Dredged Material
Evaluation Framework
Lower Columbia River Management Area
November 1998
US Army Corps
of Engineers©
Northwestern Division

S-SS.V..-:
Portland District
Seattle District
Region 10
[ C 0 L 0 fi Y
Oregon Department of
EnvironmentalQuality
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
Natural Resources

-------
kffi hL' 'K-it-ooj
DREDGED MATERIAL
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Lower Columbia River Management Area
NOVEMBER 1998

-------
DREDGED MATERIAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA
The program established by this document becomes effective upon signature by the
agency heads listed below. Each agency will carry out its roles and responsibilities for
program implementation under existing authorities. Programmatic changes will be made
in conjunction with an annual review process, and any major plan changes will be subject
to the approval of the agencies.
i4/l
Division Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers', Seattle District
/V

LZsUl-

Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
m
Director/
Oregon/Department of Environmental Quality
wrector
'Washington Department of Ecology
toipmissioner of Public Lands
shington Department of Natural Resources

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
DREDGED MATERIAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Lower Columbia River Management Area
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Preface
Definitions
Acronyms
1.	GOALS, DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATION
1.1	Introduction
1.2	Evaluation Framework
1.3	Framework Objectives
1.4	Evaluation Procedures Philosophy
1.5	Evaluation Framework Characteristics
1.6	Future Regional Frameworks
1.7	Study Participants/Public Involvement
2.	DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION
2.1	Overview
2.2	Federal Regulations
2.3	Washington State Regulations
2.4	Oregon State Regulations
3.	LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA
3.1	Overview
3.2	General Description
3.3	Shoal Processes
3.4	Mainstem Navigation Channel
3.5	Maintenance Dredging and Disposal
3.6	River Control Structures
3.7	Sediment Quality Characteristics
3.8	Mid-Columbia River
3.9	Lower Willamette River
3.10	Side Channel Projects
i

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
4.	REGULATORY PROCESSES
4.1	Overview
4.2	Corps of Engineers Role
4.3	New Dredging
4.4	Permit Renewal
4.5	Verification for Maintenance Dredging
4.6	Evaluation Process
4.7	Quality Control Plan
4.8	Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects
5.	TIERED EVALUATION PROCESS/TIER I
5.1	Overview
5.2	Tiered Evaluation Process
5.3	Tier I
Initial Rankings
Project Specific Evaluations
Exclusion from Further Testing
Frequency of Dredging Guidelines
Recency of Data Guidelines
5.4	Transition to Subsequent Tiers
6.	SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP)
6.1	Overview
6.2	Information in a Sampling and Analysis Plan
6.3	Determination of Dredged Material Volumes
6.4	Determination of Sampling and Analysis Requirements
6.5	Preparation and Submittal of a Sampling and Analysis Plan
6.6	Special Cases
6.7	Sampling for Site-Specific Downranking
7.	SAMPLING
7.1	Overview
7.2	Sampling Approach
7.3	Positioning Methods
7.4	Sampling Methods
7.5	Sample Collection and Handling
7.6	Archiving Additional Sediment
7.7	Data Submittal
ii

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
8.	TIER II PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTING
8.1	Overview
8.2	Protocols
8.3	Tier IIA Testing
8.4	Tier IIB Testing
8.5	Interpretive Guidelines
9.	TIER III BIOLOGICAL TESTING
9.1	Overview
9.2	Sediment Solid Phase Biological Tests
9.3	Water Column Bioassays
9.4	Bioaccumulation Testing
9.5	Reference Sediment Collection Sites
10.	TIER IV EVALUATIONS
10.1	Overview
10.2	Steady State Bioaccumulation Test
10.3	Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment
11.	DATA SUBMITTAL
11.1	Overview
11.2	Sediment Characterization Report
11.3	Quality Assurance Data
11.4	QA1 Data Checklist
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
6-A Small Project Sampling and Analysis Plan
6-B	Large Project Sampling and Analysis Plan
7-A	Sample Collection and Handling Procedures
8-A	Tributyltin Testing
9-A	Bioassay Statistics Software
9-B Illustration of Bioassay Interpretation
9-C Bioaccumulation Concentrations
iii

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLES
5-1	Summary of Tiered Evaluation Approach for Aquatic Disposal
5-2	Ranking Guidelines
5-3	Initial Project Rankings
6-1	Dredged Material Management Units
6-2	"No Test" Volumes for Small Projects
6-3	Ranking Guidelines for PC Data
7-1	Sample Storage Criteria
8-1	Chemicals of Concern Guideline Values
8-2	Analysis and Preparation Methods
iv

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
FIGURES
2-1	Geographic Jurisdiction of MPRSA and CWA
3-1	Lower Columbia River Management Area Maps
4-1	Standard Regulatory Process
4-2	Regulatory Process for Maintenance Permits
4-3	Dredged Material Evaluation Process
5-1	Regional Tiered Testing
v

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
PREFACE
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) share the responsibility of regulating dredged material management activities under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, also called the Clean Water Act (CWA). Such management
activities must also comply with the applicable requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Several state agencies in Oregon and Washington have responsibility for
assuring that dredging and disposal activities which take place in state waters comply with
applicable state regulations. This framework provides a consistent set of procedures for
determining sediment quality for these activities.
The area covered by this document is called the Lower Columbia River Management Area
(LCRMA). The LCRMA includes the following water bodies: (1) the Lower Columbia River
from its mouth near Ilwaco, Washington to Bonneville Dam at river mile (CRM) 148; (2) the
segment of the mid-Columbia River extending from Bonneville Dam upstream to McNary Dam;
(3) the Willamette River from its confluence with the Lower Columbia River upstream to its
headwaters, and (4) all side channel and tributaries branching from the lower and mid-Columbia
River and Willamette River.
This document provides a consistent technical framework to follow in identifying
environmentally acceptable alternatives for the management of dredged material. The
framework is consistent with and meets the substantive and procedural requirements of NEPA,
CWA, and MPRSA and is applicable to dredged material management alternatives. Application
of this framework will enhance consistency and coordination in Corps/EPA and state agency
decision-making in accordance with Federal and State environmental statutes regulating dredged
material management.
This document represents the best available knowledge regarding dredged material assessment at
the time of preparation. This is a living document and will be updated as new information and
new technologies become available. Recipients of the final document will receive notice of any
updates.
This manual was prepared by ajoint Federal/State work group consisting of the following
members: Rick Vining, Washington Department of Ecology, Ted Benson, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, Gene Foster and Tom Rosetta, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality; Jim Reese, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Northwestern; Mark Siipola,
Eric Braun and Sheryl Carrubba, U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland; Stephanie Stirling, U.S.
Army Engineer District, Seattle; and John Malek, EPA, Region 10.
vi

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
DEFINITIONS
Acid volatile sulfide: (AVS): The sulfides removed from sediment by cold acid extraction,
consisting mainly of H, S and FeS. AVS is a possible predictive tool for divalent metal sediment
toxicity.
Acute toxicity: Short-term toxicity to organism(s) that have been affected by the properties of a
substance, such as contaminated sediment. The acute toxicity of a sediment is generally
determined by quantifying the mortality of appropriately sensitive organisms that are exposed to
the sediment, under either field or laboratory conditions, for a specified period..
Adjacent: Bordering, contiguous or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the
United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are
adjacent wetlands.
Aquatic disposal: Placement of dredged material in rivers, lakes, estuaries, or oceans via
pipeline or surface release from hopper dredges or barges.
Aquatic environment: The geochemical environment in which dredged material is submerged
under water and remains water saturated after disposal is completed.
Aquatic ecosystem: Bodies of water, including wetlands, that serve as the habitat for
interrelated and interacting communities and populations of plants and animals.
Atterberg limits: Consistency limits, including the liquid limit, the plastic limit, and the
shrinkage limit, which define the three stages of fine-grained material.
Bathymetry: Physical configuration of the sea bed; the measurement of depths of water in
oceans, seas, and lakes; also information derived from such measurements.
Benchmark organism: Test organism designated by Corps and EPA as appropriately sensitive
and useful for determining biological data applicable to the real world. Test protocols with such
organisms are published, reproducible and standardized.
Beneficial use: Placement or use of dredged material for some productive use.
Beneficial uses: Placement or use of dredged material for some productive purpose. Beneficial
uses may involve either the dredged material or the placement site as the integral component of
the beneficial use.
Berm: Narrow shelf of ground left undisturbed; usually at the base of a levee.
Bioaccumulation: The accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of organisms through any
route, including respiration, ingestion, or direct contact with contaminated water, sediment, or
dredged material.
vii

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Bioaccumulation factor: The degree to which an organism accumulates a chemical compared
to the source. It is a dimensionless number or factor derived by dividing the concentration in the
organism by that in the source.
Bioassay: A bioassay is a test using a biological system. It involves exposing an organism to a
test material and determining a response. There are two major types of bioassays differentiated
by response: toxicity tests which measure an effect (e.g., acute toxicity, sublethal/chronic
toxicity) and bioaccumulation tests which measure a phenomenon (e.g., the uptake of
contaminants into tissues).
Biomagnification: Bioaccumulation up the food chain, e.g., the route of accumulation is solely
through food. Organisms at higher trophic levels will have higher body burdens than those at
lower trophic levels.
Biota sediment accumulation factor (BSAF): Relative concentration of a substance in the
tissues of an organism compared to the concentration of the same substance in the sediment.
Bulk sediment chemistry: Results of chemical analyses of whole sediments (in terms of wet or
dry weight), without normalization (e.g., to organic carbon, grain-size, acid volatile sulfide).
Capping: The controlled, accurate placement of contaminated material at an open-water site,
followed by a covering or cap of clean isolating material.
Chemical of concern: A chemical present in a given sediment thought to have the potential for
unacceptable adverse environmental impact due to a proposed discharge.
Chronic: Involving a stimulus that is lingering or which continues for a long time.
Clay: Soil particle having a grain size of less than 2 micrometers.
Coastal zone: Includes coastal waters and the adjacent shorelands designated by a State as being
included within its approved coastal zone management program. The coastal zone may include
open waters, estuaries, bays, inlets, lagoons, marshes, swamps, mangroves, beaches, dunes,
bluffs, and coastal uplands. Coastal-zone uses can include housing, recreation, wildlife habitat,
resource extraction, fishing, aquaculture, transportation, energy generation, commercial
development, and waste disposal.
Comparability: The confidence with which one data set can be compared to others and the
expression of results consistent with other organizations reporting similar data. Comparability of
procedures also implies using methodologies that produce results comparable in terms of
precision and bias.
Confined disposal: A disposal method that isolates the dredged material from the environment.
Confined disposal facility (CDF): An engineered structure for containment of dredged material
consisting of dikes or other structures that enclose a disposal area above any adjacent water
viii

-------
_ November 1998
Evaluation Framework
surface, isolating the dredged material from adjacent waters during placement. Other terms used
for CDFs that appear in the literature include confined disposal area, confined disposal site, and
dredged material containment area.
Constituents: Chemical substances, solids, liquids, organic matter, and organisms associated
with or contained in or on dredged material.
Contained aquatic disposal: Form of capping which includes the added provision of some
form of lateral containment (for example, placement of the contaminated and capping materials
in bottom depressions or behind subaqueous berms) to minimize spread of the materials on the
bottom.
Contaminant: Chemical or biological substance in a form that can be incorporated into, onto, or
be ingested by and is harmful to aquatic organisms, consumers of aquatic organisms, or users of
the aquatic environment.
Contaminated sediment: Sediment that has been demonstrated to cause an unacceptable
adverse effect on human health or the environment.
Control sediment: A sediment essentially free of contaminants and which is used routinely to
assess the acceptability of a test. Control sediment may be the sediment from which the test
organisms are collected or a laboratory sediment, provided the organisms meet control standards.
The grain-size of the control sediment should be similar to that of the dredged material. Test
procedures are conducted with the control sediment in the same way as the reference sediment
and dredged material. The purpose of the control sediment is to confirm the biological
acceptability of the test conditions and to help verify the health of the organisms during the test.
Excessive mortality in the control sediment indicates a problem with the test conditions or
organisms, and can invalidate the results of the corresponding dredged material test.
Data quality indicators: Quantitative statistics and qualitative descriptors which are used to
interpret the degree of acceptability or utility of data to the user; include bias (systematic error),
precision, accuracy, comparability, completeness, representativeness and statistical confidence.
Disposal site: That portion of the waters of the United States where specific disposal- activities
are permitted and consist of a bottom surface area and any overlying volume of water. In the
case of wetlands on which surface water is not present, the disposal site consists of the wetland
surface area
Dredged material: Material excavated from inland or ocean waters.
EC50: The median effective concentration. The concentration of a substance that causes a
specified effect (generally sublethal rather than acutely lethal) in 50% of the organisms tested in
a laboratory toxicity test of specified duration.
ix

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Ecosystem: A system made up of a community of animals, plants, and bacteria and its
interrelated physical and chemical environment.
Effluent: Water that is discharged from a confined disposal facility during and as a result of the
filling or placement of dredged material.
Elutriate: Material prepared from the sediment dilution water and used for chemical analyses
and toxicity testing. Different types of elutriates are prepared for two different procedures as
noted in this manual.
Emergency: In the context of dredging operations, emergency is defined in 33 CFR Part 335.7
as a >situation which would result in an unacceptable hazard to life or navigation, a significant
loss of property, or an immediate and unforeseen significant economic hardship if corrective
action Is not taken within a time period of less than the normal time needed under standard
procedures.
Evaluation: The process of judging data in order to reach a decision.
Factual determination: A determination in writing of the potential short-term or long-term
effects of a proposed discharge of dredged or fill material on the physical, chemical and
biological components of the aquatic environment.
Grain-size effects: Mortality or other effects in laboratory toxicity tests due to sediment
granulometry, not chemical toxicity.
Gravel: A loose mixture of pebbles and rock fragments coarser than sand, often mixed with
clay, etc.
Habitat: The specific area or environment in which a particular type of plant or animal lives.
An organism's habitat provides all of the basic requirements for the maintenance of life. Typical
coastal habitats include beaches, marshes, rocky shores, bottom sediments, mudflats, and the
water itself.
LC50: The median lethal concentration. The concentration of a substance that kills 50% of the
organisms tested in a laboratory toxicity test of specified duration.
Leachate: Water or any other liquid that may contain dissolved (leached) soluble materials,
such as organic salts and mineral salts, derived from a solid material. For example, rainwater
that percolates through a confined disposal facility and picks up dissolved contaminants is
considered leachate.
Leaching: a process which causes a liquid to filter down through another material.
Level bottom capping: A form of capping in which the contaminated material is placed on the
bottom in a mounded configuration.
x

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Loading density: The ratio of organism biomass or numbers to the volume of test solution in an
exposure chamber.
Management actions: Those actions considered necessary to rapidly render harmless the
material proposed for discharge (e.g., non-toxic, non-bioaccumulative) and which may include
containment in or out of the waters of the US (see 40 CFR Subpart H). Management actions are
employed to reduce adverse impacts of proposed discharges of dredged material.
Management unit: A manageable, dredgeable unit of sediment which can be differentiated by
sampling and which can be separately dredged and disposed within a larger dredging area.
Management units are not differentiated solely on physical or other measures or tests but are also
based on site and project-specific considerations.
Method detection limit (MDL): The minimum concentration of a substance which can be
identified, measured, and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater
than zero.
Pathway: In the case of bioavailable contaminants, the route of exposure (e.g., water, food).
Practicable: Available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing-
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
QA: Quality assurance, the total integrated program for assuring the reliability of data. A
system for integrating the quality planning, quality control, quality assessment, and quality
improvement efforts to meet user requirements and defined standards of quality with a stated
level of confidence.
QC: Quality control, the overall system of technical activities for obtaining prescribed standards
of performance in the monitoring and measurement process to meet user requirements.
Reason to believe: Subpart G of the CWA 404(b) (1) guidelines requires the use of available
information to make a preliminary determination concerning the need for testing of the material
proposed for dredging. This principle is commonly known as "reason to believe" and is used in
Tier I evaluations to determine acceptability of the material for discharge without testing. The
decision to not perform additional testing based on prior information must be documented, in
order to provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed discharge material is not a carrier of
contaminants.
Reference sediment: A whole sediment used to assess sediment conditions exclusive of the
material(s) of interest, that is as similar as practicable to the grain size and total organic carbon
(TOC) of the dredged material and the sediment at the disposal site, and that reflects the
conditions that would exist in the vicinity of the disposal site had no dredged-material disposal
ever taken place, but had all other influences on sediment condition taken place. The reference
xi

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
sediment serves as a point of comparison to identify potential effects of contaminants in the
dredged material.
Reference site: The location from which reference sediment is obtained.
Representativeness: The degree to which sample data depict an existing environmental
condition; a measure of the total variability associated with sampling and measuring that includes
the two major error components: systematic error (bias) and random error. Sampling
representativeness is accomplished through proper selection of sampling locations and sampling
techniques, collection of sufficient number of samples, and use of appropriate subsampling and
handling techniques.
Salinity: Salt content, usually expressed in grams of salt per kilogram of water.
Sand: Soil particles having a grain size ranging between about 63 micrometers and 2,000
micrometers.
Sediment: Material, such as sand, silt, or clay, suspended in or settled on the bottom of a water
body. Sediment input to a body of water comes from natural sources, such as erosion of soils
and weathering of rock, or as the result of anthropogenic activities such as forest or agricultural
practices, or construction activities. The term dredged material refers to material which has been
dredged from a water body, while the term sediment refers to material in a water body prior to
the dredging process.
Silt: soil having a grain size ranging between about 2 micrometers and 63 micrometers.
Sublethal (chronic) toxicity: Biological tests which use such factors as abnormal development,
growth and reproduction, rather than solely lethality, as end-points. These tests involve all or at
least an important, sensitive portion of an organism's life-history. A sublethal endpoint may
result either from short-term or long-term (chronic) exposures.
Suspended solids: Organic or inorganic particles that are suspended in water. The term
includes sand, silt, and clay particles as well as other solids, such as biological material,
suspended in the water column.
Tiered approach: A structured, hierarchical procedure for determining data needs relative to
decision-making, which involves a series of tiers or levels of intensity of investigation.
Typically, tiered testing involves decreased uncertainty and increased available information with
increasing tiers. This approach is intended to ensure the maintenance and protection of
environmental quality, as well as the optimal use of resources. Specifically, least effort is
required in situations where clear determinations can be made of whether (or not) unacceptable
adverse impacts are likely to occur based on available information. Most effort is required where
clear determinations cannot be made with available information.
xii

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Toxicity: Level of mortality or other end point demonstrated by a group of organisms that have
been affected by the properties of a substance, such as contaminated water, sediment, or dredged
material.
Toxicity test: A bioassay which measures an effect (e.g., acute toxicity, sub lethal/chronic
toxicity). Not a bioaccumulation test (see definition of bioassay).
Turbidity: An optical measure of the amount of material suspended in the water. Increasing the
turbidity of the water decreases the amount of light that penetrates the water column. Very high
• levels of turbidity can be harmful to aquatic life.
Upland environment: The geochemical environment in which dredged material may become
unsaturated, dried out, and oxidized.
Water quality certification: A state certification, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act, that the proposed discharge of dredged material will comply with the applicable provisions
of Sections 301, 303,306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act and relevant State laws. Typically this
certification is provided by the affected State. In instances where the State lacks jurisdiction
(e.g., Tribal Lands), such certification is provided by EPA or the Tribe (with an approved
certification program).
Waters of the US: In general, all waters landward of the baseline of the territorial sea and the
territorial sea. Specifically, all waters defined in the CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Whole sediment: The sediment and interstitial waters of the proposed dredged material or
reference sediment that have had minimal manipulation. For purposes of this manual, press-
sieving to remove organisms from test sediments, homogenization of test sediments, compositing
of sediment samples, and additions of small amounts of water to facilitate homogenizing or
compositing sediments may be necessary to conducting bioassay tests. These procedures are
considered unlikely to substantially alter chemical or toxicological properties of the respective
whole sediments except in the case of AVS (acid volatile sulfide) measurements (EPA, 1991a)
which are not presently required. Alternatively, wet sieving, elutriation, or freezing and thawing
of sediments may alter chemical and/or toxicological properties, and sediment so processed
should not be considered as whole sediment for bioassay purposes.
xiii

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
ACRONYMS

AMD
Advance Maintenance Dredging
BT
Bioaccumulation Trigger
CoC
Chemical of Concern
CRM
Columbia River Mile
CWA
Clean Water Act
CY
Cubic Yard
CZM
Coastal Zone Management
DAIS
Dredged Analysis Information System
DEQ
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
DLCD
Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development
DMMO
Dredged Material Management Office
DMMT
Dredged Material Management Team
DNR
Washington Department of Natural Resources
DSL
Oregon Division of State Lands
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
ITM
Inland Testing Manual
LCR
Lower Columbia River
ML
Maximum Level
MPRSA
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
PAH
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PSDDA
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
QA/QC
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RM
River Mile
RMT
Regional Management Team
SAP
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SL
Screening Level
SMS
Washington Sediment Management Standards
TBT
Tributyltin
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TVS
Total Volatile Solids
xiv

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 1
GOALS, DESCRIPTION, AND ORGANIZATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Dredging is necessary to maintain waterways and harbors used for waterborne commerce
and water-related industry shipping, and for new port and marina construction in the Pacific
Northwest. In addition to federal navigation project-related dredging (which is performed by the
Corps of Engineers), a number of ports, maritime industries, and private interests perform dredging
and dredged material disposal. Commercial navigation and recreational boating are important
factors to the economic well-being of the Pacific Northwest. Consequently, dredging in the region
has been a commonplace activity historically and will be an ongoing necessity for the foreseeable
future.
Five basic dredged material disposal options are possible. These include: unconfined
aquatic (including nearshore); unconfined upland; confined aquatic; confined nearshore; and
confined upland. Of these options, this manual study focused primarily on unconfined aquatic
disposal of materials dredged from Federal and non-Federal navigation projects. Unconfined
aquatic disposal occurs when material is allowed to free fall from barges Or hoppers to the bottom,
or is placed via pipeline discharge. Aquatic disposal sites are located in areas which minimize
conflicts with other aquatic land uses.
Cost-effective disposal of dredged material is essential to the economy of the region.
Periodic dredging, including maintenance dredging of Federal navigation channels, is necessary to
maintain the navigability of our waterways. For relatively clean dredged material, without
significant levels of chemicals of concern, disposal at unconfined aquatic sites is often the least
costly and most convenient alternative. Beneficial uses of the material, including erosion control
and use as fill material, are an attractive, if somewhat more expensive, option for disposal. This
dredged material evaluation framework will be the basis for determining what materials will
continue to be acceptable for unconfined aquatic disposal.
This document addresses the development of a comprehensive evaluation framework
governing sampling, sediment testing, and test interpretation (disposal guidelines) for determining
the suitability of dredged material. This framework will ensure adequate regulatory controls and
public accountability for disposal of sediment placed at dredged material disposal sites. It has been
developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 92-500), as amended, to the
1-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-532), as amended, and
to the national level dredging and disposal guidance developed subsequent to the passage of these
laws (40 CFR 230-233; 40 CFR 220-229). Applicable national guidance documents include the
jointly prepared Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers national ocean disposal
testing manual, entitled Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing
Manual, dated February 1991 (referred to as the Ocean Testing Manual and also known as the
"Green Book"), and the jointly prepared EPA/Corps inland testing manual, entitled Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposedfor Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual, dated February
1998 (referred to as the "Inland Testing Manual").
The framework planning group attempted to identify the most reliable, recognized and
cost effective sampling and analysis procedures for appropriately characterizing dredged material,
and to incorporate these procedures into this document for application to the region. Chemical and
biological tests and interpretation guidelines were developed for assessing the acceptability of
dredged material for unconfined aquatic disposal. Application of these tests and guidelines will
also provide preliminary information on the need for other disposal or management options, such as
confined aquatic, nearshore, or upland disposal.
This framework document distills the accumulated knowledge and experience with
dredged material management in the Pacific Northwest over the last 25 years. It describes stepwise
procedures for dredged material assessment and is intended for use by the regulatory community in
the Lower Columbia River Management Area (LCRMA). Documents containing justification for
the guidelines and procedures in this framework are contained in the reference section. Full
consideration was made of all pertinent State and Federal laws, regulations, and guidance, including
other regional dredged material management programs. The framework is consistent with the
guidelines of the two national-level manuals.
1.2 DREDGED MATERIAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK - LOWER COLUMBIA
RIVER
The dredged material evaluation framework for the Lower Columbia River is the result of
a cooperative interagency/intergovernmental program established by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps); Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology); Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR); and
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as principal agencies. These five agencies
have regulatory and proprietary responsibilities for dredged material evaluation and disposal in the
region, and constitute the Regional Management Team (RMT). The Lower Columbia River
Dredged Material Evaluation Framework represents an expansion toward a broader dredged
material management program throughout the region. The procedures used in development of the
1-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
manual were derived from, and inspired by, similar regional programs, including the successful
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program for the Puget Sound region of the state
of Washington, the Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay Dredged Material Evaluation Procedures Manual,
and Portland District Corps of Engineers dredged material tiered testing procedures.
The goal of the manual is to provide the basis for publicly acceptable guidelines governing
environmentally safe unconfined aquatic disposal of dredged material, thereby improving
consistency and predictability in dredged material management. The establishment of evaluation
procedures is necessary to ensure continued operation and maintenance of navigation facilities in
the region, to minimize delays in scheduled maintenance dredging, and to reduce uncertainties in
regulatory activities. The framework guidelines ensure consistency in evaluation between Corps
and non-Corps dredging projects.
1.3 FRAMEWORK OBJECTIVES
This manual satisfies several objectives.
(1) It establishes a uniform framework for evaluating sediment quality for unconfined aquatic
disposal in the Lower Columbia River.
The Lower Columbia River (LCR) is a contiguous bi-state coastal
water body lying within Oregon and Washington. Dredging and
aquatic dredged material disposal occur on both the Oregon and
Washington sides of the river. Projects may involve dredging in one
state with disposal in the other state. Potential problems associated
with disposal of dredged material can affect both states equally.
Because dredging, disposal, and associated impacts affect both states,
regulation of these activities must be consistent between Oregon and
Washington.
States have statutory control over water quality impacts resulting
from a neighboring state. Section 401 (a)(2) of the Clean Water Act
requires that a neighboring state be notified of actions that may affect
its water quality. In order to work efficiently under this regulation,
water quality requirements in a bi-state waterway must be uniform.
Without uniform requirements, the implementation of water quality
programs in shared water bodies may not be consistent or predictable.
Section 103 of the Clean Water Act encourages states to develop
uniform laws for the prevention, reduction and elimination of pollution
1-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
and to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts not contrary to
any laws or treaties of the United States.
(2)	It establishes a uniform framework under which the Corps of Engineers will carry out federal
requirements in conducting the dredging and disposal program for the LCR.
This document is the result of a cooperative effort involving
Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers, and other
interested parties. A cooperative effort was.necessary to ensure that
each agency's mandates and regulations were incorporated into a single
manual to the extent possible. 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 criteria and guidelines.
(3)	It establishes an appropriate sediment characterization framework agreeable to the public,
stakeholders and resource agencies.
This regional manual establishes a sediment sampling and testing
framework acceptable to stakeholders, such as ports and private
industries that maintain navigation access in the study area, and to
resource agencies having an interest in, concern for, or some form of
permit authority in the LCR area. These are resource agencies that did
not participate in the development of the manual but have expertise
related to the natural resource values of the river. Such a framework
will provide clarity, maximize consistency and, allow informed
discussions to take place on the need for and extent of sediment
characterization for dredging projects.
(4)	It establishes appropriate databases to track the long-term trends in sediment quality of
specific dredging projects/locations and the river in general.
Management of dredging and disposal program requires the
collection and maintenance of data about projects and their
1-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
characteristics. This objective includes the establishment of
appropriate databases which will track sediment quality trends over
time at specific locations and for the river in general. Systematic
database development will provide useful input into larger planning
efforts, such as the Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) for
disposal of sediment dredged in the estuary. The DMMP includes
plans and alternatives developed to address the future needs and
availability of disposal sites in the estuary. Implementation of the
framework will generate regular reporting on sediment quality in the
study area and thus raise the information level available to the Corps
and resource agencies when making decisions on dredging and
disposal.
1.4 EVALUATION PROCEDURES PHILOSOPHY
Evaluation procedures consist of the sampling requirements, tests, and guidelines for test
interpretation (i.e., disposal guidelines) that are to be used in assessing the quality of dredged
material and its acceptability for disposal. Evaluation procedures identify whether unacceptable
adverse effects on biological resources or human health might result from dredged material
disposal. A regulatory decision on acceptability of material for disposal is determined from the test
results. This manual defines the minimum requirements for evaluation of dredged material for
regulatory decision-making under CWA and MPRSA. For example, the maximum volumes of
dredged material that can be represented by a single sample or by a single analysis is defined for
different categories of material. Application of this requirement to a proposed volume of sediment
means that a minimum number of samples or analyses must be conducted and fewer than that
number are insufficient for agency decision-making. Similarly, these requirements are considered
"minimum" in that the dredging proponent may opt, or regulatory agencies may impose additional
samples or analyses if warranted.
As previously noted, this document primarily addresses aquatic disposal issues. However,
the broad concept of evaluation goes beyond open-water disposal to include such alternatives as
upland, nearshore, and confined aquatic disposal. Depending on the specific circumstances, these
disposal options may be characterized as beneficial uses of dredged material as well. From a
regional perspective, we have relied upon open-water disposal to a considerable extent, particularly •
in recent years. This is due, in part, to a collective desire to avoid or minimize wetland filling.
With few exceptions, sediments in the region have been deemed suitable for unconfined aquatic
disposal. It is recognized that evaluation procedures applicable to upland, nearshore, and confined
1-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
disposal, particularly as related to contaminated sediments, also need to be established. The
necessity for doing so is recognized and efforts are underway to set these procedures in place.
Dredged material containing high chemical concentrations that may result in unacceptable
adverse effects must be placed in a confined disposal site (aquatic, upland, or nearshore). Likely
effects are determined by conducting chemical and biological tests on the sediment prior to
dredging. Material that is found to be unacceptable for unconfined aquatic disposal may or may not
be acceptable for conventional upland/nearshore disposal, because of differing behavior of
chemicals in upland and nearshore disposal environments. As a result, testing for disposal at
upland and nearshore sites could differ from that for disposal in water, and test results for one
environment are not directly transferable to the other.
There is no single best option when confined disposal is required. Although all options
may be feasible, not all confined disposal options may be available to every dredging project.
Additionally, confined disposal decisions will often revolve around the advantages and
disadvantages of specific sites (e.g., proximity to resources). Besides availability and siting, the
issues of cost and the necessary degree of chemical isolation must be considered. The joint
EPA/Corps manual Technical Framework for Dredged Material Management (US ACE/EPA 1992)
provides a framework for the full continuum of management alternatives, and will be consulted for
options whenever material is found unsuitable by this manual for unconfined aquatic disposal.
1.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Evaluation procedures comprise the complete process of dredged material assessment and
incorporate a range of scientific and administrative factors. Beyond the decision to base dredged
material evaluation on avoiding unacceptable adverse biological effects, effective evaluation
procedures should also have certain characteristics. The following nine characteristics are inherent
in the evaluation process:
~	Consistent - Evaluation procedures must be applicable on a uniform basis
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 be adaptable to projects of any size.
~	Accountable - The need for, and cost implications of, evaluation procedures must
be justifiable to the individual permittee and to the public.
+ Cost Effective - Evaluation procedures must be timely and cost effective.
1-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
~	Objective - Evaluation procedures are clearly stated and logical, and must be
applicable in an objective manner.
+ Revisable - Evaluation procedures are based upon best available technical and
policy information and 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 generally have standardized
protocols.
+ Verifiable - The implementation of the evaluation procedures must be verifiable.
One means of judging effectiveness is monitoring at a disposal site.
1.5.1	The Need for Consistency in Dredged Material Evaluation
Regulatory consistency is important to the regulated community, demanded by local
government agencies, and needed to obtain public acceptance. Though consistent.and "objective"
evaluation procedures may somewhat reduce flexibility and reliance on best professional
judgement, they achieve agreement among the various regulatory agencies and allow the transfer of
knowledge as staffs change. The approach used was to compile the consensus "best judgement" of
professionals currently involved in dredged material management in the region and nationally and
build this judgement into the procedures and guidelines presented in this manual.
1.5.2	The 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 which
deviate from those indicated by the guidelines presented in this manual may be made.
Consequently, professional judgement is essential in reaching project-specific decisions. The
evaluation procedures (including the disposal guidelines) require foil 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 appropriate technical rationale and documentation, when such rationale warrants a
1-7

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
different conclusion. A consensus between the Corps, EPA, 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 judgement 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 judgement on the part of a professional who is intimately familiar with the testing
procedures, the project specifics, and the 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. In addition to data analysis and interpretation, decisions on the
acceptability of material for unconfined aquatic disposal may be further influenced by
administrative considerations of factors such as magnitude of the proposed discharge, the degree of
environmental risk that the discharge may present, and other project-specific features.
1.6	FUTURE REGIONAL FRAMEWORKS
EPA Region 10 and Northwestern Division, Corps of Engineers, will use the experience
gained by the development and implementation of this framework to develop a Northwest regional
framework. The RMT will work closely with other regional dredging teams to assure that the
framework will reflect consistency and advances in testing and evaluation in the Northwest. This
future framework is intended for use within the boundaries of Region 10, which includes three of
Northwestern Division's Districts, and the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. EPA also
intends to develop a framework to evaluate dredging projects in Alaska. Details of that process will
be developed jointly with Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, and the state of Alaska.
1.7	STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
As noted above in Section 1.1, a variety of interests participated in the preparation of the
LCRMA dredged material evaluation framework. Representatives of the Corps' Seattle District,
Portland District, Northwestern Division Corps, EPA Region 10, Washington Department of
Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and Oregon Department of Environmental
1-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Quality met as necessaiy to coordinate the work group activities, and to draft the framework.
Participation by affected users was sought via review of this document by representatives of the
ports, maritime industries, and other navigation project users. In addition, federal, state and local
agencies, Indian tribes, and special interest groups participated in the review of the draft
framework. This participation ensured that the framework reflects a balance of all appropriate
views. A full public interest review was completed, including a public notice, and all comments
received from the public were carefully considered during preparation of the final document and
prior to agency acceptance.
1-9

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 2
DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION
2.1	OVERVIEW
Several state and federal entities have regulatory or proprietary authority governing
dredged material management. On the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share the responsibility for regulating the
discharge of dredged material. In Washington state, regulation is shared by the Departments of
Ecology, Natural Resources, and Fish and Wildlife. In Oregon, this regulation is carried out by the
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of State Lands, and Department of Land
Conservation and Development. This chapter gives a brief overview of agency laws, regulations
and authorities as they relate to the dredging and disposal of sediments.
2.2	FEDERAL REGULATIONS OVERVIEW
The Clean Water Act (CWA) governs discharges of dredged material into "waters of the
United States," defined as all waters landward of the baseline of the territorial sea. The Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) governs the transportation of dredged material
seaward of the baseline (in ocean waters) for the purpose of disposal.
The geographical jurisdictions of the MPRSA and CWA are indicated in Figure 2-1. As
shown in Figure 2-1, an overlap of jurisdiction exists within the territorial sea. The precedence of
MPRSA or CWA in the area of the territorial sea is defined in 40 CFR 230.2 (b) and 33 CFR 336.0
(b). Material dredged from waters of the United States and disposed in the territorial sea is
evaluated under MPRSA. In general, dredged material discharged as fill (e.g., beach nourishment,
island creation, or underwater berms) and placed within the territorial sea is evaluated under the
CWA. In addition, all activities regulated by these statutes must comply with the applicable
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as other federal laws,
regulations and Executive Orders which apply to activities involving the discharge of dredged
material. NEPA usually acts as an umbrella authority which assures all applicable environmental
requirements are complied with for federal dredging projects. An overview of MPRSA CWA, and
other federal laws is given in the following paragraphs.
2.2.1 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10/Clean Water Act Section 404. The Corps administers
a regulatory program under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1B99 which requires
approval by the Secretary of the Army of any work in navigable waters.
2-1

-------


K)
i
K)



erritorial Sea 1 ;.(.	^ ^
CWA*	1?-	^
Material placed lor fill or	w '"'*'wJjJBp^ *&?
mprsa**	,^m |k	^ .
Material placed lor disposal	\v ^ \ ..„-	'"	,/
,< :;sv ,
Baseline ol
Territorial Sea
MS
3 Nautical miles
from baseline
Open Ocean
3Nautical miles and beyond
{Contiguous Zone)
US Army Corps
c-1 Engine***
r.vi .w -,'••»-?
MPRSA** fonly) \
Material placed for disposal

\*mw)
V
CWA - r:Hnn WaUr Ai:l
WflPSA - Mar^o Prcoectlon. RMoirth. gnd Sancraary Ac:
I- iyi.irv ?.. 1: {.icngrsiphic .H:ri«.ltd.ion of the Marine Protedion. Research ami Ssnidunries Ad :nul the Clean Wsiler Ad

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
The Corps also has the primary responsibility for the CWA Section 404 regulatory permit program.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into the waters of the United States. These permits, known as Section 10/404, may be processed
concurrently when both dredging and disposal/filling are necessary, as is often the case with in-
water or nearshore disposal.
The Clean Water Act applies to "waters of the United States." The Corps' administrative
definition of "waters of the United States" extends to all waters, including lakes, streams, mudflats,
wetlands and sloughs, "the use, degradation or destruction of which" could affect interstate or
foreign commerce. This definition includes wetlands adjacent to these waters. Section 404,
therefore, covers more than Section 10. (CWA Section 502(7), and Section 230.3 of the
Guidelines).
All parties, including federal agencies, are subject to regulation under Section 10 and
Section 404. Though the Corps does not issue itself a permit, these same regulations govern the
Corps' own dredging and disposal activities.
Section 10. A Section 10 permit is required for any dredging activity in navigable
waters, regardless of the location of the disposal site. For purposes of Section 10, navigable waters
generally are those U.S. waters below the mean high water mark, and those used or usable for
interstate or foreign commerce. A dredging project with no return flow to the waters of the U.S.
would require only a Section 10 permit.
Section 404. A Section 404 permit is required only for discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States. A Section 404 permit is required when dredged material
is disposed in either an aquatic or nearshore environment. It is also required when dredged material
will be hydraulically placed in an upland environment and effluent from the disposal will be
returned to waters of the U.S. This can occur where dredged material that is not de-watered is
placed in nearshore or upland disposal sites.
Under Section 404(b)(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has developed, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army, Guidelines for evaluating
specific proposed aquatic or nearshore disposal sites.
The Guidelines evaluate potential disposal sites based on potential impacts on the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the aquatic environment. The Guidelines
specify four conditions for the selection of any aquatic site for the disposal of dredged or fill
material (Section 404 (b)(1) Final Rule 40 CFR 230). They are:
2-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
1.	There must be no other practicable alternatives available that would have less
adverse impacts on the aquatic environment.
2.	The disposal must not result in violations of applicable state water quality standards,
toxic effluent standards, marine sanctuary requirements, or requirements of the
Endangered Species Act.
3.	The disposal must not cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of
the United States.
4.	The permit applicant must show that all appropriate and practicable steps have been
taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
environment.
While considering the Guidelines, the Corps conducts a public interest review and
considers comments from agencies and the public. The final permit decision is based on whether
the activity is in compliance with the Guidelines (including sediment quality) and a determination
that the proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. The public interest review includes
a broad range of factors, from environmental concerns to public health issues to property ownership
as well as compliance with other federal laws. The Corps has substantial authority to require
mitigation to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for resource losses. In cases where no
aquatic site is proposed for disposal, the Corps' decision to issue a permit is based solely on the
public interest review and not the Guidelines.
EPA retains oversight authority regarding the Corps' decision to issue a permit and may
veto permit approval if it concludes that the discharge of dredged or fill materials would have an
"unacceptable adverse effect" on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fisheries, wildlife, or
recreational areas.
2.2.2 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended (Public Law 92-532),
specifies that all proposed operations involving the transportation and dumping of dredged material
into the ocean have to be evaluated to determine the potential environmental impact of such
activities. Section 103 of the MPRSA appoints the Corps the permitting agency, subject to EPA
review. Regulations are at 40 CFR 220-228. An Ocean Testing Manual has been jointly issued by
EPA and the Corps (EPA/USACE 1991)in which a "tiered" testing approach is employed. Section
102 of the MPRSA requires EPA, in consultation with the Corps, to develop environmental Criteria
that must be complied with before any proposed ocean-disposal activity is allowed to proceed. The
Criteria call for no unacceptable adverse effects. Section 103 of the MPRSA assigns to the Corps
2-4

-------
November J 998
Evaluation Framework
the specific responsibility for authorizing the transport of dredged material for ocean disposal at
designated sites.
In evaluating proposed ocean-disposal activities, the Corps is required to apply the Criteria
developed by EPA relating to the effects of the proposed disposal activity. In addition, in
reviewing permit applications, the Corps is also required to consider navigation, economic, and
industrial development, and foreign and domestic commerce, as well as the availability of
alternatives to ocean disposal. EPA has a major environmental oversight role in reviewing the
Corps' determination of compliance with the ocean-disposal Criteria relating to the effects of the
proposed disposal. If EPA determines the Criteria are not met, disposal may not occur without a
waiver of the Criteria by EPA (40 CFR 225.2 (e)). In addition, EPA has authority under Section
102 to designate ocean-disposal sites. The Corps is required to use such sites for ocean disposal to
the extent feasible. Section 103 authorizes the Corps, where use of an EPA-designated site is not
feasible or a site has not been designated, to select ocean-disposal sites. In exercising this authority,
the Corps utilizes the EPA site-selection Criteria (40 CFR 228), and the site selection is subject to
EPA concurrence.
2.2.3	Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
of 1972, as amended (Public Law 92-583), declared a national interest in the effective management,
beneficial use, protection and development of the coastal zone. The law grants to state and local
governments the primary responsibility for planning and regulation of land and water uses in the
coastal zone. States are charged with developing and administering land and water use
management programs for the coastal zone. Federal projects within the coastal zone, including
dredging and disposal projects, must be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
approved state programs. For non-federal projects, a required Corps permit cannot be issued until
the State of Washington (Ecology) and/or Oregon (DLCD) has concurred that the project is in
compliance with the approved coastal zone management plan. Concurrence with CZMA is
considered waived after a six-month period has elapsed since the Corps public notice.
2.2.4	Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize endangered or
threatened species or their critical habitats. If a project could affect an endangered species,
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service is
required.
2.2.5	National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These dredging programs are operated in
accordance with NEPA, which requires documentation of potential primary and secondary impacts,
including those associated with dredging and disposal.
2-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
2.3 WASHINGTON STATE REGULATIONS
2.3.1	Section 401 Certification Program. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires state
certification that any federally-permitted project discharging into U.S. waters 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 Section 404 guidelines and is
required before receiving a Section 404 permit for disposal of dredged or fill material. The 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 flows may affect waters of the U.S.
The Washington State Department of Ecology is the agency for certifying under Section
401 that a proposed discharge will comply with state water quality standards. As a condition of
certification, Ecology may apply any requirement or policy of state law that protects aquatic
habitat. In situations where the state has no jurisdiction (for example, tribal lands and military
installations), EPA provides Section 401 certification. EPA may also comment on compliance with
state and federal water quality under Section 401. These conditions may be accepted by the Corps
and used as conditions in the Section 404 permit. •
2.3.2	Hydraulic Project Approval. A State Hydraulic Project Approval permit is required for
actions affecting the natural flow of waters. This generally means any action in saltwater or a
stream below the ordinary high water mark. The permit application must be acted upon by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) within 30 days after receipt of the full
permit application, including determination of compliance under the State Environmental Policy
Act.
2.3.3	Aquatic Lands Act. The Aquatic Lands Act, Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 79.90,
gives the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proprietary authority to manage state-owned
aquatic lands in trust for the public. In accordance with the Act, and implementing regulations
cited as Chapter 332-30 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), DNR has the power to
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 DNR's management.
However, DNR does not directly control upland disposal of dredged material except on DNR-
managed lands.
2.3.4	Sediment Management Standards. The State of Washington has adopted Sediment
Management Standards (SMS) as Chapter 173-204 WAC. The SMS were promulgated for the
purpose of reducing and ultimately eliminating adverse effects on biological resources and
2-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
significant health threats to humans from surface sediment contamination. They apply to marine,
low salinity, and freshwater surface sediments within the state of Washington. Numerical criteria
exist for marine waters only.
The SMS provide two levels of effects specific to the contamination of marine sediments:
a "No Adverse Effects" criteria (defined as the Sediment Quality Standard, or SQS) and a "Minor
Adverse Effects" criteria (defined as the Cleanup Screening Level, or CSL). These criteria guide
decisions pertaining to sediment cleanup and source control actions.
The SQS represents the goal to be attained for all sediments. However, it is recognized
that this goal (No Adverse Effects) may be impractical in some cases. The CSL represents an
acceptable upper limit (Minor Adverse Effects level) of chemical contamination.
2.3.5 Shoreline Management Act. The Washington Shoreline Management Act, RCW Chapter
90.58, requires a permit for any "substantial development" within the shorelines of the state. The
Act defines "shorelines of the state" to include designated water bodies and their submerged beds
within the state's territorial limits and all land areas 200 feet landward of ordinary high water and
adjacent wetlands. Local jurisdictions have responsibility for overseeing compliance with
Washington State's Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Ecology's Shorelands Program oversees
and reviews municipalities' plans and decisions as well as provides an avenue for appeals.
Local Shoreline Master Programs have been adopted as state regulations under the
Administrative Procedures Act. These state regulations, as well as others affecting the quality of
the shoreline environment, were approved by the Secretary of Commerce as the state's Coastal
Zone Management Program. Thus, in Washington, a local Shoreline Permit which has been issued
and survived appeals is the mechanism for determining compliance with Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act.
Preferential uses for shorelines are (in their order of preference):
1.	Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest
2.	Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3.	Result in long-term over short-term benefit
4.	Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline
5.	Increase public access to publicly-owned areas of the shorelines
6.	Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline
7.	Provide for any other element as defined in (the Act) deemed appropriate or
necessary.
2-7

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
The affected local jurisdiction may issue a shoreline substantial development permit if the
proposed use is consistent with both the local Shoreline Master Program and the policies of the
Shoreline Management Act. Local zoning and land use requirements are integrated with the
Shoreline Master Program process.
2.4 OREGON STATE REGULATIONS
2.4.1	Coastal Program Approval. Federal projects and those projects receiving a federal permit
are reviewed by the Department of Land Conservation and Development for consistency with
enforceable state and local policies of the Oregon coastal management program. Projects
complying with this program are issued a coastal program approval.
2.4.2	Section 401 Certification Program. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires state
certification that any federally-permitted project discharging into U.S. waters 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 Section 404 guidelines and is
required before receiving a Section 404 permit for disposal of dredged or fill material. The Section
401 certification is required when dredged material is to be placed in an aquatic or nearshore
environment, or when dredged material is to be hydraulically placed in an upland environment
where return flows may affect waters of the United States.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is the agency for certifying
under Section 401 that a proposed discharge will comply with state water quality standards. Under
the Section 401 certification program, DEQ certifies and may use any requirement or policy of state
law that protects aquatic habitat to condition the Section 401 certification. In situations where the
state has no jurisdiction (for example, tribal lands and military installations), EPA provides Section
401 certification.
2.4.3	Removal/Fill Permit The Oregon Division of State Lands issues a permit for any activity
that proposes removal, fill or alterations equal to or exceeding 50 cubic yards of material within the
beds or banks of the waters of the state of Oregon. In addition, any amount of removal, filling or
alteration in State Scenic Waterways and essential Indigenous Salmonid streams requires approval
from the Division. Typical examples of projects requiring a permit include gravel mining,
dredging, gold mining, placement of riprap, bulkheads, land reclamation, channel alteration or
relocation and stream crossings.
2.4.4	State Beaches. Oregon State Parks issues permits for any activity, including placement of
dredged material, on state beaches.
2-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 3
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER MANAGEMENT AREA
3.1	OVERVIEW
The area covered by this manual is called the Lower Columbia River Management Area
(LCRMA). The LCRMA includes the following water bodies: (1) the Lower Columbia River
from its mouth near Ilwaco, Washington to Bonneville Dam at river mile (CRM) 148; (2) the
segment of the mid-Columbia River extending from Bonneville Dam upstream to McNary Dam;
(3) the Willamette River from its confluence with the Lower Columbia River upstream to its
headwaters, and (4) all side channel and tributaries branching from the lower and mid-Columbia
River and Willamette River. The LCRMA is shown in Figure 3-1.
The scope of the LCRMA was chosen because all of the water bodies are connected in a
common watershed and they fall under a common regulatory jurisdiction, the US ACE, Portland
District. A minor exception to this regulatory scheme is a small number of non-port (private)
dredging projects on the Washington side of the river which fall under the USACE, Seattle
District. Within this broad reach, the mainstem navigation channel runs the full length of the
river varying in depths of 55 feet at the entrance, 40 feet to Portland/Vancouver, 32 feet to
Bonneville Dam and 15 feet to McNary Dam. The navigation channel in the Lower Willamette
River is maintained at a depth of 40 feet.
The following sections provide a general description of the LCRMA and a summary of
hydrodynamic characteristics that have, or may have, a relationship to dredging and disposal.
Much of the focus is on the Lower Columbia River segment of the LCRMA since that is where
the majority of dredging and disposal takes place.
3.2	GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LCR
The Lower Columbia River (LCR) forms the border between Washington and Oregon
and supports the most concentrated population and industrial base along the U.S. portion of the
river. The utility of the LCR as a major shipping channel has encouraged the development of
major port facilities and heavy industrial activity in the population centers. Major population
centers include Astoria, Rainier, Portland, St. Helens and Troutdale in Oregon and Longview-
Kelso, Kalama, Vancouver, and Camas-Washougal in Washington. Land use adjacent to the
river is devoted mainly to forestry and, to a lesser extent, agriculture, urban and suburban
development, and residential use.
3-1

-------
Lower Columbia River Management Area
Lower Columbia River Basin
¦I!
Astoria
Longview
©
\
V. U
Kalama ® Lewis
St Helens O©Woodland	#
Bonneville
'I*:
Vancouver#
©
Portland
J

)
John
The jj
" Dalies uay

*
n
Maupin;

Pasc£ R
flfehfartd © ®
Kennewick ®
McNary
Dam


B
Bend
Wft t
W3!*3
VVsM-j ¦


Pendleton ^
f> Heppner
^;)'f

-------
Lower Columbia River Management Area
Willamette River Basin
4
°//
^hia r
Portland
' "'/>
I*.*
Vv
'©Salem
S*WU *	S-
->	•	*-58
'if;-, t , „
Albany
® Corvallls
¦ I. j
' ¦ ^
Ss'-tiaui
,5# - R
# ¦
Eugene

Figure 3-lb Lower Columbia River Management Area, Willamette River Basin
3-3

-------
Lower Columbia River Management Area
Cowlitz River Basin

<0iille R.
Mount St. Helens	., 
i a V'1
# Longview
	Kaii^ . '
ty © Kalama . .
fVi
© Woodland
ID '
# Vancouver
©
Portland
I
n
Figure 3-lc Lower Columbia River Management Area, Cowlitz River Basin
3-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
The LCR is augmented by several major tributaries, including the Grays, Cowlitz, Kalama,
Lewis, and Washougal Rivers in Washington and the Youngs, Clatskanie, Willamette, and Sandy
Rivers in Oregon. The LCR supports major salmon and sturgeon fisheries and provides habitat
in the form of three national wildlife refuges (Lewis and Clark, Julia Butler Hansen, and the
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuges) and a wildlife management area (Sauvie Island Wildlife
Management Area). The estuarine portion of the LCR provides critical nursery and feeding
habitat for many important fish and invertebrate species.
The LCR is differentiated into an estuarine reach downstream of CRM 25 and a free-flowing
riverine reach upstream to Bonneville Dam.
3.2.1 Estuarine Reach. The LCR River estuary averages 4-5 miles wide and extends
upstream to about CRM 25. The estuary is divided into two primary paths of current flow, a
north and a south channel. The south channel is an extension of the main river channel upstream
of the estuary and carries most of the river discharge. The navigation channel follows the south
channel through the estuary. The south channel is heavily ebb dominant, giving the estuary a net
clockwise circulation pattern. The north channel extends upstream to about CRM 20 and is
connected to the main river channel by shallow cross channels and tidal flats.
Tides at the entrance of the estuary are diumal, the mixed type characteristic of the
Pacific Coast. The influence of the tides on the Columbia River and its estuary is manifested in
three primary ways: (1) intrusion of saline, ocean water, (2) periodic river flow reversal, and (3)
water-level fluctuations.
Intruding ocean water tends to move upstream like a wedge under the less dense river
water and may extend as far as CRM 20, near Harrington Point. The extent of intrusion varies
with the tidal stage and the river flow, with maximum intrusion occurring during the highest high
tide when river flow is at its lowest. Turbulence causes the intruding ocean water to mix slowly
upward with the river water so that the water near the bed has a net movement upstream, whereas
less saline surface water has a net movement downstream.
As the tide advances upriver, it causes a river flow reversal, surface and bottom, that has
been observed as far upstream as Prescott at CRM 72. A third effect of the tides is that of
fluctuations in water level which decrease with increased distance from the mouth. The tidal
effect during low river flow varies from 7 to 8 feet at Astoria, Oregon to 1 to 2 feet at Bonneville
Dam.
Between CRM 20 and 30, the main channel shifts to the north side while numerous
shallow channels flow through Cathlamet Bay to the south. Upstream of CRM 30, the river has
a single main channel, with occasional side channels around islands. In the main channel, typical
peak ebb velocities are in the 3 feet per second (fps) range, with freshet velocities over 6 fps.
3-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
3.2.2 Free-flowing Riverine Reach. Upstream of CRM 25, to the confluence with the
Willamette River, the main channel of the LCR generally varies from 1700 ft to 3000 ft wide,
with minor bifurcations. Select river reaches have been constricted by pile dikes and sand fills in
efforts to decrease shoaling in the mainstem navigation channel. The amount of constriction
varies from a few hundred feet to several thousand feet. Bends within the river tend to have very
long radii, typically over 15,000 feet. Sharper bends only occur where basalt cliffs control the
river's alignment.
The bed of the main channel is composed of deep deposits of mostly fine and medium
sand. Silt and clay make up less than 1 percent of the main channel bed material. Natural
riverbanks consist of basalt or erosion resistant silt and clay deposits. These riverbank deposits
range from 20 ft to 150 ft thick and overlay much deeper sand deposits. Sandy beaches occur
only where dredged material has been placed along the shore. There has been little change in the
river's location in the last 6,000 years.
The upper reach of the LCR extends immediately upstream of the Willamette River to
Bonneville Dam. Major tributaries in this segment include the Washougal River in Washington
and the Sandy River in Oregon. Flow is regulated and moderated by upstream dams.
River stage elevation may vary as much as 7 feet in a day near Bonneville Dam due to
power peaking requirements. Because of the limited drainage area of the tributaries, the tributary
inflow in this jeach contributes minimally to winter flooding, and is not a factor during spring
flooding.
The main channel of the Columbia River in this reach is slightly meandering and contains
several bifurcations caused by mid-channel islands such as Government and Reed Islands. The
flood plain is generally narrow (less than one mile wide) through the Columbia River Gorge
which starts at the Sandy River. The flood plain is several miles wide near the downstream end
of the reach, but flood flow is restricted by levees that extend downstream on both sides of the
river to Vancouver and Portland. Channel hydraulics in the upper reach is complex because of
the presence of mid-channel islands and rapidly varying discharges from Bonneville Dam.
Bedload sediments in the upper reach are quite diverse. Downstream of the Sandy River
(CRM 121), bed sediments in the navigation channel and secondary channels are composed
predominantly of fine to coarse sand, 0.250 millimeter (mm) to 1.0 mm in size. From the Sandy
River upstream to Bonneville Dam, bed sediments range from fine sand to cobble size (0.250
mm to 256 mm). The navigation channel in the upper reach is at lesser dimensions than
downstream reaches, 27 feet deep by 300 feet wide. As a result, dredging requirements are much
less than any other segment. The primary purpose for dredging in this reach of the LCR is for
structural fill or for making concrete.
3.3 SHOAL PROCESSES IN THE LCR
3-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Shoal dynamics in the LCR is of particular interest because of its effect on the origin and
movement of a large volume of sediment. Currently an average annual volume of 5 to 7 million
cubic yards (mcy) of sediment is dredged from the LCR. A sediment budget for the LCR has
been developed by the Portland Corps District to identify the historic source of shoal material in
the mainstem navigation channel. Suspended and bedload transport have been analyzed, as well
as pre- and post-regulation sediment transport.
3.3.1	Suspended Load. The LCR experiences a low volume of suspended load (i.e.,
sediment transported in the water column), much of which is carried out to sea. What remains
tends to be deposited in the estuary's bays and shallow backwaters and sloughs. Only a small
percentage of suspended sediment contributes to the shoaling problems that occur annually in the
mainstem navigation channel. Generally 80-90 percent of the suspended sediment is silt or clay
size which is not found in significant quantities in the bed of the navigation channel. Sand,
which makes up about 99 percent of the bed material, is generally less than 15 percent of the
suspended load, and increases to over 30 percent only when the discharge exceeds 400,000 cubic
feet per second (cfs).
3.3.2	Bedload. As one method to determine pre- and post-dam conditions, bedload in
the LCR has been estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey by relating unmeasured load to river
discharge. This method resulted in estimates of 1.5 mcy/yr (before dams) and 0.2 mcy/yr (after
dams). A second estimate was made by equating bedload transport to the movement of the sand
waves present on the bottom of the river. Sequential surveys were made of two sets of sand
waves, one during high flow conditions and the second during average discharge conditions.
The analyses of those surveys and flow conditions resulted in bedload estimates ranging from 0.1
mcy/yr to 0.4 mcy/yr. The analysis also found that large sand waves only moved several
hundred feet a year.
3.3.3	Shoal Material. Comparing the average maintenance dredging volume of 6.5
mcy/yr to an average total bed material transport rate of 1.0 mcy/yr indicates less material is
being transported into the LCR than is dredged from the navigation channel. Therefore, the main
source of shoal material must be within the LCR itself. Bathymetric surveys indicate that there
has been significant bed degradation in areas adjacent to the most commonly dredged reaches.
Significant beach erosion also occurs at many of the shoreline and/or beach nourishment disposal
sites. These sandy shorelines are much more easily eroded than the natural silt/clay banks.
Given the small amount of bed material inflow and the stability of the natural banks, the
most likely sources of shoal material are riverbed degradation outside of the navigation channel
and erosion from beach nourishment and shoreline disposal sites. Where dredged material has
been removed from the active sediment transport system, there has been a gradual lowering of
riverbed elevations and a corresponding reduction in shoaling.
3-7

-------
I
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
3.3.4 Shoaling Processes. The vast majority of shoaling in the navigation channel is the
direct result of bedload transport. The two dominant shoal forms are large sand waves and
cutline shoals. Sand waves are present throughout the river channel and cause shoals across the
channel where wave crests rise above the channel design depth of -40 ft Columbia River Datum
(CRD). Cutline shoals are much larger and run parallel to the channel. Cutline shoals develop at
the same locations year after year.
Sand waves of 8 to 10 ft in height can form ridges across the navigation channel. The
volume of an individual sand wave shoal is small, generally less than 30,000 cy, but they are
numerous enough to represent a significant amount of the annual maintenance dredging. Sand
wave shoals do not appear at the same location each year because of the time required for the
Waves to form and grow. The main source of material for sand waves is the bed of the
navigation channel. Sand wave shoals are unlikely to occur where the channel bottom is deeper
then 45 feet CRD.
Cutline shoals form along the navigation channel dredging cutline, parallel to flow, and
can extend several thousand feet along the channel. The primary cause of cutline shoals is
gravity pulling bedload down the side-slopes and into the main navigation channel. Cutline
shoals begin forming at the edge of the dredged cut and grow out toward the center of the
navigation channel. In the LCR, these shoals occur on the inside of long bends and on straight
river reaches. They are especially severe in areas of the river that were less than 40-ft deep prior
to construction of the existing channel. Cutline shoals are much larger than sand wave shoals
and the 12 largest cutline shoals account for nearly half the volume of material dredged annually.
3.4 MAINSTEM NAVIGATION CHANNEL OF THE LCR
Dredging has been required to construct and maintain each stage of the mainstem
navigation channel of the Lower Columbia River since 1906. Each stage of development has
had an impact on channel depths as well on widths. At present, thalweg depths are generally
near 50 ft throughout most of the LCR. This is only slightly deeper than prior to channel
development when much of the main river channel had natural thalweg depths in the 35-ft to 45-
ft range. However, the controlling depth or the minimum depth available anywhere along the
navigation channel, has increased from about 12 ft prior to development, to 40 ft for the present
channel. Typically, depths across the entire channel have also increased in reaches with large
hydraulic control structures or high dredging rates. Channel areas with depths of over 50 ft
occur mainly on the outside of bends and around rock outcroppings.
A period of riverbed adjustment has followed each development stage of the mainstem
navigation channel. The amount of dredging required to maintain the channel during these
adjustment periods has depended on the magnitude of the disturbance to the preexisting riverbed.
Development actions have included channel deepening, constrictions (pile dikes), realignments,
and fills. Deepening of the channel may be viewed as low intensity disturbances that impact
3-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
large areas and significantly increase maintenance dredging. Many of the other developments
(constrictions, realignments and fills) have also caused high intensity, local area disturbances that
resulted in significant increases in maintenance dredging. Because of the frequency and
variation of channel development activities, there is no simple correlation between channel depth
and dredging requirements. Future maintenance dredging will depend on the magnitude of the
overall disturbance to the riverbed and management of the river's peak flows.
3.5 MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND DISPOSAL IN THE LCR
The Portland District primarily with hopper and pipeline dredges does the majority of the
dredging in the LCR. A few select shoaling locations are dredged by clamshell and a few by the
"Sandwick", a propwash dredge. The type of dredge used on a shoal depends on several factors,
including dredge availability, size and location of the shoal, and disposal options available.
Currently, most placement is done at unconfined aquatic sites (called flowlane disposal) with the
remainder (1 to 2 mcy/yr) placed on upland sites or at beach nourishment sites.
3.5.1	Hopper Dredging. Hopper dredges currently do about 3 mcy/yr of dredging in the
LCR and 3-5 mcy/yr at the mouth. Most of this dredging is done by the Corps' hopper dredge,
the "Essayons." Hopper dredges provide flexibility for dredging operations because they can
operate anywhere on the river and can be rapidly deployed to problem shoals. Hopper dredges
are most often used up river on small volume shoals, such as sand wave areas, and on larger
shoals in the estuary. The "Essayons" may spend several weeks in the early spring and in the fall
dredging small shoals in the river upstream of CRM 25.
During the summer, dredging in the estuary work is done as backup work for the
dredging at the mouth of the river. When the entrance becomes too rough or foggy for hopper
dredges to work, they move to one of the estuary bars to dredge. The main restriction on the use
of hopper dredges is the limited availability of in-water disposal sites with enough deep water to
allow disposal without creating a new shoal. Flowlane disposal, in which material is deposited
in deep-water areas adjacent to the navigation channel, is used for hopper operations upstream of
CRM 25. In the estuary, hopper disposal is done at a large disposal site (called Area D) located
away from the navigation channel near CRM 6 and at Harrington Sump, an in-water rehandling
site located near CRM 21.
3.5.2	Pipeline Dredging. Pipeline dredges are used for large cutline shoals and areas
with multiple sand wave shoals. About 3.5 mcy/yr are dredged by the pipeline dredge owned by
the Port of Portland, the "Oregon". Pipeline dredging is done mostly during the summer.
Typically, the "Oregon" is scheduled to start at one end of the navigation channel and work its
way to the other end. This minimizes the amount of time spent moving the dredge and related
equipment.
3-9

-------
*
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
The most frequent pipeline disposal practice is to place the dredged material slurry along
the shoreline near the dredging site. These shoreline or beach nourishment sites occupy about
half of the total shoreline upstream of the estuary. Many of the beach nourishment sites are
actively eroding and need a resupply of sand every 2-3 years. Upland disposal is an efficient
disposal method but there are only a limited number of sites available. About half of the pipeline
disposal is done at upland sites. In a few cases, pipeline disposal is done at flowlane sites with
the use of a downspout that discharges dredged material at least 20 feet below the surface.
3.5.3 Advance Maintenance Dredging. Advance maintenance dredging (AMD) is the
removal of sediment beyond the prescribed channel dimensions for the purpose of reducing costs
by decreasing the frequency of dredging. AMD of up to 5 ft in depth is authorized for the
mainstem channel. Five feet has been found to be sufficient to minimize sand wave shoaling
problems, but is not well suited for cutline shoals. For the past 25 years, AMD has been done
outside the channel boundaries to intercept material moving toward the large cutline shoals.
Advanced maintenance dredging is also done for some side-channel projects which experience
rapid shoaling, such as the Baker Bay/Chinook Marina channel. This channel is dredged to a
dimension that is 5 feet deeper and 150 feet wider than the authorized channel dimensions.
3.6 RIVER CONTROL STRUCTURES IN THE LCR
Pile dikes are a common hydraulic control measure used in the river to improve channel
alignment for navigation, reduce cross-sectional area, restrict flow in back channels, and provide
bank protection. The Corps initiated pile dike construction in 1885, but the bulk of the pile dike
system was built between 1917 and 1939. The last significant additions to the pile dikes system
were built during construction of the 40 ft channel in the 1960s to further constrict flow and
reduce erosion at dredged material disposal sites. The Corps currently maintains a total of 236
pile dikes within the LCR.
Sand fills, constructed with dredged material, have also been used extensively to reduce
channel cross-section and control channel alignment. Most fill material has been placed along
the shoreline to constrict flow. Upstream of CRM 20, nearly half the shoreline along the main
channel is composed of dredged material fill. Dredged material has also been used to create
several islands to control channel alignment, such as Coffeepot, Lord, Sandy, Goat, and Sand
Islands. Pile dike fields protect most of these dredged material fill sites from erosion.
River control structures aid channel maintenance by controlling flow alignment, reducing
erosion, and providing areas for disposal. The current network of control structures provides a
smooth channel alignment that reduces erosion and aids navigation. The pile dike fields protect
many millions of cubic yards of disposal material from erosion. However, the system has
reached, and often exceeded, its limits for disposal site protection. Many shoreline sites have
been filled beyond the limits of erosion protection provided by the dike fields and are actively
3-10

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
eroding. Recent investigations by the Corps have recommended construction of additional pile
dikes to protect disposal sites at Miller Sands, Pillar Rock, Puget Island, and Westport bars.
3.7 SEDIMENT QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LCR
The following discussion of sediment quality characteristics is focused primarily on the
reaches and/or locations where maintenance dredging is a common requirement. Some sediment
characterization, such as was done for the Bi-state Study, includes a fairly broad survey of the
entire Lower Columbia River. The information presently available to characterize the quality of
sediments in the LCR includes: (1) published and unpublished surveys done by the Portland
District Corps of Engineers; (2) the Bi-state Study1; (3) proposed projects such as port
development, water-dependent industries, and marinas; (4) approvals/permits for point source
discharges, such as industry and sewage outfalls; and (5) studies done by the U.S. Geological
Survey and others to evaluate specific contaminants and/or reaches of the Lower Columbia
and/or Willamette Rivers.
No single source of sediment information can be relied upon to portray the status of
sediment quality because each source presents only a brief snapshot of the conditions
encountered at a specific point on the river at a specific time of the year. For example, the
Lower Columbia River is such a dynamic system that what was found before the flood events of
1996/97 may not be so today. The sediment survey done for the Bi-state Study is probably the
most comprehensive survey done to date; however, it too presents limitations in that it was a
one-time sample of the river (circa 1993) and it only sampled the top 2 centimeters of sediment.
3.7.1 Grain Size. Grain size is a commonly measured sediment parameter because it
involves a relatively inexpensive test and the results are applicable to dredged material
management decisions. Sediment in the LCR ranges from gravel-sized material to very fine
clay.
1 The Bi-state Study undertook a systematic assessment of sediment quality of the lower
Columbia River from the mouth to Bonneville Dam. The survey results are contained in Task 6:
Reconnaissance Report dated May 17, 1993 and Task 7: Conclusions and Recommendations
dated May 25,1993. The survey obtained sediment samples from 54 locations, 40 of which were
intentionally positioned to collect fine-grained sediment. The investigators targeted those
locations because of the general finding that finer-grained sediment is more likely to contain
contaminants. Sediment samples were collected in a range of water depths but the majority (40)
were from depths of 5 to 20 feet; 7 from depths of 20-30 feet and 6 from depths over 30 feet. As
a general guideline, resource agencies consider water depths of less than 20 feet to be the most
biologically productive zone of the river and of special importance as the shallow water corridor
used by out-migrating juvenile salmon.
3-11

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Based upon historical survey data collected by the USAGE, Portland District, sediment
from the main navigation channel of the LCR has been found to be predominantly fine to
medium-sized sand with less than 1.0 percent silt, clay and finer material. The most recent
survey of channel sediment was done in 1997 in connection with the proposal to deepen the
navigation channel. Out of a total of 89 samples, only six had a fines content greater than 5
percent. Of these six samples, four had a fines content greater than 20 percent. All but one of
these samples was collected outside of the areas dredged to maintain the channel. This one
exception is associated with the Morgan Bar disposal area that receives fine-grained material
from the Willamette River.
Sediments sampled in the side channel projects by the Corps have been found to vary
considerably more in grain size composition, particularly as channels near their destination, such
as at a marina. Areas of finer-grained sediment accumulation are generally believed to be areas
where sediment contaminants are more likely to be found. This is because many chemical
compounds have electrochemical properties that cause an affinity for finer-grained sediment.
However, sediments with greater than 20 percent fines have been subjected to additional
chemical testing and, in the majority of cases, found to not exceed screening value guidelines in
existence at the time of sampling. Only 2 samples were collected from the navigation channel.
Higher levels of contamination in fine-grained sediments were also not found in the
surveys done for the Bi-state Study. As summarized in the Integrated Technical Report dated
May 20, 1996, page 35: Only trace metal concentrations were higher in the finer-grained
backwater sediments (1993 survey) compared to the more open-water sediment stations sampled
in 1991. These higher metals concentrations were generally due to the natural association of
metals with finer-grained sediment, although some locations did appear to have elevated
concentrations potentially related to human inputs. The expected higher concentrations of
organic pollutants in backwater sediments were not observed in the 1993 survey.
3.7.2 Metals. All of the metals noted below are natural components of soils and
sediments of the Lower Columbia River drainage basin. The concentration of individual metals
may vary depending upon additional inputs from human activity or sources.
Bi-state Study. The Bi-state Study reconnaissance survey provides a fairly
comprehensive snapshot of the chemical composition of Lower Columbia River sediments.
Many of the metals listed in Table 8-1 were found in the finer-grained sediment samples but
none at levels that exceed the screening level guidelines (SL) adopted in this manual. Likewise,
none of the coarser-grained samples had any metal exceedances above SL
The relatively low level of metals in Lower Columbia River sediments is summarized in
the Reconnaissance Report, page 3-81: Metals were the most frequently detected substances in
sediment samples from the study area. The high detection frequency, which occurs at
3-12

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
concentrations above the detection limits of conventional laboratory techniques, is due to the
natural occurrence of many of these metals in Columbia River sediments. In most locations, the
degree to which the metals exceeded the predicted distribution of average concentrations was
not great, indicating limited alteration of the sediment quality by anthropogenic influences in the
areas sampled.
Portland Corps' 1997 Survey. The 1997 sediment survey reaffirmed the results of the
Bi-state Study in that main channel sediments contain very low levels of metal. Only about one
third of the samples had any metal detects, and of those, none exceeded the screening levels
shown on Table 8-1. The results of the survey are summarized as follows:
Arsenic: 66 non-detects, range of detects = 1.0-3.0 ppm, screening level = 57.0 ppm.
Cadmium: all non-detects
Copper: 66 non-detects, range of detects - 4.0 - 33.0 ppm, screening level = 390 ppm.
Lead: 66 non-detects, range of detects = 1.0-10.0 ppm, screening level = 450 ppm.
Mercury: 88 non-detects, one detect = .07 ppm, screening level = 0.41 ppm.
Nickel: 66 non-detects, range of detects = 5.0-22.0 ppm, screening level = 140 ppm.
Silver: 88 non-detects, one detect = 1.0 ppm, screening level = 6.1 ppm.
Zinc: 66 non-detects, range of detects = 28.0-85.0 ppm, screening level = 410 ppm.
3.7.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are a broad range of
contaminants associated with forest fires, combustion of fossil fuels, petroleum spills, wood
treatment facilities that use creosote, and urban stormwater discharges. PAHs are typically
concentrated with finer-grained sediment downstream of urban areas.
Bi-state Study. This study detected relatively few instances of significant PAH
contamination in Lower Columbia River sediment. The few samples where PAHs were detected
are located downstream of larger urban areas and may be associated with stormwater runoff.
Portland Corps' 1997 Survey. A similar trend of low levels of PAH contamination was
determined during this sediment characterization survey. Of the 22 samples analyzed, 18 had
detectable quantities of low molecular weight PAHs (LPAH) ranging from 1 to 112 parts per
billion (ppb). The screening level for LP AH is 5,200 ppb. Similarly, 15 samples had detectable
levels of high molecular weight PAHs (HPAH) with a range of 1 to 407 ppb; the screening level
for HP AH is 12,000 ppb.
Ecology. Sediments from Columbia River port locations at Kalama, Longview, and
Ilwaco were examined during a screening survey conducted by the Department of Ecology,
Survey Report 26-00-01, Dec 1988. PAHs were the major concern among the contaminants
analyzed. PAH concentrations were elevated in sediments below Reynolds Aluminum in
Longview (950 mg PAH/kg organic carbon). Contaminants at all other sites were found at
relatively low concentrations or were undetectable. Bioassays performed on two species did not
3-13

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
show any significant mortality. Further sampling in the vicinity of the Reynolds site was
recommended to determine the extent of PAH contamination.
3.7.4	Pesticides and Poly chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The use of herbicides and
insecticides (pesticides) has been and continues to be a common practice in the Columbia River
drainage basin. Historic pesticide residues, such as DDT, continue to be detected in Lower
Columbia River sediments, albeit low levels, even though some have been out of production for
years. This situation reflects the persistent nature of these types of chemicals. The continued
occurrence of pesticides is linked to widespread agricultural land uses in the drainage basin and
the effects of ever-increasing urbanization adjacent to the river. PCBs are industrial chemicals
used as cooling fluids and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment.
Although also banned from production for some time, transformers manufactured or imported
prior to the ban are still in use and continue to be potential sources of PCBs, particularly at sites'
where discarded transformers are stored or recycled.
Bi-state Study. When adjusted for non-detects, only 3.0 percent of the sampling stations
yielded detectable levels of pesticides. While admittedly still persistent in the Lower Columbia
River, the report considered pesticides in sediments to be a minor problem. Similarly, PCBs
were detected very rarely in the sediment and were determined to not be a problem.
Portland Corps 1997 Survey. The Corps' survey reflects the findings of the Bi-state
Study; only a few stations revealed any pesticides or PCBs and of those that did, the levels of
detection were well below levels of concern.
3.7.5	Dioxin/Furans. At present there are no effects-based reference values for these
compounds. The presence of these compounds in the environment is associated with
chlorophenol production, wood-treating facilities, the aerial application of phenoxy herbicides
(2,4-D and 2,4,5-T), effluent discharges from kraft pulp mills and chlorinated municipal
treatment plants, and from combustion events.
Most of the research with regard to dioxins/furans has concentrated on the "bad actor" or
2,3,7,8-TCDD and little or no information exists on the other congeners. It is generally accepted
that the higher weighted dioxins/furans are not as readily taken up or bioaccumulated by
organisms and are less toxic. These higher weighted dioxins/furans occur naturally as
combustion byproducts from such things as forest fires and wood stoves.
The Columbia River has recently been identified by EPA as "water quality limited" due
to the prediction that dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) concentrations in the water exceed the water
column criteria for consumption of contaminated fish and water and the finding that tissue levels
in Columbia River fish exceed the human cancer risk factor. EPA has developed a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) allowance to better regulate the discharge of dioxin from U.S.
pulp and paper mills located in the river basin, with the goal of reducing levels to below the
3-14

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
water quality standard. Further investigations are being conducted to provide additional
information to refine the TMDL and monitor the effect of regulatory actions.
Bi-state Study. Dioxins and furans were analyzed in 20 of the survey sampling stations
and detected at each one. However, this could be expected since a very low detection limit was
achieved for the reconnaissance survey, less than one part per trillion, and these compounds are
known to be have a very widespread distribution in the Lower Columbia River watershed.
Levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD ranged from undetects to a high of 12.0 part per trillion (pptr). Levels
of 2,3,7,8-TCDF were higher with a range of 6.0 to 123.0 ppt. The highest concentrations of
these compounds occurred downstream of the Multnomah Channel and the cities of St. Helens,
OR and Longview, WA. Each of these locations is affected by an active or historical discharge
from a bleach kraft pulp mill.
1990 Portland Corps' Survey. Sediment samples specifically targeted for the
determination of potential dioxin/furan contamination were collected within the navigation
channel alignment at various locations along the Lower Willamette River (LWR) and Lower
Columbia River (LCR) in May of 1990. Samples from the LWR were taken in the Portland
Harbor reach (WRM 4 to 11). Samples from the LCR were taken at Camas (CRM 118), St.
Helens (CRM 85), Longview (CRM 63 to 65) and Wauna (CRM 38 to 43). Most sample
locations were chosen from within the normal dredging boundaries, including the channel and
sideslopes, where dioxins/furans were most expected to be found.
In the LCR, samples were taken near or downstream of discharges from pulp and paper
mills. Sample locations were chosen from shoals or where previous sampling had indicated the
presence of similar hydrophobic organic compounds (i.e. PCBs, PAHs, pesticides) and where
previous analyses by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality indicated that
dioxins/furans were present.
A total of nineteen samples or composites were obtained from the channel areas of the
two rivers and analyzed for dioxins/furans. The isomer 2,3,7,8-TCDD was confirmed in only
two of the nineteen analyses, both from the Lower Willamette River, at 0.63 part per trillion
(pptr) and 0.62 pptr. The associated fur an isomer (2,3,7,8-TCDF) was detected at concentrations
ranging from a low of 0.73 pptr to a high of 110.0 pptr, also in the LWR samples. One sample
was collected from the Doan Lake area where contamination ofDDD, DDT and PAHs have been
noted in the past. Though 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the lower-weighted dioxins were found only at low
levels, the higher-weighted less toxic dioxins and the furans are significantly elevated above
background. Further testing and evaluation was recommended in this area.
Though various isomers of dioxin/furan were detected in all of the samples tested, many
of the individual isomer concentrations found in the LCR samples were attributed to background
levels in the analytical system. In addition, concentrations found in samples from the LCR were
3-15

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
orders of magnitude below those found in the Lower Willamette River samples. No significant
dioxin/furan contamination was found in the sediments of the LCR.
3.8	MID-COLUMBIA RIVER (BONNEVILLE DAM TO McNARY DAM)
The 146 miles of mid-Columbia River in the reach between Bonneville Dam and McNary
Dam also forms the boundary between Washington and Oregon. This reach of the river has mile
after mile of open country, with widely spaced, small population centers. The only major city
within this reach (over 10,000 population) is The Dalles, Oregon. The major tributaries to the
mid-Columbia River between McNary and Bonneville Dams include the Umatilla, John Day,
Deschutes, Klickitat, and White Salmon Rivers.
This reach of the Columbia River is almost totally regulated by four dams (McNary, John
Day, The Dalles and Bonneville). The John Day Dam is the only dam in this reach that provides
flood control in addition to providing a slack water reservoir. When high runoff is forecast, the
pool is lowered to provide space for control of about 500,000 acre-feet of floodwaters. The other
three dams are known as run-of-river dams and have no flood storage capacity.
3.8.1	Hydrodynamics. The volume of sediments transported by the Columbia River
and its major tributaries is small compared to other major rivers in the United States.
Sedimentation in the middle Columbia River reservoirs is a minor problem except at isolated
areas, such as where local sediment bearing tributaries enter the reservoirs. As the dams do not
have large storage capacities, river flows are strong and resident time for the water is short.
Because of these flow regimes, fine-grained material is held in suspension and transported
through and out of the system.
The slack water pools provide sufficient depth for navigation without the need for
dredging of the federal channel. The federal channel is authorized to 15 feet. Recent dredging
of the federal projects has been limited to the upstream end of the new navigation-lock at
Bonneville, the forebay of the second Bonneville powerhouse, and at river mile 214 in Lake
Celilo.
3.8.2	Sediment Quality Characteristics. Sediments in the mid-Columbia reach, that
are dredged, are primarily fine to medium sands and gravels with very low organic content.
Most of the dredged sediments have qualified for unconfined aquatic disposal back into the river
although several projects have utilized the clean dredged material for beneficial upland purposes.
3.9	LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVER
The Willamette River basin lies entirely within the State of Oregon occupying a total area
of about 12,000 square miles. The Willamette Valley forms a north-south trough through the
3-16

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
northwestern portion of the state, with a width of about 75 miles from the crest of the Coast
Range on the west to the crest of the Cascade Range on the east and has a length of 150 miles.
The Willamette River has a total length of approximately 187 miles, flowing principally
northward through the central part of the Willamette Valley to its confluence with the Lower
Columbia River at CRM 101. Its upper 133 miles flows northward in a braided, meandering
channel. Through most of the remaining 54 miles, it flows between higher and more defined
banks unhindered by falls or rapids, except for the basaltic intrusion which blocks the valley at
Oregon City and creates Willamette Falls. The stretch below the falls is subject to ocean tidal
effects which are transmitted through the Columbia River. Portland Harbor is located in the
Lower Willamette River from its mouth upstream to approximately WRM 14.
3.9.1	Hydrodynamics. The Willamette River contributes a mean annual discharge of
about 38,490 cfs to the Lower Columbia River. Peak flows, with a range of 20,800 to 130,000
cfs, occur in the high rainfall months of November through January; low flows, with a range of
5,000 to 7,100 cfs, occur in the lesser rainfall months of July through September. Flooding in
the Lower Willamette Basin occurs frequently with an average of one or two floods in the winter
season and with severe floods occurring about every ten years. Flows in the Willamette River
are significantly regulated by reservoirs and hydroelectric dams located on the tributaries.
The Lower Willamette River is considered to be that portion of the river in close proximity
to metropolitan Portland. In general, this area is bounded on the south at river mile (WRM) 25
on the Willamette River below Willamette Falls at Oregon City. Because of the Lower
Willamette River's low elevation and proximity to the coast, tidal effects on river stage can be
significant. River stage is also influenced by the regulation of upstream water storage projects as
well as natural stream-flows on both the Columbia and Willamette Rivers.
The Willamette River's average annual suspended sediment load is estimated to be 1.7
mcy/yr. Less than 20 percent, or about 0.3 mcy/yr, of that material is sand, the rest is silt or clay.
The Lower Willamette River's transport capacity is very low and fine sediments are deposited
within the Portland Harbor reach. The bed material in the lower reach varies from fine sand and
medium sand at the mouth, to over 80 percent silt and clay in the upstream part of the navigation
channel. Given the channel dimensions and the type of bed material, bedload transport in the
Willamette River is estimated to be insignificant.
3.9.2	Sediment Quality Characteristics. Sediments dredged from the Lower
Willamette River range from clean sand to clayey, sandy silt high in organic content. A cutline
shoal develops between RM 8.0 and 10.1 along the west side of the channel. This is the primary
location requiring maintenance dredging every 2 to 5 years. Other areas are not dredged or
dredged infrequently. Willamette River sediments have been subjected to chemical
characterization because of the physical characteristics of the material dredged and close
proximity of numerous known sources of contamination. The bulk of the material evaluated
3-17

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
from the present 40-foot channel has repeatedly been found to be suitable for unconfined aquatic
disposal, but some material has been found to contain chemiicals-of-concem above established
concern levels. Sediments from outside of the main channel tend to be finer and more likely to
be contaminated. Information on sediment quality is included in the previous discussion on
dioxin/furans sampling in the Lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers (Section 3.7.5).
3.10 SIDE CHANNEL PROJECTS
The Portland District maintains several navigation projects or channels that branch from
the mainstem Lower Columbia River to select points in Washington and Oregon. Many of these
channels provide access that benefits commercial enterprises, such as access to moorage
facilities for commercial fishing fleets and forest product or other water-dependent companies.
The Baker Bay/Ilwaco Marina navigation channel provides access to a federal facility, a Coast
Guard station, while another provides the access route for a Washington State ferry. In some
cases, access to moorage facilities also benefits recreational boaters. In a less typical case, the
dredging of the Cowlitz River navigation channel serves as a means to reduce flooding in the
upper watershed. Severe flooding could have resulted from the blockage of the channel by
material swept into the river by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.
3.10.1	Baker Bay West Channel, WA (CRM 2.5). The side channel known as the
Baker Bay West Channel branches off from the entrance channel and provides access to the
Baker Bay Coast Guard Station and the large marina at Ilwaco, WA. Between 1984 -1990, an
average of 111,000 cys of fine to silty sand was dredged annually from about three major shoals
in the channel. The dredged material has been disposed of at the unconfined aquatic (estuarrne)
site designated as Area "D" (hopper and clamshell) or on adjacent sand islands (pipeline).
3.10.2	Baker Bay/Chinook Channel, WA (CRM 5.0). The Chinook Channel provides
access to the large marina at Chinook, WA by means of a long narrow channel that cuts through
a reach of extreme shoaling. Because of extreme shoaling conditions, advanced maintenance
dredging is done in certain sections of the channel. From 1986 to 1990 clamshell dredges have
removed an average of 177,000 cys of fine to silty sand sediments with disposal at Area "D".
3.10.3	Hammond Boat Basin, OR (CRM 7.0). The Hammond project consists of an
access channel through breakwaters to a mooring basin used primarily by small boats. The
channel was last dredged by pipeline in 1990 when 15,300 cys of fine to silty sand was disposed
of on an adjacent upland site.
3.10.4	Skipanon River, OR (CRM 11.0). The authorized project for the Skipanon
Channel provides for an entrance channel from the Columbia River to the boat basin. Shoaling
occurs at the entrance due to the deposition of sand across the mouth of the Skipanon River.
Deposition also occurs in the inner reaches of the channel near the boat basin. The sandy
dredged material has been found suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal at Area "D". The finer
3-18

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
silty sediments from the inner reaches have been tested at regular intervals and disposed at
upland confined sites. The outer channel requires dredging about every third year by hopper
whereas the inner reach is dredged about once every live years.
3.10.5	Tongue Point/Cathlamet Bay (CRM 18.5). The authorized project includes an
access channel from the Columbia River to commercial moorages and a turning basin inside
Cathlamet Bay. The project was last dredged in 1989 and has not required any maintenance
dredging since then.
3.10.6	Skamokawa Creek (CRM 33.6). The authorized project provides for an access
channel from the Columbia River through the mouth of Skamokawa Creek to Brooks Slough.
The channel provides navigation access to a boat launch facility and to upriver private and
commercial vessel moorages. The channel is maintained every 3 to 5 years with either a pipeline
or the agitation dredge. Use of the pipeline allows beneficial placement of the dredged material
on the beach nourishment site at the nearby county park.
3.10.7	Elochoman Slough (CRM 39). The authorized project is an access channel from
the Columbia River 1.5 miles up the Elochoman Slough to the mouth of the Elochoman River.
The channel provides access to a marina and to a water-dependent forest products company. The
channel is maintained every 3 to 5 years by use of the agitation dredge.
3.10.8	Wahkiakum Ferry, WAAVestport Slough, OR (CRM 43.2). The authorized
project is a navigation channel extending from the ferry landing on Puget Island, WA to the
mouth of Westport Slough on the Oregon side of the river. The channel provides access for the
small ferry that traverses the river at this location. The channel tends to shoal fairly rapidly at
the reaches closest to the shorelines on each side. Maintenance of the channel is done by
clamshell or agitation dredge every 2 to 3 years.
3.10.9	Cowlitz/Old Mouth Cowlitz River (CRM 67.7). One of the authorized projects
is an access channel from the Columbia River 3,800 feet up the Old Mouth Cowlitz River, The
channel provides access for the transportation of log rafts to commercial facilities at Longview,
WA. This channel is maintained annually by agitation dredging. Another authorized project
provides for an access channel up the Cowlitz River to Ostrander, WA. Significant volumes of
sediment were removed from this reach following the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, but has since
stabilized to the point that maintenance dredging is very infrequent.
3-19

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 4
OVERVIEW OF REGULATORY PROCESSES
4.1 OVERVIEW
This chapter summarizes the state and federal regulatory processes for obtaining approval
of dredging projects undertaken in the Lower Columbia River Management Area (LCRMA).
Distinctions are made among three processes: a) the overall permit process for new dredging
projects (Section 4.3 and Figure 4.1); b) the verification or renewal of approval for on-going
maintenance dredging work (Section 4.4 and 4.5 and Figure 4.2); and c) the dredged material
evaluation process that is integrated into the other two processes (Section 4.6 and Figure 4.3).
The submittal of a Dredging Quality Control Plan constitutes the last step before starting
dredging (Section 4.7)
Included in Section 4.8 of this chapter is a description of the role of the Portland District
Corps of Engineers in carrying out congressionally authorized dredging projects in the LCRMA.
Below is a description of the role of the two district offices, Seattle and Portland, who share the
workload for issuing permits for dredging projects in the LCRMA.
4.2 THE ROLE OF THE CORPS DISTRICT OFFICES
The Seattle and Portland Districts share the workload for permits issued in the Lower
Columbia River. The Portland District handles permits for Corps or congressionally authorized
dredging; all permits originating from the Oregon side of the river; and all permits for Ports
located on the Washington side of the river. The Seattle District handles all other private
applicant permit applications originating from the Washington side of the river.
4.2.1 Seattle District. The Seattle District's Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO)
provides a common point for dredged material evaluations. The staff is available to answer
questions related to dredged material evaluations, assist in the development of sampling and
analysis plans (SAP), and help troubleshoot during sediment sampling and testing (see DMMO
on Figures 4-1,4-2, and 4-3). The DMMO coordinates SAP and data reviews with the other
regulatory agencies which jointly administer the Lower Columbia River Dredged Material
Evaluation Framework, prepares the SAP approval letters, and prepares the draft and final
suitability determinations. The DMMO interfaces with the Regulatory Branch and provides
consultation services on dredged material management issues. Any questions, problems or
4-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
issues related to dredged material management should be directed to the DMMO, via phone, fax,
or mail at:
Department of Army, Corps of Engineers
Seattle District, CENWS-OD-TS-DMMO
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Telephone: (206) 764-6945, 764-6550, or 764-3768
Fax: 206-764-6602
4.2.2 Portland District. The Dredged Material Management Team (DMMT) in Portland
District is comprised of personnel from the Portland District's Regulatory Branch, Navigation
Section, and Hydraulics and Hydrology Branch. The DMMT provides a unified process for the
evaluation of sediment quality for both Corps and non-Corps dredging projects. The Regulatory
Branch and Navigation Section coordinate permits and dredging projects in their functional
areas. The Dredged Material Quality Manager interfaces with the Corps Regulatory Branch and
Navigation Section and provides consulting services on dredged material quality issues.
The DMMT coordinates SAPs and data review with the other regulatory agencies which
jointly administer the Lower Columbia River Dredged Material Evaluation Framework. Staff is
available to answer questions related to dredged material evaluations, assist in the development
of (SAPs), and help troubleshoot during sediment sampling and testing (see DMMT on Figures
4.1,4.2, and 4.3), Issues related to Columbia River dredged material evaluation may be directed
to the DMMT, via phone, fax, or mail at:
Dredged Material Quality Manager
Department of Army, Corps of Engineers
Portland District, CENWP-EC-HR
P.O. Box 2946
Portland, OR 97208-2946
Telephone: (503) 808-4885
Fax: (503) 808-4875
4-2

-------
Dredging Need
Identified
Contact
DMMO or
DMMT
Is
Testing
Required?
Dredged \
Material \
Evaluation y
Process /
(Fig. 4-3) /
no
RMT Review
for Information
Adequacy
copy/ Submit Permit
7 Application
Public Notice
Issued
Water Quality
Certification
and Other
State and Local
Requirements Met
i.
Section 10/404
Permit Issued
Obtain DNR
Site-Use
Authorization
(WA Only)
ze:
Submit
Dredging QC Plan
(if required)
Predrcdging
Conference
1
f

Dredge
FIGURE 4-1
SECTION 10/404 REGULATORY PROCESS
(NEW PERMIT REQUIRED)
4-3

-------
Dredging Need
Identified
Contact
Dredged Material
Management Office
yes
no
Dredged
Material
Evaluation
Process
(Fig. 4-3)
RMT Review
for Information
Adequacy /
DNR Site-use
Authorization
(WA only)
Submit
Dredging QC Plan
(if required) /
Predredging
Conference
Dredge
FIGURE 4-2
SECTION 10/404 REGULATORY PROCESS
(NEW PERMIT NOT REQUIRED)
4-4

-------
Determine sampling
and
analysis requirements
>
1
Develop s
an
analysis pi
ampling
i
an (SAP)
Submit SAP to
DMMO/DMMT,
z
DMMO/DMMT
coordinates
SAP review by
regulatory agencies
Field sampling
and
laboratory testing
Submit final
report along
with QA/QC Data
DMMO/DMMT
sends SAP
approval letter
DMMO/DMMT
coordinates
data review with
RMT
Suitability review
and concurrence
by RMT
FIGURE 4-3
DREDGED MATERIAL EVALUATION PROCESS
4-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
4.3 STANDARD REGULATORY PROCESS FOR NEW DREDGING
Figure 4-1 illustrates the standard regulatory process for acquiring the major permits
required for a new dredging proposal. This process involves a second integrated process, the
dredged material evaluation process, described in Section 4.6. The standard process consists of
a series of progressive steps applicable to most dredging projects, as summarized below:
+ A Section 10/404/103 permit application is submitted to the Regulatory Branch of
either the Portland or Seattle District Corps of Engineers.
+ The permit application is forwarded to the Dredged Material Management Office
(DMMO) of the Seattle District or Dredged Material Management Team
(DMMT) of the Portland District which initiates the dredged material evaluation
process. Note: Applicants (dredging proponents) are strongly encouraged to
begin this evaluation process prior to submitting a formal application.
4" The dredged material evaluation process is carried out by the applicant with
guidance from DMMO/DMMT. The adequacy of the resulting information is
verified by the DMMO/DMMT. If the information is determined to be adequate,
the permit application is considered complete from the perspective of the
sediment evaluation process. The project is then returned to the Regulatoiy
Branch to begin or continue the standard Public Notice process.
+ During the Public Notice process, the Regulatory Branch may receive comments
from the general public and state and federal agencies. Comments that bring up
potential issues of concern may be passed on to the dredging proponent for
response.
+ 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:
(a)	Shoreline Permits
(b)	Hydraulic Project Approval Permit
(c)	Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Likely permits/approvals required in the State of Oregon include:
4-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
(a)	Removal/Fill Permit
(b)	Section 401 Water Quality Certification
(c)	Coastal Program Approval
(d)	State Beaches
~	The Regulatory Branch issues a Section 10/404/103 permit that incorporates the provisions
of state 401 certification and other appropriate conditions that result as a response to
comments or as revisions to the project.
~	The dredging proponent must prepare and submit a Dredging Quality Control Plan to the
Regulatory Branch of the respective Corps offices for approval prior to the start of the
dredging operation.
~	In Washington, the dredging proponent must get a disposal site use authorization from the
Department of Natural Resources.
4.4	RENEWAL OF CORPS PERMITS FOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING
Corps permits must be renewed on a periodic basis (as specified in the permit). This
requires completion of a new public interest review process. The permit renewal follows a
process similar to the process described in Section 4.3, but some state and local permits may not
need to be renewed. Sediment testing information will be reviewed, and existing information
may be adequate for permit renewal without additional testing.
4.5	VERIFICATION OF MULTI-YEAR MAINTENANCE DREDGING PERMITS
Corps permits for maintenance dredging may be issued for a period of up to 10 years.
During this time no additional Corps permitting activity may be required. 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 assure that the material is still
suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. These requirements are covered under the concepts of
Recency and Frequency described in Chapter 5. Holders of permits for maintenance dredging
will have to continue to coordinate with DMMO/DMMT to determine if additional sampling and
analysis is necessary before dredging is begun anew in any given year. Figure 4.2 summarizes
the steps involved in obtaining approval for the continuation of maintenance dredging for a
particular project.
4-7

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
4.6 DREDGED MATERIAL EVALUATION PROCESS
The dredged material evaluation process is integrated into both the overall permit process
(Section 4.3) and the verification of existing permits (Section 4.5) as explained above. The
dredged material evaluation process for the LCRMA is undertaken as a "Tiered Evaluation
Process" as described in Chapter 5 and is summarized below.
~	Applicant contacts either the DMMO (Seattle) or DMMT (Portland) to initiate the dredged
material evaluation process (Section 4.2).
~	Applicant submits project description and historical information as required in the Tier I
evaluation (Chapter 5).
~	If DMMO/DMMT can make a favorable suitability determination based upon the existing
Tier I information, the determination is distributed for review and concurrence by the
LCRMA Regional Management Team (RMT). No further sediment evaluation will be
required,
~	If DMMO/DMMT finds that Tier I information is not adequate to make a favorable
suitability determination, the Applicant will be advised to prepare and submit a proposed
sampling and analysis plan (SAP) to acquire additional information. The SAP must be
approved by DMMO/DMMT with concurrence from the RMT (Chapter 6)..
~	Applicant conducts sampling and analysis of proposed dredged material as directed by the
SAP in order to furnish the information required in one of the subsequent tiers: Tiers IIA.
IIB, III, or IV (Chapters 7, 8,9 and 10).
~	Applicant prepares and submits report of results of sampling and analysis effort to the
DMMO/DMMT (Chapters 6 and 11).
~	The DMMO/DMMT reviews the adequacy of the information and prepares a suitability
determination and distributes for review and concurrence by RMT.
4.7 DREDGING QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
The final step before beginning a dredging project is the preparation and submittal of a
dredging quality control plan, noted in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. The purpose of the plan is to ensure
that the applicant and/or dredging contractor are aware of and understand all the conditions
placed on the dredging operation and the disposal of the dredged material. When required, the
plan must be submitted to the respective Corps Regulatory Branch, who will then coordinate
4-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
review of the plan with other appropriate agencies. The timing of submittal is shown on Figures
4.1 and 4.2. The dredging quality control plan provides the following types of information:
+ Description of the final project.
+ Schedule for dredging and disposal.
+ Description of dredging methods and controls, including procedures to remove
debris; measures to control or minimize potential water quality impacts; and, if
applicable, measures to dredge and dispose contaminated sediments separate from
clean sediments and subsequent verification of such work.
+ Disposal method, site coordinates, positioning procedures, and data recording and
reporting.
+ List of regulatory personnel to be contacted prior to the start of work.
+ Tug operator's name and telephone number.
+ Environmental emergency procedures, such as spill containment measures.
4.8 THE PROCESS FOR CORPS 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 U.S. or Ocean Waters; Operations and Maintenance). Generally, the
coordination process for civil works dredging projects mirrors the regulatory program, with a
few procedural exceptions. Corps dredging is subject to requirements under the following acts:
National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act and amendments, Marine Protection and
Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
The general steps in coordinating Corps civil works dredging include:
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)	An environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) is prepared for
the project. Typically, for maintenance dredging, a "Finding of No Significant Impact" or

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
FONSI is prepared in conjunction with the completion of a CWA Section 404 (b)(1) evaluation.
If an EIS is prepared for new dredging work, Corps authorization to proceed is documented in a
Record of Decision document. For work found to have "no significant impact", a document
called a Statement of Findings (SOF) is completed at the end of the public coordination period.
3)	For projects in the coastal zone, a determination of consistency with the enforceable
provisions of the state coastal zone program is prepared and submitted to the appropriate state
agency along with the public notice. Federal CZM consistency concurrence will be requested
from the state.
4)	If endangered species are known or suspected in the project area, the Biological Opinion will
be checked to assure that the activity is covered. National Marine Fisheries Service will be
notified that the activity is included in the biological opinion. If the activity is not included as
part of the existing biological opinion, 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. For ocean disposal, a letter of concurrence for the activity is required
from the regional EPA.
4-10

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 5
TIERED EVALUATION PROCESS AND TIER I
5.1	OVERVIEW
Over 99 percent of the volume of sediment dredged annually in the Lower Columbia
River Management Area (LCRMA) and adjacent channel reaches has been found to be suitable
for placement at ocean and flow-lane disposal sites or used for beach nourishment. However, the
potential exists for various degrees of sediment contamination at some dredging sites,
particularly those located near urban and industrial areas. Projects in such locations may have to
undergo a more extensive sediment evaluation. Such an evaluation, as called for in this manual,
is essential so that dredged material will be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with
environmental and regulatory mandates.
The chemical and biological testing required under this guidance manual can be
expensive. One of the objectives of the manual is to develop and refine procedures that reduce
the cost of dredged material testing while providing an appropriate evaluation of the potential
environmental impact of dredged material disposal. The basic framework for evaluating
dredging and disposal proposals consists of a tiered evaluation process.
5.2	TIERED EVALUATION PROCESS
The tiers or categories of information/data needs described below are used in a sequential
manner for evaluating the suitability of dredged material for unconfined aquatic disposal. This
sequential approach is called a tiered evaluation process. At each tier a decision is made
regarding the adequacy of the existing data to make a suitability determination. If the existing
data are adequate for decision purposes, then there is no need to proceed to the next tier. If not,
data at the next tier are required before dredged material may be approved for unconfined aquatic
disposal. The tiered arrangement is summarized in Table 5-1 and illustrated in Figure 5-1.
5-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 5-1
Summary of Tiered Evaluation Approach for Aquatic Disposal
Tier I
Applicant and agencies compile and evaluate existing information on specific dredging site; determine if exclusion-from-
testing or recency/frequency guidelines apply; and determine if there exists a reason-to-believe that significant
contamination is present. Agencies prepare a suitability determination if sufficient information is available to approve
unconfined aquatic disposal. (Chapter 5)
If sediment information is not adequate, applicant must prepare and submit a sampling and analysis plan or SAP. (Chapter
6 and 7)
Tier IIA
Sediments are sampled and analyzed for grain size and total volatile solids (TVS), and any other conventional chemical
parameter determined applicable to the proposed dredging location (Chapter 8). If the results of grain size analysis are at
least 80% sand and TVS is less than 5.0%, the proposed dredged material qualifies for unconfined aquatic disposal based
on exclusionary status.
Tier IIB
If the sediment fails either the grain size or TVS test, or if active sources of contamination are determined to be
present, the sediment must be tested for chemicals-of-concern (Chapter 8). If the results of sediment testing do not
exceed screening level guidelines, the proposed dredged material qualifies for unconfined aquatic disposal.
Tier III
If the results of the chemistry test exceed screening guidelines, the sediment must undergo appropriate biological tests
(Chapter 9). If the sediment passes the biological testing guidelines, the proposed dredged material qualifies for
unconfined aquatic disposal. Sediment that fails the biological tests of Tier III is determined to be unsuitable for
unconfined aquatic disposal.
Tier IV
Two circumstances can trigger Tier IV evaluation (Chapter 10):
a)	the results of Tier III bioaccumulation tests are indeterminate, or
b)	the sediments contain chemicals which do not have threshold sediment quality values or for which the routine
biological tests are inappropriate.
If Tier IV testing is considered necessary by the RMT, then specific tests or evaluations and interpretive criteria will be
designed by the RMT in coordination with the project proponent.
5-2

-------

(S
&
M
m.
§
fi-
ef.
I
CT
&
«
«3
IT
st.
o.
u»
I
Ui
Greater than 80%
sand and Less than
5% VS
All chemicals of
concern below SL
Proceed with
404/103 evaluation -
No further testing
requirement
Proceed with
404/103 evaluation -
No further testing
requirement
Enough information to
determine if project
meets exclusion ranking
^r
Tests not statistically
different from
reference
Suitable for aquatic
disposal if all other
Federal and State
requirements are
met
Proceed with
404/103 evaluation-
No further testing
requirement
Tier I
Existing information
only
Tier II
Physical testing
grain size/VS
Tier II B
Chemical testing
Tier III
Biological testing
Tier IV
Special non-routine
evaluation
-~
or
->
Bioaccumulation
not conclusive
Less than 80%
sand and greater than
5% VS
One or more
chemicals above
SL
Tests are statistically
different from
reference
Go to
higher tier
Go to
Tier II B
Other non-threshold
value chemicals are
of concern
Goto
Tier III
Not enough information
or
known chemical of
concern
Not suitable for
aquatic disposal.
Develop other
management options
by applying technical
framework
EPA 842-B-82-008
Nov 92

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
5.3 TIER I
This section contains both an initial management area ranking (Section 5.3.1) and an
individual project evaluation (Section 5.3.2). The management area ranking refers to the initial
rankings assigned to specific sites or reaches of the Lower Columbia River where dredging is
occurring or has occurred historically. These initial rankings serve as one of the project variables
factored into the development of sediment sampling and analysis plans.
The individual project component refers to the Tier I evaluation process for a specific
dredging proposal. Included in the Tier I evaluation for specific dredging proposals are
guidelines pertaining to:
Exclusion from further testing based upon grain size and TVS (Section 5.3.3)
Proximity to known sources of contamination
Frequency of dredging (Section 5.3.4), and
Recency of data (Section 5.3.5).
5.3.1 Initial Management Area Rankings. In order to assign initial rankings in the LCRMA,
the Regional Management Team (RMT) evaluated all known and available sediment quality data
of the LCRMA and adjacent side channels. Reaches or sites where dredging may be expected or
has occurred in the past were assigned one of five possible ranks: exclusionary, low, low-
moderate, moderate or high. In that order, these ranks represent a scale of increasing potential
for concentrations of chemicals-of-concern and/or adverse biological effects. Table 5-2
identifies the parameters that better define these rankings. The ranking system is based on two
major factors:
+ The availability of historic information on the physical, chemical, and/or
biological-response characteristics of the sediments from a reach or site
~ The number, kinds, and proximity of chemical sources (existing and historical)
known to occur in or near a particular reach or site
The initial management area rankings are contained in Table 5-3. These rankings
represent existing information at the time of initial ranking. Revisions to the rankings can and
will occur as the result of additional information brought to the attention of the RMT. In
addition, a specific project site or reach can be re-ranked based upon the results of new sediment
testing or by means of a partial characterization, (see Section 6.7)
5-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 5-2
MANAGEMENT AREA RANKING DEFINITIONS
RANKING
PARAMETERS
Exclusionary
Available data indicate coarse-grained sediment with at least 80% sand
retained in a No. 230 sieve and a Total Volatile Solids content of less
than 5.0%. Locations sufficiently removed from potential sources of
sediment contamination based on historical information and/or best
professional judgement. Typical locations include the mouth and
mainstem channel of the Lower Columbia River.
Low
Available data indicate low concentrations of chemicals-of-concern
(CoCs) and/or no significant response in biological tests. Locations
with higher percentage of finer-grained sediments and organic material
but few sources of potential contamination. Typical locations include
adjacent entrance channels, rural marinas, navigable side sloughs, and
small community berthing facilities.
Low-Moderate
Available data indicate a "low" rank may be warranted but data are not
sufficient to validate the ranking.
Moderate
Available data indicate moderate concentrations of CoCs in sediments
in a range known to cause adverse response in biological tests.
Locations where sediments are subject to several sources of
contamination, or where existing or historical use of the site has the
potential to cause sediment contamination. Typical locations include
urban marinas, fueling and ship berthing facilities; areas downstream of
major sewer or stormwater outfalls; and medium-sized urban areas with
limited shoreline industrial development.
High
Available data indicates high concentrations of CoCs 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 and outfalls, or where existing or historical use of the site has the
potential to cause sediment contamination. Typical locations include
large urban areas and shoreline areas with major industrial
development.
5-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
5.3.2 Project Specific Evaluations. Tier I involves the review of all available historical
information to determine if there is a reason-to-believe that significant contamination may be
present at a site proposed to be dredged. Included in the Tier I evaluation is the determination of
whether the sediments to be dredged fall under an "exclusionary" category (Section 5.3.3).
Projects requiring frequent dredging may also be excluded from further testing following two
rounds of successive evaluation (Section 5.3.4). For projects with newly obtained sediment
characterization data, Recency Guidelines have a bearing on the longevity of the information for
decision purposes (Section 5.3.5).
a)	Review of Historical Information. The agencies involved in the review and
approval of dredging projects in the LCRMA can and do serve as a significant source of
historical information about sediments and proposed dredging locations. The agencies share a
common responsibility to make available any and all such information. However, the
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. An
accurate compilation of historical data can result in substantial cost savings. For example,
qualified data may eliminate or reduce the need for testing; may help limit the number of
contaminants tested for; and may reduce the amount of dredged material needed to be tested.
b)	Quality Assurance of Existing Data. The value of historical data is controlled by its
reliability, which in turn depends upon the quality, timeliness, and completeness of the data. For
example, twenty year old data may provide valuable input on a historical contaminant source
which no longer exists, even though it can not be used for determinations of suitability. In
contrast, recent data from a well designed sampling effort may be sufficient to make a final
suitability determination on a project or to substantially reduce additional testing requirements.
The following types of information are required in order to use existing data for suitability
determinations:
~	Sampling and analytical methods for both chemistry and biological tests
~	Chemical detection limits
~	Biological test control sediment
~	Quality control measures for both chemistry and biological tests
5-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 5-3. COLUMBIA RIVER FEDERAL PROJECT RANKING
PROJECT AREA
PROJECT
EXCLUSIONARY
LOW
LOW-MODERATE
MODERATE
HIGI
Mouth of the Columbia
RM -2 to 5
X




Main Stem Columbia
RM 5 to 20
X




Columbia Side Channels
RM 20 to 29
X




RM 29 to 47
X




RM 47 to74
X




RM 74 to 88
X




RM 88 to 99
X




RM 99 to 106
X











Hammond Boat Basin

X



Skipanon Channel


X


Baker Bay West Channel
to mi. 1+30
X




Baker Bay West Channel
mi.l+30toend

X



Illwaco Boat Basin

X



Chinook Channel
X




Chinook Marina

X



Toungue Point Access Ch
& Turning Basin

X



Toungue Point Finger Piers



X

Skamokawa Creek

X



Eloehoman Slough



X

Wahkiakum Ferry
X




Westport Slough

X



Old Mouth of the Cowlitz
X
X



St. Helens X-Over Ch.

X



Oregon Slough

X



Willamette River







Main Federal Channel

X
X
X

US Moorings




X
5-7

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
5.3.3 Exclusion from Further Testing. The determination of a possible exclusionary status for
a particular dredging project is done during Tier I or at Tier IIA. Exclusions from testing for
coarse-grained dredged material is provided for in national guidelines (40 CFR 230.6(a) and 40
CFR 227.13(b)). In those guidelines, dredged material which meets the criteria set forth in the
following three paragraphs is considered environmentally acceptable for unconfined aquatic
disposal without further testing:
(1)	Dredged material that is composed predominantly of sand, gravel, rock, or any other
naturally occurring bottom material with particle sizes larger than silt, and the material is
found in areas of high current or wave energy such as streams with large bed loads or
coastal areas with shifting bars and channels; or
(2)	Dredged material that is identified for beach nourishment or restoration and is
composed predominantly of sand, gravel or shell with particle sizes compatible with
material on the receiving beaches; or
(3)	When: (a) the dredged material proposed for disposal is substantially the same as the
substrate at the proposed disposal site; and (b) the site from which the material proposed
for disposal is to be taken is far removed from known existing and historical sources of
pollution so as to provide reasonable assurance that such material has not been
contaminated by such pollution.
This regional manual endorses the concepts embodied in categories (1) and (2)
above by adopting the following exclusionary language:
Sediments which meet the criteria set forth in the following two paragraphs are
considered environmentally acceptable for unconfined aquatic disposal in the Lower Columbia
River Management Area without further testing; provided however, the sediments are not
located within the likely impact zone of an active and significant contaminant source:
(1)	Sediments that are composed of greater than 80% sand, gravel or other naturally
occurring bottom material (retained on a 230 sieve) and that have a total volatile solids content
of less than 5.0 %.
(2)	Sediments targeted for beach nourishment or restoration that are composed of
greater than 80% sand, gravel or shell (retained on 230 sieve), that have a total volatile solids
content of less than 5.0 %, and that are compatible with material on the receiving beaches.
The adoption of exclusion category is based upon numerous studies and sampling efforts
done on the Lower Columbia River verifying that coarser-grained sediments are characterized by
5-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
very low to negligible levels of chemical contamination. This exclusion category was used as
one of the guidelines in determining the initial rankings in the LCRMA.
5.3.4	"Frequency of Dredging" Guideline. The frequency of dredging guideline provides a
second method by which dredged material may be excluded from further testing for specific
periods of time. The frequency guideline pertains to dredging projects that occur on a frequent
basis, such as every year or, at most, every two or three years. Such dredging commonly reflects
a situation of routine and rapid buildup of shoals with relatively homogeneous sediments. The
quality of the sediment at the dredging site tends to stay the same for successive years, barring
any significant changed condition at or upstream of the site.
To qualify for consideration under the frequency guideline, a project requires full
characterization of sediments for two successive dredging events. Provided the sediments are
found suitable for unconfined 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.
In effect, the frequency guideline specifies a period of time in which a qualified dredging
project is "excluded" from having to do any further testing. The time durations provided for by
the frequency guidelines are the same as for the "recency of data" guidelines described below:
that is, two years for high-ranked areas; and 5,6, and 7 years for moderate, low-moderate, and
low-ranked areas, respectively. Areas or projects ranked Exclusionary under Section 5.3.3 do
not need to be considered under the frequency guideline since they have already qualified for
exclusion from further testing on the basis of grain size and total volatile solids.
5.3.5	"Recency of Data" Guideline. The recency of data guideline refers to the duration of
time for which newly obtained and qualified 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 which, in turn, reflect a consideration of the presence and
operating status of contaminant sources located at or near the area to be dredged. The recency
guideline for exclusionary, low, low-moderate, and moderate ranked areas is 10,7,6, and 5
years, respectively. In high-ranked areas, the recency guidelines allow characterization data to
be valid for a period of 2 years.
The recency guidelines do not apply when a known "changed" condition 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.
5-9

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
5.4 TRANSITION TO SUBSEQUENT TIER(S)
The compilation and review of existing information and other locational factors comprise
the first tier of the tiered approach to sediment evaluation. If existing information adequately
support a decision for unconfined aquatic disposal, no additional data are needed. If existing
information does not exist or is not adequate for purposes of the initial site/sediment
characterization, the project proponent will be required to prepare and submit a sampling and
analysis plan (SAP). Chapter 6 describes the details of a sampling plan applicable to the
complexities of a dredging project and the guidelines for preparing and submitting the plan.
Chapter 7 provides further details on the proper implementation of sediment sampling and
laboratory analyses.
5-10

-------
1
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 6
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
6.1	OVERVIEW
The development of a sampling and analysis plan by the dredging proponent is the next
step in the tiered evaluation process for those projects found to require additional information
following review under Tier I. The basic sampling and analysis structure that follows is
patterned after those developed for Puget Sound and Grays Harbor. This manual includes
guidelines that take into account the fact that the Lower Columbia River Management Area
(LCRMA) is a very large and dynamic river/estuarine system.
6.2	INFORMATION IN A DRAFT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
A sampling plan serves as the main source of information about a proposed dredging
project and the project site, A sampling and analysis plan (SAP) should contain the following
general categories of information in as much detail as possible. Some of these categories of
information are further described in subsequent sections of this chapter. Examples of SAPs are
presented in Appendices 6-A and 6-B.
~	Tier I Information: site history, current site use, identification of potential sources of
contamination, past permitting and present rank. Rank affects the number of sediment
samples and analyses required of the project. More than one rank could be assigned to a
single project depending upon the size of the proposed dredging area and the distribution
of potential contaminant sources.
+ Project Description: a plan view of the site, one or more cross-sections of the dredging
prism, and the type and volume of sediment to be dredged. Dredged material volume is
another factor that affects the number of sediment samples and analyses required of a
dredging project. This proposed dredging plan should contain such information as the
depth and physical nature of the sediments; side slope and overdepth dredging;
practicable widths and depths of dredging; and available dredging methods and
equipment.
~	Computation of Sampling and Analysis Requirements: project rank and volume of
dredged material, development of a proposed dredging plan; identification of dredged
6-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
material management units; allocation of field samples and development of a compositing
plan.
+ Sampling Procedures: field sampling schedule, sampling technology, positioning
methodology, decontamination of equipment, sample collection and handling protocols,
core logging, sample extrusion, sample compositing and subsampling, sample transport
and chain of custody.
+ Physical and Chemical Testing: grain-size analysis, sediment conventional,
chemicals-of-concern, extraction/digestion methods, analysis methods, holding time
requirements and quality assurance requirements.
+ Biological Testing: holding time requirements, proposed testing sequence, bioassay
protocols and quality assurance requirements.
+ Personnel Responsibilities: individual roles and responsibilities, project planning and
coordination, field sampling, chemical and biological testing, QA/QC management, and
final report preparation.
+ Reports: draft SAP submitted to DMMO/DMMT, comments or concerns by agencies
addressed in final SAP, results of sampling and analyses written up in standard format
and submitted to DMMO/DMMT for review and concurrence of the RMT.
6.3 DETERMINATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL VOLUMES
The volume of dredged material determines, in part, the minimum number of sediment
samples and analyses required for full characterization of a dredging project. The potential
volume of sediment is usually determined from a pre-sampling bathymetric survey. The
calculation of dredged material volume must include:
+ sediments anticipated to slough from the side slopes and from under piers and wharves
during dredging,
~ "overdepth dredging" - a term used to account for the limitation of dredges to achieve a
precise depth of cut. Overdepth dredging refers to the removal of sediment one to two
feet deeper than the planned depth of dredging, and
6-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
+ "advanced maintenance dredging" - a term used to described additional dredging cut or
width in locations known to shoal very rapidly. Advance maintenance refers to the
removal of a sufficient volume of sediment to ensure a reasonable length of time before
having to dredge again.
The calculation and/or differentiation of dredged volume may be affected by one of the following
variables:
a)	Heterogeneous Sediments. Heterogeneous sediments are those in which the
physical characteristics are dissimilar within the sampling depth. Characteristics of such
sediments include obvious layering of sediments, lenses of dissimilar material (either in pain
size or color), or obvious gradation of sediment size. Sediments that are deposited over a long
period of time may be heterogeneous in nature.
In heterogeneous sediments, the volume of dredged material may be differentiated either
by discreet sediment lenses or by depth. If a discreet lens is present in the sediment profile, then
volumes may be calculated on the basis of that lens. However, to qualify for a separate
characterization, the volume of the discreet lens must be amenable to being dredged separately
from other sediment occurring in the dredging prism.
Lacking discreet lenses, projects with heterogeneous sediment greater than four feet deep
must divide the volumes between a "surface layer" (generally the top four feet) and a
"subsurface layer" (the next 4-foot layer) down to the bottom of the planned dredge cut. The
volumes comprising each of the 4-foot layers must be calculated separately. A four-foot cut is
considered a manageable unit of dredged material as it represents the typical depth achieved by
one drop of the bucket of a moderately-sized clamshell dredge in unconsolidated sediments.
b)	Homogeneous Sediment. The majority of sediments dredged in the LCRMA are
homogeneous. The sediments appear the same in physical characteristics throughout the
sampling depth and lack obvious color striations, layering, or sorting of grain size. For shoals
which are dredged frequently or new projects which involve the dredging of native material, the
entire dredging prism may be considered homogeneous and the volume need not distinguish
between surface and subsurface layers.
6.4 DETERMINATION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
The following guidelines specify the maximum volume of dredged material that can be
represented by a single analysis. The guidelines are considered "the minimum requirements"
6-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
in that the dredging proponent may opt, or regulatory agencies may require, additional analyses
for volumes less than the maximum.
a)	Dredged Material Management Units. In determining the number of samples and
analyses required to fully characterize project sediments, the concept of a "dredged material
management unit" (DMMU) is used. A DMMU can represent the total volume of sediment to be
dredged for a small project or can be a sub-unit of the total volume of a larger project. Typically,
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 a management unit that can be
characterized and dredged separately from other sediment in the project. The acceptability of
dredged material for unconfined 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,
Table 6-1 presents the maximum volume of sediment in a DMMU that can be
characterized by a single analysis based on area ranking. The presence of heterogeneous or
discreet layers in the dredge cut may warrant further sub-sampling or assignment of a smaller
DMMU. Dredging proponents have the option to propose smaller DMMUs. For example, if
25% of the sample volume-is visually different from the rest of the sediment profile, and can be
sampled and dredged separately, then an additional DMMU may be warranted.
b)	Sampling Intensity Within a DMMU. The number of samples required of a
proposed project, or that can be composited or combined for a single analysis, will be determined
on a case-by-case basis using best professional judgment. The number of samples and the
compositing scheme will vary depending upon such factors as (1) a reason to believe that
contamination may exist at the surface or in subsurface sediments, (2) the heterogeneity of the
sediments, (3) the project rank, (4) the aerial extent of a DMMU, and (4) the proposed depth of
dredging. In general, sampling intensity will increase with suspected contamination, higher
project ranking, greater aerial extent, increasing depth, or the occurrence of stratification. In
heterogeneous sediments, a minimum of three samples composited for one analysis will be
required to characterize a single DMMU.
6.5 PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF A DRAFT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
PLAN
A draft sampling and analysis plan is prepared once the number of samples and analyses
have been calculated in conjunction with the dredging plan. The draft plan identifies specific
6-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
sampling locations for the dredged material management units (DMMUs) and, if applicable,
specifies the compositing of samples for individual analyses.
In applying the above concepts to a workable draft sampling plan, it is not necessary or
always desirable to restrict the volumes characterized by each individual sample or DMMU in
the field to the minimums specified in Table 6-1. Additional sampling and/or analyses beyond
the minimum number may be required to achieve an appropriate dredging plan. Sample stations
may be added and/or moved to select different, equally representative spots to insure uniformity
of acceptability throughout the project. Stations may be moved or added in response to
information on point sources, spills, or new chemicals of concern, or to acquire data that helps
draw boundaries between clean and contaminated sediments.
TABLE 6-1. DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT UNITS
Ranking
Heterogeneous
Homogeneous
(Volumes in cubic yards)
Exclusionary
NA
NA
Low
50,000
100,000
Low-Moderate
35,000
70,000
Moderate
20,000
40,000
High
5,000
10,000
The draft sampling and analysis plan must be submitted to the DMMO/DMMT for
review by the agencies comprising the RMT. The DMMO/DMMT will then prepare a letter of
approval to proceed with the sampling effort with recommended corrections or changes to the
draft SAP. Such corrections and changes must be reflected in the final SAP that is submitted to
the DMMO/DMMT with the report containing the results of the sampling and analysis effort.
6.6 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPECIAL CASES
The following sections discuss special types of sediment evaluation for the Lower
Columbia River Management Area. These special cases will be evaluated by the RMT on a case-
by-case basis. These include the requirements for establishing exclusionary status, methods for
evaluating sediment in areas of rapid shoaling, methods for confirming project ranking,
exceptions for small projects and evaluation of sediment exposed by dredging.
6-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
6.6.1	Establishment of Exclusionary Status
This section provides a process to establish an exclusionary status for projects or project
locations that would likely qualify as exclusionary but which are lacking data to validate such a
determination. Typically such areas or projects would already be ranked low or low-moderate
and exist in a high current location. Three factors have to be considered in order to establish an
exclusionary status: (1) the potential influence of active point sources of contamination on the
sediments to be dredged, (2) the grain size of the sediments, and (3) the total volatile solids
contents in the sediments.
The latter two criteria trigger the need to do sediment sampling if sufficient data are not
available. The intensity of sampling and analysis to establish an exclusionary ranking will be
based upon the existing rank of the project or project location and the volume of sediment to be
dredged. For projects below 300,000 cubic yards, testing is conducted at the same intensity as a
low-ranked homogeneous project. For projects between 300,000 and one million cubic yards,
four samples are required. Above one million cubic yards, five samples are required.
Sediment samples obtained for the initial determination of an exclusionary status should
be taken to the full depth of the proposed dredge cut by a core sampling device. Core sampling
indicates the grain size distribution of the sediments for the entire depth of the dredge cut.
However, core sampling is not always possible in the Lower Columbia River. Some reaches of
the river can not be sampled by coring devices because of the inability to position a research
vessel in high currents or to drive a coring device into very compact, coarse sandy sediment. In
such cases, the inability to use a coring device will have to be documented in the final sampling
report. Sediment samples obtained to "confirm" an existing exclusionary status (see Section
6.6.2) may be taken with a suitable grab sampler.
6.6.2	Confirmation of Project Ranking
Confirmatory sampling and analysis is primarily intended for application to frequently
dredged projects ranked low or exclusionary. It should be done at least as often as called for
under the frequency guidelines. The main purpose of confirmatory sampling is to reaffirm the
historical record and to show that no significant environmentally unacceptable changes have
occurred to the project sediments. It 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. Confirmatory sampling shall duplicate earlier sediment testing as much as
possible and thereby provide spatial and analytical consistency between testing periods.
6-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
If the results of confirmatory sampling and analysis indicate that the project or shoal
sediments have changed significantly to the worse, project reranking to a higher level and further
sampling may be necessary.
6.6.3 Rapid Shoaling Events
Many reaches of the Lower Columbia River and some tributaries are affected by a rapid
build up of shoals that pose serious risk to the navigation of commercial vessels. Shoaling
typically occurs following major storm events in December through February, but may occur at
any time as a result of bedload redistribution. In general, the largest number of recurring shoals
are dredged by the Corps of Engineers from the mainstem navigation channel. However, some
shoal locations involve non-Corps dredging.
Because of rapid shoaling events, a port or other water dependent enterprise may be faced
with a situation where a particular shoal must be dredged as soon as possible. The situation may
be complicated by the fact that some dredging is restricted to an operating period of only four
months, that being from November 1 to February 28 of any year due to endangered species
concerns. In that time frame, the size of a potential problem shoal can increase substantially
from what was there during a prior sampling effort to characterize the sediment already in the
shoal. The following guidelines address the rapid buildup of new shoal material in locations
where sediment characterization has been done and is still valid under Recency Guidelines.
These guidelines do not apply to shoal locations ranked Exclusionary.
a)	No additional testing required. For projects or shoal locations where historical
information documents the occurrence of sediments suitable for unconfined aquatic
disposal for two dredging cycles, no additional testing will be required regardless of the
depth of the new shoal material.
b)	Lack of sufficient historical record and in a location ranked low or low-
moderate. No additional testing will be required if the newly deposited shoal material
averages less than two feet in depth. If greater than two feet in depth, the dredging
proponent will be required to obtain grab samples to characterize the new shoal
sediments. The number of grab samples/analyses required will be determined by the
ranking of the location and the estimated volume of new material.
c)	Lack of sufficient historical record and in a location ranked moderate or high.
The dredging proponent will be required to obtain grab samples to characterize newly
deposited sediments/shoal material if the material averages more than one foot in depth
6-7

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
The number of grab samples/analyses required will be determined by the ranking of the
location and the estimated volume of new material.
6.6.4 Exceptions for Small Projects
For small projects (as defined in Table 6-2), the cost of testing must be balanced against
the environmental risks posed by a very small volume of dredged material. Small volumes
generally represent low potential risk that unacceptable adverse effects will result at the disposal
site from the specific and/or cumulative discharges. As a result, a small volume of sediment to
be removed at a dredging site can obviate the need for testing.
To clearly define what constitutes a small project, there are two key qualifiers. First,
intentional partitioning of a'dredging project to reduce or avoid testing requirements is not
acceptable. Second, recognizing that multiple small discharges can cumulatively affect the
disposal site, "project volumes" are defined in as large a context as possible. One example of
this latter qualifier is recurring maintenance dredging of a small marina where "project volume"
will be the projected dredging volume over 5 years. Another example is a multiple-project
dredging contract where a single dredging contractor conducts dredging for several projects
under a single contract or contract effort. Again, the "project volume" will be summed across all
projects, as will any sampling and compositing efforts prior to testing..
For small projects in low, low-moderate, or moderately ranked areas, volumes for which
no testing need be conducted are shown in Table 6-2. There is no "no test" volume for high-
ranked areas. In the absence of conclusive evidence of unsuitable sediments, projects with these
or lesser volumes will be considered suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal.
TABLE 6-2
"NO TEST" VOLUMES FOR SMALL PROJECTS
Ranking
"No-Test" Volume


Low
Less than 10,000 cy
Low-Moderate
Less than 1000 cy
Moderate
Less than 1000 cy
High
Not Applicable
6-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
6.6.5 New Sediment Surface 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 chemicals-of-concern (CoCs) than
existed before dredging.
Where there exists a reason-to-believe the new surface material (NSM) could be
contaminated, the material will be included in the sampling effort by obtaining a core sample to a
depth of at least one foot below the planned depth of dredging. The NSM from each sampling
location will be archived for possible future analyses. Chemical analysis of the NSM will be
required only if the sediment immediately above the NSM has concentrations of chemicals-of-
concern exceeding screening levels and fails the applicable biological tests (see Section 7.6).
Chemical analysis of the exposed surface will not be required if the overlying sediments pass the
biological tests.
Several options were considered for inclusion as decision guidelines pertaining to the
issue of newly exposed surface material. One of the following courses of action may be
triggered to address the disposition of, and responsibility for NSM that might be left following a
dredging operation:
+ If dredging results in the exposure of NSM having higher chemical concentrations than
the sediment that was dredged, the dredging proponent may be required to over-dredge
the site or cap the newly exposed bottom material. Final decisions pertaining to the need
to over-dredge or to cap will be based upon the results of appropriate biological tests.
~	If dredging results in the exposure ofNSM as clean as, or cleaner than, the overlying
sediments, no additional requirements are triggered under this manual.
~	If surface sediments with elevated concentrations of CoCs are present adjacent to the
dredging site, but not in the site proposed to be dredged, nothing in this guidance manual
requires a dredging proponent to address the fate of the sediment in the adjacent area.
The issue to be considered, however,,is the potential impact of the adjacent contaminated
sediments on the cleaner sediments in the area to be dredged.
6-9

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
6.7 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR SITE-SPECIFIC DOWNRANKING
Areas or reaches of the Lower Columbia River where dredging has occurred or is '
expected to occur were ranked by the RMT (see Table 5-3). These rankings reflect the most
current condition of sediment quality at a particular dredging site at the time this manual was
developed. Two downranking options are provided in this manual to allow dredging proponents
the opportunity to provide new information to rerank a specific site lower than the initial ranking.
A project site can be ranked lower either on a temporaiy or a permanent basis. Two
rounds of full sediment characterization are required to downrank a dredging location or project
site on a permanent basis.
Temporary downranking can be achieved by a process called "partial characterization"
or PC. A partial characterization is intended to be a relatively low cost method of providing a
reasonable level of data in support of a reranking decision by the RMT. In practice, partial
characterization has been used in connection with relatively large dredging projects where
significant cost savings have been gained because of reduced testing and analysis requirements.
However, the potential cost savings have to be weighed against the added cost of potentially
undertaking two separate sediment sampling efforts.
a) Sampling and Analysis Plan for Partial Characterization (PC). An approved
sampling and analysis plan (SAP) is required for a partial characterization. The SAP must be
prepared in coordination with, and submitted to the DMMO/DMMT. The purpose of the PC
effort must be clearly stated in the SAP, such as to partially characterize an entire dredging site
or only a subunit or subunits of the total site.
The focus of a typical PC is to obtain the chemical analysis of a limited number of
surface samples, surface meaning the top four feet of sediment. In some cases, the sampling
stations will be located to help determine "worst-case" sediment quality relative to known point
sources of contamination. In addition, a dredging proponent may opt or may be required to
perform subsurface sampling and analysis for a PC if there is reason to believe that subsurface
sediments are also contaminated.
The number of samples and analyses required for a temporary downranking is based on a
percentage of the number of samples and analyses that would be required for a full
characterization (FC) under the current ranking. To lower a site by one rank, ten percent of the
FC minimum analysis requirements must be obtained for the PC. To lower a ranking two levels,
20 percent of the FC minimum requirement must be obtained. For either option, a minimum of
6-10

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
three samples must be analyzed. For the PC of a subunit of a larger site, a minimum of two
samples must be analyzed. No compositing is allowed for partial characterization; each sediment
sample requires a separate analysis. PC samples must be analyzed for the foil list of chemicals-
of-concern (see Table 8-1) including sediment conventionals and any relevant "chemicals-of-
concern for limited areas."
b) Decision Guidelines for Downranking. The decision to downrank a site or subunit
within a site will be based on the results of the sediment sample having the highest level of
chemicals-of-concern. Ranking guidelines based on partial characterization data are shown in
Table 6-3.
TABLE 6-3
RANKING GUIDELINES BASED ON PC DATA
Ranking
PC Guideline


Low
All chemicals sSL
Low-Moderate
At least one chemical > SL and s (SL + ML) 2
Moderate
At least one chemical > (SL +ML)/2 and ^ML
High
At least one chemical > ML
The results of a PC can be used to downrank a project on a one-time basis only. Two
cycles of full characterization (FC) are necessary for a permanent downranking (see Chapter 5).
Data from the PC may also be used as a basis to screen out certain chemicals-of-concem, or
groups of chemicals (such as PCBs). If a chemical is not found in the PC and is not available
from nearby sources, the chemical may be deleted from the requirements of the subsequent full
characterization. In addition, the data from a PC may be used in partial fulfillment of full
characterization requirements.
If the PC data indicate a higher rank is warranted at a particular unit, subunit or sampling
station, then that area will be ranked higher and the FC will be conducted in that area on the basis
of the higher rank.
6-11

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 7
SAMPLING PROTOCOLS
7.1	OVERVIEW
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 process that is needed to guarantee reliable data for dredged material evaluation.
A number of regional programs have developed standard sampling protocols. This
chapter and the associated appendices provide an overview of these widely accepted
practices.
Pre-sampling bathymetric 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 DMMO/DMMT.
7.2	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. The
recommended volume needed for each type of analysis is listed in Table 7-1. There are
four sampling approaches which the dredging proponent may take:
Alternative #1: Collect enough sediment for physical characterization only.
Alternative #2: Collect only enough sediment to conduct the physical and
chemical analyses. If biological testing is necessary, resampling will be required.
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.
7-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
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. The selection of either alternative #3 or #4 is encouraged if chemical
analysis is anticipated, because they provide chemical and biological data on sub-samples
of a single homogenized sediment. These alternatives are also advantageous because they
both preclude 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 7-1). For alternative #2,
biological analysis can proceed without re-analysis of sediment chemistry. Biological
samples must be taken from the same stations as the sediment chemistry samples.
7.3	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 sampling plan. All sediment sampling locations should
be recorded to a horizontal accuracy of ±2 meters (or as approved in the sampling and
analysis plan). 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 (NAD 1983) 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.
7.4	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) which 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 sampling and analysis plan along with the rationale
for its use.
7-2

-------
November 1998
I	Evaluation Framework
a.	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 maximum depth of dredging. 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, etc. The methodology
chosen will depend on availability, cost, efficacy, and anticipated sediment recoveries.
b.	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 four 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.
7.5 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 sampling and analysis plan. Guidance can be found in the
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget
Sound (PSEP 1996) which contains detailed information on sample handling procedures.
Project proponents are urged to contact the DMMO/DMMT for the latest protocols.
General guidance can be found in Appendix 7-A and is summarized below.
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, since this could possibly result in dredged material, which
would otherwise be found acceptable for aquatic disposal, being found unacceptable.
b.	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, etc. 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
7-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
deployment location of the sampler, not another part of the sampling platform such as the
bridge of a sampling vessel.
e. 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 core section or grab sample for each
DMMU should be selected for the volatiles and sulfides sampling.
d.	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.
e.	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.
f.	Sample Transport and Chain-of-Custody Procedures. Sample transport and
chain of custody procedures are listed in Appendix 7-A.
g.	Sample Storage and Holding Times. Proper sample storage is critical to
accurate assessment of sediment toxicity. Table 7-1 outlines the storage and holding time
requirements for each type of analysis.
7-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 7-1
SAMPLE STORAGE CRITERIA
SAMPLE TYPE
HOLDING
TIME
SAMPLE SIZE1
TEMPERATURE*
CONTAINER
ARCHIVE3
Particle Size
6 Months
100-200 g
(150 ml)
4°C
1-liter
Glass
X
Total Solids
14 Days
125 g
(100 ml)
4°C
(combined)

Total Volatile Solids
14 Days
125 g
(100 ml)
4°C


Total Organic Carbon
14 Days
125 g
(100 ml)
4°C


Ammonia
7 Days
25 g (20 ml)
4°C


Metals (except
Mercury)
6 Months
50 g (40 ml)
4°C


Semi-volatiles,
Pesticides
andPCBs
14 Days until
extraction
1 Year until
extraction
40 Days after
extraction
150 g
(120 ml)
4°C
-18°C


Total Sulfides
7 Days
5Og
(40 ml)
4°C*
125 ml
Plastic

Mercury
28 Days
5g(4ml)
-18°C
125 ml Glass

Volatile Organics
14 Days
100 g
(2-40 ml Jars)
4°C
2-40 ml
Glass

Bioassay
8 Weeks
4 liters
4°C5
5-1 liter Glass

Bioaccumulation
8 Weeks
16 liters
4°C5
16-1 liter Glass

1	Recommended minimum field sample sizes for one laboratory analysis. Actual volumes to be collected
have been increased to provide a margin of error and allow for retests.
2	During transport to the lab, samples will be stored on ice. The mercury and archived samples will be frozen
immediately upon receipt at the lab.
3	For every DMMU, a 250 ml container is filled and frozen to run any or all of the analyses indicated.
4	The sulfides sample will be preserved with 5 ml of 2 Normal zinc acetate for every 30 g of sediment.
5	Headspace purged with nitrogen.
7-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
7.6	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
Management Team.
The archived sediment must be frozen. Because the holding time for mercury will
likely be exceeded, and sediments for volatiles analysis can not be frozen, mercury and
any volatile chemicals-of-concem 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.
7.7	DATA SUBMITTAL
A key component of the sampling effort is the completeness of the data package
submitted for regulatory review. Chapter 11 contains detailed information regarding data
submittal requirements.
7-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 8
TIER II: PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTING
8.1 OVERVIEW
Consistent with the tiered testing approach, and following an assessment of existing
information in Tier I, physical and/or chemical characterization of the dredged material will
be required. Tier II is designed to provide a reliable screen to predict potential contaminant
effects from discharge of that material. The pathways of concern for potential effects are
through the bulk sediment itself and/or through the water column. The collective
experience in this region, as well as nationally, has shown that significant releases of
chemicals of concern do not occur in the water column during dredging and disposal.
Accordingly, this manual focuses on requirements and procedures for testing bulk
sediments. When judged necessary by the Regional Management Team (RMT), water
column testing will be required as outlined in this manual.
For this manual, Tiers HA and IIB are subtiers which may be pursued individually.
Tier DA involves two conventional tests: grain size and total volatile solids..The term
conventionals refers to a group of physical and chemical parameters often measured to aid
in the interpretation of chemical and biological test results. Tier IIB involves a more
complex combination of physical and chemical tests which measure concentrations of
individual or groups of chemicals specified for the project or project area. Following
testing, the results of the analysis for each dredged material management unit is compared
to the appropriate decision guidelines. Determinations are then made concerning whether
the sediment is suitable for unconfmed aquatic disposal or whether further testing is
required (Tier III or Tier IV).
There are three categories of "chemicals of concern" that will be considered in
developing specific testing requirements for dredging projects: a standard list of chemicals
of concern (CoC), a list for limited areas, and CoCs with bioaccumulation potential, which
is typically a subset of the two lists. Although performed as part of Tier HI, the
determination whether bioaccumulation testing should be conducted is made in Tier II and
depends upon the concentration of the chemical present in the sediment. The model to
make this determination for ocean disposal (Theoretical Bioaccumulation Potential)
requires sediment chemistry data.
8-1

-------
November J998
Evaluation Framework
8.2 PROTOCOLS
Sediment testing protocols to be used in Tiers HA and IIB are generally those
summarized in the latest version of the Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected
Environmental Variables in Puget Sound (PSEP 1996) for marine sediments. Freshwater
sediment protocols will follow Appendix F: Methods for Chemical and Physical Analysis,
from the Great Lakes Dredged Material Testing and Evaluation Manual (EPA/USACE
1994). The Regional Management Team must approve any modifications of these
protocols. This should occur during the preparation and finalization of the project sampling
and analysis plan (see Chapter 6).
Standard protocols should be followed in assessing" conventional parameters, with
the following specifications:
Grain size: Measurement of grain size will be determined following the measurement
techniques specified in ASTM D 422 (modified). Measurement requires use of a
sedimentation sieve series consisting of the following sieve sizes: 5 inch, 2.5 inch, 1.25
inch, 5/8 inch, 5/16 inch, No. 5, No. 10, No. 18, No. 35, No. 60, No. 120, and No. 230.
Material passing the 230 sieve determines the percent fines. Reporting shall include both
the percent of sediment retained in each sieve as well as the percent passing. Hydrogen
peroxide will not be used in preparations for grain-size analysis. (Hydrogen peroxide
breaks down organic aggregates and its use may provide an overestimation of the percent
fines found in undisturbed sediment. Incorrect grain size matches could result when
reference sediments are collected.) Hydrometer analysis should be used for particle sizes
finer than the 230 mesh. 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 above sieves as an approximation.
Total Volatile Solids (TVS): Standard Method 2540 E, contained in the 19th Edition of
Standard Methods of the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Franson 1995), is the
required method for TVS analysis. Data must be presented as percent total volatile solids
in the sample.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC): Detailed methods for analyzing TOC samples may be found
in the 18th Edition of Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater
(Franson, 1992). Method 5310B is recommended, slightly modified for sediment samples.
A description of the modified TOC method is provided as a clarification in the proceedings
from the PSDDA Fifth Annual Review Meeting (Bragdon-Cook, 1993).
8-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Ammonia: Analyses should be conducted according to standard EPA/Corps procedures
(Plumb, 1981). Reports detailing conventional tests should report detection limits and also
report QA/QC.
Water quality tests: Program experience has shown that in most cases the existing data are
sufficient to make water column determinations. However, Tier I evaluation may show
that existing information is insufficient to make a determination. If a determination cannot
be made in Tier I, Tier II evaluation is necessary. There are two approaches for the Tier II
water column evaluation. One approach is to use the numerical models provided in the
Inland Testing Manual (Appendix C) as a screen, assuming that all of the contaminants in
the dredged material are released into the water column during the disposal process. The
other approach applies the same model with results from chemical analysis of the elutriate
test (DiGiano 1995, Ludwig 1988).
8.3	TIER UA TESTING
Tier HA is designed to characterize sediments likely to have minimal amounts of
fine-grained material and therefore lower potential for concentrations of chemicals of
concern. Sediments are sampled and analyzed for grain size and total volatile solids (TVS),
the latter to assess the organic content of the sediment. However, other conventional
parameters (such as TOO, total solids, and ammonia) may be required as determined
applicable to the proposed dredging location. If the results of the grain size analysis are
greater than 20 percent fines and TVS is less than 5 percent, then the dredged material may
qualify for unconfined aquatic disposal based on exclusionary status (see Table 5-1). If the
results fail either guideline then the sediment must undergo bulk sediment analysis to test
for chemicals of concern.
8.4	TIER IIB TESTING
Due to the relationship between CoCs and biological effects, chemical testing for
these substances can be used to relate the potential for adverse biological effects in the
environment to specific contaminants. Chemical data by themselves are useful surrogates
for potential biological effects. Knowledge of the specific types of chemicals is also
important to the management of dredged material, because different chemicals may
require different controls.
Chemicals of concern are differentiated into three categories in this manual; a
standard list, a list of chemicals that occur in limited areas, and chemicals which may
bioaccumulate. In general, it is preferable to have a relatively limited list of chemicals of
8-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
concern for routine testing, and to add chemicals to this list on a project-specific basis.
However, few chemicals can be tied to a specific geographic area, because they are
widespread and have multiple sources. For those chemicals which can be linked to
specific sources or activities, testing will be required only when those activities have been
present in the vicinity.
Tier KB testing is designed to assess the presence of the conventionals and
chemicals of concern listed in Table 8-1. Chemicals of concern generally have the
following characteristics:
~	A demonstrated or suspected adverse biological or human health effect.
~	A relatively widespread distribution and high concentration when compared
to natural or background conditions.
~	A potential for remaining in a toxic form for long periods in the
environment (persistent).
~	A potential for entering the food web (bioavailable).
8.4.1 Standard List of Chemicals of Concern. The chemicals of concern on the standard
list have been shown to be present in developed areas in the Pacific Northwest. The CoCs
listed on Table 8-1 and 8-2 are considered to be applicable to the LCRMA. If data
collected in accordance with the guidelines in Chapters 6 and 7 shows that certain CoCs are
not present in the project vicinity, these chemicals need not be included in any further
testing.
Table 8-1 presents the dry weight interpretive guideline values for each chemical,
including a bioaccumulation trigger. Table 8-2 presents preparation methods, analytical
methods, and method detection limits. These are recommended methods, and ones that
have been able to achieve the analyte-specific detection limits on past projects. Other
methods may be proposed and will be considered during the sampling and analysis plan
review. Exceedance of the bioaacumulation trigger indicates that the chemical may
accumulate at levels that pose a risk to aquatic biota and/or human health. Use of the
guideline values is discussed in Section 8.5.
8-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Table 8-1
Screening Levels (SL), Bioaccumulation Triggers (BT)
and Maximum Levels (ML)
CHEMICAL
CAS (1)
NUMBER
SCREENING
LEVEL
BIOACCUM
TRIGGER
MAXIMUM
LEVEL
METALS (mg/kg)




Antimony
7440-36-0
150
150
200
Arsenic
7440-38-2
57
507.1
700
Cadmium
7440-43-9
5.1
...
14
Copper
7440-50-8
390
...
1,300
Lead
7439-92-1
450
—
1,200
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.41
1.5
2.3
Nickel
7440-02-0
140
370
370
Silver
7440-22-4
6.1
6.1
8.4
Zinc
7440-66-6
410
...
' 3,800
ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L)




Tributyltin (2) (interstitial water)
56573-85-4
0.15
0.15
—
ORGANICS (ug/kg)




Total LPAH
—
5,200
—
29,000
Naphthalene
91-20-3
2,100
...
2,400
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
560
—
1,300
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
500
...
2,000
Fluorene
86-73-7
540
—
3,600
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
1,500
...
21,000
Anthracene
120-12-7
960
...
13,000
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
670

1,900
8-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL
CAS (1)
NUMBER
SCREENING
LEVEL
BIOACCUM
TRIGGER
MAXIMUM
LEVEL
Total HP AH
...
12,000
—
69,000
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
1,700
4,600
30,000
Pyrene
129-00-0
2,600
—
16,000
Benz(a)anthracene
56-55-3
1,300
...
5,100
Chrysene
218-01-9
1,400
...
21,000
Benzofluoranthenes (b+k)
205-99-2
207-08-9
3,200
...
9,900
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
1,600
3,600
3,600
Indeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
193-39-5
600
...
16,000
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
230
—
1,900
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
670
—
3,200
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS




1,3-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
170
1,241
—
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
110
120.
120
1,2-DichIorobenzene
95-50-1
35
37
110
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
31
—
64
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
118-74-1
22
168
230
PHTHALATES




Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
1,400.
1,400
...
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
1,200
—
—
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
5,100
10,220
...
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
970
—
...
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
8,300
13,870
—
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
6,200
—
—
8-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 8-1 (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL
CAS (1)
NUMBER
SCREENING
LEVEL
BIOACCUM
TRIGGER
MAXIMUM
LEVEL
PHENOLS




Phenol
108-95-2
420
876
1,200
2-Methylphenol
95-48-7
63
...
77
4-Methylphenol
106-44-5
670
—
3,600
2,4-DimethylphenoI
105-67-9
29
...
• 210
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
400
504
690
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTABLES




Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
57
—
870
Benzoic acid
65-85-0
650
—
760
Dibenzoftiran
132-64-9
540
—
1,700
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
1,400
10,220
14,000
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
29
212
270
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
28
130
130
PESTICIDES




Total DDT
(sum of 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE and 4,4*-DDT)
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
6.9
50
69
Aldrin
309-00-2
10
37
...
alpha-Chlordane
12789-03-6
10
37
—
Dieldrin
60-57-1
10
37
—
Heptachlor
76-44-8
10
37
—
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
58-89-9
10
...
—
Total PCBs
—
130
38(3)
3,100
(1)	Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number.
(2)	See Testing, Reporting, and Evaluation ofTributyltin Data in PSDDA and SMS Programs at URL
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/dmmo/8th_arm/tbt_96.htm
(3) This value is normalized to total organic carbon, and is expressed in mg/kg (TOO normalized).
8-7

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
8.4.2 Chemicals of Special Occurrence. The following chemicals are known to be
associated with specific activities or industries. They are not believed to be widespread in
the Lower Columbia River. Testing for these chemicals or other chemicals will be required
when there is a reason-to-believe that they might be present.
Guaiacols. Guaiacols and chlorinated guaiacols are measured in areas where kraft pulp
mills are located. Only guaiacols will be measured near sulfite pulp mills
(chlorinated guaiacols are not expected in processes that do not involve bleaching).
Resin Acids. May include abietic acid, dehydroabietic acid, dichlorodehydroabietic acid,
isopimaric acid, and sandaracopimaric acid.
Chromium. Chromium appears to derive largely from the natural erosions of crustal rocks,
but localized sources of chromium also exist in industrial locations where plating
took place or in the vicinity of chemical manufacturers. Testing will be required
when sources are present.
Butyltins. Butyltin testing is indicated in various areas, such as those near boat and vessel
maintenance and construction. Pore water analysis is recommended over bulk
sediment analysis. Details concerning TBT analysis are contained in Appendix 8-
A.
Dioxin/'furans. Testing will generally be required when projects are in areas potentially
impacted by known sources of dioxin/furan or in areas where the presence of
dioxin/furan compounds has been demonstrated in past testing. It is anticipated that
those projects indicating previously low levels of concern for dioxin/furan
compounds will not need to provide dioxin/furan data on a routine basis in the
future unless there is a reason-to-believe that existing conditions have changed. A
P450 biomarker test may be utilized in screening for the presence of dioxin/furan.
8.5 INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES
The purpose of evaluating dredged material is to anticipate (and manage) the
potential biological effects, rather than merely the chemical presence, of the possible
CoCs. Biological tests serve to integrate chemical arid biological interactions of
contaminants present in a sediment sample, including the availability for biological
uptake, by measuring the effects on test organisms through bioassays and
bioaccumulation. Such testing, however, is expensive.
8-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Within the Pacific Northwest, scientists and regulatory personnel have developed
sediment quality values to predict potential adverse biological effects based on
demonstrated toxicity in bioassay tests (not bioaccumulation) involving appropriately
sensitive benthic organisms and a decision model for their use. The use of sediment
quality values as regulatory screens has proven to be environmentally protective as well
as economically efficient. Both Washington and Oregon have used the approach as the
basis for developing water quality standards for sediments. EPA Region 10 has used the
approach and specific values for sediment management decisions throughout the Pacific
Northwest, including the lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers for the past several
years.
These screening values were developed for the marine environment. Freshwater
values are under development. In the interim, the marine/estuarine values are useful as
indicators of the need for effects-based testing. A comparison with the draft Washington
Department of Ecology freshwater AETs show the screening levels contained in Table 8-
1 to be conservative for a freshwater environment.
A screening level (SL) value for each chemical identifies chemical concentrations
at or below which there is no reason-to-believe that dredged material disposal would
result in unacceptable adverse effects due to toxicity measured by sediment bioassays.
Sediments containing chemical concentrations at or below all SL values are judged to be
suitable for aquatic disposal without the need for biological testing.
A second, higher maximum level (ML) is identified for each chemical above
which there is reason-to-believe that the material would likely fail the standard suite of
biological tests and thus be unacceptable for unconfined aquatic disposal. Recent
biological testing at one location in Puget Sound indicated "suitable" responses in the
standard bioassay tests although the chemical data measured several compounds well
above the ML. These data suggest that the ML is not a de facto "failure" criterion and
should not be assumed to be such. However, regional experience still indicates that there
is a significantly greater likelihood of failing the bioassay tests when chemical levels in
dredged material exceed the ML.
A third chemical screen, the bioaccumulation trigger (BT) has been determined
for some chemicals of concern. This may be an important factor in determining sediment
suitability for sediments at or above the ML.
8.5.1 Interpretive Guidelines for Bioassay Testing. Results of chemical testing will be
compared to chemical guideline values presented in Table 8-1 (dry weight normalized).
8-9

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
For each dredged material management unit, the SL guideline values will be used to
determine if biological testing is required. The following two situations are possible: 1)
all chemicals are at or below the SL guideline; no biological testing is required and the
management unit is considered suitable for unconfmed, aquatic disposal, or 2) one or
more chemicals are present at levels above the SL guideline; standard biological testing
(including bioaccumulation if triggered) is required (see Chapter 9).
When chemicals of concern exceed the ML values, the dredging proponent will
have two options regarding the evaluation of the dredged material. First, the proponent
may elect to accept the indication of the ML and conclude that the material is unsuitable
for unconfmed, aquatic disposal. Biological testing is not required for this decision. The
second option is to conduct biological testing rather than rely on the indications of the
ML. For this option, the proponent would conduct the standard suite of bioassays,
bioaccumulation (if a bioaccumulation trigger is exceeded), and other additional tests
required by the RMT in order to determine final biological suitability of the material for
unconfmed, aquatic disposal. The RMT will make its decision as to whether specific,
effect-based tests beyond the standard suite should be required based on the type and
number of chemicals and best available scientific knowledge. Such non-standard testing
may involve Tier IV (see Chapter 10).
8.5.2	Interpretive Guidelines for Bioaccumulation Testing. In addition to
comparisons to SL and ML and subsequent determinations outlined above, chemical
concentrations are used as triggers for determining when bioaccumulation testing is
required. These values are found in Tables 8-1. If any listed chemical of concern
exceeds the BT value, bioaccumulation testing will be required in order to determine
whether dredged material is suitable for unconfmed, aquatic disposal. When
dioxins/furans and/or butyltins are the only CoCs that are detected above SL values,
bioaccumulation testing may be triggered rather than toxicity tests. Specific discussion
on conducting bioaccumulation tests is presented in Chapter 9.
8.5.3	The Role of Detection Limits in Interpretation. Where detection limits are
above SL, sample-specific detection limits will be used to determine biological testing
requirements. The guidelines for detected chemicals of concern apply equally to
detection limits. The (sub)contractor performing the chemical testing should strive to
achieve limits of detection below the screening levels, including additional cleanup steps,
re-extraction, etc. This is the only way to preclude the biological testing requirement. If
problems or questions arise, the dredger or chemical testing (sub)contractor should
contact the RMT through the appropriate DMMO/DMMT. The following scenarios are
possible and need to be understood and handled appropriately:
8-10

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
One or more CoCs have limits of detection exceeding screening levels while all
other CoCs are quantitated or have limits of detection at or below the SL. The
requirement to conduct biological testing will be triggered solely by limits of
detection.
One or more CoCs have limits of detection exceeding screening levels for a lab
sample, but below respective BTs and MLs, and other CoCs have quantitated
concentrations above screening levels. The need to conduct bioassays is based on
the detected exceedances of SLs and the limits of detection above SL become
irrelevant. No further action is necessary.
One or more CoCs have limits of detection exceeding SL and exceeding
BT or ML, and other CoCs have quantitated concentrations above
screening levels. The need to conduct bioassays is based on the detected
exceedances of SLs. All other limits of detection must be brought below
BTs and MLs to avoid bioaccumulation testing or Tier IV testing.
In all cases, sediments or extracts should be kept under proper storage conditions
until the chemistry data are deemed acceptable by the regulatory agencies (see Table 7-
1). This retains the option for retesting or higher level quantitation. Quality assurance
and quality control are an important element of chemical testing. Chemistry QA
requirements are listed in Chapter 11.
8-11

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 8-2
TESTING METHODS
(Testing Parameter, Preparation Method, Analytical Method,
Sediment Method Detection Limit (MDL)
PARAMETER
PREP
METHOD
(recommended)
ANALYSIS
METHOD
(recommended)
SEDIMENT
MDL (1)
CONVENTIONALS:
Total Solids (%)
—
Pg.17 (2)
0.1
Total Volatile Solids(%)
—
Pg.20 (2)
0,1
Total Organic Carbon (%)
—
Pg-23 (2, 3)
0.1
Total Sulfides (mg/kg)
—
Pg.32 (2)
1
Ammonia (mg/kg)
—
Plumb 1981 (4)
1
Grain Size

Modified ASTM
with
Hydrometer

METALS (ppm):
Antimony
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
2.5
Arsenic
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
2.5
Cadmium
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
0.3
Chromium
APNDX D (5)-
GFAA (6)
0.3
Copper
APNDX D (5)
ICP (7)
15.0
Lead
APNDX D (5)
ICP (7)
0.5
Mercury
MER (8)
7471 (8)
0.02
Nickel
APNDX D (5)
ICP (7)
2.5
Silver
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
0.2
Zinc
APNDX D (5)
ICP (7)
15.0
ORGANOMETALLIC C<
IMPOUNDS (ug/L):
Tributyltin (interstitial
water)
NMFS
Krone
0.01
8-12

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED)
ORGANICS (ppb):
LPAH
Naphthalene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Aeenaphthylene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Acenaphthene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Fluorene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Phenanthrene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Anthracene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
2-Methylnaphthalene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Total LPAH



HP AH
Fluoranthene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
Pyrene
3550(9)
8270(10)
20
Benzo(a)anthracene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Chrysene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Benzofluoranthenes
3550 (9)
8270(10)
.20
Benzo(a)pyrene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Indeno( 1,2,3-c;d)pyrene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
3550(9)
8270(10)
20
Total HP AH



CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
P&T (12)
8260(11)
3.2
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
P&T (12)
8260(11)
3.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
P&T (12)
8260(11)
3.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
3550(9)
8270(10)
6
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
3550 (9)
8270(10)
12
8-13

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TABLE 8-2 (CONTINUED)
PHTHALATES
Dimethyl phthalate
3550(9)
8270(10)
20
Diethyl phthalate
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
Di-n-butyl phthalate
3550(9)
8270 (10)
20
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3550(9)
8270 (10)
20
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
Di-n-octyl phthalate
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
PHENOLS
Phenol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
2 Methylphenol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
6
4 Methylphenol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
2,4-D imethy lpheno 1
3550(9)
8270(10)
6
Pentaehlorophenol
3550 (9)
8270(10)
61
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTABLES
Benzyl alcohol
3550 (9)
8270(10)
6
Benzoic acid
3550 (9)
8270(10)
100
Dibenzofuran
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
Hexachloroethane
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
Hexachlorobutadiene
3550(9)
8270 (10)
20
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
3550(9)
8270(10)
12
PESTICIDES
Total DDT |
- 1
1 - i
...
p,p'-DDE |
3540(13) 1
| 8081 (13) [
| 2.3
p,p'-DDD J
3540(13) |
8081(13)
| 3.3
p,p'-DDT i
| 3540 (13) j|
8081(13)
| 6.7
Aldrin |
| 3540 (13) j|
8081 (13) J
1 1-7
Chlordane |
3540 (13) j|
8081 (13) |;
| 1.7
Dieldrin |
| 3540 (13) jj
| 8081(13) j
j 2.3
Heptachlor J
j 3540 (13) j|
8081(13) 1
1.7
Lindane |
3540 (13) j
8081(13) |
1.7
Total PCBs
3540(13) 1
8081 (13)
67
8-14

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
* Total PCBs BT value in ppm carbon-normalized.
1.	Dry Weight Basis,
2.	Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Sediment Variables in Puget Sound, Puget Sound Estuary
Program, 1997.
3.	Recommended Methods for Measuring TOC in Sediments, Kathryn Bragdon-Cook, Clarification Paper, Puget
Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Annual Review, May, 1993.
4.	Procedures For Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples, Russell H. Plumb, Jr.,
EPA/Corps of Engineers, May, 1981.
5.	Recommended Protocols for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Water, Sediment and Tissue Samples, Puget
Sound Estuaiy Program, 1997.
6.	Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA) Spectrometry - SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
7.	Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Emission Spectrometry - SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
8.	Mercury Digestion and Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption (CVAA) Spectrometry - Method 7471, SW-846, Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
9.	Sonication Extraction of Sample Solids - Method 3550 (Modified), SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986. Method is modified to add matrix spikes before the
dehydration step rather than after the dehydration step.
10.	GCMS Capillary Column - Method 8270, SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
11.	GCMS Analysis - Method 8260, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA
1986.
12.	Purge and Trap Extraction and GCMS Analysis - Method 8260, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
13.	Soxhlet Extraction and Method 8080, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods,
EPA 1997.
8-15

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 9
TIER III: BIOLOGICAL TESTING
9.1 OVERVIEW
. Biological effects tests may be necessary if Tier I or Tier II evaluations indicate
that the dredged material contains contaminant concentrations which may be harmful to
aquatic organisms. Tier III biological testing of dredged material will be required when
chemical testing results exceed guideline values. A standard suite of bioassays is used to
make a determination regarding the suitability of the dredged material 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 test is
required when certain chemicals of concern are detected at concentrations which may
pose a potential risk to human health or ecological health in the aquatic environment
(Chapter 8).
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, interactions among chemicals, or bioavailability of chemicals to aquatic
organisms. Because the relationship between total chemical concentrations and
biological availability is poorly understood, when regulatory limits are exceeded,
controlled laboratory bioassay and bioaccumulation tests are performed to assess
environmental effects.
The approach most often adopted is to expose representative aquatic species for
relatively short periods of time: up to 10 days for acute toxicity, up to 20 days to assess
potential chronic/sublethal effects, and 28 days to assess bioaccumulation potential.
These tests provide information about different possible biological effects. In addition,
testing multiple species reduces uncertainty about the results and limits errors in
interpretation.
This chapter includes information on which biological test species should be used,
on the quality control requirements for each test, and on the interpretive criteria used for
decision-making. References are provided for more detailed information on test
protocols and test interpretation.
9-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
9.2 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. Both marine and
freshwater species are specified. Several biological tests are under development/review,
and may be added in the future. Biological test species are selected based on the salinity
conditions at the disposal site for the dredged material. For projects in the Lower
Columbia River Management Area, the use of the Ocean Disposal sites will require
marine bioassays (if bioassay testing is required).
9.2.1 Marine Bioassays
10-day amphipod acute mortality test
Rhepoxynius abronius
Ampelisca abdita1
Eohaustorius estuarius2
Chronic Tests
Neanthes arenaceodentata (Los Angeles karyotype) 20-day growth test
Sediment larval test
Echinoderm
-Dendraster excentricus
-Strongylocentrotus purpuratus
-Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis
Bivalve
-Crassostrea gigas
-Mytilus provincialis
The protocols to be used to run the recommended marine bioassays are described
by the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP), and can be found in Recommended
Guidelines for Conducting Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound Sediments (PSEP,
'may be substituted if test sediment contains greater than 60% fines.
2may be considered for substitution if test sediment is greater than 60% fines and
salinity is less than 25 ppt.
Recommended species.
9-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
1995), Project applicants should contact the DMMO/DMMT or the Puget Sound Water
Quality Action Team for recent protocol updates. The PSEP protocols are consistent
with national guidance on bioassay testing.
Amphipod Species Substitution. Rhepoxynius ahronius has been shown to be
responsive to high percent fines in sediments, particularly high clay content sediments,
and has been shown to exhibit mortalities greater than 20 percent in clean, reference area
sediments with this grain-size(DeWitt et al, 1988; Fox, 1993). Applicants may wish to
consider substituting Ampelisca abdita for Rhepoxynius abronius when fines exceed 60
percent. Ampelisca is relatively grain-size-insensitive to concentrations of fines greater
than 60 percent. Any proposed species substitutions must be submitted to the
DMMO/DMMT for approval by the RMT prior to use, and the substitutions must be
documented in the sampling and analysis plan for the proposed dredging project.
9.2.2	Freshwater Bioassays. The following freshwater bioassays will be required when
the proposed disposal location for dredged material is in a low salinity (generally 5
parts per thousand or below) environment.
Amphipod - Hyalella azteca 10 day Survival Test
Midge - Chironomus tentans 10 day Survival and Growth Test
Standard protocols exist for each of these tests, established both by ASTM and EPA
(ASTM 1995, EPA 1994). Either protocol may be used for the freshwater bioassays.
The protocols specify negative control, positive control, and test performance criteria.
Adherence to these performance standards aids in interpreting bioassay responses by
limiting effects from factors other than sediment toxicity. Other biological tests to
measure chronic effects in freshwater are still under development. One may be added to
this test suite in the future.
9.2.3	Bioassay Testing Performance Standards. This section contains the specific
quality assurance/quality control requirements for solid phase biological testing.
The parameters covered include:
+	Negative Control and Reference Samples
+	Quality Control Limits for the Negative Control Treatment
+	Quality Control Limits for the Reference Treatment
+	Reference Toxicant
+	Water Quality Monitoring
9-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
General procedures are given first, followed by specific performance standards for each
bioassay. These standards aid in interpreting the bioassay responses, since they control
for environmental effects which may produce effects not associated with toxicity.
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 and which are expected to produce low mortality. Control
reliability must be demonstrated.
The sediment larval test utilizes a negative seawater control rather than a control
sediment. The seawater control will be collected from a location approved by the
DMMO/DMMT.
Reference Sediment Agency regulations prescribe the use of bioassay reference
sediments for test comparison and interpretations which closely match the grain size
characteristics of the dredged materials test sediments. The reference sediment provides
a point of comparison for evaluating the potential effects of the dredged material. If
chemical concentrations in the reference area are not well-documented, a complete
characterization may be required.
All bioassays have performance standards for reference sediments. Failure to meet these
standards may result in the requirement to retest.
All reference sediments will be analyzed for total solids, total volatile solids, total organic
carbon, ammonia, sulfides and grain-size.
Replication. Five laboratory replicates of test sediments, reference sediments and
negative controls will be run for each bioassay.
Positive Controls. A positive control will be run for each bioassay. Positive controls are
chemicals known to be toxic to the test organism and which provide an indication of the
sensitivity of the particular organisms used in a bioassay.
Water Quality Monitoring. Water quality monitoring of the overlying water will be
conducted for the bioassays. This consists of daily measurements of salinity,
temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen for the amphipod and sediment larval tests. These
measurements will be made every three days for the Neanthes bioassay. Ammonia and
sulfides will be determined at test initiation and termination for all tests. Monitoring will
be conducted for all test and reference sediments and negative controls (including
seawater controls). Parameter measurements must be within the limits specified for each
9-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
bioassay. Measurements for each treatment will be made on a separate chemistry beaker
set up to be identical to the other replicates within the treatment group, including the
addition of test organisms.
Bioassay-speciflc Procedures - Marine
Amphipod Bioassay. This test involves exposing amphipods to test sediment for ten
(10) days and counting the surviving animals at the end of the exposure period. Daily
emergence data and the number of amphipods failing to rebury at the end of the test will
be recorded as well. The control sediment has a performance standard of 10 percent
mortality. The reference sediment has a performance standard of 20 percent mortality
greater than control. Test species selection is discussed in Section 9.2.1
Sediment Larval Bioassay. This test monitors larval development of a suitable
echinoderm species in the presence of test sediment. The test is run until the appropriate
stage of development is achieved in a sacrificial seawater control. At the end of the test,
larvae from each test sediment exposure are examined to quantify abnormality and
mortality.
The seawater control has a performance standard of 30 percent combined mortality and
abnormality. The reference sediment has a performance standard of 35 percent combined
mortality and abnormality greater than the seawater control performance.
Initial counts will be made for a minimum of five 10-ml aliquots. Final counts for
seawater control, reference sediment and test sediment will be made on 10-ml aliquots.
The sediment larval bioassay has a variable duration (not necessarily 48 hours) which is
determined by the developmental stage of organisms in a sacrificial seawater control.
Ammonia and sulfides toxicity may interfere with test results for this bioassay. Aeration
will be conducted throughout the test to minimize these effects if required.
Neanthes Growth Test. This test utilizes the polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata, in a
20-day growth test. The growth rate of organisms exposed to test sediments is compared
to the average individual growth rate of organisms exposed to a reference sediment. The
control sediment has a performance standard of 10 percent mortality. The reference
sediment has a performance standard of 80 percent of the control average individual
growth rate and 20 percent mortality.
9-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Bioassay-specific Procedures - Freshwater
Amphipod Bioassay. This bioassay measures the survival of amphipods after a 10-day
exposure to the test sediment. The control has a performance standard of 20 percent
absolute mean mortality. The reference sediment performance standard is 30 percent
absolute mean mortality.
Midge Bioassay. This test measures the survival and growth of the midge Chironomus
tentans after a 10-day exposure to the test sediment. The control has a performance
standard of 30 percent absolute mean mortality and a growth performance standard of 0.6
mg minimum mean weight per organism (per ASTM). The reference performance
standard is 35 percent absolute mean mortality.
•9.2.4 Bioassay Interpretive Criteria. The response of bioassay organisms exposed to
the tested dredged material representing each management unit will be compared to the
response of these organisms in both control and reference treatments. This will
determine whether the material is suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal.
Biological test interpretation 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 is listed below. In general, a one-hit
failure is a 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 in order for the
sediment to be found unsuitable for aquatic disposal.
(1)	One-Hit Failure. When any one biological test shows a test sediment
response relative to the negative control and reference sediment which exceeds the
bioassay-specific response guidelines, and which is "statistically different" from the
reference, the dredged material management unit is judged to be unsuitable for aquatic
disposal. The acceptable methods for determining statistical significance are in Appendix
9-A.
(2)	Two-Hit Failure. When any two biological tests show test sediment
responses, which are less than the bioassay specific guidelines noted above for a single-
hit failure, but show a lower level effect and are significantly different statistically from
the reference sediment, the dredged material management unit is judged to be unsuitable
for aquatic disposal.

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
This interpretation of solid phase biological test results will be used for both the
CWA Section 404(b)(1) evaluation/Section 401 water quality certification process, and
for the MPRSA Section 103 evaluation process. The application of these interpretive
guidelines to a set of sample test results is described in Appendix 9-B.
The determination of a "statistically different" response involves two conditions: first,
the response in the tested dredged material management unit must be greater than 20
percent different from the control response; and second, that a statistical comparison
between mean test and mean reference responses must show a significant difference. The
appropriate method for making the latter determination is discussed in Appendix 9-A.
This appendix also contains a description of the Biostat bioassay software developed by
the Corps of Engineers. This software contains the appropriate statistical tests to
determine sediment suitability.
Marine Bioassays
Amphipod Bioassay. For the amphipod bioassay, mean test mortality greater than
20 percent absolute over the mean negative control response, and greater than 30 percent
absolute over the mean reference sediment response, and statistically different from the
reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a "one-hit".
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 50 percent (relative) of the mean reference sediment growth rate, and
statistically different from the reference (alpha = 0.05), is considered a "one-hit".
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. If the mean NCMA for a test sediment is greater than 20 percent, and
is 30 percent absolute over the mean reference sediment NCMA, and statistically
different from the reference (alpha = 0.10), it is considered a "hit".
9-7

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Freshwater Bioassays
Amphipod Bioassay. For the amphipod bioassay, mean test mortality greater than
15 percent over the mean reference response, and statistically different from the reference
(alpha = 0.05), is considered a "hit".
Midge Bioassay. For the midge mortality test, a mean mortality in the test
sediment of 20 percent over reference and statistically different from reference (alpha =
0.05) is a hit. For the growth test, a mean reduction in biomass greater than 40% and
statistical significance is considered a "hit". If either or both endpoints fail the guideline,
the test is considered a "hit".
9.3 WATER COLUMN BIOASSAY TESTING
The Tier III evaluation of dredged material will include an evaluation of potential
water column effects when warranted. Water column testing for biological effects is not
routinely required for regulated or federal dredging projects evaluated under CWA
Section 404. The test is required under MPRSA Section 103 for ocean disposal when
biological testing is required. This test will need to be conducted only when the water
quality certification agency (Washington Department of Ecology or Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality for Section 404/401 permits or the Environmental Protection
Agency for Section 103 ocean disposal permits) requires an assessment of potential water
column toxicity effects relative to a particular chemical of concern.
In the event that water column testing is required, one of the following tests will
be conducted. The appropriate assessment is described in the Ocean Testing Manual
(EPA/USACE 1991) and the Inland Testing Manual (USACE/EPA 1998). The
interpretation guidelines specified in either manual will be used, depending on whether
the ultimate disposal environment proposed is in the Section 103 (ocean) or in 404 (fresh
water, estuarine, or near coastal) waters. Protocols for the water column test should
follow the test specification requirements described in the Inland Testing Manual
(Appendix E). The following species may be used for the water column bioassay test:
Marine
* Echinoderm
-	Dendraster excentricus
-	Strongylocentrotus purpuratus
-	Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis
% Bivalve
9-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
-	Crassostrea gigas
-	Mytilus provincialis
Freshwater
^Crustaceans
Daphnia magna
Ceriodaphnia dubia
*Fish
Pimephales promelas
9.4 BIOACCUMULATION TESTING
The Ocean Testing Manual and Inland Testing Manual provide information
necessary to estimate the potential for bioaccumulation to occur. Plausible exposure
scenarios, using the theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP) approach, were
developed. The outcome of these assessments were the bioaccumulation triggers of
chemicals likely to be assimilated in aquatic tissue. These reason-to-believe triggers
serve as a surrogate for the TBP approach outlined in the OTM and ITM. When non-
polar organic compounds (other than those on our existing list of chemicals of concern)
are identified for individual projects, the TBP model will be run for those compounds.
Body burdens of chemicals are of concern for both ecological and human health
reasons. A bioaccumulation test in Tier III will normally only be conducted on those
dredged materials in which a reason-to-believe has been established that specific
chemicals of concern may be accumulated in the tissues of target organisms.
Bioaccumulation testing evaluating exposures to two species will be required when any
given sediment chemical level exceeds any bioaccumulation trigger value. These values
establish the reason-to-believe levels for chemicals likely to bioaccumulate.
Bioaccumulation of compounds listed in Appendix 9-C should be detectable, following a
28-day exposure period, even though steady state may not have been reached. The
purpose of a Tier III bioaccumulation test is not to determine steady state
bioaccumulation rate (this is accomplished in Tier IV), but to assess the potential for
bioaccumulation.
Following a comparison of residue levels in dredged material exposed organisms
to FDA action levels, a statistical comparison is made between organisms exposed to
dredged material and organisms exposed to a suitable reference material. No adverse
effects are likely if the concentration in the dredged material exposed tissue is less than
that in the reference exposed tissue. A higher concentration, however, does not
9-9

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
necessarily mean adverse effects. Additional contaminant-specific information is
required to determine if adverse effects are likely.
To assist in making determinations about the likelihood for effects, US ACE
Waterways Experiment Station, and EPA have developed the Environmental Residue-
Effects Database (ERED). The database contains over 2000 records including
information on more than 200 contaminants and 100 aquatic species. ERED can be
accessed at http://www.wes.army.mil/el/ered. For those compounds at statistically
elevated concentrations in dredged material-exposed organisms, making determinations
about the likelihood for adverse effects should be based on measurable effects listed in
the ERED. Not all effects are created equal. Data in ERED may reflect a particular
tissue residue, and may be species specific. Cellular/subcfellular responses are an
indication of organism stress, but the causal relationship between these effects and higher
order effects is unknown in most cases.
The Inland Testing Manual requires two bioaccumulation tests utilizing species
from two different trophic niches representing a suspension-feeding/filter-feeding and a
burrowing deposit-feeding organism. A Tier III 28-day bioaccumulation test will
conduct an evaluation with both an adult bivalve (Macoma nasuta) and an adult
polychaete {Nereis virens, Nepthys, or Arenicola marina) for marine sediments. For
freshwater sediments, the test will be conducted with the oligochaete Lumbriculus
variegatus and another species to be determined at the time of testing. The test exposure
duration will 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 concentration
of selected chemicals of human health concern, and to assess ecological effects through a
statistical comparison with a suitable reference area sediment. Protocols for tissue
digestion and chemical analysis will follow the PSEP recommended procedures for
metals and organic chemicals.
Human Health. The bioaccumulation test results are compared to guideline values
to determine exceedance of allowable tissue residue concentrations. If the 28-day
bioaccumulation test results in tissue levels greater than the FDA action levels, (see Table
3, Appendix 9-B) or agency guidelines in effect at the time, the sediment will be
considered unsuitable for aquatic disposal. Chemicals of concern without or below FDA
action levels will be evaluated by the RMT using best professional judgment and risk
assessment approaches.
Ecological Effects. The results of a Tier III 28-day bioaccumulation test will be
compared directly with reference results for statistical significance. If the results of a
statistical comparison show that the tissue concentration of the chemical(s) of concern
9-10

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
tested in sediments is statistically different (t-test, alpha level of 0.05) from the reference
sediment, the dredged material will generally be considered unsuitable for unconfined
aquatic disposal.
If results of the bioaccumulation test in Tier III are found to be equivocal, further
testing may be required in Tier IV before a regulatory decision can be made on the
suitability of the dredged material for unconfined open-water disposal. An exposure
period of 28 days may be insufficient for the test species selected to achieve a steady state
tissue concentration in a normal Tier HI bioaccumulation test.
Bioaccumulation testing for the assessment of dredged material is currently under
Corps/EPA review. Additional guidance will be added to this manual as it becomes
available.
9.5 REFERENCE SEDIMENT COLLECTION SITES
Bioassays must be run with a reference sediment which is well-matched to the test
sediments for grain-size, and for other sediment conventionals such as total organic
carbon and must match the disposal environment. The sampling protocol used for the
collection of a reference sediment can affect its performance during biological testing.
The following guidelines should be followed when collecting reference sediments:
+ Use experienced personnel
+ Follow protocols
+ Sample from biologically active zone
~	Avoid anoxic sediment below the Redox Potential Discontinuity (RPD)
horizon
~	Use wet-sieving method
The wet-sieving protocol is used in the location of an appropriate
reference station. Wet-sieving is imperative in finding a good grain size match with the
test sediment. Wet-sieving is accomplished using a 63-micron (#230) sieve and a
graduated cylinder; 100 ml of sediment is placed in the sieve and washed thoroughly until
the water runs clear. The volume of sand and gravel remaining in the sieve is then
washed into the graduated cylinder and measured. This represents the coarse fraction; the
9-11

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
fines content is determined by subtracting this number from 100. Wet-sieving results will
not perfectly match the dry-weight-normalized grain size results from the laboratory
analysis, but should be relatively close.
The Corps of Engineers and EPA have identified locations suitable as reference
stations. Reference site selection will be made on a case-by-case basis with information
and guidance provided by the Corps and EPA. Reference site grain-size should match, as
closely as possible, that of the test sediment and the disposal environment. In the absence
of a match, the agencies will select a coarser grained sediment for use. This is likely to
yield better test performance, and to be environmentally conservative. Reference site
selection and reference sample collection must be coordinated with the DMMO/DMMT.
9-12

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 10
TIER IV EVALUATIONS
10.1 OVERVIEW
A Tier IV evaluation is a special, non-routine evaluation that requires coordination
between the RMT and the dredging proponent to determine the specific testing required. As part
of this on-going process, the RMT will continually review new tests and evaluation procedures
that have been peer reviewed and are deemed ready for use in the regulatory evaluation of
dredged material. The RMT will subsequently make recommendations about their potential
implementation and use. Tier II and III evaluations of dredged material may result in a
requirement to conduct Tier IV evaluations.
Three circumstances are expected to trigger Tier IV evaluations: (1) the results of Tier III
bioaccumulation tests (tissue analysis) are indeterminate, (2) the sediments/tissues contain
chemicals for which threshold values have not been established or (3) for which the routine Tier
III biological tests are inappropriate. If Tier IV testing or evaluations are determined necessary
by the RMT, specific tests or evaluations and interpretive criteria will be specified by the RMT
in coordination with the applicant. Alternative analyses which may be conducted in this tier may
include any or all of the following.
10.2 STEADY STATE BIOACCUMULATION TEST
In a Tier IV evaluation, bioaccumulation testing may be necessary to determine the steady
state concentrations of contaminants in organisms exposed to the dredged material when
compared with organisms exposed to the reference material. Testing may be done in the lab, or
in rare cases, in the field. Testing options may also include time-sequenced laboratory exposures
in excess of the standard 28 days in order to reach a steady state concentration. Tier IV
evaluations of data collected will follow the interpretation guidance specified in Section 9-4 (also
see Appendix D of the Inland Testing Manual).
10.2.1 Time-Sequenced Laboratory Testing. This test is designed to detect differences, if
any, between steady-state bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to the dredged sediments and
steady-state bioaccumulation in organisms exposed to the reference sediments. If organisms are
exposed to biologically available contaminants under constant conditions for a sufficient period
of time, bioaccumulation will eventually reach a steady-state in which maximum
10-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
bioaccumulation has occurred, and the net exchange of contaminant between the sediment and
organism is zero.
The necessary species, apparatus and test conditions for laboratory testing are the same as
those utilized for the Tier III bioaccumulation test. Tissue sub-samples taken from separate
containers during the exposure period provide the basis for determining the rate of uptake and
elimination (depuration) of contaminants. From these rate data, the steady state concentrations
of contaminants in the tissues can be calculated, even though the steady state may not have been
reached during the actual exposure. For the purposes of conducting this test, steady state is
defined as "the concentration of contaminant that would occur in tissue after constant exposure
conditions have been achieved."
An initial time-zero sample is collected for each species for tissue analysis. Additional
tissue samples are then collected from each of the five replicate reference and dredged-material
exposure chambers at intervals of 2,4, 7,10,18, and 28 days. Alternative time intervals may be
proposed by the agencies. It is critical that sufficient tissue is available to allow the interval body
burden analyses at the specified detection limits for the chemical(s) of concern.
10.2.2 Field Assessment of Steady State Bioaccumulation. Measuring concentrations in field-
collected organisms may be considered as an alternative to laboratory exposures. A field
sampling program designed to compare dredging and reference tissue levels of the same species
allows a direct comparison of steady state contaminant tissue levels, to the above referenced
database. This may be difficult to accomplish, because the same species in similar size ranges
must be available for collection from both the dredging site and a suitable reference area to
enable a statistical comparison of the tissue levels between the two areas.
The assessment involves measurements of tissue concentrations from individuals of the
same species collected within the boundaries of the dredging site and a suitable reference site.
Collecting sufficient numbers of individuals of the same relative size ranges and biomass of the
same species to enable tissue analyses at the reference and dredging site can make this type of
assessment problematic. A determination is made based on a statistical comparison on the
magnitude of contaminant tissue levels in organisms collected within the boundaries of the
reference site, compared with organisms living within the area to be dredged.
A field assessment should only be allowed where the quality of the sediment to be
dredged can be shown not to have degraded or become more contaminated since the last
dredging and disposal operation.
10-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
10.3 HUMAN HEALTH/ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
When deemed appropriate by the RMT, a human health and/or ecological risk assessment
may be required to evaluate a particular chemical of concern, such as dioxin, mercury, PCBs, etc.
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. 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 Tier IV evaluation, either
as a stand alone or in concert with tissue analysis, it must be accomplished with the RMT and all
parties actively participating.
10-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
CHAPTER 11
SUBMITTAL OF SAMPLING AND TESTING DATA
11.1	OVERVIEW
Data obtained from a qualified sampling and testing effort will be submitted to the
DMMO/DMMT covering the following categories of information:
~ A sediment characterization report, which includes the items described below.
4- Biological and chemical data in the format required for inclusion in the Dredged
Analysis Information System.
The Dredged Analysis Information System (DAIS) was developed by Seattle
District to manage data generated through the implementation of PSDDA. Within
DAIS, an environmental information module manages physical, chemical and
biological testing data associated with both dredged material characterization and
post-disposal monitoring. An administrative module tracks permit data,
suitability determinations, disposal volumes, and cost data.
4 Sampling and testing costs. This information is optional, but it allows the
agencies to track program costs and assess the economic impacts of the program.
This data is vital in tracking trends in costs and will provide dredging proponents
with information useful in planning future dredging. The Corps will include cost
information in reports summarizing the annual dredging done in the LCR study
area.
11.2	SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
The sediment characterization report should include the following items:
4 Quality assurance report documenting deviations from the sampling and
analysis plan and the effects of quality assurance deviations on the testing
results.
4- A plan view showing the actual sampling locations.
4- The sampling coordinates in latitude and longitude.
4 Methods used to locate the sampling positions within an accuracy of ± 2m.
11-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
+ The compositing scheme.
~	The type of sampling equipment used, the protocols used during
and compositing
~	The type of sampling equipment used, the protocols used during
and compositing and an explanation of any deviations from the
plan.
+ Sampling logs with sediment descriptions.
~	Chain-of-custody procedures used, and explanation of any deviations from
the sampling plan.
~	Chemical and biological testing results, including quality assurance data
Chemical testing results shall be presented in the same order as the list of
chemicals of concern presented in Table 8-1.
+ Explanation of any deviations from the analysis plan.
11.3	QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL DATA
In order to facilitate timely decision-making, the QA1 data must be submitted with
the sediment evaluation report. The QA2 data may be submitted later, and should be sent
directly to the Washington Department of Ecology. Data entered into DAIS will be
converted to SEDQUAL format and provided to Ecology for direct import into
SEDQUAL. Additional quality assurance data is needed to fully validate the chemical
and biological testing data. This includes information such as chromatograms,
calibration curves, etc., and is referred to as QA2. The QA2 data may be sent directly to
Ecology with a copy of the transmittal letter provided to the DMMO. Requirements for
QA2 data have also been compiled and will be furnished to the dredging proponent.
11.4	QA1 Data Checklist
The following checklist can be used to ensure that the data to be submitted is complete.
sampling
sampling
sampling
11-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
DATA CHECKLIST
Sample Locations and Compositing

Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Seawater
Control
Latitude and Longitude (to nearest 0.1 second)




NAD 1927 or 1983




Station mine (e.g. Carr Met)




Water depth (corrected to MLLW)




Drawing showing sampling locations and ID numbers




Compositing scheme (sampling locations/depths for composites)




Sampling method




Sampling dates




Estimated volume of dredged material represented by each DMMU




Positioning method




Sediment Conventionals
.Preparation and analysis methods




Sediment conventional data and QA/QC qualifiers




QA qualifier code definitions




Triplicate data for each sediment conventional for each batch




Units (dry weight except total solids)




Method blank data (sulfides, ammonia, TOC)




Method blank units (dry weight)




Analysis dates (sediment conventionals, blanks, TOC CRM)




TOC CRM ID




TOC CRM analysis data




TOC CRM target values




Grain Size Analysis
Fine grain analysis method




Analysis dates




Triplicate for each batch




Grain size data (complete sieve and phi size distribution)




11-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Chemicals of Concern Analysis Data

Metals
Semivol.
Pest./PCBs
Volatiles
Extraction/digestion method




Extraction/digestion dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference
material)




Analysis method




data and QA qualifier included for:




test sediments




reference materials including 95% confidence interval (each batch)




method blanks (each batch)




matrix spikes (each batch)




matrix spike added (dry weight basis)




replicates (each batch)




Units (dry weight)




Method blank units (dry weight)




QA/QC qualifier definitions




Surrogate recovery for test sediment, blank, matrix spike, ref. material




Analysis dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference material)




Shaded areas indicate required data
11-4

-------
Evalaution Framework
November 1998
REFERENCES
Ankley, G.T., D.A. Benoit, J.C, Balough, V.R, Reynoldson, K.E. Day and R.A. Hoke.
1994. Evaluation of potential confounding factors in sediment toxicity tests with three
freshwater benthic invertebrates. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13:627-635.
ASTM. 1995. Standard Guide for Conducting Sediment Toxicity Tests with Freshwater
Invertebrates. Method El 1706-95. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.04.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Becker, D. S. and T. C. Ginn. 1990. Effects of sediment holding time on sediment
toxicity. Report prepared by PTI Environmental Services, Inc. for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office ofPuget Sound, Seattle, WA. EPA
910/9-90-009.
Bragdon-Cook, K. 1993. "Recommended Methods for Measuring TOC in Sediments."
Clarification paper prepared for PSDDA agencies for Annual Review Meeting, Puget
Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Program.
Dillon, T. M., D. W. Moore and A. B. Gibson. 1993. Development of a chronic sublethal
bioassay for evaluating contaminated sediment with the marine polychaete worm. Nereis
(Neanthes) arenaceodentata. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:589-605.-
DeWitt, T.H., G.R. Ditsworth and R.C. Swartz. 1988. Effects of natural sediment
features on survival of the phoxocephalid amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius. Mar.
Environ. Res. 25:99-124.
DeWitt, T.H., M.S. Redmond, J.E. Sewall and R.C. Swartz. 992a. Development of a
chronic sediment toxicity test for marine benthic amphipods. Report prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR. Contract No. CR-8162999010.
DiGiano, F.A., C.T. Miller and J. Yoon. 1995. Dredging Elutriate Test (DRET)
Development. Contract Report D-95-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Engler, R. M., T. Wright, C. R. Lee and T. M. Dillon. 1988. Corps of Engineer's
procedures and policies on dredging and dredged material disposal (The federal
Standard). EEDP-04-8. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
EPA. 1994. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-
Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. EPA 600/R-94/024. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.
R-l

-------
Evalaution Framework
November 1998
EPA/US ACE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal -
Testing Manual. EPA-503/8-91/001, Washington, DC.
EPA/US ACE. 1994. Great Lakes Dredged Material Testing and Evaluation Manual.
Prepared by epa Regions 2, ,3, 5, and Great Lakes Program Office and U.S Army Corps
of Engineers, North Central Division. Draft Document.
EPA/USACE. 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters
of the U.S. - Testing Manual. EPA-823-B-98-004, Washington D.C.
EPTA. 1988. Evaluation Procedures Technical Appendix. Prepared by the Corps of
Engineers in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, and the
Washington State Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources.
Francingues, N. R., M.R. Palermo, C.R. Lee and R.K. Peddicord. 1985. Management
Strategy for Disposal of Dredged Material: Contaminant Testing and Controls.
Miscellaneous Paper D-85-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Fox, D. 1993. Reference Sediment Performance Analysis. Clarification paper prepared for
- PSDDA agencies for Annual Review Meeting, Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
Program.
Franson, M.H., ed. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Environment Federation, Washington, D.C. 18th Edition, pp. 5-10 to 5-15.
Franson, M.H., ed. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Environment Federation, Washington, D.C. 19th Edition.
Fredette, T. J., J.E Clausner, D.A; Nelson, E.B. Hands, T. Miller-Way, J.A. Adair, V.A.
Sotler, and F.J. Anders. 1990a. Selected Tools and Techniques for Physical and
Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal Sites. Technical Report D-
90-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Fredette, T. J., D.A. Nelson, J.E. Clausner and F.J. Anders. 1990b. Guidelines for
Physical and Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal Sites.
Technical Report D-90-12, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Ingersoll, C. G. and M. K. Nelson. 1990. Testing sediment toxicity with Hyalella azteca
(Amphipoda) and Chironomus riparius (Diptera). Pp. 93-109 In: W. G. Landis and W. H.
R-2

-------
Evalaution Framework
November 1998
van der Schalie (Eds), Aquatic Toxicology and Risk Assessment: Thirteenth volume.
ASTM STP 1096. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Johns, D.M. and T.C. Ginn. 1990. Development of a Neanthes sediment bioassay for
use in Puget Sound. Final report prepared for US EPA Region IX by PTI Environmental
Services, Bellevue, WA, EPA 910/9-90-005. 57 pp. + appendices.
Johns, D.M., T.C. Ginn and D.J. Reish. 1990. Protocol for juvenile Neanthes sediment
bioassay. EPA 910/9-90-011. Office of Puget Sound, U.S. EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Kendall, D., D. Fox, S. Stirling, M. Peeler, G. Revelas, P. Hertzog, J. Barton, and J.
Malek. 1994. Five Year Implementation Retrospective on the Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis (PSDDA), pp. 1527-1553, In E.G. McNair (ed). Dredging '94:
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material
Placement. ASCE, New York.
Lee, C. R., R.K. Peddicord, M.R. Palermo, and N.R. Francingues, Jr. 1986. General
Decisionmaking Framework for Management of Dredged Material - Example
Application to Commencement Bay, Washington. Miscellaneous Paper, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Lee, H., II, B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D.T. Specht and R.C. Randall. 1989.
Guidance Manual: Bedded Sediment Tests. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Pacific Ecosystems Branch, Bioaccumulation Team, Newport, OR. EPA-600/x-89-302.
Ludwig, D.D., J.H. Sherrard and R.A. Amende. 1988. An Evaluation of the Standard
Elutriate Test as an Estimator of Contaminant Release at the Point of Dredging. Contract
Report HL-88-1, prepared by Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg VA, for the US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Moore, D.W., and T.M. Dillon. September 1993. Chronic Sublethal Effects of San
Francisco Bay Sediments on Nereis (Neanthes) arenaceodentata - Interpretative Guidance
for a Growth End Point. Miscellaneous Paper D-93-5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station.
MPR. 1988. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Management Plan
Report, Unconfined Open-Water Disposal of Dredged Material, Phase I (Central Puget
Sound). Prepared by the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, and the Washington State Departments of Ecology and
Natural Resources.
MPR. 1989. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Management Plan
Report, Unconfined Open-Water Disposal of Dredged Material, Phase II (North and
South Puget Sound). Prepared by the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the
R-3

-------
Evalaution Framework
November 1998
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, and the Washington State Departments of
Ecology and Natural Resources.
MPTA. 1988. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Management Plan
Technical Appendix. Prepared by the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, and the Washington State Departments of
Ecology and Natural Resources.
Neal, W., G. Henry and S.H. Green. 1978. Evaluation of the Submerged Discharge of
Dredged Material Slurry During Pipeline Dredge Operations. Technical Report D-78-44,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Palermo, M. R., R.A. Shafer, J.M. Brannon, T.E. Myers, C.L. Truitt, M.E. Zappi, J.G.
Skogerboe, T.C. Sturgis, R. Wade, D. Gunnison, D.M. Griffin, H. Tatum, and S. Portzer.
1989. Evaluation of Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives for U.S. Navy Homeport at
Everett, Washington. Technical Report EL-89-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
PSEP (Puget Sound Estuary Program). 1995. Recommended Guidelines for Conducting
Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound Sediments. In Recommended Protocols for
Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water
Quality Action Team. Olympia WA.
PSEP (Puget Sound Estuary Program). 1996. Recommended Protocols for Measuring
Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water Quality Action
Team. Olympia WA.
Plumb, R.H., Jr. 1981. Procedure for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and
water samples. Tech. Rept. EPA/CE-81-1 prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State
University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and
Fill Material. Published by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Swartz, R.C. 1989. Marine sediment toxicity tests. Pp. 115-129. In: Contaminated
Marine Sediments -Assessment and Remediation. National Academy Press, Washington,
DC.
Turner, T. M. 1984. Fundamentals of Hydraulic Dredging, Council Maritime Press,
Centerville, MD. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1983. "Dredging and
Dredged Material Disposal," Engineer Manual 1110-2-5025, Office, Chief of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
R-4

-------
Evalaution Framework
November 1998
USACE. 1986. Dredged Material Beneficial Uses. Engineer Manual 1110-2-5026,
Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, DC.
US ACE/EPA. 1992. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material
Management Alternatives -A Technical Framework. EPA 842-H-92-008. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
R-5

-------
APPENDIX 6-A
SMALL PROJECT SAMPLING
AND
ANALYSIS PLAN

-------
This is an example of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) for a small PSDDA project. It
was adapted from an actual SAP for the Port Townsend Marina. Some of the Information
regarding this project has been altered to provide examples of scenarios that dredging
applicants might encounter for a small dredging project. Where this liberty was taken a
note was included with the form: [NOTE: ]. Additional notes of the same form were
included where guidance regarding other possible scenarios was needed. These notes
should be deleted if this example SAP is used as a template for SAP development for your
project

-------
SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN
PORT TOWNSEND MARINA
ENTRANCE CHANNEL
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
May 23,1997
Prepared by:
Therese Littleton
IT* • _1 V*
David Fox
Seattle District
Corps of Engineers

-------

-------
1.0 PROJECT TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Tal
trie 1. Project Team and Responsibilities
Task/Responsibility
Therese
Littleton
David
Fox
Mary
Smith
Mike
Jones
Bob
White
Overall project
management
S




Sampling plan
development
~




Agency coordination

~



Positioning





Sediment sampling


~


Compositing/subsampling





Chemical analysis & QA





Biological analysis & QA




~
Final Report





Therese Littleton, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Environmental Resources Section
David Fox, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Dredged Material Management Office
Mary Smith, Marine Technologies, Tacoma
Mike Jones, Environmental Testing Service, Seattle
Bob White, Biological Testing Laboratories, Seattle
[NOTE: Contractors and Labs are fictitious; you won't find them in the yellow pages!)
2.0	PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE HISTORY
2.1	Project Description. The Corps of Engineers proposes to perform maintenance
dredging of the Port Townsend Marina entrance channel in December 1997. This project
consists of clamshell dredging of approximately 6,200 cubic yards (cy) of sand and silt,
including side-slopes and overdepth, from a shoal area near the U.S. Coast Guard boat
basin. Dredged materials that pass PSDDA chemical and biological guidelines will be
disposed of at the Port Townsend open-water disposal site. Materials which do not pass
PSDDA guidelines will be disposed of at a Port of Port Townsend furnished upland
disposal site. Figures 1 through 3 show the project location, dredging area and potential
upland disposal sites respectively. [NOTE: the actual volume for this project was 1,000
cyj
2.2	Site History. The existing entrance channel was authorized in 1958 at a depth of 14 to
16 feet and a width of 40 to 60 feet. Maintenance dredging was last conducted in 1973
when 3,300 cy of material was removed from the channel. Sediment testing was not
conducted at that time. [NOTE: the actual authorized depth is 10 to 12 feet.] In July 1989,
1

-------
sediment information for the Port Townsend Marina was Included In the Puget Sound
Estuary Program report Contaminant Loading to Puget Sound from Two Marinas (EPA
910/9-89-014). Sediment chemistry data from twenty van Veen grab samples (top 2.0 cm)
collected both inside and outside the marina were included in the report. One sampling
station (Station 10) was located within the proposed dredging area. At this station, LPAH
and HP AH exceeded PSDDA screening levels with concentrations of 3,900 and 32,000
ug/kg respectively. Several individual PAHs also exceeded their screening levels. In
addition, 23 ug/kg of TBT (as TBT) were found at this station. Appendix A includes
excerpts from the PSEP report. [NOTE: The actual LPAH and HP AH concentrations
were 870 and 3,800 ug/kg respectively.]
Potential sources of contaminants existing in the marina and entrance channel include a
stormwater outfall in the Coast Guard boat basin and a fueling dock near the boat ramp.
A past source was a boat repair facility that existed within the marina prior to 1982.
Sandblasting and painting services were provided by the facility. The land was
undeveloped prior to construction of the marina. There are no other major industrial or
wastewater outfalls within a mile of the marina. [NOTE: The source information provided
here is fictitious.]
2

-------
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
«£>
>¦
o
PORT TOWNSENDi
o
x
i*\

nHHwmr budge
> —
—v*1- MAOIOCX
•wr TOWNSEND
OAK BAY
CANAL
SCOW BAY
ScoiC .n f«M
Fl&OREl 0- - PROJECT LOCATIOM

-------

p l&U K E. 2~ —	^ vu~0 ¦> ^ottvf°^'v^3
fliWI
UiinPn


&&&&
1 V-«.H




MSu!00 *00 *oo

»i ^ n #® *
«« 1«"H
EL. -12.0
^~T TOLERANCE
NOT TO SCALE
! W. o «« h ©® h. .
** ** *i« in «« ** n
NNN
DREDGING

4»J
ygp^©JECT_
-.•* °i»«.»
-- 3*&
iua^
««*'•»« * **
f* « *> « •
n «
^ pi o ® ®
°* • f*
r« « jiSt74%*^	»•" WM<* ^
* 3.3	«•* »•"
Sy X^.9	4.3
14-15 JUNE 1994 SURVEY	%•%
Am hfllb «• J
3,®* «* w «
_ n o « «
««r* • *\ . * »
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Seattle, Washington
PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON :
Maintenance Dredging
• r~%t m

-------
rh
4
%
I

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
		Seattle, Washington
PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON
Maintenance Dredging
r%ATC	I	di iqi ir> itirtri^c	|

-------
3.0	PSDDA SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
3.1	PSDDA Ranking.
The Port Townsend Marina was assigned a rank of "high" in the PSDDA Management
Plan Report - Phase II (page A-ll). The data presented in Contaminant Loading to Puget
Sound from Two Marinas supports this rank. While none of the chemieals-of-eoncern at
Station 10 exceeded the PSDDA maximum level (ML), other stations from the marina did
have chemical concentrations exceeding the ML. Therefore, a "high" rank was applied in
this case. [NOTE; The actual rank in MPR-II is "moderate"; the PSEP report supports a
rank of "moderate"].
3.2	Sampling and Analysis Requirements.
Based on a high rank, full characterization requirements for this project are as follows:
Surface Sediments:
(0 to 4 ft)
Subsurface Sediments:
(> 4 ft.)
One core section for every 4,000 cubic yards and
one laboratory analysis for each 4,000 cubic yards.
One core section for every 4,000 cubic yards and
one laboratory analysis for each 12,000 cubic yards.
The estimated total volume of material to be characterized for PSDDA disposal is 6,200
cubic yards. The dredged material volume and related sampling requirements are
distributed as follows:
Table 2. PSDDA sampling and testing requirements
Depth
Interval
Volume (cy)
Minimum Number
of Core Sections
Minimum Number
of Analyses
0-4 ft.
3,500
.875
.875
>4 ft.
2,700
.675
.225
Total
6,200
1.55 (round up to 2)
1.1 (round up to 2)
The dredging depth ranges from 0-9 feet over the project area. Given the shoaling pattern,
it is not practical to separate surface from subsurface material and the entire shoal will be
dredged by clamshell to the design depth in one pass. Therefore, the dredging footprint
will be divided spatially into the two required DMMUs. In order to represent sediment in
DMMU C2, samples will be taken from two locations and composited. See Figure 2 for
proposed DMMUs and sampling locations. [NOTE: actual dredging depth was 0-4 feet.]
6

-------
4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES
4.1 Sampling and Compositing Scheme.
Table 3 includes the existing elevation, design elevation (including overdepth), the
total length of each sediment bore and the core section designations at each sampling
location. Table 4 shows the compositing plan. The "Z" samples will be taken from the first
foot beyond the overdepth at each station and archived for potential future analysis.
[NOTE: "Z" samples must be taken for high-ranked projects only.]
Table 3. Sampling station elevations, boring depths and core sections
Sampling
Station
Number
Existing
Elevation
(MLLW)
Design +
Overdepth
Elevation
(MLLW)
Length of
Sediment Bore
Core Section
Designations
and Depths
1
-11
-17
6
A -11 to-15
B -15 to-17
Z -17 to-18
2
-10.5
-17
6.5
A -10.5 to -14.5
B -14.5 to-17.0
Z -17 to-18
3
-9
-17
8
A -9 to-13
B -13 to -17
Z -17 to -18
Table 4. Sample Compositing Plan
DMMU
Core Sections
Volume (CY)
CI
1AB
3,000
C2
2AB/3AB
3,200
4.2 Field Sampling Schedule. Sampling is planned for August 1997. All sampling will be
completed in a single day using a vibracore deployed from the Corps of Engineers vessel
"Puget". Compositing will occur in the field and laboratory samples will be delivered the
same day to Environmental Testing Service.
7

-------
4.3	Field Notes. Field notes will be maintained during sampling and compositing
operations. Included in the field notes will be the following:
•	Names of the vibracore operator, vessel captain and person(s) collecting and logging
in the samples.
•	Weather conditions.
•	Mudline elevation of each sampling station as measured from mean lower low water
(NAD83).
•	Date and time of collection of each vibracore sample.
•	The sample station number as derived from Figure 2 and Table 3.
•	Descriptions of cores.
. Any deviation from the approved sampling plan.
4.4	Decontamination. The stainless steel compositing pans and sampling utensils will be
thoroughly cleaned prior to use according to the following procedure:
•	Wash with brush and Alconox soap
•	Tap Water Rinse
•	Rinse with distilled water
•	Rinse with 10% nitric acid solution
•	Rinse with methanol
•	Rinse with distilled water
Volatiles sampling utensils will not receive the nitric acid or methanol rinse. All hand work
will be conducted with disposable latex gloves which will be rinsed with distilled water
before and after handling each individual sample, as appropriate, to prevent sample
contamination. Gloves will be disposed of between composites to prevent cross
contamination between the DMMUs.
4.5	Positioning. A differential global positioning system (DGPS) will be used aboard the
"Puget" for station positioning. The Coast Guard's differential correction signal will be
utilized to obtain an accuracy of + 3 meters. The DGPS receiver will be placed above the
block on the vibracore deployment boom to accurately record the position of the vibracore.
Coordinates of the proposed sampling locations will be calculated in advance and
programmed into the Puget's navigation system. Once the vibracore has been deployed,
the actual position will be recorded when the vibracore quadrupod is on the channel
bottom and the deployment cable is in a vertical position. Horizontal coordinates will be
referenced to the Washington Coordinate System North Zone (NAD 83) and converted to
latitude and longitude to the nearest 0.1 second.
Water depths will be measured directly by lead-line and converted to mudline elevations
using the CURRENTMASTER tide program. The lead-line measurements also serve as a
check on station positioning as the actual water depth at the station coordinates should
match the predicted depth at those stations.
8

-------
4.6	Sample Collection Method. Lexan tubes (4-inch diameter) are manually inserted into
the vibracore, the vibracore quadrupod is mechanically lowered into position on the
channel bottom, activated and allowed to penetrate to the proper sampling depth. Painted
markers, spaced one foot apart along the deployment cable, are used to measure
penetration depth. When sampling is completed, the vibracore quadrupod is retrieved and
the lexan tube is removed and placed in a yoke for processing.
A tape measure is used to determine the length of the recovered sediment core in the
transparent lexan tube. This core length is divided by the depth of penetration to calculate
the decimal percent recovery. There is no way of determining the actual recovery on a
foot-by-foot basis so a uniform recovery factor will be applied to the entire core. Using this
recovery factor, the lexan tube will be marked to show the lower extent of the dredging
prism (including overdepth) and the "Z" samples. Marks will be made around the entire
circumference of the tube. The tube will then be scored lengthwise on opposite sides of the
tube using a circular saw set to a depth 1/32-inch less than the thickness of the tube wall.
Once scored, a decontaminated carpet knife will be used to complete both cuts so that the
top of the tube may be removed. Past analyses of lexan shavings have not resulted in
detection of any PSDDA chemicals of concern, but every attempt will be made to prevent
shavings from contacting the sediment samples inside the tube.
4.7	Volatiles Subsampling. From one core section for each composite, samples will be
removed for volatile organics testing immediately upon removing the side of the tube. The
samples will be taken from along the entire length of the core section representing the
dredging depth.
Two separate 4-ounce containers will be completely filled with sample sediment for
volatiles, with no headspace allowed. Two samples are collected to ensure that an
acceptable sample with no headspace is submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Prior to
sampling, the containers, screw caps, and cap septa (silicone vapor barriers) will have been
washed with detergent, rinsed once with tap water, rinsed at least twice with distilled
water, and dried at >105 C. A solvent rinse will not be used because it may interfere with
the analysis.
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 will be filled to overflowing so
that a convex meniscus forms at the top. Once sealed, the bottle will be inverted to verify
the seal by demonstrating the absence of air bubbles. If there is little or no water in the
sediment, jars will be filled as tightly as possible, eliminating obvious air pockets. With the
cap liner's PTFE side down, the cap will be carefully placed on the opening of the vial,
displacing any excess material.
The volatiles sampling jars will 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
9

-------
4.8	Core Logging. After the volatiles sample has been taken, each core section will then be
inspected and described. For each vibracore sample, the following data will be recorded on
the core log:
•	Depth interval of each core section as measured from MLLW.
•	Sample recovery
•	Physical soil description in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(includes soil type, density/consistency of soil, color)
•	Odor (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, petroleum products)
•	Visual stratifications and lenses
•	Vegetation
•	Debris
•	Biological Activity (e.g., detritus, shells, tubes, bioturbation, live or dead organisms)
•	Presence of oil sheen
•	Any other distinguishing characteristics or features
4.9	Compositing. After the core section has been logged, the remaining contents of the
vibracore tube from above the dredging design depth (including overdepth) will be placed
in a stainless-steel pan and the pan covered with foil. Separate pans will be kept for the
individual "Z" samples. Once all core sections for a composite have been collected and
placed into the same stainless steel pan, the sample will be stirred and homogenized until a
consistent color and texture is achieved.
At least 7 liters of homogenized sample will be prepared to provide adequate volume for
laboratory analyses. Physical, chemical and bioassay samples will be taken from the same
homogenate. Portions of each composite sample will be placed in appropriate containers
obtained from the chemical and biological laboratories ("Z" samples will be archived for
physical and chemical testing only). Each sample container will 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. See Table 5 for sample volume and storage information.
Approximately 15-20 additional liters of sediment would be required for bioaccumulation
testing. This additional volume will not be collected at this time. If a bioaccumulation
trigger is exceeded, a decision will be made at that time whether or not to conduct
bioaccumulation testing. A decision to conduct bioaccumulation testing will require a
second field mobilization to retrieve additional sediment for testing.
10

-------
4.10 Sample Transport and Chain-of-Custodv Procedures. After sample containers have
been filled they will be packed on blue ice in coolers. The coolers will be transferred to
Environmental Testing Service at the end of the day. Chain-of-custody procedures will
commence in the field and will track delivery of the samples to Environmental Testing
Service. Specific procedures are as follows:
•	Samples will be packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations as specified in 49 CFR 173.6 and 49 CFR 173.24.
•	Individual sample containers will be packed to prevent breakage.
•	The coolers will be clearly labeled with sufficient information (name of project, time
and date container was sealed, person sealing the cooler and Marine Technologies'
office name and address) to enable positive identification.
•	A sealed envelope containing chain-of-custody forms will be enclosed in a plastic
bag and taped to the inside lid of the cooler.
•	Signed and dated chain-of-custody seals will be placed on all coolers prior to
shipping.
Upon transfer of sample possession to the testing laboratory, the chain-of-custody form will
be signed by the persons transferring custody of the coolers. Upon receipt of samples at the
laboratory, the shipping container seal will be broken and the condition of the samples will
be recorded by the receiver.
11

-------
Table 5. Sample volume and storage
Sample Type
Holding Time
— 	£2.		
Sample Size2
Temperature"
Container
Archive0
Particle Size
6 Months
200g
4°C
1-liter
Glass
(combined)
X
Total Solids
14 Days
125g
4°C


Total Volatile
Solids
14 Days
125 g
4°C


Total Organic
Carbon
14 Days
125 g
4°C


Metals (except
Mercury)
6 Months
50 g
4°C


Semivolatiles,
Pesticides
and PCBs
14 Days until
extraction
1 Year until
extraction
40 Days after
extraction
150 g
4°C
-18°C
4°C


Mercury
28 Days
5 g
-18°C
125 ml
Glass

Volatile
Organics
14 Days
100 g
4°C
2-40 ml
Glass

Bioassay
8 Weeks
4L
4°C
6-1 liter
Glassd

a.	Required sample sizes for one laboratory analysis. Actual volumes to be collected have
been increased to provide a margin of error and allow for retests.
b.	During transport to the lab, samples will be stored on blue ice.
c.	For every DMMU, a 250 ml container is filled and frozen to run any or all of the
analyses indicated.
d.	Containers will be completely filled with no headspace allowed.
12

-------

5.0	LABORATORY PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
The composited samples will be analyzed for all the parameters listed in Appendix B and
will be compared to PSDDA guidelines for open-water disposal, as well as the SMS
sediment quality standards (SQS) to determine the potential for beneficial use [NOTE:
sediment from a high-ranked project would not normally be evaluated for beneficial use.
This evaluation is included here to address those cases in which beneficial use is a real
alternative.]
5.1	Laboratory Analyses Protocols. Laboratory testing procedures will be conducted in
accordance with the PSDDA Evaluation Procedures Technical Appendix, June 1988; the
PSDDA Phase II Management Plan Report, September 1989; and with the PSEP
Recommended Protocols. Several details of these procedures are discussed below.
5.1.1	Chain-of-custody. A chain-of-custody record for each set of samples will be
maintained throughout all sampling activities and will accompany samples and shipment to
the laboratory. Information tracked by the chain-of-custody records in the laboratory
include sample identification number, date and time of sample receipt, analytical
parameters required, location and conditions of storage, date and time of removal from
and return to storage, signature of person removing and returning the sample, reason for
removing from storage, and final disposition of the sample.
5.1.2	PSDDA Limits of Detection. For purposes of PSDDA testing, detection limits of all
chemicals of concern must be below PSDDA screening levels. Failure to achieve this may
result in a requirement to reanalyze or perform bioassays. The testing laboratory will be
specifically cautioned by Marine Technologies to make certain that it complies with the
PSDDA detection limit requirements. All reasonable means, including additional cleanup
steps and method modifications, will be used to bring all limits-of-detection below PSDDA
SLs. In addition, an aliquot (250 ml) of each sediment sample for analysis will be archived
and preserved at -18 C for additional analysis if necessary.
The following scenarios are possible and will be handled appropriately:
1. One or more chemicals-of-coneern (COC) have limits of detection exceeding screening
levels while all other COCs are quantitated or have limits of detection at or below the
screening levels: the requirement to conduct biological testing would be triggered solely
by limits of detection. In this case the chemical testing subcontractor will do everything
possible to bring limits of detection down to or below the screening levels, including
additional cleanup steps, re-extraction, etc. This is the only way to prevent unnecessary
biological testing. If problems or questions arise, the chemical testing subcontractor
will be directed to contact the Dredged Material Management Office.
13

-------
4
2.	One or more COCs have limits of detection exceeding screening levels for a lab sample,
but below respective bioaccumulation triggers (BT) and maximum levels (ML), and
other COCs have quantitated concentrations above screening levels: The need to do
bioassays is based on the detected exceedances of SLs and the limits of detection above
SL become irrelevant. No further action is necessary.
3.	One or more COCs have limits of detection exceeding SL and exceeding BT or ML, and
other COCs have quantitated concentrations above screening levels: the need to do
bioassays is based on the detected exceedances of SLs but all other limits of detection
must be brought below BTs and MLs to avoid the requirement to do bioaccumulation
testing or special biological testing. As in case i) everything possible will be done to
lower the limits of detection.
4.	One COC is quantitated at a level which exceeds ML by more than 100%, or more than
one COC concentration exceeds ML: there is reason to believe that the test sediment is
unsuited for open-water disposal without additional chronic sublethal testing data. In
the absence of chronic sublethal data, problems with limits of detection for other COCs
are irrelevant. No further action is necessary.
In all cases, to avoid potential problems and leave open the option for retesting, sediments
or extracts will be kept under proper storage conditions until the chemistry data is deemed
acceptable by the PSDDA agencies.
5.1.3	SMS Limits of Detection. For purposes of comparison to SQS, a tiered approach will
be used to evaluate detection limits [NOTE: this evaluation is only necessary for beneficial
use projects and the analysis of "Z" samples]:
•	Detection limits will be compared to the July 1996 draft SMS detection limits.
While the laboratory will be instructed to attempt to meet these recommended
detection limits, it should be noted that some of these are very low (e.g. Aroclors)
and may be unobtainable.
•	If the recommended SMS detection limits cannot be met, a secondary
comparison will be made directly to SQS, carbon-normalizing where
appropriate.
•	In addition, the 1988 dry-weight LAETs may be used if necessary to evaluate
detection limits.
See Appendix B for a complete listing of these guidelines.
5.1.4	Sediment Conventionals. Analysis of total solids and total volatile solids will follow the
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Sediment Variables in Puget Sound
(PSEP, 1986). Appendix D of Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Organic Compounds
in Puget Sound Water, Sediment and Tissue Samples (PSEP, 1996) will be followed for
analysis of total organic carbon.
14

-------
Particle size will be determined by ASTM Method D-422, using the following sieve
numbers: 4,10,20,40,60,140,230. The fine-grained fraction will be classified by phi size
(+5, +6, +7, +8, >8) using hydrometer analysis. Hydrogen peroxide will not be used in
preparations for grain-size analysis. 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.
5.1.5	Holding Times. All samples for physical and chemical analysis will be maintained at
the testing laboratory at the temperatures specified in Table 5 and analyzed within the
holding times shown in the table. Sediment samples reserved for potential bioassays will be
stored under chain-of-custody by Marine Technologies.
5.1.6	Quality Assurance/Quality Control. The chemistry QA/QC procedures found in
Table 6 will be followed.
5.2 Laboratory Written Report. A written report will be prepared by the analytical
laboratory documenting all the activities associated with sample analyses. As a minimum,
the following will be included in the report:
•	Results of the laboratory analyses and QA/QC results.
•	All protocols used during analyses.
•	Chain of custody procedures, including explanation of any deviation from those
identified herein.
•	Any protocol deviations from the approved sampling plan.
•	Location and availability of the data.
As appropriate, this sampling plan may be referenced in describing protocols.
In addition, QA2 data required by Ecology for the SEDQUAL database will be submitted
to the DMMO along with the report (see Appendix C for QA2 requirements).
15

-------
Table 6. Minimum Laboratory QA/QC

Method

RM2'4
Matrix

Analysis Type
Blank2
Duplicate
Spikes2
Surrogates'
Volatile Organics
X
X3

X
X
Semivolatiies1
X
X3
X5
X
X
Pesticides/PCBs*
X
X3
X5
X
X
Metals
X
X
X6
X

Total Organic
X
X
x°


Carbon





Total Solids

X



Total Volatile

X



Solids





Particle Size

X



1.	Initial calibration required before any samples are analyzed, after each major
disruption of equipment, and when ongoing calibration fails to meet criteria. Ongoing
calibration required at the beginning of each work shift, every 10-12 samples or every 12
hours (whichever is more frequent), and at the end of each shift.
2.	Frequency of Analysis = one per batch
3.	Matrix spike duplicate will be run
4.	Reference Material
5.	Canadian standard SRM-1
6.	NIST certified reference material 2704
7.	Surrogate spikes will be included with every sample, including matrix-spiked samples,
blanks and reference materials
16

-------
6.0	BIOLOGICAL TESTING
6.1	Bioassav Laboratory Protocols. The tiered testing approach will be used. Biological
testing will be undertaken on any composite sample which has one or more chemicals of
concern above the PSDDA screening level (SL). If more than one COC exceeds the PSDDA
maximum level (ML) or if a single COC is greater than two times its ML, then biological
testing will not be conducted. If any COC exceeds a bioaccumulation trigger (BT), a
decision will be made as to whether or not to pursue biological testing. To the maximum
extent practicable, chemical results will be provided for bioassay decisions within 28 days
of first sample collection. The remaining four-week period will allow time for bioassay
preparation as well as time for retests if necessary.
Marine Technologies will coordinate with DMMO in selection of an appropriate PSDDA-
approved reference sediment. Wet-sieving in the field, using a 63-micron sieve, will be
utilized in identifying a suitable reference station.
The 10-day amphipod mortality, sediment larval combined mortality and abnormality, and
Neanthes growth bioassays will be conducted on each sample identified for biological
testing. All biological testing will be in strict compliance with Recommended Protocols for
Conducting Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound sediments (1995), with appropriate
modifications as specified by PSDDA in the MPR-Phase II, public workshops and the
annual review process. General biological testing procedures and specific procedures for
each sediment bioassay are summarized below:
6.2	General Biological Testing Procedures.
•	All reference sediments will be analyzed for total solids, total volatile solids, total
organic carbon and grain-size.
•	Five laboratory replicates of test sediments, reference sediments and negative controls
will be run for each bioassay.
•	Cadmium chloride will be used as a reference toxicant for all three bioassays, using
standardized concentrations specified by PSDDA.
•	For the Neanthes and amphipod bioassays, sacrificial beakers will be used to determine
interstitial salinity, ammonia and sulfides for all test and reference sediments at the
beginning and end of the test period. Overlying ammonia and sulfides will be
determined at test initiation and termination for the larval test.
•	Water quality monitoring will be conducted, consisting of daily measurements of
salinity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen for the amphipod and sediment larval
bioassays and measurements every three days for the Neanthes test. Monitoring will be
conducted for all test and reference sediments and negative controls (including
seawater controls). Parameter measurements must be within the limits specified for
17

-------
each bioassay. Measurements for each treatment will be made on a separate chemistry
beaker set up to be identical to the other replicates within the treatment group,
including the addition of test organisms.
6.3	Bioassav-specifie Procedures.
6.3.1	Amphtpod Bioassay. The test organism once the results of the particle size analysis
are known. Data to be reported for this bioassay include survival, daily emergence and the
number of amphipods failing to rebury at the end of the test. The control sediment has a
performance standard of 10 percent mortality. The reference sediment has a performance
standard of 20 percent mortality greater than control.
6.3.2	Sediment Larval Bioassay. The test organism will be selected in consultation with the
testing lab and DMMO. Initial counts will be made for a minimum of five 10-ml aliquots.
The test will be run until the appropriate stage of development is achieved in a sacrificial
seawater control (PSDDA MPR-Phase II, pp. 5-20). Aeration will be conducted throughout
the test to minimize effects from hydrogen sulfide. At the end of the test, larvae from each
test sediment exposure will be examined to quantify abnormality and mortality. Final
counts for seawater control, reference sediment and test sediment will be made on 10-ml
aliquots.
The seawater control has a performance standard of 30 percent combined mortality and
abnormality. The reference sediment has a performance standard of 35 percent combined
mortality and abnormality normalized to seawater control.
6.3.4 Neanthes Growth Test. Neanthes arenaceodentata will be obtained from Dr. Don
Reish in Long Beach, California, Because Neanthes take 2 or 3 weeks to culture and
deliver, test organisms will be ordered early enough to begin testing four weeks after the
sediment sampling date.
The control sediment has a performance standard of 10 percent mortality. The reference
sediment has performance standards of 20 percent mortality and 80 percent of the control
growth rate.
6.4	Interpretation. Test interpretations consist of endpoint comparisons to control and
reference on an absolute percentage basis as well as statistical comparison to reference.
Test interpretation will follow the guidelines established in the PSDDA Management Plan
Report-Phase II (page 5-17) for the amphipod and sediment larval bioassays, and the
minutes of the dredging year 1991 annual review meeting for the Neanthes bioassay, as
modified by subsequent annual review proceedings and workshops.
18

-------
6.5	Bioassay Retest. Any bioassay retests must be fully coordinated with, and approved by,
the PSDDA agencies. The DMMO will be contacted to handle this coordination.
6.6	Laboratory Written Report. A written report will be prepared by the biological
laboratory documenting all the activities associated with sample analyses. As a minimum,
the following will be included in the report;
•	Results of the laboratory bioassay analyses and QA/QC results, including all DAIS
data found in Appendix D.
•	AH protocols used during analyses, including explanation of any deviation from
PSEP and the approved sampling plan.
•	Chain of custody procedures, including explanation of any deviation from the
identified protocols.
•	Location and availability of data, laboratory notebooks and chain-of-custody forms.
As appropriate, this sampling plan may be referenced in describing protocols.
7.0	REPORTING
7.1	OA Report The project quality assurance representative will prepare a quality
assurance report based upon activities involved with the field sampling and review of the
laboratory analytical data. The laboratory QA/QC reports will be incorporated by
reference. This report will identify any field and laboratory activities that deviated from
the approved sampling plan and the referenced protocols and will make a statement
regarding the overall validity of the data collected. The QA/QC report will be
incorporated into the Final Report.
7.2	Final Report. A written report shall be prepared by Marine Technologies
documenting all activities associated with collection, compositing, transportation of
samples, and chemical and biological analysis of samples. The chemical and biological
reports will be included as appendices. As a minimum, the following will be included in
the Final Report;
•	Type of sampling equipment used.
•	Protocols used during sampling and testing and an explanation of any deviations from
the sampling plan protocols.
•	Descriptions of each sample.
•	Locations where the sediment samples were collected. Locations will be reported in
latitude and longitude to the nearest tenth of a second.
•	A plan view of the project showing the actual sampling location.
•	Chain of-custody procedures used, and explanation of any deviations from the sampling
plan procedures.
•	Description of sampling and compositing procedures.
•	Final QA report for Section 7.1 above.
19

-------
•	Chemical and biological testing data, with comparisons to PSDDA and SMS guidelines.
•	QA2 data required by the Department of Ecology for data validation prior to entering
data in their Sediment Quality database. These data are listed in Appendix C.
•	Sampling and analysis cost data will be submitted upon project completion on forms
provided by the Dredged Material Management Office.
8.0 REFERENCES
PSEP, Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget
Sound, 1986-1996, Puget Sound Estuary Program.
PSDDA, 1988. Evaluation Procedures Technical Appendix - Phase I, prepared by the
PSDDA agencies.
PSDDA, 1989. Management Plan Report - Phase II, prepared by the PSDDA agencies.
Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1989, Contaminant Loading to Puget Sound from Two
Marinas (EPA 910/9-89-014).
20

-------
APPENDIX A
Excerpts from
Contaminant Loading to Puget Sound from Two Marinas
Puget Sound Estuary Program
1989
(EPA 910/9-89-014)

-------
»
APPENDIX B
PSDDA PARAMETERS AND METHODS

-------
Parameter
Prep
Method
Analysis
Method
PSDDA
SL BT ML
SMS
SQS
July 96 draft
SMS
detection
limits (1)
1988
LAET
CONVENTIONALS:








Total Solids (%)
...
Pr.17 (2)
...
...
...
...
—
...
Total Volatile Solids(%)
—
Pg.20(2)
...
—
—
—
—
—
Total Organic Carbon (%)
—
DOE (3)
—
—
—
...
...
...
Grain Size

Modified
ASTM with
Hydrometer






METALS


units: mg/kg dw (4)
units: mg/kg dw
units: mg/kg dw
Antimony
30S0 (5)
GFAA (6)
150
150
200
—
...
150
Arsenic
3050
GFAA
57
507.1
700
57
19
57
Cadmium
3050
GFAA
5.1
...
14
5.1
1.7
5.1
Chromium
3050
GFAA
...
—
...
260
87
260
Copper
3050
ICP (7)
390
...
1,300
390
130
390
Lead
3050
ICP
450
...
1,200
450
150
450
Mercury
7471 (8)
7471
0.41
1.5
2.3
0.41
0.14
0.59
Nickel
3050
ICP
140
370
370
—
...
>140
Silver
3050
GFAA
6.1
6.1
8.4
6.1
2.0
>0.56
Zinc
3050
ICP
410
...
3,800
410
137
410
ORGANICS








LPAH


units: ug/kg dw
units: mg/kg oc
units: ug/kg dw
Naphthalene
3540 (9)
8270 (10)
2,100
...
2,400
99
700
2100
Acenaphthylcne
3540
8270
560
—
1,300
66
433
>560
Acenaphthcne
3540
8270
500
—
2,000
16
167
500
Fluorene
3540
8270
540
—
3,600
23
180
540
Phenanthrene
3540
8270
1,500
...
21,000
100
500
1500
Anthracene
3540
8270
960
—
13,000
220
320
960
2-Methylnaphthalene
3540
8270
670
...
1,900
38
223
670
Total LPAH


5,200
—
29,000
370
—
5200
HPAH


units: ug/kg dw
units: mg/kg oc
units: ug/kg dw
Fluoranthene
3540
8270
1,700
4600
30,000
160
567
1700
Pyrene
3540
8270
2,600
—
16,000
1000
867
2600
Benzo(a)anthracene
3540
8270
1,300
—
5,100
110
433
1300
Chrysene
3540
8270
1,400
...
21,000
110
467
1400
Renzofluoranthenes
3540
8270
3,200
—
9,900
230
1067
3200
Benzo(a)pyrene
3540
8270
1,600
3,600
3,600
99
533
1600
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrenc
3540
8270
600
—
4,400
34
200
600
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3540
8270
230
...
1,900
12
77
230
Bcnzo(g,h,i)pcrylene
3540
8270
670
—
3,200
31
223
670
Total HPAH


12,000
—
69,000
960

12000
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS


units: ug/kg dw
units: mg/kg oc
units: ug/kg dw
1,3-Dichlorobcnzenc
P&T (11)
8260 (11)
170 | 1,241 |
...
I >170

-------
Parameter
Prep
Method
Analysis
Method
PSDDA
SL BT ML
SMS
SQS
July 96 draft
SMS
detection
limits (1)
1988
LAET
1,4-Dichlorobenzcne
P&T
8260
110
120
120
3.1
37
110
1,2-Dichlorobcnzene
P&T
8260
35
37
110
2.3
35
35
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
3540
8270
31
...
64
0.81
31
31
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
3540
8270
22
168
230
0.38
22
22
PHTHALATES


units: ug/kg dw
units: mg/kg oc
units: ug/kg dw
Dimethyl phthalate
3540
8270
1,400
1,400

53
24
71
Diethyl phthalate
3540
8270
1,200
—

61
67
>48
Di-n-bulvl phthalate
3540
8270
5,100
10,220

220
467
1400
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3540
8270
970
...

4.9
21
63
Bis(2-cthylhcxyl)phlhalate
3540
8270
8,300
13,870

47
433
1300
Di-n-octyl phthalate
3540
8270
6,200
—

58
2067
>420
PHENOLS


units: ug/kg dw
units: ug/kg dw
units: ug/kg dw
Phenol
3540
8270
420
876
1,200
420
140
420
2 Methylphenol
3540
8270
63
—
77
63
63
63
4 Methylphenol
3540
8270
670
...
3,600
670
223
670
2,4-DimethyIphenol
3540
8270
29
...
210
29
29
29
I'cntachloroplienol
3540
8270
400
504
690
360
120
>140
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTABLES


units: ug/kg dw
units: ug/kg dw
units; ug/kg dw
Benzyl alcohol
3540
8270
57
...
870
57
57
57
Benzoic actd
3540
8270
650
—
760
650
217
650



units: ug/kg dw
units: mg/kg oc
units: ug/kg dw
Dibenzofuran
3540
8270
540
...
1,700
15
180
540
Hexachloroethane
3540
8270
1,400
10,220
14,000
...
...
...
Hexachiorobutadiene
3540
8270
29
212
270
3.9
11
11
N-Nitrosodiphenylaminc
3540
8270
28
130
130
11
28
28
VOLATILE ORGANICS


units: ug/kg dw

units: ug/kg dw
Trlchloroethene
P&T
P&T
160
1,168
1,600
...
...
...
Tetrachloroethene
P&T
P&T
57
102
210
—
...
57
Kthvlbenzenc
P&T
P&T
10
27
50
—
—
10
Total Xylene
P&T
P&T
40
...
160
...
...
40
PESTICIDES & PCBs


units: ug/kg dw
units: mg/kg oc
units: ug/kg dw
Total DDT
...
—
6.9
50
69
—
—
...
p,p'-DDE
3540
8081 (12)
—
...
—
—
—
9
P.p'-DDD
3540
8081
—
...
—
...
—
16
p,p'-DDT
3540
8081
—
...
...
—
—
>6
Aldrin
3540
8081
10
37
—
—
—
—
Chlordane
3540
8081
10
37
—
...
...
...
Dlcldrin
3540
8081
10
37
—
...
—
...
Heptachlor
3540
8081
10
37
...
...
—
—
Lindane
3540
8081
10
—
—
—
—
—
Total PCBs
3540
8081
130
38 (13)
3,100
12
6
130

-------
1.	Recommended Sample Preparation Methods, Cleanup Methods, Analytical Methods and Detection Limits for Sediment Management
Standards, Chapter 173-204 WAC, Draft - July 1996.
2.	Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Sediment Variables in Puget Sound, Puget Sound Estuary Program, March, 1986.
3.	Recommended Methods for Measuring TOC in Sediments, Kathryn Bragdon-Cook, Clarification Paper, Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis Annual Review, May, 1993.
4.	units: ug = microgram, mg = milligram, kg = kilogram, dw = dry weight, oc = organic carbon.
5.	Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Laboratory manual physical/chemical methods. Method 3050, SW-846, 3rd ed., Vol 1A, Chapter 3,
Sec 3.2, Rev 1. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
6.	Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA) Spectrometry - SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods,
EPA 1986.
7.	Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Emission Spectrometry - SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical!Chemical Methods,
EPA 1986.
8.	Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Laboratory manual physical/chemical methods. Method 7471, SW-846, 3rd ed., Vol 1A, Chapter 3,
Sec 3.3. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
9.	Soxhlet Extraction - Method 3540, SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
10.	GCMS Capillary Column - Method 8270, SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
11.	Purge and Trap Extraction and GCMS Analysis - Method 8260, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA
1986.
12.	GCMS Capillary Column - Method 8081, SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
13.	Total PCBs BT value in mg/kg oc.

-------
APPENDIX C
QA2 DATA REQUIREMENTS
CHEMICAL VARIABLES
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
The following documentation is needed for organic compounds:
•	A cover letter referencing or describing the procedure used and discussing any analytical problems
•	Reconstructed ion chromatograms for GC/MS analyses for each sample
•	Mass spectra of detected target compounds (GC/MS) for each sample and associated library spectra
•	GC/ECD and/or GC/flame ionization detection chromatograms for each sample
•	Raw data quantification reports for each sample
•	A calibration data summary reporting calibration range used [and decafluorotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP) and
bromofluorobenzene (BFB) spectra and quantification report for GC/MS analyses]
•	Final dilution volumes, sample size, wet-to-dry ratios, and instrument detection limit
•	Analyte concentrations with reporting units identified (to two significant figures unless otherwise justified)
•	Quantification of all analytes in method blanks (ng/sample)
•	Method blanks associated with each sample
•	Recovery assessments and a replicate sample summary (laboratories should report all surrogate spike recovery data for each
sample; a statement of the range of recoveries should be included in reports using these data)
•	Data qualification codes and their definitions.
METALS
For metals, the data report package for analyses of each sample should include the following:
•	Tabulated results in units as specified for each matrix in the analytical protocols, validated and signed in original by the
laboratory manager
•	Any data qualifications and explanation for any variance from the analytical protocols
•	Results for all of the QAJQC checks initiated by the laboratory
•	Tabulation of instrument and method detection limits.
All contract laboratories are required to submit metals results that are supported by sufficient backup data and quality assurance
results to enable independent QA reviewers to conclusively determine the quality of the data. The laboratories should be able to supply
legible photocopies of original data sheets with sufficient information to unequivocally identify:
•	Calibration results
•	Calibration and preparation blanks
•	Samples and dilutions
•	Duplicates and spikes

-------
• Any anomalies in instrument performance or unusual instrumental adjustments.
BIOASSAYS
Amphipod Mortality Test
The following data should be reported by ali laboratories performing this bioassay:
•	Daily water quality measurements during testing (e.g., dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, pH) (plus ammonia & sulfides at
test initiation and termination)
•	Daily emergence for each beaker and the 10-day mean and standard deviation for each treatment
•	10-day survival in each beaker and the mean and standard deviation for each treatment
•	Interstitial salinity values of test sediments
•	96-hour LCjj values with reference toxicants.
•	Any problems that may have influenced data quality.
Neanthes Growth Test
The following data should be reported by all laboratories performing this bioassay:
•	Water quality measurements at test initiation and termination and every three days during testing (e.g., dissolved oxygen,
temperature, salinity, pH) (plus ammonia & sulfides at test initiation and termination)
•	20-day survival in each beaker and the mean and standard deviation for each treatment
•	Initial biomass
•	Final biomass (20-day) for test, reference and control treatments.
«	96-hour LCjq values with reference toxicants.
•	Any problems that may have influenced data quality.
Sediment Larval Test
The following data should be reported by all laboratories performing this bioassay:
•	Daily water quality measurements (e.g., dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, pH) (plus ammonia + sulfides at test initiation &
termination)
•	Individual replicate and mean and standard deviation data for larval survival at test termination.
•	Individual replicate and mean and standard deviation data for larval abnormalities at test termination
•	48-hour LC50 and EC50 values with reference toxicants.
•	Any problems that may have influenced data quality.

-------
APPENDIX D - DAIS DATA REQUIREMENTS
Sample Locations and Compositing

Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Seawater
Control
Latitude and Longitude (to nearest 0.1 second)




NAD 1927 or 1983




USGS Benchmark ID




Station name (e.g. Carr Inlet)




Water depth (corrected to MLLW)




Drawing showing sampling locations and ID numbers




Compositing scheme (sampling locations/depths for composites)




Sampling method




Sampling dates




Estimated volume of dredged materia! represented by each DMMU




Positioning method




Sediment Conventional
Preparation and analysis methods




Sediment conventional data and QA/QC qualifiers




QA qualifier code definitions




Triplicate data for each sediment conventional for each batch




Units (dry weight except total solids)




Method blank data (sulfides, ammonia, TOC)




Method blank units (dry weight)




Analysis dates (sediment conventional, blanks, TOC CRM)'




TOC CRM ID




TOC CRM analysis data




TOC CRM target values




Grain Size Analysis
Fine grain analysis method




Analysis dates




Triplicate for each batch




Grain size data (complete sieve and phi size distribution)





-------
Chemicals of Concern Analysis Data

Metals
Semivol.
Pest./
PCBs
Volatiles
Extraction/digestion method




Extraction/digestion dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference material)




Analysis method




data and QA qualifier included for:




test sediments




reference materials including 95% confidence interval (each batch)




method blanks (each batch)




matrix spikes (each batch)




matrix spike added (dry weight basis)




replicates (each batch)




Units (dry weight)




Method blank units (dry weight)




QA/QC qualifier definitions




Surrogate recovery for test sediment, blank, matrix spike, ref. material




Analysis dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference material)




Shaded areas indicate required data

-------
BIOASSAYS
Amphipod Mortality and Emergence

Each
Batch
Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Species Name




Mortality and Emergence:




Start date




Daily emergence (for 10 days)




Survival at end of test




Number failing to rebury at end of test




Positive Control:




Toxicant used




Toxicant concentrations




Exposure time




LC50




LC50 method of calculation




Start date




Survival data




Water Quality Measurement Methods:




Dissolved oxygen




Ammonia




Interstitial salinity




Sulfide




Water salinity




Water Quality:




Temperature (day 0 through day 10)




pH (day 0 through day 10)




Dissolved oxygen (day 0 through day 10)




Water salinity (day 0 through day 10)




Sulfide (day 0, day 10)




Ammonia (day 0, day 10)




Interstitial water salinity (day 0)





-------
Neanthes 20-day Growth Test

Each
Batch
Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Starting age (In days post-emergence)




Food type




Quantity (mgfbeaker/intervai)




Feeding interval (hours)




Biomass and Mortality:




Start date




Initial counts and weights (mg dry weight)




Number of survivors and final weights (mg dry weight)




Positive Control:




Toxicant used




Toxicant concentration




Exposure time




LC50




LCSO method of calculation




Start date




Survival data




Water Quality Measurement Methods




Dissolved oxygen




Ammonia




Interstitial salinity




Sulfide




Water salinity




Water Quality:




Temperature (days 0,3,6,9,12,15,18,20)




pH (days 0,3,6,9,12, IS, 18,20)




Dissolved oxygen (days 0,3,6,9,12, IS, 18,20)




Water salinity (days 0,3,6,9,12,15,18,20)




Interstitial salinity (day 0)




Sulfide (initial and final)




Ammonia (initial and final)





-------
Sediment Larval Mortality and Abnormality

Each
Test
Reference
Seawater

Batch
Sediment
Sediment
Control
Species Name




Bioassay Parameters




Inoculation time (hours)




Exposure time (hours)




Stocking beaker density (#/mI)




Stocking aliquot size (ml)




Aeration (yes/no)




Mortality and Abnormality:




Start Elate




Initial count (minimum of five 10-ml aliquots)




Final Count:




Aliquot size (ml)




Number normal per aliquot




Number abnormal per aliquot




Water Quality Measurement Methods:




Dissolved oxygen




Ammonia




Sulfide




Water salinity




Water Quality:




Temperature (daily)




pH (daily)




Dissolved oxygen (daily)




Water salinity (daily)




Sulfide (initial and final)




Ammonia (initial and final)



«k
Positive Control:




Toxicant used




Toxicant concentrations




Exposure time




EC50




EC50 method of calculation




Start date




Normal/abnormal counts





-------
APPENDIX 6-B
LARGE PROJECT SAMPLING
AND
ANALYSIS PLAN

-------
SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN
FOR
SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION AT PIER D
U.S. NAVY PUGET SOUND SHIPYARD
BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
September 20,1994
Prepared by:
ProTech Consulting, Inc.
2525 N. Main Street, Suite 430
Seattle, Washington 98204
In Association With;
GeoMetrics, Inc.

-------
SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN
FOR
SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION AT PIER D
U.S. NAVY PUGET SOUND SHIPYARD
BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject	Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION	1
1.1	Project Description	1
1.2	Sediment Description	1
1.3	Site History	1
1.4	Permitting	4
2.0 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS	6
3.0 PROJECT TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES	7
3.1	Project Planning and Coordination	7
3.2	Field Sample Collection	7
3.3	Laboratory Preparation and Analyses	7
3.4	QA/QC Management	7
3.5	Final Data Report	8
4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES	9
4.1	Definitions	9
4.2	Number of Samples and Analyses Required	9
4.3	Conceptual Dredging Plan, Sampling and Compositing Scheme	10
4.3.1	Conceptual Dredging Plan	11
4.3.2	Sampling and Compositing Scheme	11
4.4	Field Sampling Schedule	22
4.5	Field Operations and Equipment	22
4.5.1	Drill Barge	22
4.5.2	Navigation and Positioning	22
4.5.3	Sample Collection Techniques	22
4.6	Sample Collection and Handling Procedures	23
4.7	Sample Transport and Chain-of-Custody Procedures	24
4.8	Sample Compositing and Subsampling	. 24

-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Subject	Page
4.8.1	Decontamination	24
4.8.2	Extrusion	25
4.8.3	Volatiles and Sulfides Subsampling	25
4.8.4	Core Logging	27
4.8.5	Compositing and Other Subsampling	27
4.9 Sample Transport & Chain-of-Custody Procedures	30
5.0 LABORATORY PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL SEDIMENT ANALYSES 31
5.1	Laboratory Analyses Protocols	31
5.1.1	Chain-of-Custody	31
5.1.2	Limits of Detection	31
5.1.3	Sediment Conventionals	32
5.1.4	Holding Times	32
5.1.5	Quality Assurance/Quality Control	32
5.2	Laboratory Written Report	32
6.0 BIOLOGICAL TESTING	35
6.1	Bioassay Laboratory Protocols	35
6.2	General Biological Testing Procedures	36
6.2.1	Negative Controls	36
6.2.2	Reference Sediment	36
6.2.3	Replication	36
6.2.4	Positive Controls	36
6.2.5	Water Quality Monitoring	36
6.3	Bioassay-specific Procedures ,	36
6.3.1	Amphipod Bioassay	36
6.3.2	Sediment Larval Bioassay	37
6.3.3	Neanthes Biomass Test	37
6.4	Interpretation	37
6.5	Bioassay Retest	37
6.6	Laboratory Written Report	38
7.0 REPORTING	39
7.1	QA Report	39
7.2	Final Report	39

-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Subject	Page
APPENDIX A	Pilot Sediment Characterization Results	41
APPENDIX B	Section 10/404 Draft Permit Application	43
APPENDIX C	PSDDA Parameters and Methods	45
APPENDIX D	QA2 Data Requirements	47
APPENDIX E	Project Cost Data	55
APPENDIX F	Data Requirements for DAIS	59
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES:	Page
Figure 1	2
Figure 2	'3
Figure 3	5
Figure 4	14
Figure 5	15
Figure 6	16
Figure 7	17
Table I .	19
Table II	21
Table HI	26
Table IV	29
Table V	33

-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1	Project Description. The U.S. Navy Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA,
proposes to upgrade Pier D in Sinclair Inlet (see vicinity and location maps, Figures 1 and 2) to
provide flexibility to homeport the following vessel mooring combinations: two AOE Class
vessels; one CVN-68 (NIMITZ-size carrier) and one AOE; one CVN-6B and two smaller class
(DDG or FFG) ships; or two CVN-68's. This project includes dredging two mooring basins: one
along each side of Pier D. Each mooring basin will be 158-ft. wide by 1050 ft. along the pier and
dredged to a design depth of -49.4 ft., MLLW (45 ft. navigation depth at Extreme Low Water,
ELW = -4.4 ft., MLLW) (see Figures 4 and 5). Existing bottom depths are on the order of -40 ft.
Estimated total dredging quantity for both basins is approximately 170,400 cyds, including side
slopes and one-foot overdepth.
Dredging will be by clamshell and barge. Depending on the results of PSDDA sediment
characterization proposed in this sampling plan, disposal will be either inwater to the PSDDA
Elliott Bay site by bottom dump barge, or upland to the Kitsap County landfill (Olympic View
Landfill) by offloading and truck haul. It is possible that each site may receive some of the
dredged materials.
1.2	Sediment Description. PSDDA guidance identifies Sinclair Inlet as an area of high
concern for sediment contamination. Limited available data show that sediments to be dredged
at Pier D consist of a 2 to 4 ft. surface layer of black, soft silts and fine sands (mud) overlying a
more dense, gray silty fine-to-medium sand. A pilot sediment characterization study at Pier D
was conducted for the Navy in 1989 (see APPENDIX A). Results indicated that PSDDA
screening levels (SL's) were marginally exceeded for some parameters in each of four
representative surface layer composite samples, and that maximum levels (ML's) were exceeded
at one station for DDT and for silver. Based on these limited results, the Navy proposes to
conduct a comprehensive sediment characterization program by collecting and analyzing
representative core samples in accordance with PSDDA requirements for each of the two
mooring basins to be dredged. The tiered chemistry/biological testing approach will be used.
These results will be provided to the PSDDA agencies as the basis to identify the acceptable
disposal option(s).
The Pier D area was last dredged in the mid-1940's to a design depth of -40 ft., MLLW, as part of
an area-wide dredging project for the Navy shipyard. The most recent hydrographic survey
(GeoMetrics-November 1990) shows that less than four feet of infill has since occurred.
1.3	Site History. The upland area directly north of Pier D was purchased by the Navy in 1891
as part of the original purchase for the Shipyard, however the original development of the
industrial area of the Shipyard began about a mile east of this site.
Between 1910-1923 fill extended the natural shoreline to the currently existing quay wall at the
head of Pier D. The area was beginning to be developed by this time, with a coaling pier in use
about 200 ft. east of Pier D and commercial oil tank farms in use on property northwest of the
l

-------
Shipyard about 1000 ft. This property was later purchased by the Shipyard in 1942 and used for
barracks, steel storage and parking.
The fill area directly north of Pier D became heavily used for storage/support functions by the
1930's and these uses continue to this day but are not major sources of contamination. The major
industrial activity of the Shipyard is still located from 1500 ft. to over a mile from Pier D.
In 1946, an area along the entire west shoreline of the Shipyard was dredged to -40 ft., MLLW, to
allow use of this area as inactive ship storage. Pier D, along with Pier B and Moorings A, E ,F
and G, were constructed in 1947 for this purpose.
This area continues to be used for the storage of inactive ships with associated minor
maintenance and painting activities. The Navy has, however, never used tributyltin as an
antifouling agent during any of its painting activities at the Bremerton shipyard. Analysis for
tributyltin therefore should not be necessary.
Historical site uses and possible sources of past contamination are shown in Figure 3. There are
no active sources, such as stormwater outfalls, in the immediate vicinity of Pier D.
1.4 Permitting. A permit application for Pier D dredging and disposal was submitted by the
Navy to US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, in April 1989 (Application No. OYB-1-
012791, see APPENDIX A). Permitting actions required include a Corps of Engineers Section
10/404, State of Washington Hydraulic Project Approval and Section 401 Water Quality
Certification, City of Bremerton Shorelines Development permit and" a DNR Open-water
Disposal Site Use permit. Designation of acceptable disposal site(s) based on results of sediment
characterization proposed herein is a critical remaining element prior to final project design and
permit applications.
An EIS for the proposed Pier D upgrade project, including dredging and disposal, is being
prepared by the Navy (AOE Homeporting EIS).
2

-------
FIGURE 1
SEE
LOCAj
MAP
104

north
TION
LQM-_P- FERRY

T A C O M A
^ A 1
9 a 456789 10 MILES WIOIMITV MAD

-------
of
BREMERTON
30i
i—
PUGET SOUND
NAVAL SHIPYARD
STAGING AREA
north
DREDGING - PIER D
160,
G O R S T
1/2	0
	1	" I rv, I 		
. I" I	>, , , .77		 * """'I
2 MILES
LOCATION MAP

-------
FIGURE 3
• I M 156« *M II


-------
f
2.0 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS
The sediment characterization program objectives and constraints are summarized below:
•	To characterize sediments to be dredged in conformance with PSDDA requirements to enable
the PSDDA agencies to designate approved disposal option(s);
•	To optimize the prospect of identifying all Dredged Material Management Units acceptable
for disposal at the Elliott Bay PSDDA disposal site while assuring that unacceptable
sediments are disposed of at an approved upland site.
•	To collect, handle and analyze representative sediment core samples characterizing the full
dredging prism in accordance with protocols, timing, and QA/QC requirements outlined in
the PSDDA Evaluation Procedures Technical Appendix (June 1988), the updated procedures
documented in Chapter 5 and Appendix A of the PSDDA Phase II Management Plan Report
(September, 1989), modifications made through the PSDDA and Sediment Management
Annual Review Process and procedures presented in PSEP Recommended Protocols for
Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound.
6

-------
3,0 PROJECT TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The sediment characterization program will include 1) project planning and agency coordination,
2) field sample collection, 3) laboratory preparation and analysis, 4) QA/QC management and 5)
final data report. Staffing and responsibilities are outlined below:
3.1	Project Planning and Coordination. Mr. Peter Ramsey, US Navy Field Engineering
Station, Silverdale, WA, will be the overall project manager responsible for developing and
completing the sampling program. As the applicant's principal representative he will also
provide the primary contact for PSDDA agencies. John Torres, ProTech Consulting, Seattle,
WA will assist Mr. Ramsey in technical matters pertaining to the sediment characterization plan
and program and its relation to dredging and disposal methods. Following plan approval by the
PSDDA agencies, Mr. Torres will be responsible for monitoring and administrative coordination
to assure timely and successful completion of the project. Mr. Torres will provide a copy of the
approved sampling plan along with the PSDDA-agency approval letter to all sampling and
testing subcontractors. Any significant deviation from the approved sampling plan will be
coordinated with the Dredged Material Management Office.
3.2	Field Sample Collection. Mr. Jim Bailey, GeoMetrics, Tacoma, WA, will provide overall
direction to the field sampling and laboratory analysis programs in terms of logistics, personnel
assignments, field operations and analytical laboratory selection. Mr. Brad Smaller, GeoMetrics,
will supervise field collection of the sediment core samples. Mr. Smaller will also be responsible
for assuring accurate sample positioning; recording sample locations, depths and identification;
assuring conformance to sampling and handling requirements including field decontamination
procedures; photographing, physical evaluation and logging the samples; and for chain-of-
custody of the sample cores until they are delivered to GeoMetrics's sample preparation
laboratory.
3.3	Laboratory Preparation and Analyses. The delivered core samples will be physically
evaluated, composited and placed in appropriate sample containers by Mr. Jim Bailey or Mr.
Brad Smaller and assistants at the GeoMetrics sample preparation laboratory. Appropriate
protocols for decontamination, sample preservation and holding times will be observed. Mr.
Bailey will be responsible for documenting sample preparation, observations and chain-of-
custody up until the time he delivers the samples for analyses to ChemTest, Inc., analytical
laboratory in Bothell, WA. He will also instruct the analytical laboratory on the need to maintain
required handling and analytic protocols including meeting PSDDA minimum detection limits.
Mr. Bailey will ensure that bioassay and archived sediments are stored under proper conditions.
Mr. Mark Havey, Technical Director, at ChemTest will be responsible for physical and chemical
analysis. ChemTest will handle and analyze the submitted samples in accordance with PSDDA
analytical testing protocols and QA/QC requirements. A written report of analytical results and
QA/QC procedures will be prepared by ChemTest and included as an appendix in the final
report.
7

-------
Mr. Timothy Michaels, Bioscience, Inc., Edmonds, WA, will be responsible for the sediment
bioassay analyses and reporting. Bioscience will analyze the submitted samples in accordance
with PSDDA biological testing and QA/QC requirements. A written report of analytical results
and QA/QC procedures will be prepared by Bioscience and included as an appendix in the final
report.
3.4	OAJOC Management. Ms. Julia Farr, GeoMetrics, will serve as Quality Assurance
Representative for the sediment characterization project. She will perform assurance oversight
for both the field sampling and laboratory programs. She will keep fully informed of field
program procedures and progress during sample collection and laboratory activities during
sample preparation. She will record and correct any activities which vary from the written
sampling and analysis plans. She will also review the laboratory analytical and QA/QC data to
assure that data is valid and procedures meet the required analytical quality control limits. Upon
completion of the sampling and analytical program she will incorporate findings into a QA/QC
report.
3.5	Final Data Report. Mr. Jim Bailey, GeoMetrics, will be responsible for preparation of the
final sediment characterization report describing sample locations and depths; sampling,
handling and analytical methods; QA/QC; and data results.
8

-------
4.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURES
4.1 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this sampling program:
•	Dredging Prism: the entire volume of sediments to be dredged, including both (east and west)
mooring basins, related side-slopes and one-foot overdepth (to -50.4 ft., MLLW).
•	Sediment Bore: the entire cumulative length of sediment core extracted by the coring device.
This extends from the sediment/water interface down to the total sampling depth of the hole.
Each sediment bore is a sampling location identified by number on the sampling plan.
•	Core Section: each core section is 4 feet long, except where the total sediment bore (length)
leaves a core section less than 4 feet at the bottom of the dredging prism. Core sections for
each sediment bore are designated alphabetically, beginning with "A" for the 4-foot surface
layer and proceeding downward from the top in 4-foot increments...A, B, C, etc., to the
bottom core section. Core sections are composited within Dredge Material Management
Units for laboratory analyses.
•	Dredged Material Management Unit (DMMU): the volume of dredged material for which a
separate decision on suitability for unconfined open-water disposal can be made. DMMUs
are typically represented by chemical and biological testing of a single sample, composited
from one or more core sections within the DMMU.
•	Surface Sediments: sediments located within a 4-foot thick surface layer. Surface sediment
samples are represented by core sections designated by the capital letter "A".
•	Subsurface Sediments: sediments located beneath the 4-foot layer of surface sediments.
Subsurface sediment samples are represented by core sections designated by the capital
letters "B", "C", etc.
•	"Z" samples: sediments below the dredge prism which will be exposed by dredging and
represent the surface that will remain when dredging is completed.
4.2 Number of Samples and Analyses Required. PSDDA ranks all of Sinclair Inlet,
including the Pier D dredging area, as an area of high concern for sediment contamination. In
accordance with PSDDA requirements, full sediment characterization requirements for a
dredging area ranked high concern are outlined below:
Surface Sediments:	One core section and one laboratory
(0 to 4 ft.)	analysis for each 4000 cubic yards.
Subsurface Sediments: One core section for each 4000 cyds,
(> 4 ft.)	and one laboratory analysis for each 12,000 cyds
9

-------
The estimated total volume of materials to be dredged from both basins is 170,400 cyds,
including one-foot overdepth. The quantity and related sampling requirements are distributed as
follows:
Depth
Interval
Volume
(cu.yds.)
Minimum No. of
Core Sections
Minimum No. of
Analyses
0-4 ft.
77,600
20
20
>4 ft.
92,800
24
8 (composites)

170,400
(Total)


4.3 Conceptual Dredging Plan. Sampling and Compositing Scheme. The sampling and
analysis program is developed with consideration of site-specific project and environmental
factors. A key requirement is assuring that if an individual DMMU (represented by one or more
core sections) is found unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal, then that unit can be
feasibly dredged independently from surrounding clean sediments so that the contaminated
material can be disposed of at an alternate approved upland site. The sampling program for the
Pier D dredging project was developed as follows:
•	Prepare Conceptual Dredging Plan. Criteria for a dredging plan were established for this site
based on the depth and physical characteristics of the sediments, the dredge layout plan
including side slopes, appropriate dredging methods and equipment, and conventional
construction practices at similar dredging projects in Puget Sound.
•	Prepare Sampling Scheme. Basic criteria for selecting sampling locations and compositing
for analysis are contained in PSDDA guidance documents relative to sediment volumes to be
characterized. The approach is to delineate sediment sampling grid units as basic building
blocks for identifying DMMUs capable of being dredged independently.
•	Integrate the dredging plan with the sampling and compositing scheme. This step consisted
of using judgement to relate the operational aspects of dredging to the compositing scheme to
ensure that specific sediment volumes represented by sampling and analytical results can be
feasibly dredged independently from adjacent volumes. A primary consideration was to
provide common lateral boundaries between the surface DMMUs and the underlying
subsurface DMMUs as much as practicable to enable full depth dredging with each dredge
setup where sampling results allow use of the same disposal site.
10

-------
4.3.1 Conceptual Dredging Plan. Criteria for dredging are:
•	Dredge by clamshell and bottom-dump barge
•	Most practicable dredge cut widths are in the range of 50-90 ft.
•	Full box-cutting of dredge slopes will not be allowed along the pier in order to protect the
piling from potential slope failure due to overcutting, i.e., the pierside slope will be excavated
as close to the lV-on-4H design slope as practicable.
•	Dredged removal of the pierside slope will be conducted by advancing the dredge cut
longitudinally along the pier length. This will take advantage of increased bucket control by
side swing (compared to more difficult control by raising and lowering the boom as would be
required by advancing into the side slope perpendicular to the pier). Advancing parallel to the
pier will also enhance operator control by creating a pattern of repetitive excavation along the
slope cut in reference to the pier face.
•	Remaining dredge cuts will also be oriented longitudinally along the pier, i.e., parallel to the
pier face and the pierside slope cut. However, if USN ship movement and/or interim
berthing requirements become controlling factors during dredging it is also practicable to
orient selected dredge cuts perpendicular to the pier; however, this would require more
dredge positioning to initiate the additional cuts and alignments.
•	Except for the pierside slope cut (which may require successive passes), the full allowable
depth of removal, based on testing results, will be accomplished as the dredge advances into
the cut.
4.3.2 Sampling and Compositing Scheme. The basic approach for establishing the sampling
array and compositing scheme included the following criteria:
•	Array sediment grid units in rows parallel to the dock consistent with the dredging plan.
•	Arrange sediment grid units in two rows along each side of the pier to provide testing of at
least surface sediments both near and away from the dock.
•	Maintain common lateral boundaries between surface and subsurface sediment units as much
as practicable to enable full depth dredging where allowed by testing results.
•	Where possible utilize the same sediment bore location for characterizing both surface and
subsurface sediments.
11

-------
An additional factor is that ships and barges are moored at Pier D within the area to be sampled.
Several can be moved or do not interfere with sampling access. However, movement of two
existing mooring combinations would present considerable difficulty and expense:
1.	The three-barge installation for personnel berthing located at the southeast corner of Pier D.
These barges house approximately 500 Navy personnel and are connected to shoreside
utilities (water, electricity, sewage and communications), which would be displaced or
disrupted by temporary relocation for sampling access. One of the two outer barges can be
drifted shoreward to enable limited sampling access between the barges.
2.	The 800+ ft. carrier BON HOMME RICHARD located along the outer west side of Pier D.
The procedure for moving the carrier is complex, requiring 3-4 major tugs at an estimated
cost of $60-70,000, and is contingent upon locating alternate moorage space that can be
temporarily vacated elsewhere on the base.
Because of the considerable difficulty and expense in moving either the two main berthing barges
or the carrier, the following sampling and compositing scheme is proposed to provide
representative sampling without removing these vessels for sampling access.
Surface Samplin2 Locations and DMMUs. The first step in defining the sampling grid was to
estimate the relative volume distribution for dredging the similar sized basins on each side of
Pier D. This analysis showed that surface and subsurface volumes are distributed roughly
equally on each side of the pier. Therefore, a minimum of ten core samples and ten DMMUs
would need to be located on each side of the pier to satisfy the requirement for a total of 20
surface sediment samples and DMMUs. This allocation is the basis for development of the
sampling and compositing scheme for both surface and subsurface sediments as outlined below.
Ten approximately equal-volume rectangular DMMUs were laid out in two rows along each side
of the pier to best reflect the dredging approach. Each surface unit is sized to meet the PSDDA
requirement of 4000 cu.yds. or less (4 ft. depth of surface layer times average surface area,
including side slopes). Each surface DMMU is identified either with an "S", which designates is
as a single-station uncomposited DMMU (see Figure 4), or with a "C", which designates it as a
composite of samples from two sampling locations.
The sediment core sampling locations are numbered sequentially in Figure 5 and Table I. The
sampling location for each surface DMMU was established near the center of the unit except for
those units occupied by the berthing barge and outboard of the carrier. Sample No. 10 at the
berthing barges is located near the quarter point along the mid-line of the grid area (see Figure 5),
and as close to the barge as possible. Note that sampling of surface sediments at location Nos.
13,14 and 15 occupied by the carrier BON HOMME RICHARD will be collected by diver-
operated shallow coring device. Each surface DMMU outboard of the carrier is represented by
two core samples (corresponding to subsurface sampling locations, see below).
Estimated sediment volumes represented by each surface DMMU is shown in Table HA. Surface
DMMU estimated volumes range from 3500 cyds to 4000 cyds, and average about 3900 cyds.
12

-------
Subsurface Sampling Units. The above pattern of surface grid units is also used as the basis for
the subsurface sampling, except where floating access by the coring barge is precluded by the
carrier BON HOMME RICHARD (diver-sampled surface core locations 13, 14 and 15). For this
latter area, rectangular subsurface units are laid out perpendicular to the dock with core sampling
locations situated outboard of the carrier hull. The resulting subsurface sampling grid units with
corresponding location numbering are shown on Figure 6. Size (surface area) of the
perpendicular subsurface units is comparable to that of units not affected by the carrier.
Surface core sections will be collected eoincidentally with subsurface coring outboard of the
carrier at each of the perpendicular subsurface units sample locations, i.e. at Nos. 18, 19,20, 21,
22, and 23. Two of these surface core sections will be composited for analysis to represent the
related outboard surface DMMU grid units (e.g., surface core sections from bore locations 18 and
19 will be composited for analysis representing surface unit CI; see Figure 4). This will ensure a
good spatial representation for these DMMUs.
Subsurface DMMUs. Subsurface DMMUs were designated by aggregating adjacent subsurface
sampling units (Figure 6) into eight composites for subsurface analyses. The resulting eight
subsurface DMMUs are shown in Figure 7. This subsurface compositing scheme was developed
in consideration of the dredging plan and the above sampling and compositing criteria and
limitations.
The subsurface DMMU compositing scheme and related estimated sediment volumes are shown
in Table IIB. Estimated sediment volumes for subsurface DMMUs range from 9300 cyds to
13,000 cyds, and average about 11,600 cyds.
It is noted that four composite samples (C5, C6, C7 and C8) slightly exceed the 12,000 cyd
general compositing criteria for dredging areas designated high concern by PSDDA, although the
PSDDA basic criteria is satisfied by the number of composites (8) and the average volume
represented by DMMUs (11,700 cyds). In addition, such exceedance appears justified based on
the following:
•	The required eight DMMU composites are laid out to support the most practicable dredging
plan by observing cuts parallel to the pier and maximizing common lateral boundaries
between surface and subsurface DMMUs, except where subsurface units accommodate the
BON HOMME RICHARD.
•	Essentially all of the subsurface sediment lies below the previously dredged depth of -40 ft.,
MLLW. Since none of the sediment volume in these subsurface DMMUs has been dredged
previously, the subsurface sediments are judged native materials.
•	The amount of exceedance for any composite is minor, less than 10 percent.
13

-------
Core Sampling Characteristics. Consistent with PSDDA guidance, sediment bores at each
common surface/subsurface sampling location will be taken from the sediment-water interface
down to a depth of -50.4 ft., MLLW, i.e., to the full design depth of -49.4 ft. plus one foot
overdepth. Surface core sections at location Nos. 13, 14 and 15 will be taken by diver-operated
core sampling to a depth of 4-feet. Sediment bore characteristics and core section designations
are summarized in Table I.
In addition, PSDDA recommends that in high-ranked areas, where the potential exists for leaving
subsurface sediments exposed which are more contaminated than the present surface sediments,
one-foot cores beyond overdepth will be collected from and archived at each subsurface boring
location. For this project, the archived depth would be from -50.4 ft. to -51.4 ft. Each archived
sample will be placed in its own jar and stored at -20°C for up to six months after sample
collection. These samples will be available for future reference should it become necessary to
characterize sediments to be exposed after dredging. Archived samples will be labelled "Z"
followed by the boring number.
14

-------
WYCOFF AVE
DREDGE TO
-45.4'
DEPTH CONTOURS
IN FEET,
MLLW
DREDGE TO
-49.4'
BON HOMME
RICHARD
145UTV

\PJ^2

1050'
r

WP	--	»
BULKHEAD
-*¦
DREDGE TO
-49.4*
BERTHING
BARGES
tOO 200
SCALE IN FEET
300
FIGURE Ar (Revised)
SURFACE
0 SURFACE CORE (TOP 4*)
© FULL DEPTH CORE
(SURFACE & SUBSURFACE)
USN PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
BREMERTON, WA
PIER D DREDGING
SEDIMENT UNfTS & SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE A-

-------
WYCOFF AVE
DREDGE TO
—45.4'
DEPTH CONTOURS
IN FEET.
MLLW
DREDGE TO
-49.4'
BON HOMME
RICHARD
145UV
7
1050'

Hl
Wi—
BULKHEAD

DREDGE TO
-49.4*
BERTHING
BARGES
tn
l—
o
Lul
O
a
LU
d
a
a
LU
z
z
100
200 300
SCALE IN FEET
SURFACE
USN PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
BREMERTON. WA
O SURFACE CORE (TOP 4')
© FULL DEPTH CORE
(SURFACE & SUBSURFACE)
PIER D DREDGING
SEDIMENT UNITS & SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE S

-------
WYCOFF AVE
DREDGE TO
-45.4'
DEPTH CONTOURS
IN FEET,
MLLW
DREDGE TO
-49.4'
BON HOMME
RICHARD
145!<\
&

BULKHEAD
	 f £.
DREDGE TO
-49.4'
BERTHING
BARGES
100 200 300
SCALE IN FEET
SUBSURFACE
USN PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
BREMERTON, WA
FULL DEPTH CORE
(SURFACE & SUBSURFACE)
PIER D DREDGING
SEDIMENT UNITS & SAMPUNG LOCATIONS
FIGURE (a

-------
WYCOFF AVE
DREDGE TO
-45.4*
DEPTH CONTOURS
IN FEET,
MLLW
DREDGE TO
-49.4'
BON HOMME
RICHARD
145UV
%
1050'
BULKHEAD

DREDGE TO
-49.4'
BERTHING
BARGES
in
o
UJ
o
~
UJ
a:
ct
a
UJ
5
a.
100 200 300
SCALE IN FEET
SUBSURFACE COMPOSITES
® CORE SAMPLE LOCATION
USN PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
BREMERTON, WA
PIER D DREDGING
SEDIMENT UNITS & SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 7

-------
USN PSNS PIER D DREDGING
SEDIMENT BORE CHARACTERISTICS AND CORE SECTIONS
(depths In feet referenced to MLLW)
Sediment
Bore
Number
Existing
Bottom
Depth
Length of
Sediment Bores
(to nearest ft,
dredge to -50.4')
Core Section
Designations
and Depths
1
-39.5
11
A -39.5 to -43.5
B -43.5 to -47.5
C -47.5 to -50.4
2
-37.6
13
A -37.6 to-41.6
B -41.6 to -45.6
C -45.6 to -49.6
D -49.6 to -50.4
3
-40.1
10
A -40.1 to -44.1 '
B -44.1 to -48.1
C -48.1 to-50.4
4
-42.0
8
A -42.0 to -46.0
B -46.0 to-50.0
C -50.0 to -50.4
5
-40.8
10
A -40.8 to -44.8
B -44.8 to-48.8
C -48.8 to -50.4
6
-38.0
12
A -38.0 to -42.0
B -42.0 to-46.0
C -46.0 to -50.0
D -50.0 to-50.4
7
-37.0
13
A -37.0 to-41.0
B -41.0 to-45.0
C -45.0 to -49.0
D -49.0 to-50.4
8
-40.0
10
A -40.0 to-44.0
B -44.0 to -48.0
C -48.0 to-50.4
9
-41.5
9
A -41.5 to-45.5
B -45.5 to-49.5
C -49.5 to -50.4
10
-41.4
9
A -41.4 to-45.4
B -45.4 to-49.4
C -49.4 to-50.4
11
-38.8
12
A -38.8 to -42.8
B -42.8 to -46.8
C -46.8 to -50.4
12
-40-1
10
A -40.1 to-44.1
B -44.1 to -48.1
C -48.1 to -50.4
13
-41.0
4
A -41.0 to-45.0
14
-41.1
4
A -41.1 to-45.1
19

-------
15
-41.8
4
A -41.8 to-45.8
20

-------
16
-39.8
11
A -39.8 to -43.8
B -43.8 to -47.8
C -47.8 to -50.4
17
-40.0
10
A -40.0 to-44.0
B -44.0 to-48.0
C -48.0 to-50.4
18
-41.1
9
A -41.1 to-45.1
B -45.1 to-49.1
C -49.1 to-50.4
19
-40.8
10
A -40.8 to-44.8
B -44.8 to-48.8
C -48.8 to -50.4
20
-41,7
9
A -41.7 to-45.7
B -45.7 to -49.7
C -49.7 to -50.4
21
-42.0
8
A -42.0 to -46.0
B -46.0 to-50.0
C -50.0 to-50.4
22
-42.0
8
A -42.0 to-46.0
B -46.0 to-50.0
C -50.0 to -50.4
23
-42.0
8
A-42.0 to-46.0
B -46.0 to-50.0
C -50.0 to -50.4
21

-------
TABLE II:
PIER D SAMPLE COMPOSITING SCHEME
A. SURFACE SEDIMENTS (top 4 ft, of dredge prism)
DMMU AND SAMPLE
IDENTIFICATION
DMMU Volume
Represented
(cubic yards)
DMMU
(Grid Unit No.)
SAMPLE
(Core Section)
SI
1A
3900
S2
2A
3900
S3
3A
3700
S4
4A
3900
S5
5A
3500
S6
6A
4000
S7
7A
4000
S8
8A
3900
S9
9A
3900
S10
10A
3800
Sll
11A
3500
S12
12A
4000
S13
13A
4000
S14
14A
4000 '
S15
ISA
4000
S16
16A
4000
S17
17A
4000
CI
18A & 19A
3800
C2
20A & 21A
3900
C3
22k & 23 A
3900
B. SUBSURFACE SEDIMENTS (remainder of dredge prism)
Composite
Samples Composited
DMMU Volume
Sample
(by Core section)
Represented
LD. No.

(approx. Cy)
C4
IB, 1C, 2B, 2C, 2D
11,600
C5
3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, 5B, 5C
13,000
C6
6B, 6C, 6D, 7B, 7C, 7D
12,300
C7
8B, 8C, 9B, 9C, 10B, 10C
12,800
C8
1 IB,11C,12B,12C
9,300
C9
16B,16C,17B,17C
11,100
C10
18B,18C, 19B,19C, 20B,20C
12,400
Cll
21B,21C, 22B,22C,23B, 23C
11,300
22

-------
4.4	Field Sampling Schedule. The field sampling schedule is constrained by the shortest
sample holding time (seven days). To safely meet the holding times for composited samples, the
field samples will be composited and delivered for laboratory testing within three days of
sampling the first core section within each composite. Sampling will generally proceed by
completing all coring within a given subsurface composite (up to three sampling locations)
before proceeding to bore locations for the next composite. Based on a review of the limited
available sediment data and expected logistic considerations, it is projected that up to three full
depth sediment bores can be completed per sampling day. The entire core-sampling program is
expected to be completed within 10 working days.
Initiation of core sampling will be preceded by cleanup and other preparation of sample coring
and handling equipment in the GeoMetrics laboratory, acquisition of appropriate EPA-approved
decontaminated sample containers from the analytic laboratories, on-site establishment of
positioning references and tide gage by the surveyor, and mobilization of the drill barge to the
site.
4.5	Field Operations and Equipment. The field crew and equipment will be mobilized from
GeoMetrics's Tacoma Office.
The field crew will make sure all equipment is in good working order prior to collection of cores.
Program plans will be developed and final arrangements made for logistics and field operations.
The drill barge will mobilize from Bainbridge Island to Bremerton.
4.5.1	Drill Barge. The drill barge to be employed for the coring program will be provided by
GeoTechnica, Inc., of Des Moines, Washington. The barge is a 70.9 foot by 24.4 foot self-
contained coring and sampling vessel with a moon-pool opening for drill deployment and a four-
point anchor winch system. The vessel has about 1500 square feet of working deck space and
adequate power and electronics to work self-contained. A tender tug and a power skiff will also
be available full time to provide logistical and anchoring support.
4.5.2	Navigation and Positioning. The station location will be referenced to the drill casing
during sampling, and will be accomplished by the range-azimuth method. Distances will be
measured from known references using an EDM (electronic distance measurement), and
horizontal angles from established points and baseline(s) will be measured using a surveying
theodolite. Elevations will be referenced to local MLLW (NOAA) and corrected using the tide
gage. Horizontal coordinates will be referenced to Washington Coordinate System for proper
North or South Zones NAD 83 (North American Datum 1983). Horizontal coordinates will be
converted and identified as latitude and longitude (NAD 83) to the nearest 0.1 second.
Diver collected core sample locations will be determined underwater using taped distance from
the sampling point to at least two fixed (known) reference points.
These systems are expected to document sampling locations to +/- 3 meters accuracy to allow
the dredge to discretely remove different DMMUs (Phase IEPTA, Sect. 4.4.1, 1988).
23

-------
4.5.3 Sample Collection Techniques. Samples will be collected using a barge-mounted,
hollow-stem auger drilling rig equipped with a Gregory sampler. The hydraulically operated
barge coring system acquires marine sediment cores up to two feet long in shallow water. The
Gregory sampler uses compressed nitrogen to push the sampling tube into the sediments. Shelby
tubes will be used for sampling and will be made of stainless steel. Tubes are 2.0 ft. long with 3-
inch-outside diameters and were selected based on the type of sediments expected at the project
site. The thin wall of the Shelby tube is suited for soft silts and sands, since they can be pushed
or driven into the material with limited disturbance. Thicker-walled samplers used in denser
soils increase the lateral displacement of the material in the sampling area; sample recovery may
be reduced and inflow of the material into the casing (heaving) may be increased. Heaving will
be controlled by maintaining positive pressure in the drill head.
Casing will be installed from the deck surface to the mud line. The first sample will be collected
from zero to two feet of depth. The casing will then be advanced to the bottom of the sample
depth and the next two-foot sample will be taken. These two subsamples will be labelled "Al"
and "A2" on the boring logs. The subsamples will be composited in the GeoMetrics lab and
labeled "S" (for single-station, single-stratum), as stated previously for surface samples.
This method of sampling, retrieval and casing advancement at two foot intervals will be utilized
until the total sample depth (-51.4 feet) is reached. The recovered subsurface core-segments will
be labeled in alphabetical order starting with "B". There will be two cores for each letter, except
in those cases where the deepest core is two feet long or less. Laboratory compositing will
follow the scheme presented in Table II. Compositing will be performed in GeoMetrics' Tacoma
facility.
For the three diver-collected surface cores beneath the carrier Bon Homme Richard, (Nos. 13, 14
and 15), a four foot long sediment sampling tube assembly will be hand-inserted by the divers.
4.6 Sample Collection and Handling Procedures. All sampling tubes and cutter heads will be
thoroughly cleaned prior to use according to the following procedure:
•	Hot Water Rinse
•	Wash with brush and Alconox soap
•	Double Rinse with distilled water
•	Rinse with nitric acid
•	Rinse with deionized water
•	Rinse with methanol
24

-------
After cleaning, all core tubes will be foil wrapped and capped to limit the risk of contamination.
Caps will only be removed as the tubes are loaded onto the sampling device. Once the cap has
been removed, a final wash as defined above will be performed at the cutter head just prior to
deployment. For the diver-collected surface cores, the protective cutter head cap and wrapper
will be removed underwater upon inserting the core tube. Sufficient extra sampling tubes will be
available on-site to allow for uninterrupted operations should a sampling tube become
contaminated. The rule of "potential for contaminants" will be used such that any sampling tube
suspected of contamination will be rejected and recycled on shore for use later in the program.
As samples are taken, logs and field notes of all core samples will be maintained and correlated
to the sampling location map. Included in this log will be the following:
•	Elevation of each boring station sampled as measured from mean lower low water (MLLW
NAD83). This will be accomplished using a lead line to determine depth at the sampling
location referenced to an on-site tide gage set to MLLW.
•	Date and time of collection of each sediment bore sample.
•	Names of field supervisor and person(s) collecting and logging in the sample.
•	Weather conditions.
•	The sample station number as derived from Table I and Figures 4 and 5, and individual
designation numbers assigned for each individual core section.
•	Length and depth intervals of each core section and recovery for each sediment sample as
measured from MLLW.
•	Qualitative notation of apparent resistance of sediment column to coring.
•	Any deviation from the approved sampling plan.
During deployment and retrieval of the coring device, care will be taken to ensure that the cutter
head or end of the core tube does not come into contact with the vessel. Once on deck, the cutter
head will be inspected and a physical description of the material at the mouth of the core will be
entered into the core log. The cutter head will be removed and a cap will be placed over the end
of the tube and secured firmly in place with duct tape. The core will then be removed from the
sampler and the other end of the core will be capped and taped. A label identifying the core will
be securely attached to the outside of the core and wrapped with transparent tape to prevent loss
or damage of the label. The core sections will be stored on their sides on Blue Ice in coolers.
Three 12-cubic-foot coolers will be on board, with enough capacity to handle 40 2-foot core
sections. The cores will be sealed tightly enough to prevent leakage.
25

-------
4.7 Sample Transport and Chain-of-Custodv Procedures. At the end of each day the cores
will be transferred to GeoMetrics compositing facility, Chain-of-custody procedures will
commence onboard the sampling barge and will track delivery of each of the cores to the
GeoMetrics laboratory. Specific procedures are as follows:
•	Samples will be packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations as specified in 49 CFR 173.6 and 49 CFR 173.24.
•	The coolers will be clearly labeled with sufficient information (name of project, time and date
container was sealed, person sealing the cooler and GeoMetrics' office name and address) to
enable positive identification.
•	A sealed envelope containing chain-of-custody forms will be enclosed in a plastic bag and
taped to the inside lid of the cooler.
•	Signed and dated chain-of-custody seals will be placed on all coolers prior to shipping.
Upon transfer of sample possession to the compositing laboratory, the chain-of-custody form will
be signed by the persons transferring custody of the coolers. Upon receipt of samples at the
laboratory, the shipping container seal will be broken and the condition of the samples will be
recorded by the receiver. Chain-of-custody forms will be used to track the compositing of
individual core samples.
4.8 Sample Compositing and Subsampling.
4.8.1	Decontamination. Prior to each day's use, sediment compositing equipment in the soils
laboratory (including stainless steel mixing bowls, extrusion tray, sampling spoons and core
splitter) will be scrubbed with sponges and/or nylon scrubbers in a solution of laboratory grade
non-phosphate based soap and potable water. Following initial scrubbing, all soap and dirt will
be removed by successive rinses of distilled water, rinsed with nitric acid, deionized water and
methanol. Volatiles sampling utensils will not receive the nitric acid or methanol rinse.
All hand work (using the core extrusion dowel and core splitter, and stainless steel spoons for
extracting the sample from the split cores, mixing the samples and filling sample containers) will
be conducted with disposable latex gloves which will be rinsed with distilled water before and
after handling each individual sample, as appropriate, to prevent sample contamination. Gloves
will be disposed of between composites to prevent cross contamination between the DMMUs.
4.8.2	Extrusion. For each individual laboratory sample, the core sections comprising that
sample will have their sealed caps removed one-by-one for extrusion. The sediment from each
sample tube will be extruded onto a stainless steel tray using a foil-covered wooden dowel. The
sample will be disturbed as little as possible when extruding. The foil covering on the dowel will
be replaced between composites. Upon extrusion, the core will be split with a decontaminated
stainless steel wire core splitter.
26

-------
4.8.3 Volatiles and Sulfides Subsampling. Volatile and sulfides subsamples will be removed
immediately upon extrusion and splitting, and prior to compositing (volatiles and sulfides could
be lost while compositing), from one randomly chosen core representing each composite. For
example, for a composite consisting of 6 core samples, one of the 6 would be chosen (using a
random numbers table) for volatiles and sulfides subsampling prior to any other processing.
Volatiles and sulfides subsamples will be taken simultaneously from the representative sampling
core section by two laboratory staff members. Subsamples will be taken along the entire length
of the representative core section, from sediment which has not had contact with the core lining.
(Samples will not be taken from "Z" cores as these are to be archived for possible analysis at
some later time, at which time volatiles and sulfides would not be required to be analyzed.)
Two separate 4-ounce containers will be completely filled with sample sediment for volatiles.
No headspace will be allowed to remain in either container. Two samples are collected to ensure
that an acceptable sample with no headspace is submitted to the laboratory for analysis. The
containers, screw caps, and cap septa (silicone vapor barriers) will be washed with detergent,
rinsed once with tap water, rinsed at least twice with distilled water, and dried at >105 C. A
solvent rinse will not be used because it may interfere with the analysis.
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 will be filled to overflowing so that a convex
meniscus forms at the top. "Once sealed, the bottle will be inverted to verify the seal by
demonstrating-the absence of air bubbles. If there is little or no water in the sediment, jars will
be filled as tightly as possible, eliminating obvious air pockets. With the cap liner's PTFE side
down, the cap will be carefully placed on the opening of the vial, displacing any excess material.
For sulfides sampling, 8 mis of 2N zinc acetate will be placed in a 4-ounce sampling jar. The
sulfides sample (approximately 50 g) will be placed in the jar, covered, and shaken vigorously to
completely expose the sediment to the zinc acetate.
The volatiles and sulfides sampling jars will 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 will indicate that zinc acetate has been added as a preservative.
Table III contains those cores, randomly selected, which will be used to collect representative
sediment for volatiles and sulfides sampling.
27

-------
RANDOM CORES FOR VOLATILES
AND SULFIDES SUBSAMPLING
DMMU AND RANDOM CORE
IDENTIFICATION
DMMU
RANDOM CORE
SECTION
SI
1A1
S2
2A1
S3
3A2
S4
4A1
S5
5A2
S6
6A2
S7
7A1
S8
8A2
S9
9A2
S10
10A2
Sll
11A1
S12
12A2
S13
13A1
S14
14A1 •
S15
15A2
S16
16A1
S17
17A1
CI
19A1
C2
20 A1
C3
23 A1
C4
2C1
C5
3B2
C6
7D1
CI
9B1
C8
12C1
C9
16B2
CIO
20B2
Cll
23B1
28

-------
4.8.4 Core Logging. After volatiles and sulfides subsampling, each discrete core section will
then be color photographed. A sediment description of each core sample will be recorded on the
core log for the following parameters as appropriate and present:
•	Sample recovery
•	Physical soil description in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (includes
soil type, density/consistency of soil, color)
•	Odor (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, petroleum)
•	Visual stratifications and lenses
•	Vegetation
•	Debris
•	Biological Activity (e.g., detritus, shells, tubes, bioturbation, live or dead organisms)
•	Presence of oil sheen
•	Any other distinguishing characteristics or features
4.8.5 Compositing and Other Subsampling. Samples will then be composited by GeoMetrics
in accordance with the compositing plan shown in Table II and PSDDA protocols. For
subsurface composite samples, equal volumes of sediment will be removed from each core
section comprising a composite. Sediments representing each composite sample will be placed
in a stainless steel bowl and mixed using stainless steel mixing spoons. The composited
sediment in the stainless steel bowl will be mixed until homogenous and will continue to be
stirred while individual samples are taken of the homogenate. This will ensure that the mixture
remains homogenous and that settling of coarse-grained sediments does not occur.
At least six liters of homogenized sample will be prepared to provide adequate volume for
physical, chemical and biological laboratory analyses. Bioassays require approximately 4 liters
while chemical testing requires approximately 1 liter of sediment. Both chemistry and bioassay
samples will be taken from the same homogenate. Portions of each composite sample will be
placed in appropriate containers obtained from the chemical and biological laboratories. See
Table IV for container and sample size information. For "Z" cores, a 250 ml glass jar will be
filled and frozen for possible future analysis.
Approximately 19 additional liters of sediment would be required for bioaccumulation testing.
This additional volume will not be collected at this time. If a BT is exceeded, and the Navy-
decides to pursue biological testing, additional sediment will be collected prior to
29

-------
bioaccumulation testing. The Navy balanced the costs involved with collecting large volumes of
additional sediments for each DMMU immediately, versus the costs of a resampling effort, and
decided on the latter strategy.
30

-------
TABLE IV:
SAMPLE STORAGE CRITERIA
Sample Type
Holding Time
Sample
Size3
Temperature'
Container
Archive**
Particle Size
6 Months
100-200g
(150 ml)
4°C
1-liter
Glass
(combined)

Total Solids
14 Days
125g
(100 ml)
4°C

X
Total Volatile
Solids
14 Days
125 g
(100 ml)
4°C


Total Organic
Carbon
14 Days
125 g
(100 ml)
4°C


Ammonia
. 7 Days
25 g
(20 ml)
4°C


Metals (except
Mercury)
6 Months
50 g
(40 ml)
4°C


Semivolatiles,
Pesticides
and PCBs
14 Days until
extraction •
1 Year until
extraction
40 Days after
extraction
150 g
(120 ml)
4°C
-18°C
' 4°C


Total Sulfides
7 Days
50 g
(40 ml)
4°Cd
125 ml
Plastic

Mercury
28 Days
5 g
' (4 ml)
-18°C
125 ml
Glass

Volatile Organics
14 Days
100 g
(2-40 ml
Jars)
4°C
2-40 ml
Glass

Bioassay
8 Weeks
4 L
4°C
6-1 liter
Glass

Bioaccumulation
8 Weeks
19e
4°C
8-1 liter
Glass

a.	Recommended minimum field sample sizes for one laboratory analysis. Actual volumes to be collected have been
increased to provide a margin of error and allow for retests.
b.	For every DMMU, a 250 ml container is filled and frozen to run any or all of the analyses indicated.
c.	During transport to the lab, samples will be stored on blue ice. The mercury and archived samples will be frozen
immediately upon receipt at the lab.
d.	The sulfides sample will be preserved with 5 ml of 2 Normal zinc acetate per 30 g of sediment.
31

-------
e. Depends on which two species are used. Macotna test requires about 8 L/treatment, Nereis test requires about 10
L/treatment, and Arenicola test requires about 1 L/treatment.
32

-------
After placement, each sample will have chain-of-custody labels attached and will be stored at
approximately 4°C until withdrawn for analysis. Each sample reserved for bioassays will be
stored at 4°C in a nitrogen atmosphere, i.e., nitrogen gas in the container headspace, for up to 56
days pending inititation of any required biological testing. Each sample container will 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.
4.9 Sample Transport and Chain-of-Custodv Procedures. All containerized sediment
samples will be transported to the analytical laboratory after compositing is completed. Specific
sample shipping procedures will be as follows:
•	Each cooler or container containing the sediment samples for analysis will be delivered to the
laboratory within 24 hours of being sealed.
•	Samples will be packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations as specified in 49 CFR 173.6 and 49 CFR 173.24.
•	Individual sample containers will be packed to prevent breakage and transported in a sealed
ice chest or other suitable container.
•	The shipping containers will 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.
•	Glass jars will be separated in the shipping container by shock absorbent material (e.g.,
bubble wrap) to prevent breakage.
•	Ice will be placed in separate plastic bags and sealed.
•	A sealed envelope containing chain-of-custody forms will be enclosed in a plastic bag and
taped to the inside lid of the cooler.
•	Signed and dated chain-of-custody seals will be placed on all coolers prior to shipping.
Upon transfer of sample possession to the analytical laboratory, the chain-of-custody form will
be signed by the persons transferring custody of the sample container. Upon receipt of samples
at the laboratory, the shipping container seal will be broken and the condition of the samples will
be recorded by the receiver. Chain-of-custody forms will be used internally in the lab to track
sample handling and final disposition.
33

-------
5.0 LABORATORY PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
5.1	Laboratory Analyses Protocols. Laboratory testing procedures will be conducted in
accordance with the PSDDA Evaluation Procedures Technical Appendix, June 1988; the
PSDDA Phase II Management Plan Report, September 1989; and with the PSEP Recommended
Protocols. Several details of these procedures are discussed below.
5.1.1	Chain-of-custody. A chain-of-custody record for each set of samples will be maintained
throughout all sampling activities and will accompany samples and shipment to the laboratory.
Detailed information on chain-of-custody is in Section 4.9.
5.1.2	Limits of Detection. The surface and subsurface composite samples identified in Section
4.2	and Tables HA and IIB will be analyzed for all the parameters listed in Appendix D and for
grain size distribution. The preparation procedures, test methods, method detection limits to be
achieved by the analytical laboratory, and PSDDA screening levels are also identified in
Appendix D. Detection limits of all chemicals of concern must be below PSDDA screening
levels. Failure to achieve this may result in a requirement to reanalyze or perform bioassays.
The testing laboratory will be specifically cautioned by the GeoMetrics sampling and analysis
director to make certain that it complies with the PSDDA detection limit requirements. All
reasonable means, including additional cleanup steps and method modifications, will be used to
bring all limits-of-detection below PSDDA SLs. In addition, an aliquot (8 oz) of each sediment
sample for analysis will be archived and preserved at -38 C for additional analysis if necessary.
The following scenarios are possible and will be handled appropriately:
1.	One or more chemicals-of-concern (COC) have limits of detection exceeding screening levels
while all other COCs are quantitated or have limits of detection at or below the screening
levels: the requirement to conduct biological testing would be triggered solely by limits of
detection. In this case the chemical testing subcontractor will do everything possible to bring
limits of detection down to or below the screening levels, including additional cleanup steps,
re-extraction, etc. This is the only way to prevent unnecessary biological testing. If problems
or questions arise, the chemical testing subcontractor will be directed to contact the Dredged
Material Management Office.
2.	One or more COCs have limits of detection exceeding screening levels for a lab sample, but
below respective bioaccumulation triggers (BT) and maximum levels (ML), and other COCs
have quantitated concentrations above screening levels: The need to do bioassays is based on
the detected exceedances of SLs and the limits of detection above SL become irrelevant. No
further action is necessary.
3.	One or more COCs have limits of detection exceeding SL and exceeding BT or ML, and
other COCs have quantitated concentrations above screening levels: the need to do bioassays
is based on the detected exceedances of SLs but all other limits of detection must be brought
below BTs and MLs to avoid the requirement to do bioaccumulation testing or special
34

-------
biological testing. As in case i) everything possible will be done to lower the limits of
detection.
4. One COC is quantitated at a level which exceeds ML by more than 100%, or more than one
COC concentration exceeds ML: there is reason to believe that the test sediment is unsuited
for open-water disposal without additional chronic sublethal testing data. In the absence of
chronic sublethal data, problems with limits of detection for other COCs are irrelevant. No
further action is necessary.
In all cases, to avoid potential problems and leave open the option for retesting, sediments or
extracts will be kept under proper storage conditions until the chemistry data is deemed
acceptable by the PSDDA agencies.
5.1.3	Sediment Conventionals. All conventional parameters will be analyzed. Particle grain
size distribution for each composite sample will be determined in accordance with ASTM D 422
(modified). Wet sieve analysis will be used for the sieve sizes U.S. No. 4, 10, 20,40, 60,140,
200 and 230. Hydrogen peroxide will not be used in preparations for grain-size analysis.
(Hydrogen peroxide breaks down organic aggregates and its use may provide an overestimation
of the percent fines found in undisturbed sediment. Incorrect grain size matches could result
when reference sediments are collected.) Hydrometer analysis will used for particle sizes finer
than the 230 mesh. 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.
5.1.4	Holding Times. The tiered testing option will be implemented for biological testing (see
Section 6, Biological Testing). To the maximum extent practicable all chemical results will be
provided within 28 days of sampling to allow a timely decision for tiered biological testing.
Sediment samples reserved for potential bioassays will be stored under chain-of-custody at
GeoMetrics's laboratory.
All samples for physical, chemical and biological testing will be maintained at the testing
laboratory at the following temperatures and analyzed prior to the expiration times specified in
Table IV.
5.1.5	Quality Assurance/Quality Control. The chemistry QA/QC procedures found in Table V
will be followed.
5.2 Laboratory Written Report. A written report will be prepared by the analytical laboratory
documenting all the activities associated with sample analyses. As a minimum, the following
will be included in the report:
*	Results of the laboratory analyses and QA/QC results.
•	All protocols used during analyses.
35

-------
•	Chain of custody procedures, including explanation of any deviation from those identified
herein.
•	Any protocol deviations from the approved sampling plan.
•	Location and availability of data.
•	QA2 data required by Ecology for the SEDQUAL database.
As appropriate, this sampling plan may be referenced in describing protocols.
36

-------
TABLE V;
MINIMUM LABORATORY QA/QC
ANALYSIS TYPE
METHOD
BLANKS4
DUPLI-
CATES4
CRM
MATRIX
SPIKE
SURRO-
GATES
Volatile Organics2,3
X
X7

X
X
Semivolatiles2,3
X
X7
X6
X
X
Pesticides/PCBs2,3
X
X7
X6
X
X
Metals
X
X
X
X

Ammonia
X
X



Total Sulfides
X
X



Total Organic Carbon
X
X
X7


Total Solids

X



Total Volatile Solids

X



Particle Size

X



1.	Surrogate spikes required for every sample, including matrix spiked samples, blanks and reference materials
2.	Initial calibration required before any samples are analyzed, after each major disruption of equipment, and when
ongoing calibration fails to meet criteria.
3.	Ongoing calibration required at the beginning of each work shift, every 10-12 samples or every 12 hours
(whichever is more frequent), and at the end of each shift
4.	Frequency of Analysis (FOA) = one per extraction batch; batches limited to 20 samples
5.	Certified Reference Material
6.	Sequim Bay Reference (one replicate)
7.	Matrix spike duplicate will be run
37

-------
6.0	BIOLOGICAL TESTING
6.1	Bioassay Laboratory Protocols. The tiered testing approach will be used. Biological testing
will be undertaken on any composite sample which has one or more chemicals of concern above
the PSDDA screening level (SL) but below the PSDDA maximum level (ML), although a sample
with a single ML exceedance which is less than or equal to two times the ML still qualifies for
biological testing. If any COC exceeds a bioaccumulation trigger (BT), a decision will be made
as to whether or not to pursue biological testing, which would include the standard suite of
PSDDA bioassays plus bioaccumulation testing with Macoma. To the maximum extent
practicable, chemical results will be provided for bioassay decisions within 28 days of first
sample collection. The remaining four week (28 day) period will allow time for bioassay
preparation as well as time for retests if necessary.
The DMMO project manager will be kept informed of analytical progress to support bioassay
decisions. His active participation and judgement are considered vital to final decisions.
Bioassay testing requires that test sediments be matched and run with an appropriate PSDDA-
approved reference sediment to factor out sediment grain-size effects on bioassay organisms.
The approach to selecting reference sediment samples is outlined below:
•	Highest priority by ChemTest will be the sieve analysis portion of grain size determination to
identify the proportions of fines (hydrometer analysis for clay size distribution will be
conducted later). These early results are expected to support selection of the reference
sediment(s).
•	Ammonia and sulfides analysis will also be expedited to provide a basis to evaluate the need
for aeration in the sediment larval test.
•	Sample collection is scheduled to be completed within about 10 days. Regardless, on or
before about day 15 all available grain size information will be collated and reviewed by
GeoMetrics and BioTesting. Based on this analysis a recommendation on appropriate
reference sediment will be made to the DMMO project manager. The DMMO will
coordinate the reference sediment selection with the other PSDDA agencies.
•	BioTesting will collect the identified reference sediments as soon as possible. The guidance
received by DMMO will assist BioTesting in locating a suitably matched reference sediment.
Wet-sieving in the field, however, is essential in finding an adequate match. The location of
the reference sediment sampling location will be recorded to the nearest 0.1 second.
All sediment samples for potential bioassays will be stored at 4°C, pending completion of
chemical analyses and initiation of any required biological testing. All bioassay analyses,
including retests, will commence within 56 days after collection of the first core section in the
sediment composite to be analyzed. Chain-of-custody procedures will be maintained by the
laboratory throughout biological testing.
38

-------
Bioassay testing will be pre-planned to initiate appropriate testing as soon as possible after the
first chemical results become available and the decision is made to conduct bioassays. This
includes obtaining test organisms and control and reference sediments in a timely manner. This
approach will support the opportunity for any second-round (additional) biological testing within
the allowable 56-day holding period if such need arises. As initial chemistry data becomes
available, the US Navy project manager and the bioassay laboratory representative will maintain
close coordination with the Corps of Engineers DMMO to expedite biological testing decisions.
The acute toxicity and chronic sublethal bioassays prescribed by PSDDA (amphipod, sediment
larval, Neanthes growth) will be conducted on each sample identified for biological testing. All
biological testing will be in strict compliance with Recommended Protocols for Conducting
Laboratory Bioassays on Puget Sound Sediments (for USEPA Region 1Q\ 1995, with
appropriate modifications as specified by PSDDA in the MPR-Phase II, public workshops and
the sediment management annual review process. General biological testing procedures and
specific procedures for each sediment bioassay are summarized below:
!
39

-------
6.2 General Biological Testing Procedures.
6.2.1	Negative Controls. Negative control sediments are used in the amphipod and Neanthes
bioassays to check laboratory performance. Negative control sediments are clean sediments in
which the test organism normally lives and which are expected to produce low mortality.
Control sediments will be collected from West Beach of Whidbey Island for both the amphipod
and Neanthes bioassays.
The sediment larval test utilizes a negative seawater control rather than a control sediment. The
seawater control will be collected from approximately 20 meters of water off West Beach.
The amphipod, sediment larval and Neanthes tests all have performance standards for negative
controls, which are identified in Section 6.3.
6.2.2	Reference Sediment. PSDDA prescribes the use of bioassay reference sediments for test
comparison and interpretations which closely match the grain size characteristics of the dredged
materials test sediments. The reference sediment is used to block for physical effects of the test
sediment.
All bioassays have performance standards for reference sediments (see Section 6.3). Failure to
meet these standards may result in the requirement to retest.
All reference sediments will be analyzed for total solids, total volatile solids, total organic
carbon, bulk ammonia, bulk sulfides and grain-size.
6.2.3	Replication. Five laboratory replicates of test sediments, reference sediments and negative
controls will be run for each bioassay.
6.2.4	Positive Controls. A positive control will be run for each bioassay. Positive controls are
chemicals known to be toxic to the test organism and which provide an indication of the
sensitivity of the particular organisms used in a bioassay. Cadmium chloride will be used for the
amphipod, sediment larval and Neanthes bioassays.
6.2.5	Water Quality Monitoring. Water quality monitoring will be conducted for the
amphipod, sediment larval and Neanthes bioassays. This consists of daily measurements of
salinity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen for the amphipod and sediment larval tests.
These measurements will be made every three days for the Neanthes bioassay. Ammonia and
sulfides will be determined at test initiation and termination for all three tests. Monitoring will
be conducted for all test and reference sediments and negative controls (including seawater
controls). Parameter measurements must be within the limits specified for each bioassay.
Measurements for each treatment will be made on a separate chemistry beaker set up to be
identical to the other replicates within the treatment group, including the addition of test
organisms.
40

-------
6.3 Bioassav-specific Procedures,
6.3.1	Amphipod Bioassav. This test involves exposing the amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius to
test sediment for ten (10) days and counting the surviving animals at the end of the exposure
period. Daily emergence data and the number of amphipods failing to rebury at the end of the
test will be recorded as well. The control sediment has a performance standard of 10 percent
mortality. The reference sediment has a performance standard of 20 percent mortality greater
than control.
6.3.2	Sediment Larval Bioassay. This test monitors larval development of a suitable
echinoderm species (either Stronglyocentrotus purpuratus or Dendraster excentricus) in the
presence of test sediment. The test is run until the appropriate stage of development is achieved
in a sacrificial seawater control (PSDDA MPR-Phase II, pp. 5-20). At the end of the test, larvae
from each test sediment exposure are examined to quantify abnormality and mortality.
The seawater control has a performance standard of 30 percent combined mortality and
abnormality. The reference sediment has a performance standard of 35 percent combined
mortality and abnormality normalized to seawater control.
Initial counts will be made for a minimum of five 10-ml aliquots. Final counts for seawater
control, reference sediment and test sediment will be made on 10-ml aliquots.
The sediment larval bioassay has a variable endpoint (not necessarily 48 hours) which is
determined by the developmental stage of organisms in a sacrificial seawater control (PSDDA
MPR Phase II, page 5-20).
Ammonia and sulfides toxicity may interfere with test results for this bioassay. Aeration will be
conducted throughout the test to minimize these effects.
6.3.3	Neanthes Growth Test. This test utilizes the polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata, in a
20-day growth test. The growth rate of organisms exposed to test sediments is compared to the
growth rate of organisms exposed to a reference sediment. Neanthes will be obtained from Dr.
Don Reish in Long Beach, California. Neanthes worms from Don Reish's lab may take 2 or 3
weeks to culture and deliver and will be ordered regardless of the outcome of the chemical
characterization.
The control sediment has a performance standard of 10 percent mortality. The reference
sediment has a performance standard of 80 percent of the control growth rate. The control
growth guideline is 0.72 mg/ind/day.
6.4 Interpretation. Test interpretations consist of endpoint comparisons to controls and
reference on an absolute percentage basis as well as statistical comparison to reference. Test
interpretation will follow the guidelines established in the PSDDA Management Plan Report-
Phase II (page 5-17) for the amphipod, and sediment larval bioassays, and the minutes of the
41

-------
dredging year 1991 annual review meeting for the Neanthes bioassay, as modified by subsequent
annual review proceedings and workshops.
6.5 Bioassay Retest. Any bioassay retests must be fully coordinated with, and approved by, the
PSDDA agencies. The DMMO should be contacted to handle this coordination.
6.6 Laboratory Written Report. A written report will be prepared by the biological laboratory
documenting all the activities associated with sample analyses. As a minimum, the following
will be included in the report:
•	Results of the laboratory bioassay analyses and QA/QC results, reported both in hard copy
and in the Corps' DAIS data format. Raw data will be legible or typed. Illegible data may
result in the need for a retest if the PSDDA agencies cannot interpret the data as a result. See
Appendix E for the complete set of submittals.
•	All protocols used during analyses, including explanation of any deviation from the
Recommended Protocols and the approved sampling plan.
•	Chain of custody procedures, including explanation of any deviation from the identified
protocols.
•	Location and availability of data, laboratory notebooks and chain-of-custody forms.
As appropriate, this sampling plan may be referenced in describing protocols.
42

-------
7.0 REPORTING
7.1	OA Report. The project quality assurance representative will prepare a quality assurance
report based upon activities involved with the field sampling and review of the laboratory
analytical data. The laboratory QA/QC reports will be incorporated by reference. This report
will identify any field and laboratory activities that deviated from the approved sampling plan
and the referenced protocols and will make a statement regarding the overall validity of the data
collected. The QA/QC report will be incorporated into the Final Report.
7.2	Final Report. A written report shall be prepared by GeoMetrics documenting all activities
associated with collection, compositing, transportation of samples, and chemical and biological
analysis of samples. The chemical and biological reports will be included as appendices. As a
minimum, the following will be included in the Final Report:
•	Type of sampling equipment used.
' • Protocols used during sampling and testing and an explanation of any deviations from the
sampling plan protocols.
•	Descriptions of each sample accompanied by photographs adequate to provide a visual
representation of the sediments.
•	Methods used to locate the sampling positions within an accuracy of ± 2m.
•	Locations where the sediment samples were collected. Locations will be reported in latitude
and longitude to the nearest tenth of a second.
•	A plan view of the project showing the actual sampling location.
•	Chain-of-custody procedures used, and explanation of any deviations from the sampling plan
procedures.
•	Description of sampling and compositing procedures.
•	Final QA report for Section 7.1 above.
•	Data results. In addition, all field and laboratory analyses results and associated QA data will
be submitted on floppy diskettes using the Corps of Engineers' Dredged Analysis Information
System format.
•	QA2 data required by the Department of Ecology for data validation prior to entering data in
their Sediment Quality database. These data are listed in Appendix D.
43

-------
• Sampling and analysis cost data will be submitted upon project completion on forms
provided by the Dredged Material Management Office.
44

-------
APPENDIX A
Data Summary
PILOT SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS
PIER D, AUGUST, 1989
(From GeoMetrics, Inc. Report, 9/26/89)
45

-------
APPENDIX B
SECTION 10/404 DRAFT PERMIT APPLICATION
PIER D
46

-------
PLACE DEPT. OF ARMY LETTER HERE
PLACE PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD LETTER HERE
PLACE APPLICATION FOR DEPT OF ARMY PERMIT HERE
PLACE APPLICATION FOR DEPT OF ARMY PERMIT - Page 2
PLACE VICINITY MAP HERE
PLACE SECTION A-A HERE
PLACE SECTION B-B HERE
PLACE SECTION C-C HERE
47

-------
APPENDIX C
PSDDA PARAMETERS AND METHODS
48

-------
APPENDIX C
PSDDA PARAMETERS
(Testing Parameter, Preparation Method, Analytical Method,
Sediment Method Detection Limit (MDL), PSDDA Screening Levels (SL),
Maximum Levels (ML) and Bioaccumulation Levels (BT))
PARAMETER
PREP
METHOD
(recommended)
ANALYSIS
METHOD
(recommended)
SEDIMENT
MDL(l)
SL
PSDDA(l)
BT
ML
CONVENTIONALE



Total Solids (%)
...
Pf-17 (2)
0.1
—
...
...
Total Volatile Solids(%)
...
Pg,20 (2)
0.1
...
...
...
Total Organic Carbon (%)
...
Pg.23 (2, 3)
0.1
—
...
—
Total Sulfides (mg/kg)
...
Pg.32 (2)
1
—
...
...
Ammonia (mg/kg)
—
Plumb 1981
(4)
1
—
—
—
Grain Size

Modified
ASTM with
Hydrometer




METALS (ppm):



Antimony
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
2.5
150
150
200
Arsenic
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
2.5
57
507.1
700
Cadmium
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
0.3
5.1
—
14
Chromium
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
0.3
—
...
...
Copper
APNDX D (5)
ICP (7)
15.0
390
...
1,300
Lead
APNDX D (5)
ICP (7)
0.5
450
...
1,200
Mercury
MER (8)
7471 (8)
0.02
0.41
1.5
2.3
Nickel
APNDX D (5)
ICP (7)
2.5
140
370
370
Silver
APNDX D (5)
GFAA (6)
0.2
6.1
6.1
8.4
Zinc
APNDX D (5)
ICP (7)
15.0
410
...
3,800
ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS (ug/L):



Tributyltin (interstitial water)
NMFS
Krone
0.01
...
0.15
...
ORGANICS (ppb):



LPAH



Naphthalene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
2,100
...
2,400
Acenaphthylene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
560
...
1,300
Acenaphthene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
500
...
2,000
Fluorene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
540
...
3,600
Phenanthrene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
1,500
...
21,000
49

-------
Anthracene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
960
...
13,000
2-Methylnaphthalene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
670
...
1,900
Total LP AH



5,200
...
29,000
HPAH



Fluoranthene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
1,700
4,600
30,000
Pyrene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
2,600
—
16,000
Benzo(a)anthracene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
1,300
—
5,100
Chrysene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
1,400
...
21,000
B enzofluoranthenes
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
3,200
—
9,900
Benzo(a)pyrene
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
1,600
3,600
3,600
Indeno( 1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
600
...
4,400
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
230
...
1,900
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
670
...
3,200
Total HPAH



12,000
...
69,000
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS





1,3-Dichlorobenzene
P&T (12)
8240(11)
3.2
170
1,241
...
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
P&T (12)
8240(11)
3.2
110
120
120
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
P&T (12)
8240(11)
3.2
35
37
110
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
6
31
—
64
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
3550 (9)
8270(10)
12
22
168
. 230
PHTHALATES



Dimethyl phthalate
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
1,400
1,400
...
Diethyl phthalate
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
1,200
...
...
Di-n-butyl phthalate
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
5,100
10,220
...
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
970
...
...
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
8,300
13,870
...
Di-n-octyl phthalate
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
6,200
...
...
PHENOLS



Phenol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
420
876
1,200
2 Methylphenol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
6
63
...
77
4 Methylphenol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
670
...
3,600
2,4-Dimethylphenol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
6
29
...
210
Pentachlorophenol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
61
400
504
690
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTABLES
'




Benzyl alcohol
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
6
57
—
870
Benzoic acid
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
100
650
—
760
Dibenzofuran
3550 (9)
8270(10)
20
540
—
1,700
Hexachloroethane
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
1,400
10,220
14,000
Hexachlorobutadiene
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
20
29
212
270
50

-------
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
3550 (9)
8270 (10)
12
28
130
130
VOLATILE ORGANICS



Trichloroethene
P&T (12)
8240(11)
3.2
160
1,168
1,600
Tetrachloroethene
P&T (12)
8240(11)
3.2
57
102
210
Ethylbenzene
P&T (12)
8240(11)
3.2
10
27
50
Total Xylene
P&T (12)
8240(11)
3.2
40
...
160
PESTICIDES



Total DDT
...
—
—
6.9
50
69
p,p'-DDE
3540 (13)
8080 (13)
2.3
...
...
...
p,p'-DDD
3540(13)
8080(13)
3.3
...
...
...
p.p'-DDT
3540(13)
8080(13)
6.7
...
...
...
Aldrin
3540(13)
8080(13)
1.7
10
37
...
Chlordane
3540 (13)
8080(13)
. 1.7
10
37
...
Dieldrin
3540(13)
8080(13)
2.3
10
37
...
Heptachlor
3540(13)
8080(13)
1.7
10
37
...
Lindane
3540 (13)
8080(13)
1.7
10
...
...
Total PCBs
3540 (13)
8080 (13)
67
130
38*
3,100
" Total PCBs BT value in ppm carbon-normalized.
I. Dry Weight Basis,
>. Recommended Protocols for.Measuring Conventional Sediment Variables in Puget Sound, Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1997.
i. Recommended Methods for Measuring TOC in Sediments, Kathryn Biagdon-Cook, Clarification Paper, Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Annual
Review, May, 1993.
I.	Procedures For Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples, Russell H. Plumb, Jr., EPA/Corps of Engineers, May, 1981.
s. Recommended Protocols for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound Water, Sediment and Tissue Samples, Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1997.
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA) Spectrometry - SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA
1986.
'. Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Emission Spectrometry - SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
S. Mercury Digestion and Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption (CVAA) Spectrometry - Method 7471, SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
i. Sonication Extraction of Sample Solids - Method 3550 (Modified), SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods,
EPA 1986. Method is modified to add matrix spikes before the dehydration step rather than after the dehydration step.
10. GCMS Capillary Column - Method 8270, SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
II.	GCMS Analysis - Method 8240, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
12.	Purge and Trap Extraction and GCMS Analysis - Method 8240, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
13.	Soxhlet Extraction and Method 8080, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA 1986.
51

-------
APPENDIX D
QA2 DATA REQUIREMENTS
CHEMICAL VARIABLES
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
The following documentation is needed for organic compounds:
•	A cover letter referencing or describing the procedure used and discussing any analytical
problems
•	Reconstructed ion chromatograms for GC/MS analyses for each sample
•	Mass spectra of detected target compounds (GC/MS) for each sample and associated library
spectra
•	GC/ECD and/or GC/flame ionization detection chromatograms for each sample
•	Raw data quantification reports for each sample
•	A calibration data summary reporting calibration range used [and
decafluorotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP) and bromofluorobenzene (BFB) spectra and
quantification report for GC/MS analyses]
•	Final dilution volumes, sample size, wet-to-dry ratios, and instrument detection limit
•	Analyte concentrations with reporting units identified (to two significant figures unless
otherwise justified)
•	Quantification of all analytes in method blanks (ng/sample)
•	Method blanks associated with each sample
•	Recovery assessments and a replicate sample summary (laboratories should report all
surrogate spike recovery data for each sample; a statement of the range of recoveries should
be included in reports using these data)
•	Data qualification codes and their definitions.
52

-------
METALS
For metals, the data report package for analyses of each sample should include the following:
•	Tabulated results in units as specified for each matrix in the analytical protocols, validated
and signed in original by the laboratory manager
•	Any data qualifications and explanation for any variance from the analytical protocols
•	Results for all of the QA/QC checks initiated by the laboratory
•	Tabulation of instrument and method detection limits.
All contract laboratories are required to submit metals results that are supported by sufficient
backup data and quality assurance results to enable independent QA reviewers to conclusively
determine the quality of the data. The laboratories should be able to supply legible photocopies
of original data sheets with sufficient information to unequivocally identify:
•	Calibration results
•	Calibration and preparation blanks
•	Samples and dilutions
•	Duplicates and spikes
•	Any anomalies in instrument performance or unusual instrumental adjustments.
BIO ASS AYS
Amphipod Mortality Test
The following data should be reported by all laboratories performing this bioassay:
•	Daily water quality measurements during testing (e.g., dissolved oxygen, temperature,
salinity, pH) (plus ammonia & sulfides at test initiation and termination)
•	Daily emergence for each beaker and the 10-day mean and standard deviation for each
treatment
•	10-day survival in each beaker and the mean and standard deviation for each treatment
53

-------
•	Interstitial salinity values of test sediments
•	96-hour LC50 values with reference toxicants.
•	Any problems that may have influenced data quality.
Neanthes Growth Test
The following data should be reported by all laboratories performing this bioassay:
•	Water quality measurements at test initiation and termination and every three days during
testing (e.g., dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, pH) (plus ammonia & sulfides at test
initiation and termination)
•	20-day survival in each beaker and the mean and standard deviation for each treatment.
•	Initial biomass
•	Final biomass (20-day) for test, reference and control treatments.
•	96-hour LC50 values with reference toxicants.
Any problems that may have influenced data quality.
54

-------
Echinoderm Larval Test (Solid Phase)
The following data should be reported by all laboratories performing this bioassay:
•	Daily water quality measurements (e.g., dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, pH) (plus
ammonia + sulfides at test initiation & termination)
•	Individual replicate and mean and standard deviation data for larval survival at test
termination.
•	Individual replicate and mean and standard deviation data for larval abnormalities at test
termination
•	48-hour LC50 and EC50 values with reference toxicants. .
•	Any problems that may have influenced data quality.
i
55

-------
APPENDIX E
PROJECT COST DATA SHEET
56

-------
PROJECT SAMPLING AND TESTING COST SUMMARY (Required fields shaded)
Project Name:

Total Project Volume Tested (cubic yards)

SAMPLING COSTS: (includes: bathymetric survey, SAP development, sample
positioning, project sediment sampling costs, reference/control sediment sampling costs)
$
CHEMICAL TESTING COSTS: (PSDDA or Grays Harbor-Willapa Bay DMMP chemicals of concern)
Number of DMMU analyzed

Conventionals (unit cost)
$
Metals (unit cost)
$
Organics (unit cost)
$
Special Chemicals (if any, specify which chemicals,
e.g., TBT, Dioxin)

$
Total Chemical Testing Costs (includes cumulative chemical testing costs, chemistry report,
QA/QC report including QA2 data)
$
BIOLOGICAL TESTING COSTS:
Number of DMMU analyzed

Amphipod (specify species and unit cost)

$
Sediment Larval (specify species and unit cost)

$
Neanthes Growth (unit cost)
$
Microtox (unit cost)
$
Bioaccumulation test (2 species) (specify
species, unit cost)

$

$
Total Biological Testing Costs (includes total bioassay testing cost, QA/QC costs,
bioaccumulation costs if any)
$
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: (includes any costs not covered such as administrative
overhead, final report Cost)
$
GRAND TOTAL COSTS: (summary of sampling + testing costs + miscellaneous costs)
$
57

-------
APPENDIX F
DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR DAIS
58

-------
DAIS DATA CHECKLIST
Sample Locations and Compositing

Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Seawater
Control
Latitude and Longitude (to nearest 0,1 second)




NAD 1927 or 1983




USGS Benchmark ID




Station name (e.g. Carr Inlet)




Water depth (corrected to MLLW)




Drawing showing sampling locations and ID numbers




Compositing scheme (sampling locations/depths for composites)




Sampling method




Sampling dates




Estimated volume of dredged material represented by each DMMU




Positioning method




Sediment Conventional
Preparation and analysis methods




Sediment conventional data and QA/QC qualifiers




QA qualifier code definitions




Triplicate data for each sediment conventional for each batch




Units (dry weight except total solids)




Method blank data (sulfides, ammonia, TOC)




Method blank units (dry weight)




Analysis dates (sediment conventionals, blanks, TOC CRM)




TOC CRM ED




TOC CRM analysis data




TOC CRM target values




Grain Size Analysis
Fine grain analysis method




Analysis dates




Triplicate for each batch




Grain size data (complete sieve and phi size distribution)




59

-------
Chemicals of Concern Analysis Data

Metals
Semivol.
Pest./
PCBs
Volatiles
Extraction/digestion method




Extraction/digestion dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference material)




Analysis method




data and QA qualifier included for:




test sediments




reference materials including 95% confidence interval (each batch)




method blanks (each batch)




matrix spikes (each batch)




matrix spike added (dry weight basis)




replicates (each batch)




Units (dry weight)




Method blank units (dry weight)




QA/QC qualifier definitions




Surrogate recovery for test sediment, blank, matrix spike, ref. material




Analysis dates (test sediment, blanks, matrix spike, reference material)




Shaded areas indicate required data
60

-------
BIOASSAYS
Amphipod Mortality and Emergence

Each
Batch
Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Species Name




Mortality and Emergence:




Start date




Daily emergence (for 10 days)




Survival at end of test




Number failing to rebury at end of test




Positive Control:




Toxicant used




Toxicant concentrations




Exposure time




LCSO




LC50 method of calculation




Start date




Survival data




Water Quality Measurement Methods:




Dissolved oxygen




Ammonia




Interstitial salinity




Sulfide




Water salinity




Water Quality:




Temperature (day 0 through day 10)




pH (day 0 through day 10)




Dissolved oxygen (day 0 through day 10)




Water salinity (day 0 through day 10)




Sulfide (day 0, day 10)




Ammonia (day 0, day 10)




Interstitial water salinity (day 0)




61

-------
Juvenile Infaunai Mortality

Each
Batch
Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Species Name




Mortality:




Start date




Survival at end of test




Positive Control:




Toxicant used




Toxicant concentrations




Exposure time




LC50




LC50 method of calculation




Start date




Survival data




Water Quality Measurement Methods:




Dissolved oxygen




Ammonia




Interstitial salinity




Sulfide




Water salinity




Water Quality:




Temperature (day 0 through day 10)




pH (day 0 through day 10)




Dissolved oxygen (day 0 through day 10)




Water salinity (day 0 through day 10)




Sulfide (day 0, day 10)




Ammonia (day 0, day 10)




Interstitial water salinity (day 0)




62

-------
Neanthes 20-day Growth Test

Each
Batch
Test
Sediment
Reference
Sediment
Control
Sediment
Starting age (in days post-emergence)




Food type




Quantity (mg/beaker/interval)




Feeding interval (hours)




Biomass and Mortality:




Start date




Initial counts and weights (mg dry weight)




Number of survivors and final weights (mg dry weight)




Positive Control:




Toxicant used




Toxicant concentration




Exposure time




LC50




LC50 method of calculation




Start date




Survival data




Water Quality Measurement Methods




Dissolved oxygen




Ammonia




Interstitial salinity




Sulfide




Water salinity




Water Quality:




Temperature (days 0, 3,6,9,12,15,18,20)




pH (days 0,3,6,9,12,15,18, 20)




Dissolved oxygen (days 0,3,6,9,12, 15,18, 20)




Water salinity (days 0,3,6,9,12, 15, 18,20)




Interstitial salinity (day 0)




Sulfide (initial and final)




Ammonia (initial and final)




i
63

-------
Sediment Larval Mortality and Abnormality

Each
Test
Reference
Seawater

Batch
Sediment
Sediment
Control
Species Name




Bioassay Parameters




Inoculation time (hours)




Exposure time (hours)




Stocking beaker density (#/ml)




Stocking aliquot size (ml)




Aeration (yes/no)




Mortality and Abnormality:




Start date




Initial count (minimum of five 10-ml aliquots)




Final Count:




Aliquot size (ml)




Number normal per aliquot




Number abnormal per aliquot




Water Quality Measurement Methods:




Dissolved oxygen




Ammonia




Sulfide




Water salinity




Water Quality:




Temperature (daily)




pH (daily)




Dissolved oxygen (daily)




Water salinity (daily)




Sulfide (initial and final)




Ammonia (initial and final)




Positive Control:




Toxicant used




Toxicant concentrations




Exposure time




EC50




EC50 method of calculation




Start date
. *: 7



Normal/abnormal counts




64

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
APPENDIX 7-A
SAMPLE
HANDLING PROCEDURES
7A-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
Listed below are details concerning the sample handling procedures outlined in Chapter 7. A11
sample handling procedures should be specified in the sampling and analysis plan.
Decontamination Procedures
It is also recommended that all sampling equipment and utensils, such as spoons, mixing
bowls, extrusion devices, sampling tubes and cutter heads, etc., be made of non-contaminating
materials and be thoroughly cleaned prior to use. The intention is to avoid contaminating the
sediments to be tested, since this could possibly result in dredged material, which would
otherwise be found acceptable for open-water disposal, being found unacceptable. While not
strictly required, an adequate decontamination procedure is highly recommended. The dredging
proponent assumes a higher risk of sample contamination by not following an established
protocol. The following procedure has been used successfully for other dredging projects:
V	Wash with brush and Alconox soap.
V	Double rinse with distilled water.
V	Rinse with nitric acid.
V	Rinse with metal-free water.
V	Rinse with methanol.
While methylene chloride has been used extensively in the past as an organic solvent, and
is recommended by 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 recontamination.
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 DMMU to
prevent cross-contamination. Disposable gloves are typically used and decontaminated or
disposed of between DMMUs.
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 core
section or grab sample should be selected for the volatiles and sulfides sampling. Sediments
which are directly in contact with core liners or the sides of the grab sampler should not be used.
7A-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
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 that 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, rinsed at least twice with distilled water, and
dried at >105/ C. A solvent rinse should not be used because it may interfere with the analysis.
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 mis of 2 Normal zinc acetate per 30-g 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 sub-samples have been taken, logs
and field notes of all samples should be taken and correlated to the sampling location map. The
following 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 coring.
7A-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
The water depth at each sampling station. This depth should then be referenced to mean
lower low water (MLLW NAD 83) 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:
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
onboard the sampling vessel and during transport. The cores should be sealed in such a way as to
prevent leakage and 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 that the mixture remains
homogenous and that 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 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 appropriate containers obtained from the chemical and biological laboratories.
See Table 7-1 for container and sample size information. In high-ranked areas, the sample taken
7A-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
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, and 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 following guidelines:
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
should 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 should track transfer of the composited samples to the analytical
laboratory.
V	Samples should be packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations as specified in 49 CFR 173.6 and 49 CFR 173.24.
V	Individual sample containers should be packed to prevent breakage and
transported in a sealed ice chest or other suitable container.
V	Ice should be placed in separate plastic bags and sealed, or blue ice used.
V	Each cooler or container containing sediment samples for analysis should be
delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours of being sealed.
V	A sealed envelope containing chain-of-custody forms should be enclosed in a
plastic bag and taped to the inside lid of the cooler.
V	Signed and dated chain-of-custody seals should be placed on all coolers prior to
shipping.
7A-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
V	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,
V	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.
V	Chain-of-custody forms should be used internally in the lab to track sample
handling and final disposition.
7A-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Appendix 8A
TESTING, REPORTING, AND
EVALUATION
OF TRIBUTYLTIN DATA
8A-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TESTING, REPORTING, AND EVALUATION OF TRIBUTYLTIN DATA IN PSDDA
AND SMS PROGRAMS
Dr. Teresa Michelsen, Travis C. Shaw, and Stephanie Stirling
INTRODUCTION
Tributyltin (TBT) is a special chemical of concern under the PSDDA program and is classified
as a deleterious substance under the SMS rule. Testing for this chemical in areas where it is
likely to be found (e.g., marinas, ship repair facilities, shipping lanes) may be required under
both programs. In 1988, the PSDDA agencies conducted a study on the presence of TBT in
marinas in Puget Sound, and funded a risk assessment ofTBT (Cardwell, 1989). In 1988, the
PSDDA agencies developed a screening level (SL) and bioaccumulation trigger (BT) for use in
the PSDDA program, based on the best available knowledge of this chemical and its properties.
In the past year, additional information has come to light on TBT, its distribution in Puget
Sound, and its effects on the environment that support a change in the way the agencies approach
evaluation ofTBT in sediments. Most recently, an interagency work group was convened by
EPA to develop a site-specific screening value for the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats
and Harbor Island Superfund sites (see EPA, 1996). This paper discusses some of the issues
raised by this new information and modifications to the PSDDA and SMS programs to address
these issues.
Authority to develop testing programs, interpretation guidelines, and regulatory levels for
deleterious substances (substances that currently do not have standards) under SMS is provided
by WAC 173- 204-110(6) and WAC 173-204-310(3). This technical memorandum was
circulated for public review and comment in conjunction with the 1996 Sediment Management
Annual Review Meeting. Many comments were received and a substantial number of revisions
and additions to this memorandum have been made.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Worldwide information documenting TBT's adverse impact on the aquatic environment is
extensive. In addition to direct mortality, adverse impacts on a wide variety of aquatic
organisms include reduced larval growth, sexual abnormalities, reproductive failure, gross
morphological abnormalities, immune system dysfunction, nervous system disorders, and skin
and eye disorders. TBT has a strong inhibitory effect on the cytochrome P450 system, reducing
the ability of the organism to metabolize and detoxify environmental pollutants, and on ATP
synthesis, reducing the ability of the organism to produce energy. These effects are generalized
8A-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
enough to occur in many organisms (including invertebrates, fish, and mammals). Available
evidence indicates that serious chronic effects resulting in population declines occur at water
concentrations in the parts per trillion (ng/L) to parts per billion (|ig/L) range, depending on the
species (Fent, 1996; EPA, 1991).
The available literature indicates that the toxicity and bioaccumulation of TBT are affected by a
variety of factors, including organic carbon in sediment and water, pH, salinity, clay fraction,
and the presence of inorganic constituents such as iron oxides. TBT partitioning is further
complicated by the fact that it occurs in several forms, including TBT+, TBTC1, and TBTOH,
and may interconvert among these forms with fluctuations in salinity and pH (Fent, 1996; EPA,
1991). Finally, TBT has been released into the environment in a variety of forms, including
leaching directly from vessel hull paints (the most toxic and bioavailable form) and in the form
of paint wastes from sandblasting (which may be less bioavailable but may represent a long-term
source of the contaminant).
Sediment sampling in Puget Sound and elsewhere indicates that sediments in areas with vessel
activity (e.g., marinas, harbors, boatyards, shipyards) are a significant reservoir of TBT
(Parametrix, 1995). Worldwide, TBT-contaminated sediments adversely impact benthic
organisms and contribute to water column concentrations that continue to be toxic to aquatic life
(Fent, 1996). Very high, widespread TBT sediment concentrations have been found in the
waterways of Commencement Bay, Elliott Bay (Harbor Island), and the Salmon Bay/Ship Canal
area. Additional ongoing sources include domestic vessels that are still allowed to use TBT
paints and shipping traffic from countries without TBT regulations.
Efforts to interpret environmental data in Puget Sound have been frustrated by the complexity of
TBT partitioning in the environment and uncertainty over appropriate effects levels, testing
strategies, and interpretive criteria. Recent data provided by NOAA suggest that the bioassay
tests routinely used in the PSDDA and SMS program may not be of long enough duration to
accurately reflect in situ effects due to TBT, and that other approaches may be more appropriate
to the types of toxicity exhibited by this chemical (Meador et al., 1996 in press).
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Analytical Methods
Analytical methods and detection limits for TBT are provided in the 1996 PSEP Organics
Protocol, Appendix A (PSWQA, 1996). The recommended method involves reaction with
8A-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
sodium borohydride, methylene chloride extraction and analysis by GC/MS (Matthias et a I.,
1986). However, this method is somewhat experimental and is not available at most commercial
laboratories. Alternative methods involve methylene chloride extraction, followed by Grignard
derivatization and analyzed by GC/MS (Krone et al, 1989) or GC/FPD (Unger et al., 1986).
Reporting Conventions
TBT data have historically been reported in a number of different ways. For example, in the
literature TBT may be reported as Sn, TBT, TBTC1, or TBTO. For the same environmental
concentration, these reporting conventions result in different numerical values because, each of
these forms has a different molecular weight. This has resulted in some confusion interpreting
the data and in setting standards. It is important that all data be reported in comparable units, and
that any standards or guidance levels also be in those same units. The PSDDA program has used
Sn in the past and the existing SL and BT are based in units of Sn. However, much of the
analytical and research community recommends reporting TBT as the TBT ion (TBT+).
A simple conversion based on the ratio of molecular weights can be used to convert older data
into these units for comparison with newer data:
To convert TBT reported as:	To:	Multiply By
mg Sn/kg	mg TBT/kg	2.44
mg TBTCl/kg	mg TBT/kg	0.89
mg TBTO/kg	mg TBT/kg	0.95
The existing PSDDA SL for sediments (30 jag Sn/kg) corresponds to 73 |ag TBT/kg
TBT and Apparent Effects Threshold Values
The interagency work group followed the traditional approach in establishing regulatory
thresholds for Puget Sound sediments by attempting to establish apparent effects threshold
(AET) values for TBT. This effort was unsuccessful because of the widely varying responses in
the bioassay and benthic data reviewed over a wide range of TBT concentrations (EPA, 1996).
In some cases, despite extremely high TBT concentrations in sediments, no acute toxicity was
exhibited by the standard suite of bioassay organisms. Current research shows that TBT
partitioning is highly complex, and the relationship between concentrations and observed effects
data is much stronger for interstitial water and tissue concentrations. Therefore, the work group
discontinued efforts to develop AET values and instead focused its attention on using effects data
associated with interstitial water and tissue concentrations as regulatory endpoints. However,
8A-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Ecology will evaluate any additional synoptic data that are collected to further explore whether a
reliable AET value can be calculated.
Interstitial Water Concentrations
As part of the TBT work group's efforts, an extensive literature review and compilation of
effects levels in marine waters was developed for use in setting a site-specific screening value for
the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund site (EPA, 1996). The reader is referred
to this report, which received substantial public and technical review, for a detailed presentation
of effects levels in water. TBT water concentrations that result in acute and chronic adverse
effects to a wide range of marine species have been reported in the literature (Fent, 1996; EPA,
1991; EPA, 1996). Chronic effects to aquatic organisms have been reported at concentrations
ranging from 0.002 - 74 jj.gTBT/L, with the majority of species responding below 0.5 |ig TBT/L.
Acute effects have been reported at concentrations ranging from 0.3 - 200 j-ig TBT/L.
The consensus of the TBT work group was that an interstitial water concentration of 0.05 jxg
TBT/L corresponds to a no adverse effects level that would protect most (approximately 95%) of
the Puget Sound species that have been tested. This level is conceptually equivalent to the SQS
under the Sediment Management Standards, and is consistent with the EPA approach to
developing water quality and sediment criteria. For comparison, the EPA proposed draft marine
chronic water quality criterion has been set at 0.01 fag TBT/L (EPA, 1991). A higher adverse
effects level was also evaluated by the TBT work group; however, less consensus was achieved
on an upper or maximum allowable regulatory level. As one possibility, the work group
discussed a value of 0.7 \xg TBT/L. This concentration is lower than most of the acute effects
levels reported in the literature. However, significant chronic effects are likely at this
concentration, particularly to bivalve species present in Puget Sound. On the basis of the work
group discussion and an associated report (EPA, 1996), an interstitial water concentration of 0.7
|ig TBT/L was selected by EPA as the basis for a site-specific sediment trigger level for cleanup
in the Hylebos Waterway (Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund site). This value
is not currently proposed as an upper regulatory level for either the PSDDA or SMS
programs. For comparison, the EPA proposed draft marine acute water quality criterion has
been set at 0.36 (ig TBT/L (EPA, 1991).
Tissue Concentrations
In contrast to toxicity levels based on TBT water concentrations, which range over several orders
of magnitude for various species, recent studies on tissue concentrations in Puget Sound
8A-5

-------
¦*
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
organisms indicate that a much narrower range of tissue concentrations is associated with
adverse effects to these organisms (see citations below). Different species have widely varying
uptake, metabolic, and elimination rates for TBT, in part explaining the widely varying sediment
and water concentrations that yield similar tissue concentrations and associated effects.
This finding provides an opportunity to develop tissue TBT concentrations that are directly
correlated with observed effects in a wide range of ecologically relevant species. Meador et al.
(1993; 1996 in press) have reported acute toxicity (LDsos) for Rhepoxynius abronius,
Eohaustorius washingtonianus and Armandia brevis at concentrations ranging from 34 - 89 mg
TBT/kg body weight (dry weight). Tissue concentrations within or above this range would
represent a severe adverse effect and sediments associated with these levels would exceed the
level at which cleanup would be required, and would also be inappropriate for open-water
disposal.
However, PSDDA and SMS require consideration ofboth acute and chronic effects. Chronic
effects levels for species of concern in Puget Sound can be found in the literature (Salazar and
Salazar, 1992,1995; Moore et al, 1991; Davies et al, 1987,1988; Page and Widdows, 1991;
Widdows and Page, 1993; Thain et al, 1987; Waldock et al., 1992; Waldock and Thain, 1983;
Meador et al, in press; Minchin et al, 1987; Alzieu and Heral; these values typically fall within
a range of 2-12 mg TBT/kg body weight (dry weight), with a median value of about 4,
Direct measurements of TBT in tissues of biota collected from the site and in situ
bioaccumulation studies are considered promising methods for assessing TBT toxicity, and may
be recommended by the agencies to support sediment management decisions. The ranges
discussed above provide a starting point for interpretation of bioaccumulation data from dredging
projects or cleanup sites.
PSDDA Screening Level for TBT
A review of the existing SL was conducted to evaluate its relationship to known effects levels in
water. Butyltins were added to the list of chemicals-of-concern for limited areas in the PSDDA
Management Plan Report - Phase II (PSDDA, 1989). At the time of the listing, an interim SL for
TBT was established at 30 p.g/kg (as Sn). This SL was established using the available
information on TBT contamination in Puget Sound and an equilibrium partitioning model that
estimated interstitial water concentrations of TBT based on TBT sediment concentrations. In
addition, the professional judgment of dredged material decision-makers in other regions of the
country was sought in selecting the interim SL.
8A-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
The interstitial water TBT concentration corresponding to the SL can be calculated using an
equilibrium partitioning approach and a representative partitioning coefficient of 25,000 ( a =
5,500) derived from Meador et al (1996 in press). Assuming a sediment organic carbon content
of 2%, the SL of 30 ng/kg TBT (as Sn) corresponds to an interstitial water concentration of 0.06
pig/L TBT (as Sn) or 0.15 p.g/L TBT (as TBT). Because there are many uncertainties associated
with the original PSDDA SL and with the partitioning approach described above, this proposed
interstitial water level was further evaluated based on a comparison to acute and chronic adverse
effects levels compiled by EPA (1996).
This concentration is below approximately 2/3 of the chronic effects levels reported in the
literature, and is below the entire range of acute effects levels reported in the literature. PSDDA
disposal sites have been carefully sited to avoid sensitive habitat areas (such as shellfish growing
areas) and most are sited in deep water. For these reasons, many of the chronic impacts to
bivalves and other species that would be predicted at lower concentrations are not expected to
occur at the disposal sites. This interstitial water level is therefore expected to be protective of
acute and most chronic effects, without being over conservative. Thus, an interstitial water
concentration of 0.15 pg/L TBT is appropriate for use as an SL for the PSDDA open-water
disposal sites.
Bioassay Testing
Exceedances of the SL for TBT currently trigger the requirement to conduct bioassay testing.
The PSDDA bioassays include a 10-day amphipod mortality test, a sediment larval bioassay and
the 20-day Neanthes biomass test. Bioassay testing under SMS includes these same bioassays,
although Microtox or benthic infaunal analysis can be substituted for the biomass test. However,
recent project data and evidence from the scientific literature indicate that most or all of the
bioassay tests typically used under SMS and PSDDA may not be appropriate for evaluation of
TBT toxicity, particularly with the short testing durations routinely used (Meador et al., in press;
Moore et al., 1991; Langston and Burt, 1991; Fent, 1996). Most of the bioassay organisms
currently used have been demonstrated to show serious acute and chronic toxicity associated
with TBT in sediments, but at much longer exposure periods than employed in the standard
PSEP bioassay protocols (EPA, 1996; Salazar and Salazar, 1991, 1996).
Results from recent projects (e.g., Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Commencement Bay, Coos Bay,
Harbor Island) would seem to bear out this prediction. Several sites have shown adverse benthic
effects in areas with high TBT sediment concentrations, even when acute and/or chronic
bioassays did not show adverse effects. In addition, bioaccumulation of TBT and associated
8A-7

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
adverse effects has been demonstrated at a number of these sites when short-term laboratory
bioassays did not show a response. This may be because the longer-term bioaccumulation
studies and in situ benthic assemblages better reflect the chronic endpoints with which TBT is
associated and include long enough exposure durations for TBT in sediments and water to come
into equilibrium with the organisms.
PSDDA Bioaccumulation Testing for TBT
The TBT bioaccumulation trigger was established at 219 jug/kg (as Sn), based on a multiple of
the SL (PSDDA, 1989). Bioaccumulation testing is required when this threshold is exceeded.
However, using the method described above for the SL, the existing BT corresponds to an
interstitial water concentration of 1.07 ng/L (as TBT). This concentration is well above a level
considered protective by the PSDDA agencies and the EPA Superfund work group. Based on
the evidence provided above, significant bioaccumulation and adverse effects may occur at much
lower concentrations. The interstitial water SL ( 0.15 ng/L TBT) corresponds to a level above
which adverse reproductive and population-level effects due to bioaccumulation ofTBT have
been observed, and will also be used as the BT.
PROPOSED ACTIONS/MODIFICATIONS
Testing Locations
The SMS program and PSDDA agencies have required testing for TBT in marinas, boat
maintenance areas, and other locations where TBT is likely to be present. Sediment testing in
Commencement Bay (Thea Foss and Hylebos Waterways), in the Duwamish River, and in
Salmon Bay and Lake Union Ship Canal have shown TBT to be present throughout the
waterways and at levels substantially above the existing sediment SL. These studies show that
TBT is more widely distributed, and at higher levels, than previously thought. For this reason,
the SMS and PSDDA agencies will require testing for TBT in areas where past data have
demonstrated its presence (particularly urban bays), and at other appropriate project locations
where it would be likely to be present, such as marinas, shipyards, boatyards, and in the vicinity
of large CSOs or treatment plant outfalls. Persons who have evidence that TBT is not present at
their project location can ask to have this requirement waived.
8A-8

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
TBT Testing Strategy for PSDDA Projects
The available evidence indicates that neither sediment chemistry screening levels nor the
existing PSEP bioassay protocols may be as useful in predicting actual environmental effects
as measurement of TBT concentrations in interstitial water and tissues. Therefore, the current
tiered testing protocol utilizing bulk sediment chemistry and short-term bioassays is not
considered appropriate for evaluating the potential adverse effects of TBT. Because of the
complexity of TBT speciation in the aquatic environment (including ionic forms) and because
other factors may strongly affect its bioavailability, an alternative testing strategy is proposed.
Measurement of TBT in interstitial water provides a more direct measure of potential
bioavailability, and hence toxicity, than bulk sediment concentrations. This approach also avoids
the difficulties inherent in extrapolating to a sediment cleanup level, particularly where paint
wastes or other less bioavailable forms may be present. Therefore, the agencies propose that
interstitial water analysis replace bulk sediment analysis as the initial step in a tiered
assessment of TBT toxicity for PSDDA projects.
TBT should be analyzed using approved methods as described above, and reported as TBT. A
standard method for collection of interstitial water has not yet been determined, though several
techniques are available. Recommendations for a standardized method will be developed over
the next year and discussed at the 1997 SMARM.
If the TBT concentration in the interstitial water is above 0.15 jig TBT/L, bioaccumulation
testing of project sediments must be conducted using the PSDDA bioaccumulation guidelines in
effect at the time of testing. Acute bioassay testing will not be required. If unacceptable tissue
concentrations are measured at the end of the bioaccumulation test, the sediment will be found •
unsuitable for open-water disposal.
TBT Testing for SMS Cleanup Sites
Although specific regulatory levels corresponding to the SQS and CSL have not yet been
promulgated, a similar conceptual approach will be used for evaluation of TBT toxicity at SMS
sites. As is typical of cleanup sites, a preponderance of evidence approach may be used rather
than a strict tiered testing approach. However, interstitial water data and bioaccumulation
(tissue) data will be given more weight in evaluating potential ecological effects than sediment
concentrations or short-term bioassay results. Either laboratory or in situ bioaccumulation tests
may be employed.
8A-9

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
At many sites, bioassay testing will be conducted to evaluate the ecological effects of other
chemicals in sediments. To evaluate ecological effects of TBT at these sites, longer-term
bioassay/ bioaccumulation studies could be considered as alternative chronic tests to those listed
in SMS. Such alternative testing approaches may be particularly appropriate when other
chemicals are also present that are slow to reach equilibrium in the laboratory, such as
dioxins/furans and pesticides. Biological tests that measure both bioaccumulation and associated
effects endpoints are recommended to assess the significance of measured tissue concentrations.
At sites where these alternative approaches are used to assess the effects of TBT, site-specific
cleanup standards will need to be set based on the interstitial water and tissue effects ranges
described in this paper. Consistent with the narrative standards set forth in WAC 173-204-
100(3) and (7), site-specific cleanup standards shall include consideration of acute and chronic
effects to aquatic organisms and human health, and shall range between no adverse effects and
minor adverse effects levels. With respect to TBT, the presence of natural or cultured bivalve
growing or collection areas shall be given special consideration in setting protective cleanup
standards, since Other chemicals of concern may trigger acute toxicity testing. Very low levels
of TBT in water and sediments are known to adversely affect reproduction and growth of these
culturally and economically important resources.
Further Development of Bioassay/Bioaccumulation Tests
Public comments recommended a wide variety of possible bioassay and bioaccumulation test
strategies. Recommendations included side-by-side testing of amphipod species to determine
relative sensitivity to TBT; use of a 60-day Neanthes bioassay with growth and reproduction
endpoints; use of a 20-day Macoma nasuta test with bioaccumulation, tissue growth, and shell
growth as endpoints; field-validation of laboratory bioaccumulation tests; use of longer-term
larval tests with sensitive organisms such as oysters, mysids, and the copepod Acartia tonsa; and
interstitial water bioassays. Although it is not currently within the PSDDA budget to conduct
such studies, it may be possible to conduct some studies as part of large cleanup projects or
through academic or agency research projects. The PSDDA agencies welcome and will carefully
consider any information that is useful in better defining appropriate chronic tests for assessment
of TBT and other compounds for which existing short-term bioassays may be inadequate to
predict chronic effects.
8 A-10

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
REFERENCES
Alzieu, C. and M. Heral. 1984. Ecotoxicological effects of organotin compounds on oyster
culture. In; Ecotoxicological Testing for the Marine Environment, Vol. 2. G. Persoone, E.
Jaspers, and C. Claus, Eds. State University of Ghent, Belgium. 588 pp.
Cardwell, R. 1989. Aquatic ecological and human health risk assessment of tributyltin in Puget
Sound and Lake Washington sediments. Prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service for
the PSDDA agencies.
Davies, I.M., J. Drinkwater, and J.C. McKie. 1988. Effects of tributyltin compounds from
antifoulants on Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in Scottish sea lochs. Aquaculture 74:319-
330.
Davies, I.M., J. Drinkwater, J.C. McKie, and P. Balls. 1987. Effects of the use of tributyltin
antifoulants in mariculture. In: Proceedings of Oceans '87, International Organotin Symposium
4:1477-1481.
EPA. 1991. Ambient aquatic life water quality criteria for tributyltin. Draft Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Research Laboratories, Duluth, MN and Narragansett, RI.
EPA. 1996. Recommendations for screening values for tributyltin in sediments at Superfund sites
in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for EPA Region 10, Superfund, by Roy F. Weston,
Seattle WA.
EPA/USACE. 1994. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for discharge in waters of the
U.S.-testing manual (draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Fent, K., and J.J. Stegeman. 1993. Effects of tributyltin in vivo on hepatic cytochrome P450
forms in marine fish. Aquatic Toxicology 24:219.
Fent, K. 1996. Ecotoxicology of organotin compounds. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 26:1.
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 butyltins in sediment and English sole
livers from Puget Sound. Marine Environmental Research 27:1-18.
8A-11

-------
9
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Langston, WJ. and G.R. Burt. 1991. Bioavailability and effects of sediment-bound TBT in
deposit-feeding clams, Scrobicularia plana. Marine Environmental Research 32:61-77.
Matthias, C.L., J.M. Bellama, and F.E. Brinckman. 1986. Comprehensive method for
determination of aquatic butyltin and butylmethyltin species at ultratrace levels using
simultaneous hybridization/extraction with GC/FPD detection. Environ. Sci. Tech. 20:609-615.
Meador, J.P., U. Varanasi, and C.A. Krone. 1993. Differential sensitivity of marine infaunal
amphipods to tributyltin. Marine Biology 116:231-239.
Meador, J.P., C.A. Krone, D.W. Dyer, and U. Varanasi. 1996 (in press). Toxicity of sediment-
associated tributyltin to infaunal invertebrates: Species comparison and the role of organic
carbon. Marine Environmental Research.
Minchin, D., C.B. Duggan, and W. King. 1987. Possible effects of organotins on scallop
recruitment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(ll):604-608.
Moore, D.W., T.M. Dillon, and B.C. Suedel. 1991. Chronic toxicity of tributyltin to the marine
polychaete worm, Neanthes arenaceodentata. Aquat. Toxic. 21:181-198.
Page, D.S. and J. Widdows. 1991. Temporal and spatial variations in levels of alkyltins in mussel
tissues: A toxicological interpretation of field data. Marine Environmental Research 32:113-129.
Parametrix. 1995. Long-term national monitoring program for tributyltin and its primary
intermediates, Annual Report: Year 3,1994-1995. Prepared for Elf Atochem North America,
Inc. and Witco Corporation by Parametrix, Seattle, WA.
PSDDA. 1988. Evaluation procedures technical appendix, Phase I. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X; Washington State
Department of Natural Resources; Washington State Department of Ecology.
PSDDA. 1989. Management plan report. Unconfined open-water disposal of dredged material,
Phase II. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X; Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Washington State
Department of Ecology.
PSWQA. 1996. Recommended guidelines for measuring organic compounds in Puget Sound
water,
8A-12

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
sediment, and tissue samples. Prepared by King County Water Pollution Control Division
Environmental Laboratory for the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Laeey, WA.
Salazar, M.H. and S.M. Salazar. 1996 (in press). Mussels as bioindicators: Effects of TBT on
survival, bioaccumulation and growth under natural conditions. In: Tributyltin: Environmental
Fate
and Effects. M.A. Champ and P.F. Seliman, Eds. Elsevier.
Salazar, M.H. and S.M. Salazar. 1995. In situ bioassays using transplanted mussels: I. Estimating
chemical exposure and bioeffects with bioaccumulation and growth. In: Environmental
Toxicology and Risk Assessment, 3rd. Vol. J.S. Hughes, G.R. Biddinger and E. Mones (Eds.).
ASTM STP 1218. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 216-241.
Salazar, M.H. and S.M. Salazar, 1992. Mussel field studies: Mortality, growth, and
bioaccumulation. In: Tributyltin - Environmental Fate and Effects, Part III. M.A. Champ and
P.F. Seligman, Eds. Elsevier.
Salazar, M.H. and S.M. Salazar. 1991. Assessing site-specific effects of TBT contamination with
mussel growth rates. Marine Environmental Research 32:131-150.
Thain, I.E., M.J. Waldock, and M.E. Waite. 1987. Toxicity and degradation studies of tributyltin
(TBT) and dibutyltin (DBT) in the aquatic environment. In: Proceedings of Oceans '87,
Organotin Symposium, 4:1306-1313.
Unger, M.A., W.G. Mclntyre, J. Greaves, and R.J. Huggett. 1986. GC determination ofbutyltins
in natural waters by flame photometric detection ofhexyl derivatives with mass spectrometric
confirmation. Chemosphere 15:461.
Unger, M.A., W.G. Mclntyre, and R.J. Huggett. 1987. Equilibrium sorption of tributyltin
chloride by Chesapeake Bay sediments. Proceedings of Oceans '87, Organotin Symposium
4:1381-1385. Marine Technology Society, Washington D.C.
Waldock, M.J. and J.E. Thain. 1983. Shell thickening in Crassostrea gigas: Organotin
antifouling or sediment induced? Marine Pollution Bulletin 14:411-415.
Waldock, M.J., M.E. Waite, J.E. Thain, and V. Hart. 1992. Improvements in bioindicator
performance in UK estuaries following the control of the use of antifouling paints. International
Council for Exploration of the Sea, CM1992/E:32.
8A-13

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Widdows, J. and D.S. Page. 1993. Effects of tributyltin and dibutyltin on the physiological
energetics of the mussel, Mytilus edulis. Mar. Environ. Res. 35:233-249.
8A-14

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Appendix 9A
BIOASTAT SOFTWARE
9A-1

-------
DMMP CLARIFICATION PAPER
SMS TECHNICAL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
BIOSTAT SOFTWARE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF DMMP/SMS
BIOASSAY DATA
Prepared by David F. Fox (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), David A. Gustafson (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers) and Travis C. Shaw (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for the DMMP/SMS
agencies.
INTRODUCTION
Biological testing can be used to determine both the toxicity of sediments to a suite of organisms
and the bioavailability of chemicals for uptake and storage. In both cases, the experimental
results are statistically analyzed to determine whether there is a significant difference between
test and reference samples. Thus, statistical analysis plays a critical role in the interpretation of
bioassay results and in regulatory determinations made with regard to the sediment. It is
important that the statistical procedures used be technically sound, consistently applied and
provide reproducible results by regulators, bioassay practitioners and consultants alike.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Statistical procedures for the DMMP were first established in the PSDDA Management Plan
Report Phase II (PSDDA 1989, page 5-25). Modifications of these procedures have been made
twice by the regulatory agencies via the annual review process. In 1994, the experimental
significance level for the larval test was increased to 0.10 and the use of power analysis was
established for that bioassay (Fox & Littleton, 1994). In 1996, use of the Shapiro-Wilk test for
normality was incorporated into the statistical procedures (Michelsen & Shaw, 1996). An
additional modification, replacement of Cochran's test with Levene's test for equality of
variances, was proposed but not formally adopted during the 1997 annual review process (Shaw
& Fox, 1997).
The modifications, adopted and proposed, provide a statistically more rigorous treatment of
bioassay data but also increase the complexity of the analysis. When Levene's test was proposed
for adoption as the standard test for equality of variances, concern was expressed that the
statistics were becoming more complicated than agency staff and most consultants could readily
handle. It was therefore proposed (Shaw & Fox, 1997) that statistical software be developed to
facilitate bioassay data analysis. This software would incorporate Levene's test, as well as the
other modifications made earlier.
Public Review Draft
April 1998

-------
The primary purpose of this paper is to introduce the software that was promised in 1997 and to
describe the statistical procedures used by the program. Secondarily, where modifications have
been made to statistical procedures currently used in the DMMP and SMS programs, technical
justification is provided.
TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
Student's t-test and underlying assumptions. Interpretation of DMMP and SMS bioassavs
includes a statistical comparison between test and reference sediment data. The basic statistic
used in this analysis is the student's t-test. However, use of the t-test is based on the assumption
that test and reference samples have been taken from a normally distributed population and have
equal variances. The consequences of violating these assumptions include loss of confidence in
the type I error rate and a decrease in statistical power. Violations of the assumptions can be
addressed through the use of data transformation or the application of alternate statistical
procedures.
Development of the BioStat Software. Seattle District developed Bio Stat to automate the testing
of statistical assumptions and to perform the comparison test between experimental treatments
that best matches the outcome of the assumptions tests. BioStat also provides the ability to do
data transformations prior to the statistical analysis. Figure 1 is a flow diagram which depicts the
basic statistical logic and procedures incorporated into the software. Details are provided in the
BioStat Users Guide (Fox et ah, 1998) and the following sections of this paper.
Test for Normality. The test-and reference data must be evaluated to determine whether or not
they have been taken from a normally distributed population. As indicated in Michelsen and
Shaw (1996) and EPA/US ACE (1994), the recommended test for normality is the Shapiro-Wilk
W-statistic (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965).
Test for Equality of Variance. The statistical clarification paper presented at the 1996 Sediment
Management Annual Review Meeting recommended the use of Cochran's test to evaluate
equality of variance (Michelsen and Shaw, 1996). Subsequent to presentation of that paper,
simulations conducted at the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES) revealed
that Cochran's test may have very high Type I error rates when the data set has an asymmetric
non-normal distribution (Clarke and Brandon, 1995).
In its work, WES determined that Levene's test outperforms all the commonly used tests for
equality of variance. Levene's test is performed by conducting an analysis of variance on the
absolute deviations of treatment observations from the treatment means (Levene, 1960). The
analysis of variance simplifies to a t-test when a single test treatment is being compared to a
single reference treatment, which is the case in the interpretation of DMMP and SMS bioassays.
The first step in conducting Levene's test is to transform the data set into absolute deviations
from the mean in each of the two treatment groups. The transformed scores are then tested using
Public Review Draft
April 1998

-------
a two-tailed t-test. If the results are significant, then the conclusion is that heterogeneity of
variances exists and a key assumption of the Student's t-test (for the comparison of the bioassay
endpoint data) is violated by the data set. The data set must then be transformed (e.g. arcsine-
square root) or the approximate t-test used.
User-selected Data Transformations. In cases where at least one of the distribution assumptions
is violated, a simple transformation may allow both assumptions to be met and the t-test
employed. BioStat includes three common data transformations that are user-selectable:
1)	arcsine square root = sin -14x
2)	square root = s/x+375
3)	log = log10(x + l)
The arcsine square root transformation is used with percentage data and is the most commonly
used transformation for DMMP and SMS bioassays. The square root transformation is used
.when the variances are proportional to the means (Zar 1984, p. 241). The logarithmic
transformation is sometimes useful in the analysis of growth data (Sokal and Rohlf, 1969).
Rank Transformation. In the event that none of these transformations can establish normality or
homoscedasticity, BioStat automatically transforms the data to rankits (Sokal and Rohlf, 1969).
Rank transformation normalizes the distribution, permitting the transformed data to be evaluated
using a t-test (Conover and Iman, 1981).
Statistical Comparison of Treatment Means. Depending on the outcome of the tests for
normality and equality of variance, BioStat uses the following statistical tests to compare
treatment means:
Outcome of
W-test
Outcome of
Levene's test
Statistic used
to compare
treatment means
References
normal
distribution
equal
variances
student's t-test
Sokal & Rohlf 1969, p. 220
normal
distribution
unequal
variances
approximate t-test
Zar 1984, p,131
non-normal
distribution
equal
variances
Mann-Whitney
Sokal & Rohlf 1969, p. 393
Zar 1984, p. 139
Potvin & Roff, 1993
non-normal
distribution
unequal
variances
t-test on rankits
Sokal & Rohlf 1969, p. 121
Conover & Iman, 1981
Public Review Draft
April 1998

-------
One-sample t-test. There are two cases where a one-sample t-test would be used. The evaluation
of bioaccumulation data sometimes includes a statistical comparison of replicate test data to a
numerical standard, such as a Food and Drug Administration Action Level. The standard is not
an experimental treatment and does not have replicate data, therefore a one-sample t-test must be
run (EPA/USACE, 1994, page D-43 and Zar, 1984, page 102).
A second case in which BioStat uses the one-sample t-test is one in which there is no variance in
the reference treatment replicates. This is an uncommon occurrence but is possible if, for
example, the amphipod test is run and there is zero mortality in all of the reference treatment
replicates. In this case, BioStat automatically applies the one-sample t-test.
Power Analysis. Power analysis procedures have been incorporated into BioStat for all three
forms of the t-test. Technical guidance for this portion of the software came from Dixon and
Massey (1957, Chapter 14), supplemented by Cohen (1988, Chapter 12) and is fully documented
in the BioStat Users Guide (Fox et al., 1998).
PROPOSED MODIFICATION.
The BioStat software provides for a statistically rigorous treatment of bioassay data and will be
used in the future by the DMMP and SMS agencies to compare test and reference treatment data.
Concomitment to the implementation of BioStat, the agencies officially adopt Levene's test to
assess equality of variance rather than Cochran's test.
BioStat can be downloaded from Seattle District's FTP (file transfer protocol) server. For
instructions, contact David Fox at david.ffox@usace.army.mil.
Cited Literature
Clarke, J.U. and D.L. Brandon, 1995, Applications Guide for Statistical Analyses in Dredged
Sediment Evaluations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Cohen, J., 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Ed., Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.
Conover, W.J. and R.L. Iman, 1981, Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and
nonparametric statistics, The American Statistician, 35, 124-133.
Dixon, W. F. and F.J. Massey, 1957, Introduction to Statistical Analysis, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Public Review Draft
April 1998

-------
EPA/US ACE, 1994, Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposedfor Discharge in Waters of the
U.S. - Testing Manual (Draft), prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Science and Technology and the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Fox, D.F. and T.M. Littleton, 1994, Interim Revised Performance Standards for the Sediment
Larval Bioassay, In: Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Sixth Annual Review Meeting
Minutes.
Fox, D.F., D.A. Gustafson and T.C, Shaw, 1998, BioStat Users Guide, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District.
Levene, H., 1960, Robust tests for equality of variances, In: I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to
Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling, 278-292, Stanford University
Press, Stanford, CA.
Michelsen, T. and T.C. Shaw, 1996, Statistical Evaluation of Bioassay Results,
In: Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Eighth Annual Review Meeting Minutes,
PSDDA, 1989, Management Plan Report - Unconfined Open-Water Disposal of Dredged
Material, Phase II, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X; Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Potvin, C. and D.A. Roff, 1993, Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: viable
alternatives to parametric statistics?, Ecology, 74, 1617-1628.
Shaw, T.C. and D.F. Fox, 1997, Refinements to DMMP/SMS Bioassay Statistics (DMMP/SMS
Status Report), In: mailout preceding the Sediment Management Annual Review Meeting, May
7,1997.
Shapiro, S.S. and M.B. Wilk, 1965, An analysis of variance test for normality (complete
samples), Biometrika, 52, 591 -611.
Sokal R.R. and F.J. Rohlf, 1969, Biometry, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
Zar, J.H., 1984, Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd Ed., Simon & Schuster Co., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
I
Public Review Draft
April 1998

-------
No
Yes

Are
Data
Normal?
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Figure 1
BioStat Flowchart
Normality N
Adequate For
\ T-Test? y
/ Are \
Variances
Homogeneous?
Does n.
Reference
Variance = Zero?
/ Do \
Probability
Plots Manually?
\ (Optional)/
/ Are \
Variances
Homogeneous
Conduct
Levene's
Test
Conduct
Levene's
Test
Conduct W-test
on residuals
Perform
Rankit
Transformation
Conduct
T-Test and Power
Calculation
Conduct one-sample
T-Test and Power
Calculation
Conduct
Approximate
T-Test and Power
Calculation
Conduct
Mann-Whitney
Nonparametric
Test
Select Transformation:
1)	none
2)	square root
3)	arcsin square root
4)	log 10

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Appendix 9-B
ILLUSTRATION OF BIOASSAY
INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES
9B-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Illustration of Solid Phase Interpretation Guidelines
Following is an example of the application of the solid phase interpretation guidelines to
three DMMUs. Results for the negative control and the reference sediment are included for
comparison to test sediment treatments and to illustrate the application of performance standards.
Results have been expressed as means plus or minus the standard deviation.
Table 9A-1 illustrates that the performance standards for the negative control and
reference sediment were met for all three bioassays, and that the results were acceptable for
decision making.
Test DMMU-1 shows that all three biological responses were within the guidelines for
suitable material. The amphipod test mortality was less than 30 percent over reference; sediment
larval normalized combined mortality and abnormality was less than 30 percent over reference;
and Neanthes growth rate was greater than 50 percent of reference. None of these were
significantly different from reference. This DMMU would be suitable for aquatic disposal.
Test DMMU-2 illustrates an example of a two-hit bioassay failure. Both the amphipod
and sediment larval responses are less than the single-hit response guideline, but are significantly
different than reference responses, and therefore considered hits under two-hit guidelines. The
Neanthes growth rate response is greater than 50 percent of reference and is not significantly
different than reference. This DMMU would be judged to be unsuitable for aquatic disposal
based on the significance of the amphipod and sediment larval responses relative to reference
sediments.
Test DMMU-3 illustrates an example of a single two-hit response with no corroborating
hits from the other two bioassays. It shows an amphipod response less than 20 percent over the
control response, less than 10 percent over reference and not statistically different from
reference. The sediment larval response is greater than 20 percent over control but is less than
15 percent over reference and not statistically different from reference. In the Neanthes test, the
growth rate response is greater than 50 percent of the reference, but is statistically different from
reference (two-hit response, requiring another bioassay hit for DMMU failure). This DMMU
would be judged suitable for aquatic disposal because there are no corroborating hits from the
other two bioassays.
9B-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
DMMU-4 exhibits "single hits" for all three bioassays. each exceeding the numerical
comparison guidelines for the negative control and reference and are statistically different from
reference sediments. The individual results for each of these bioassays fails disposal guidelines
for aquatic disposal for the "single-hit" response, and this DMMU is unsuitable for aquatic
disposal.
Table 9A-1
HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT INTERPRETATION EXAMPLE
TREATMENT
AMPHIPOD
TEST
(% mortality)
SEDIMENT
LARVAL TEST
(% NCMA)
NEANTHES
GROWTH TEST
(mg/individual~day)
(% of reference)
DMMU
SUITABILITY
Negative control
4 ± 1
01
0.7 ± 0.06
3 ± 1 % mortality 2

Reference sediment
16 ± 4
7 ± 3
0.66 ± 0.07

DMMU-1
17 ± 5 ns
10 ± 4ns
0.62 ± 0.06ns
(93.9%)
Suitable
DMMU-2
25 + 2*
21 ±3
0.59 ± 0.05 ns
(89.4%)
Unsuitable
DMMU-3
19 ± 3 ns
21 ±6m
0.55 ± 0.1 (75.8%)
Suitable
DMMU-4
33 ±4
36 ±4
0.41 ± 0.08 (62.1%)
Unsuitable
1 For clarity the negative seawater control has been normalized (i.e., set to zero). The actual combined mortality and
abnormality for the seawater control was 23%. Therefore, the seawater control met its performance standard of
< 30% combined mortality and abnormality.
2 The test met the performance standard of < 10% mortality,
ns - not statistically significant.
* - statistically significant response relative to the reference sediment. Shaded portions of the table highlight test
results which indicate that the DMMU is considered a hit under either the single-hit or two-hit guidelines for
unconfined open-water disposal.
9B-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Appendix 9-C
BIO ACCUMULATION
CONCENTRATIONS
AND STEADY STATE LEVELS
9C-1

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Bioaccumulation Concentrations and Steady State Levels
The following tables contain information concerning bioaccumulation testing. The first contains
the sediment chemistry trigger values. The second concerns the steady state tissue residue levels.
These levels have been compiled from the relevant literature, and will updated as new
information becomes available.
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY TRIGGER VALUES FOR BIOACCUMULATION TESTING
CHEMICAL
LOG KOW 1
CONCENTRATION 2
METALS (ppm dry weight basis)


Arsenic
N/A
507.1
Mercury
N/A
1.5
Silver
N/A
4.6
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ppb dry)


Fluoranthene
5.5
4,600
Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0
4,964
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
3.4
37
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3.5
190
Dimethyl phthalate
1.6
1,1683
Di-n-butyl phthalate
5.1
10,2203
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4.2
13,870 1
Hexachlorobutadiene
4.3
212-
Phenol
1.5
876
Pentachloropenol
5.0
504
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
3.1
161
Tributyltin

219
Total DDT
(5.7 - 6.0)5
50
Aldrin
3.0
3 7 337
Chlordane
6.0
373
Dieldrin
5.5
37 3
Heptachlor
5.4
37 3
Total PCBs
(4.0 - 6.9)5
-338"
1	Octanol/Water Partitioning Coefficients (log KOW) for organic chemicals of concern.
2	Concentration = 0.7 X (ML-SL) + SL. When the concentration of any chemical is above this value,
bioaccumulation testing is required.
3	These chemicals do not have an ML value. Therefore, the concentration = ((10SL-SL) X 0.7) + SL = 7.3 X SL.
4	This value is normalized to Total Organic Carbon and is expressed in ppm (TOC normalized).
5	Range of individual congeners making up total.
Note: Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) may also require
bioaccumulation testing, although no bioaccumulation trigger has been established for PCDDs and PCDFs. The
requirement to conduct bioaccumulation testing will be made by the agencies utilizing best professional judgment
after reviewing the Tier II data.
I
9C-2

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
PERCENT OF STEADY-STATE TISSUE RESIDUES OF SELECTED METALS AND
NEUTRAL ORGANICS FROM 10 AND 28 DAY EXPOSURES TO BEDDED SEDIMENT1
Compound
% of Steady
State2 Tissue
Residue
Species
Estimated By
10-DAY 28-DAY
METALS




Copper
75
.100
Macoma nasuta
&
Lead
81
100
Macoma nasuta
G
Cadmium
17
50
Callianassa
australiensis
G
Mercury
ND*
ND*
Neanthes succinea
G
ORGANICS




PCBs




Aroclor 1242
18
87
Nereis virens
G
Aroclor 1254
12
82
Macoma balthica
G
Aroclor 1254
25
56
Nereis virens
K°
Aroclor 1260
53
100
Macoma balthica
G
Total PCBs
21
54
Nereis virens
G
Total PCBs
48
80
Macoma nasuta
G
Total PCBs
23
71
Macoma nasuta
G
PAHs




Benzo(a)pyrene
43
75
Macoma inquinata
G
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene
71
100
Macoma nasuta
G
Chrysene
43
87
Macoma inquinata
G
Fluoranthene
100
100
Macoma nasuta
G
Phenanthrene
100
100
Macoma inquinata
G
Phenanthrene
100
100
Macoma nasuta
G
Pyrene
84
97
Macoma nasuta
G
Note: See footnotes at end of table.
9C-3

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
COMPOUND.
% OF STEADY
STATE2
TISSUE RESIDUE
SPECIES
ESTIMATED BY
10-DAY
28-DAY
TCDD/TCDF




2,3,7,8-TCDD
6
22
Nereis virens
G
2,3,7,8-TCDD
63
100
Macoma nasuta
G
2,3,7,8-TCDF
43
62
Nereis virens
G
2,3,7,8-TCDF
92
100
Macoma liasuta
G
MISCELLANEOUS




4,4-DDE
20
50
Macoma nasuta
G
2,4-DDD
31
56
Macoma nasuta
G
4,4-DDD
32
60
Macoma nasuta
G
4,4-DDT
17
10
Macoma nasuta
G
1	Modified from draft Inland Testing Manual (Table C), using data updated from Boese and Lee (1992),
2	Steady-state values, are estimates, as steady-state is not rigorously documented in these studies.
See Boese and Lee (1992) for complete citations.
4	ND = Not Determined. Observed AFs (accumulation factor) for field tissue levels compared with sediment levels (normalized
to dry weight) averaged 4 for this species, but ranged from 1.3 to 45 among other benthic macroinvertebrate species. Laboratory
28-day exposures to bedded sediment indicated uptake fit a linear regression model over the exposure period and experimental
conditions. Tissue levels observed (N. succinea) at 28 days amounted to only 2.5 % of the total sediment-bound Hg potentially
available.
5	G = Steady-state residue estimated by visual inspection of graphs of tissue residue versus time.
6	K = Steady-state residue estimated from a Ist-order kinetic uptake model.
A problem with tissue chemistry data, which must be addressed prior to statistical
analysis, is tissue concentrations which are quantitated below the detection limit. Such non-
numeric data cannot be statistically analyzed unless numeric values are substituted for the less-
than detection limit observations. For this evaluation, substituting one-half the detection limit for
each less-than observation should be utilized. (Clarke 1996)
9C-4

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
Test interpretation guidelines for both human health and ecological effects assessments
are discussed below:
~ Human Health. The bioaccumulation test results are compared to guideline values to
determine exceedance of allowable tissue residue concentrations. If the 28-day bioaccumulation
test results in tissue levels greater than the FDA action levels, (see Table 3), the sediment will be
considered unsuitable for aquatic disposal. Chemicals of concern without or below FDA action
levels will be evaluated by the RMT using best professional judgment and risk assessment
approaches. Interpretation of test results requires an evaluation of the statistical significance of
the mean bioaccumulation of contaminants in animals exposed to dredged material compared to
•a specified action level or standard. If the mean tissue concentration of one or more contaminants
of concern is greater than or equal to the applicable action level, then no statistical testing is
required. The conclusion is that the dredged material does not meet the guidelines associated
with the particular action level. If the mean tissue concentration of a chemical of concern is less
than the applicable action level, than a confidence-interval approach is used to determine if the
mean is significantly less than the action level. One-tailed t-tests are appropriate since there is
concern only if bioaccumulation from the dredged sediment is not significantly less than the
action level. The one-sample t-test approach depicted below is appropriate to allow independent
decisions to be made on each dredged material management unit tested:
where "x", "s 2and "n" refer to the mean, variance, and number of replicates for contaminant
bioaccumulation from the proposed dredged material.
~ Ecological Effects. The results of a Tier III 28-day bioaccumulation test will be
compared directly with reference results for statistical significance. If the results of a statistical
comparison show that the tissue concentration of the chemical(s) of concern tested in sediments
is statistically different (t-test, alpha level of 0.05) from the reference sediment, the dredged
material will generally be considered unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal.
The five factors summarized below will be reviewed as part of the regulatory assessment
process when statistical significance is shown. In reviewing these factors, the best regional
guidance will be consulted to assess the relative importance of each factor to the regulatory
decision.
I - x - action level
9C-5

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
(1)	How many contaminants demonstrate bioaccumulation from dredged material relative
to reference sediments?
(2)	What is the magnitude of the bioaccumulation from dredged material compared to
reference sediments?
(3)	What is the toxicological importance of the contaminants (e.g., do they biomagnify or
have effects at low concentrations?). Examples of contaminants with biomagnification concerns
are DDT, PCB, Hg/MeHg, and possibly dioxins and furans.
(4)	What is the potential for the identified contaminates to biomagnify within aquatic
food webs?
(5)	What is the magnitude by which contaminants found to bioaccumulate in tissues
exceed the tissue burdens of comparable species found at the vicinity of the disposal site?
9C-6

-------
November 1998
Evaluation Framework
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) ACTION LEVELS FOR POISONOUS
AND DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES IN FISH AND SHELLFISH FOR HUMAN FOOD
CHEMICAL
TISSUE GUIDELINES (ppm wet weight)
METALS

Arsenic
TBD'
Mercury (Methyl Mercury)
1.0
Silver
TBD
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Fluoranthene
TBD
Benzo(a)pyrene
TBD
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
TBD
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
TBD
Dimethyl phthalate
TBD
Di-n-butyl phthalate
TBD
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
TBD
Hexachlorobutadiene
TBD
Phenol
TBD
Pentachloropenol
TBD
Ethylbenzene
TBD
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
TBD
Total DDT + DDE
5.0
Aldrin
0.3
Chlordane
0.3
Dieldrin + Aldrin
0.3
Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide
0.3
Total PCBs
2.0
"TBD" = To Be Determined, using best professional judgement and best available guidance.
9C-7

-------