrations greater than the non-cancer TTL, the agencies may consider
additional evaluation to determine whether the BCoCs could affect the same target organs at the
concentrations present. If this is the case, it may be appropriate to adjust the TTLs to result in a
cumulative hazard index of 1.0.
May 2009 D-34
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
D.3.2. Exposure Assumptions
The following exposure assumptions were used to develop the default RSET TTLs for protection of
human health. Following both EPA and state guidelines, the exposure estimate is intended to be a
high end, but not worst-case, scenario. The exposure parameters include some values that are average
for the population (e.g., body weight), some that have several possible choices (e.g., consumption
rate), and some that have significant built-in safety factors and are therefore quite conservative (e.g.,
carcinogenic slope factors and reference doses). This combination of central tendency and upper
bound exposure parameter values should result in the desired overall high end exposure.
Exposure assumptions will in general be based on the conceptual site model discussed in Chapter 3.
When cleanup and navigational dredging projects are occurring in the same area, it will be especially
important to ensure that the conceptual site model and exposure assumptions used are coordinated,
particularly with respect to the concentrations that will remain at the project site after dredging.
Children may be more exposed to environmental toxicants because they consume more food and water
per unit body weight than adults (EPA 2002). The EPA's guidelines for cancer risk assessment note
that children may be more sensitive to toxic chemicals than adults and have provided limited
methodology to compute enhanced children's cancer risks (EPA 2005d).
Despite a desire to assess risks posed by environmental contaminants to children, children's fish
consumption rates have not been as well quantified as adult rates. For example, issues with regional
estimates of tribal children's fish consumption rates include small sample sizes (CRITFC 1994; Toy et
al., 1996; Suquamish 2000), inclusion of more than one child from the same household leading to lack
of independence of results (Suquamish 2000), and potential reporting of adult as children's rates
(CRITFC 1994). Given uncertainties in children's consumption rates, RSET guidance will utilize
default exposure parameters based on adult consumption. This position may be modified on a site-
specific basis or as better data on children's fish consumption are obtained.
D.3.2.1. Consumption Rates
The TTLs are intended to be protective of all populations (e.g., recreational, subsistence, Native
American). To meet this objective, fish consumption rates for various populations present in the
region were reviewed to determine several representative default consumption rates that could be used.
Because consumption rates are highly vanable among various populations, it was considered
appropriate to derive more than one set of rates depending on the specific situation. Project
proponents may propose, or agencies may require, use of the consumption rate that is most
representative of the dredged material disposal site or project site involved. In addition to these three
default consumption rates, where site-specific consumption studies have been conducted, these can be
applied on a case-by-case basis, subject to agency approval. The three selected sets of consumption
rates represent, conceptually:
1. General population in a coastal state - 54 g/day. This value is promulgated in MTCA for
protection of the general population (WAC 173-340-730). This value would only be used if the
disposal or project site in question was not located within a tribal fishing area, urban subsistence
fishing area, or active recreational fishing area.
2. High-end recreational or mid-range subsistence consumers - 175 g/day. This value has recently
been negotiated between EPA Region 10 and ODEQ for use in the water quality program. It falls
within the first-tier (Tulalip) tribal consumption range (97.6 g/day not including salmon; 243
g/day fish and shellfish including salmon) proposed for use by EPA Region 10 as one of the
May 2009 D-35
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
default values for Superfund sites (EPA 2007f)5- This value was derived from two studies of
tribal consumption among Washington and Oregon tribes (CRITFC 1994; Toy et al., 1996). This
level is also similar to that used by California EPA of 166 g/day for the 95th percentile of sports
and recreational anglers (California EPA 2001). Finally, a recent study of Asian and Pacific
Islander consumption rates in King County found a mean consumption of 117 g/day and an upper
90"' percentile of 236 g/day (Sechena et al., 2003).
3. High-end tribal subsistence consumers - 584 g/day. This value represents the upper-tier tribal
subsistence value (Suquamish, not including salmon) proposed for use by EPA Region 10 as one
of the default values for Superfund sites in Puget Sound (EPA 2007f, Suquamish 2000). Because
it does not include salmon, a higher rate may be appropriate for areas with similar higher-tier tribal
consumption where sediment contamination would be expected to contribute to contaminant body
burdens in salmon (e.g., ordinarily migratory species trapped behind dams).
It is recognized that a wide variety of seafood consumption rates, ranging from 6.5 g/day to 796 g/day,
are in use by various state and federal agencies and tnbes in the Pacific Northwest. No single
framework could hope to capture all of these. However, the three rates selected above are intended to
be representative of three conceptual ranges of consumption rates, and to serve as default values that
users and agencies can select. Site- or project-specific nsk assessments or consumption studies can be
substituted for these values upon agency approval.
Note that seafood consumption rates used in risk assessment are affected by many factors, including:
seafood consumption survey design, how the survey population is defined, how the source of seafood
is considered in consumption rate derivation (e.g. purchased or harvested from a particular geographic
area), whether non-consumers of seafood are included m the survey sample used to derive rates, the
environmental factors affecting the surveyed population (e.g. does habitat limit resource use, are there
fears of chemical contamination or fish consumption advisories), whether weighting factors are
applied to consumption rates for survey respondents to estimate consumption rates for a larger
population, whether or not anadromous species are included in the consumption rate, and the statistic
chosen to represent consumption (e.g mean, median, 90th or 95th percentile). The references
included in this section should be consulted for a complete understanding of the basis of a
consumption rate included here.
D.3.2.2. Exposure Duration and Frequency
Exposure duration for the general population was set at 30 years, which represents estimates of how
long an average person might spend in one area, and reflects EPA guidance for general population risk
assessments. Exposure duration for consumption rates (2) and (3) above are intended to reflect tnbal
consumption, for which 70 years is considered more appropriate as site fidelity is higher than in the
general population. Because the consumption rates are daily consumption rates already averaged over
a year, the exposure frequency is 365 days/year.
D.3.2.3. Body Weight
A range of body weights is currently in use for various adult populations, including 63 kg for Asian
and Pacific islanders, 70 kg for the general population, and 79-82 kg for tribal populations. This is a
5 These consumption rates are upper percentile values from survey data that include only consumers of seafood.
Rates included in EPA's Framework (EPA 2007Q are intended to represent consumption of seafood harvested
from Puget Sound. The API rates cited here represent consumption of seafood regardless of source (e g
purchased or harvested).
May 2009 D-36
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
very small deviation compared to the overall uncertainty in the risk-based values. Therefore, as with
the consumption rate, the body weight selected for the default RSET concentrations is in the middle of
this range at 70 kg.
D.3.2.4. Fractional Intake or Area Use Fraction
An additional area for consideration is the fraction of seafood harvest that may be affected by site-
specific contamination. Issues that may be considered include resource sustainability, site area,
overall harvest area, fidelity of site use, the role multiple smaller site remediation/disposal actions may
have on larger systems, and policy regarding acceptable risks associated with resource use
independent of location The RSET TTLs were developed based on a default fractional intake of 100
percent. Alternative fractional intake rates may be considered, subject to agency approval, as part of a
site-specific nsk assessment or established regional policy. For example, the use of the tnbal
subsistence consumption rates established for Puget Sound use a fractional intake based on the fraction
caught within Puget Sound (EPA 2007f).
D.3.2.5. Carcinogenic Slope Factors and Reference Doses
The cancer potency factors and reference doses in use at the time these values were developed are
listed in Table D-12. Unless otherwise noted, these values are from EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System. These values will be periodically reviewed for updates and the resulting TTLH
values updated accordingly.
Table D-12. Carcinogenic Slope Factors and Reference Doses
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Tnbutyltin
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Pyrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Total Chlordanes
DDTs - Total
Dieldrin
Total Endosulfans
gamma-HCH (Lmdane)
Methoxychlor
Total PCB Aroclors
Dioxms/Furans/PCB congeners
CAS Number
7440-38-2
7439-92- 1
7439-97-6
7782-49-2
688-73-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
1 29-00-0
118-74-1
87-86-5
57-74-9
50-29-3
60-57-1
115-29-7
58-89-9
72-43-5
1336-36-3
1746-01-6
Reference Dose
(mg/kg-day)
0.0003
NA
0.0001
0.005
0.0003
0.04
0.04
0.03
00008
003
00005
00005
0.00005
0006
0.0003
0005
0.00002"
0.000000001
Carcinogenic Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)"1
1.5
NA
—
~
-
—
-
—
1.6
012
035
0.34
16
~
1.3
—
2
130000
NA - Not available, lead is known to be toxic at very low levels, but EPA has not established toxicity values
a Based on aroclor 1254, the most frequently found aroclor in sediments for which an RfD is available.
May 2009
D-37
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
D.3.3. Compounds with a Common Toxic Mechanism
Tissue contaminant concentrations that tngger sediment bioaccumulation testing are usually computed
for individual compounds. However, deriving TTLs on a compound-by-compound basis is not always
appropnate when compounds of similar chemical structure and a common toxicity mechanism are
present. In such cases, TTLs may be developed on a chemical class basis. Chlorinated dioxins/furans
and polychlorinated biphenyls (CDFBs) are the primary chemical class for which TTLs have been
calculated at the group level.
The toxicity of CDFBs as a group may be assessed using a toxic equivalency approach. Each
compound within the CDFB group is assigned a toxic equivalency factor (TEF) descnbing the toxicity
of that CDFB relative to the toxicity of a reference compound, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD). A CDFB that is equal in toxicity to TCDD would have a TEF of 1.0. A compound that is
half as toxic as TCDD would have a TEF of 0.5, and so on. Multiplying the tissue concentration of a
CDFB by its TEF produces the tissue concentration of TCDD that is equivalent in toxicity (TEQ) to
the CDFB concentration of concern. Computing the TEQ for each CDFB in a tissue sample followed
by summing all TEQ values permits expression of all CDFB concentrations in terms of a total TCDD
toxic equivalent tissue concentration (i.e., total tissue TCDD TEQ).
Total tissue TCDD TEQ = Cn x TEFn
n=l
If the total tissue TCDD TEQ exceeds the TTL for TCDD, sediment bioaccumulation testing is
warranted.
There have been several efforts to develop TCDD TEFs for dioxin/furans and PCBs having TCDD
like toxicity (EPA 2000). The most recent effort occurred at an expert meeting organized by the
World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 (Van den Berg et al., 2006). The 2005 WHO effort
supplanted TEFs developed in 1998 (Van den Berg et al. 1998) and utilized multiple lines of evidence
to develop a consensus based list of TEFs. Table D-13 provides the WHO 2005 TEFs for dioxins,
furans, and PCBs.
May 2009 D-38
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Nortliwest
Table D-13. WHO 2005 TEFs forDioxins, Furans, and PCBs
Compound
TEF
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0003
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1.2.3,4.7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
0.1
0.03
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0003
PCBs
3,3',4,4'-TCB
3,4,4',5-TCB
2)3,3',4,4'-PeCB
2,3,4,4',5-PeCB
2;3',4,4',5-PeCB
2',3,4,4',5-PeCB
3,3',4,4',5-PeCB
2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB
2,3,31,4,4',5'-HxCB
2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
S.S'/M'.S.S'-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB
0.0001
0.0003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.1
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.03
0.00003
Abbreviations: T-tetra, Pe-penta, Hx-hexa, Hp-hepta, O-Octa,
DD-dibenzodioxm, DF-dibenzofuran, CB-chlorobiphenyl
May 2009
D-39
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
D.4. SEDIMENT BIOACCUMULATION TRIGGERS
It can be difficult to accurately back-calculate sediment triggers from tissue levels using literature-
derived BSAFs from field studies, due to large uncertainties in BSAFs for the same chemical derived
from different data sets (PTI Environmental 1995). This is largely due to differences in sediment
geochemistry, bioavailability of contaminants, and food webs from one area to the next, as well as an
assumption of equilibrium, which may not actually exist in many environments.
However, BSAFs can be developed on a site-specific, watershed, or disposal site basis using tissue
data paired with sediment data from the home range of the species being evaluated. Care must be
taken to ensure that the BSAF is meaningful (i.e., there is a statistically significant regression curve or
sufficient paired sediment/tissue data to calculate a mean with low variability; Exponent 1998). It is
also important to take into account the home range of the species sampled and pair the sediment and
tissue data accordingly. Methods for calculating statistically meaningful BSAFs and draft BSAFs for
several non-polar organic compounds are presented in PTI Environmental (1995) and Exponent
(1998).
For the purposes of the dredging program, the most relevant BSAF may be at the disposal site (for
non-dispersive sites), since this is where the material will reside after dredging and the long-term
exposures of concern may occur. The BSAFs for the project site or waterbody of origin may also be
used to determine the effects of dredging residuals or contaminants released during dredging. It may
be possible to use past monitoring data to develop disposal site-specific BSAFs that can be applied to
derive sediment BTs for each disposal site (or for a set of disposal sites that are similar in nature and
receptors, such as ocean disposal sites along the coast of Oregon or those in Puget Sound). In denving
and applying such BSAFs, it will be important to consider whether sediment characteristics affecting
bioavailability are similar at the disposal site and in the dredged material being disposed there.
Because of both environmental and programmatic differences, it is not necessary or even possible to
use the same approach or have the same cntena for bioaccumulation in sediments. For example,
tissue triggers may be developed to be protective of a wide variety of regional wildlife receptors and
human exposure scenarios, but which ones will apply at any given site or disposal site will vary
depending on the environment in which that site is located and the uses that are present. The BSAFs
used to back-calculate from tissue levels to sediments may also vary depending on geochemical
conditions and food webs present in each environment. Superfund sites with parties having the
resources to conduct complex food web modeling or monitoring evaluations may develop site-specific
sediment BTs, compared to small dredging projects in which standardized ratios or BSAFs calculated
from regional regressions may be employed. It is most important that all programs and agencies have
consistent, protective tissue levels as the same goals, and are working toward meeting these
watershed-wide values in a manner that best meets their project needs.
May 2009 D-40
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
D.5. REFERENCES
Anthony, R.G., A.K.. Miles, A. Estes, and F.B. Isaacs. 1999. Productivity, diets, and environmental
contaminants in nesting bald eagles from the Aleutian Archipelago. Environ Toxicol Chem
18(9):2054-2062.
Beckvar, N., T. Dillon, and L. Reed. 2005. Approaches for linking whole-body fish tissue residues of
mercury or DDT to biological effects thresholds. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:2094-2105.
Bendell, B.E. and D.K. McNicol. 1995. The diet of insectivorous ducklings and the acidification of
small Ontario lakes. CanJZool 73:2044-2051.
Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shore birds: order Limicolae. U.S. National
Museum. Bulletin, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Republished, 1963, Dover
Press, New York, NY.
Bleavins, M.R. and R.J. Aulerich. 1981. Feed consumption and food passage time in mink (Mustela
visori) and European ferrets (Mustela putoriusfuro). LabAnim Sci 31(3):268-269.
Boulva, J. and I.A. McClaren. 1979. Biologyof the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in eastern Canada.
Canada: Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 200.
Bridges, T.S. and C.H. Lutz. 1999. Interpreting Bioaccumulation Data with the Environmental
Residue-Effects Database. Dredging Research Technical Note EEDP-04-30, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In: Poole A, Gill F, eds, The birds of
North America, no. 506. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.
California EPA. 1999. Cancer Potency Evaluation for Benzo[a]Pyrene. In: Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Part II: Technical Support Document for Describing
Available Cancer Potency Factors. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
California EPA. 2001. Chemicals in Fish: Consumption of Fish and Shellfish in California and the
United States, Final Report, California EPA, Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Chapman P.M., A. Fairbrother, and D. Brown. 1998. A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty)
factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:99-108
CRITFC. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakima, and Warm Springs
Tribes of the Columbia River Basin, Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission.
CWHRS. 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Database Version 8.1 (2005).
California Department of Fish and Game.
Cogswell, H.L. 1977. Water birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
May 2009 D-41
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Coulter, W., C.M. Adams, and D.J. Decker. 1984. River otter biology. In: New York's wildlife
resources Department of Natural Resources, New York State College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, State University at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Csuti, B., T.A. O'Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and J.C. Hak. 2001. Atlas of Oregon wildlife:
distribution, habitat, and natural history. 2nd ed. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Di Toro, D.M. and J.A. McGrath. 2000. Technical basis for narcotic chemicals and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon criteria II. Mixtures and sediment. Environ Toxicol. Chem. 19:1971-82.
Di Toro, D.M., J.A. McGrath, and D.J. Hansen. 2000. Technical basis for narcotic chemicals and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. I. Water and tissue. Environ. Toxicol Chem. 19:1951-
1970.
Duke, L.D. and M. Taggart. 2000. Uncertainty factors in screening ecological risk assessments.
Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1668-80
Dunning, J.B., ed. 1993. CRC handbook of avian body masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Ehrhch, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook. Simon and Schuster, New
York, NY.
EPA. 1993a. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/C89.
EPA. 1993b. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I of II. EPA/600/R-93/187a. December
1993. Office of Research and Development.
EPA. 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Criteria Documents for the protection of Wildlife,
DDT, Mercury, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCBs. EPA, Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-008.
EPA. 2000. Chapter 9: Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEF) for Dioxin and Related Compounds,
Exposure and Human, Exposure and Human Heatlh Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-Dioxm (TCDD) and Related Compuonds, Part II: Health Assessment for 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxm (TCDD) and Related Compounds, External Review Draft, U.S. EPA,
National Center for Environmental Assessment.
EPA. 2002. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook, Interim Report.
EPA. 2003. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. November. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency and Remedial Response. OSWER Directive 92857-55.
EPA. 2004. Draft aquatic life water quality criteria for selenium - 2004 United Stated Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
EPA-822-D-04-001. 83 p. and appendices.
EPA. 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWR Directive 9285.7-62.
March 2005.
EPA. 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium. Interim Final. OSWR Directive 9285.7-
65. March 2005.
May 2009 D-42
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
EPA. 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWR Directive 9285.7-70.
March 200S.
EPA. 2005d. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development.
EPA. 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final. OSWR
Directive 9285.7-57. April 2007.
EPA. 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWR Directive 9285.7-
56. Revised April 2007.
EPA. 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Pentachlorophenol. Interim Final. OSWR Directive
9285.7-58. Revised April 2007.
EPA. 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Interim Final. OSWR Directive 9285.7-78. June 2007.
EPA. 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium. Interim Final. OSWR Directive 9285.7-
72. July 2007.
EPA. 2007f. Framework for Selecting and Using Tribal Fish and Shellfish Consumption Rates for
Risk-Based Decision Making at CERCLA and RCRA Cleanup Sites in Puget Sound and the Strait
of Georgia, U.S. EPA Region 10-Office of Environmental Cleanup; Office of Air Waste and
Toxics; Office of Environmental Assessment.
EPA. 2008. PCBres - PBC Residue Effects Database. United Stated Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C..http://www.epa.gov/medProds_Pubs/pcbres.htm
Exponent. 1998. Review of Bioaccumulation Methods for Fish and Shellfish. Bellevue, Washington.
Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Ford, J.K. and G.M. Ellis. 2006. Prey selection and food charing by fish-eating 'resident' killer whales
(Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. 2006 Symposium on Southern Resident Killer Whales,
Seattle, WA.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co. New York, NY.
Grove, R. 2004. Personal communication (communication to Jeremy Buck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, OR, data on otter body weights in western Oregon and Washington). U.S.
Geological Survey, Portland, OR.
Hartman, F.A. 1961. Locomotor mechanisms of birds. Washington, DC. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 143.
Hornshaw, T.C., R.J. Aulerich, and H.E. Johnson. 1983. Feeding Great Lakes fish to mink: effects on
mink and accumulation and elimination of PCBs by mink. JToxicol Environ Health 11:933- 946.
May 2009 D-43
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
James, M. 1989. Chapter 3: Biotransformation and Disposition of PAH in Aquatic Invertebrates. In:
Metabolism of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Environment. U Varanesi ed.
CRC Press.
Jarvinen, A.W. and G.T. Ankley. 1999. Linkage of Effects to Tissue Residues: Development of a
Comprehensive Database for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Inorganic and Organic Chemicals.
SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL.
Kenyon, K.W. 1969. The sea otter in the eastern Pacific Ocean. North American Fauna 68:1-352.
Landrum P., G. Lotufo, D. Gossiaux, M. Gedeon, and J-H. Lee. 2003. Bioaccumulation and critical
body residue of PAHs in the amphipod Diporeia spp.: Additional evidence to support toxicity
additivity for PAH mixtures. Chemosphere 51:481 -489.
LDWG. 2007. Lower Duwamish Waterway group: Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Report: Appendix
A: Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. July 31, 2007.
LWG. 2007. Lower Willamette Group. Comprehensive Round 2 Report. Appendix G: Section 5.3
"Bird Egg Assessment." February 21, 2007.
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. Technical Memorandum NOS
OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.
Maxson, S.J. and L.W. Oring. 1980. Breeding season time and energy budgets of the polyandrous
spotted sandpiper. Behaviour 74:200-263.
McCarty, L.S., D. Mackay, A.D. Smith, G.W. Ozburn, and D.G. Dixon. 1991. Interpreting Aquatic
Toxicity QSARs: The significance of Toxicant Body Residues at the Pharmacological Endpomt.
Sci Total Environ. 109/110:515-525.
Meador, J.P. 2000. Predicting the fate and effects of tributyltin in marine systems. Rev Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 166:1-48.
Meador, J.P. 2006. Rationale and procedures for using the tissue-residue approach for toxicity
assessment and determination of tissue, water, and sediment quality guidelines for aquatic
organisms. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 12:1018-1073.
Meador J.P., J. Buzitis, and C. Bravo. 2008. Using fluorescent aromatic compounds (FACs) in bile
from juvenile salmonids to determine exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Environ
Toxicol. Chem 27:845-853.
Meador J.P, T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein. 2002a. Use of tissue and sediment based threshold
concentrations of polychlonnated biphenyls (PCBs) to protect juvenile salmonids listed under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act. Aquat Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 12:493-516.
Meador, J.P., T.K. Collier, and J.E. Stein. 2002b. Determination of a tissue and sediment threshold for
tnbutyltin to protect prey species for juvenile salmonids listed by the U.S. Endangered Species
Act. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst. 12:539-551.
May 2009 D-44
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Meador, JP, F.C. Sommers, G.M. Ylitalo, and C.A. Sloan. 2006. Altered growth and related
physiological responses in juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from dietary
exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Can. Jour. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63:2364-2376.
Melquist, W.E. and M.G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of river otters in west central Idaho. In:
Kirkpatrick RL, ed, Wildlife monographs. Vol 83. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.
Millsap, S.D. et al. 2004. Comparison of risk assessment methodologies and exposure of mink to
PCBs on the Kalamazoo River, Michigan. Environmental Science & Technology. 38(24):6451-
6459.
Nagy, K,A. 2001. Food requirements of wild animals: Predictive equations for free-living mammals,
reptiles, and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews; Series B: Livestock Feeds and Feeding. Vol.
71, No. 10,pp.lR-12R.
Newman, M.C., D.R. Ownby, L.C.A. Mezin, et al. 2000. Applying species-sensitivity distributions in
ecological risk assessment: assumptions of distribution type and sufficient numbers of species.
Environ Toxicol Chem 19:508-15.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Office of Protected Resources website at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/killerwhale.htm.
ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Guidance for Assessing
Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern in Sediment. Updated April 3,2007. Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, Environmental Cleanup Program.
Oring, L.W., D.B. Lank, and S.J. Maxson. 1983. Population studies of polyandrous sandpiper. Auk
100:272-285.
Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds: V. I.Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Pennington, D.W. 2003. Extrapolating ecotoxicological measures from small data sets. Ecotox.
Environ. Safety 56:238-250.
Pitcher, K. W. and D.G. Calkins. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulind richardsi, in the
Gulf of Alaska. Final report. Outer Continental Shelf Assessment Program Research Unit 229,
Contract no. 03-5-002-69.
Poole, A.F. 1983. Courtship feeding, clutch size, and egg size in ospreys: a preliminary report. In: Bird
DM, Seymour NR, Gerrard JM, eds, Biology and management of bald eagles and ospreys. Harpell
Press, St. Anne de Bellvue, Quebec, pp 243-256.
Posthuma, L., G.W. Suter II, and T.P..Traas (eds). 2002a. Species Sensitivity Distributions in
Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers.
Posthuma, L., T.P. Traas, D. de Zwart, and G.W. Suter II. 2002b. Conceptual and technical outlook on
species sensitivity distributions. In: L. Posthuma GW Suter II and TP Traas (eds). Species
Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, pp. 475-508.
May 2009 D-45
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
PTI Environmental Services. 1995. Analysis of BSAF Values for Nonpolar Organic Compounds in
Finfish and Shellfish. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared for
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Robinson, J.A., J.M. Reed, J.P. Skorupa, and L.W. Oring. 1999. In: The Birds of North America. A.
Poole and F. Gill, eds.
Salyer, J.C. and K..F. Lagler. 1946. The eastern belted kingfisher, Megaceryle alcyon alcyon
(Linnaeus), in relation to fish management. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 76:97-117.
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996
Revision. Risk Assessment Program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.
Sechena, R., S. Liao, R. Lorezana, C. Nakano, N. Pohssar, and R. Fenske. 2003. Asian American and
Pacific Islander seafood consumption - A community-based study in King County, Washington.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology (2003) 13:256-266.
Shao, Q. 2000. Estimation for hazardous concentrations based on NOEC data. An alternative
approach. Envirometrics 11'583-595.
Stalmaster, M.V. and J.A. Gessaman. 1982. Food consumption and energy requirements of captive
bald eagles. J Wildl Manage 46:646-654.
Steevens, J.A., M.R. Reiss, and A.V. Pawlisz. 2005. A methodology for deriving tissue residue
benchmarks for aquatic biota: a case study for fish exposed to 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
and equivalents. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1:142-151.
Stephan C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985.
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and their Uses. EPA 822-R85-100. Washington, D.C.
Suquamish. 2000. Fish Consumption Survey of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison
Indian Reservation, Puget Sound Region.
Tillit, D.E., R.W. Gale, J.C. Meadows, J.L. Zajicek, P.H. Peterman, S.N. Heaton, P.O. Jones, S.J.
Bursian, T.J. Kubiak, J.P. Geisy, and R.J. Aulench. 1996. Dietary exposure of mink to carp from
Saginaw Bay. 3. Charctenzation of dietary exposure to planar halogenated hydrocarbons, dioxm
equivalents and biomagnification. Environ Sci Technol 30:283-291.
Toy, K., N. Pohssar, S. Liao, and G D. Mittelstaedt. 1996. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Tulalip
and Squaxin Island Tribes of the Puget Sound Region.
Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A T.C. Bosveld, B. Brunstrom, P. Cook, M. Feeley, J.P. Giesy, A.
Hanberg, R. Hasegawa, S.W. Kennedy, T. Kubiak, J.C. Larsen, R. F.X. van Leeuwen, L.A.K.
Djien, C. Nolt, R.E. Peterson, L Poellinger, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, D.E. Tillitt, M. Tysklind, M.
Younes, F. Waern, and T. Zacharewski. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs,
PCDDs, PCDFs for Humans and Wildlife: Environmental Health Perspectives 106:775-792.
May 2009 D-46
-------
SEFfor the Pacific Northwest
Van den Berg, M.L., M. Birnbaum, M. Denison, M. De Vito, W.H. Farland, M. Feeley, H. Fielder, H.
Hakansson, A. Hanberg, L.C. Haws, M. Rose, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, C. Tohyama, A. Tritscher, J.
Tuomisto, M. Tysklind, N.J. Walker, and R.E. Peterson. 2006. The 2005 World Health
Organization reevaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds. Toxicological Sciences 93:223-241.
Varanesi U, J. Stein, and M. Nishimoto. 1989. Chapter 4: Biotransformation and Disposition of
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Fish. In: Metabolism of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Environment. U Varanesi (ed). CRC Press, pp. 93-1
WDFW. December 2004. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sea otter recovery plan.
Wheeler J.R., E.P.M. Grist, K.M.Y. Leung, D. Morritt, and M. Crane. 2002. Species sensitivity
distributions: data and model choice. Mar. Poll. Bull. 45:192-202.
Wiemeyer, S.N., T.G. Lament, C.M. Bunck, C.R. Sindelar, F. Gramlich, J.D. Fraser, and M.A. Byrd.
1984. Organochlorine pesticide, polychlorobiphenyl, and mercury residues in bald eagle eggs-
1969-1979-and their relationships to shell thinning and reproduction. Arch Environ Contain
Toxicol 13:529-549.
Wiemeyer, S.N. 1991. Personal communication (estimate of average adult bald eagle body weights)
cited in EPA's Wildlife Exposures Handbook (1993).
Windward. 2005. Portland Harbor Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Ecological Preliminary
Risk Evaluation. WE-05- 0007 draft. Prepared for Lower Willamette Group by Windward
Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA.
May 2009 D-47
------- |