LAKE ERIE
LAKE WIDE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Lake Erie Lake wide Management Plan (LaMP)
Technical Report Series
Impairment Assessment of Beneficial Uses:
Restrictions on Dredging Activity
Julie Letterhos and Kurt Kohler
1997
Lake Erie LaMP Technical Report No. 9
-------
Technical Report 9
Restrictions on Dredging Activities
Prepared for the Lake Erie LaMP
Preliminary Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment
by
Kurt Kohler and Julie Letterhos
October 16, 1997
NOTE TO mi READER:
This technical report was prepared as one component of Stage 1, or "Problem
Definition," for the Lake Erie LaMP. This report provides detailed technical and
background information that provides the basis for the impairment conclusions recorded in
the Lake Erie LaMP Status Report.
This document has been extensively reviewed by the government agencies that are
partnering to produce the LaMP, outside experts, and the Lake Erie LaMP Public Forum,
a group of approximately of 80 citizen volunteers. This review was designed to answer
two questions:
• Is the document technically sound and defensible?
• Do the reviewers agree with the document conclusions and format?
In its present form, this report has been revised to address the comments received during
that review process, and there is consensus agreement with the impairment conclusions
presented.
1
-------
9.1 Listing Criteria
According to the International Joint Commission (IJC), an impairment occurs when
contaminants in sediments exceed standards, criteria, or guidelines such that there are
restrictions on dredging or disposal activities (IJC, 1989). The Lake Erie LaMP has
adopted the IJC listing criteria for evaluating restrictions on dredging activities in Lake
Erie.
9.2 Scope of the Assessment
The scope of the Lake Erie LaMP beneficial use impairment assessment (BUIA) includes
open lake waters, nearshore areas, river mouths and embayments, and the lake effect zone
of Lake Erie tributaries. The lake effect zone is defined as that zone where the waters of
the lake and the river are mixed. The Detroit River will be included in this assessment
because of the impact disposal of dredged material may have on Lake Erie.
This report examines all the areas where dredging occurs on a regular basis, considering
dredging to be the use that is impaired. This report also notes areas where dredging has
been considered, but has been deferred or postponed due to various circumstances. Any
conditions that prevent dredging or restrict the disposal of the sediments removed
constitute an impairment. The main reason dredging is done is to maintain navigation.
Consequently, almost all of the sites assessed for this report are also navigation channels.
This assessment does not consider the potential negative impacts of dredging itself such as
habitat destruction or sediment resuspension. Nor does it address the processes which
contribute to accumulation of sediment in the areas where dredging occurs.
The intent of this report is not to identify all the areas within the geographic scope of the
Lake Erie LaMP which may have contaminated sediments. Rather, it is to identify all
areas where contaminated sediments are restricting dredging. It is recognized that
contaminated sediments exist in areas other than navigation channels and can cause
aquatic life impacts in Lake Erie and its tributaries. The impact of contaminated sediments
on aquatic life will be evaluated in other assessments, particularly the "Degradation of
Benthos" section of the Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment Report.
9.3 Jurisdictional Criteria Governing Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Materials
Canada
There are no Canadian Federal regulations/criteria or guidelines restricting dredging
activities or restricting the disposal of dredged material for the Great Lakes. When
provincial guidelines exist, Public Works Canada follows the provincial guidelines, as is
the case for Ontario (Kahn, 1996).
2
-------
United States
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act designates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the
lead federal agency in the regulation and enforcement of dredge and fill discharge activities
in all navigable waters of the U.S. The Corps is also responsible for maintenance of
federal navigation channels. Guidelines and criteria developed jointly by the Corps and
U.S. EPA are used to administer this program.
For years, bulk sediment contaminant concentrations were used as the criteria governing
where sediments could be disposed (U.S. EPA, 1977). A Great Lakes Testing Manual
developed by U.S. EPA and the Corps, that should be finalized within the next year, will
provide updated guidance on the evaluation of dredged materials for disposal (U.S.EPA
and Corps, in press). The manual utilizes biotesting as the primary approach for
assessment. Section 404 Permits for dredge and fill activities must be obtained from the
Corps of Engineers.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act provides States the authority to issue certifications for
dredge and fill activities. This certification indicates the proposed fill or dredged material
disposal activity will not violate State water quality standards. 401 certification must be
obtained before a 404 permit will be issued. Water quality standards as well as criteria for
disposal of sediments vary among jurisdictions, and are discussed in the text which
follows.
Michigan
Michigan addresses dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments on a case by case
basis. A variety of guideline documents are utilized by the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to determine what restrictions should be applied in order
to ensure compliance with Michigan's water quality standards. They include: MDEQ
reports on the background levels of chemicals in lake and stream sediments; "Technical
Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediment" (NYDEC, 1994a); "Development of
Sediment Quality Objective Concentrations in Deposit A, Little Lake Butte des Morts"
(WDNR, 1993); the International Joint Commission's Dredging Subcommittee guidelines
regarding the evaluation of Great Lakes dredging projects (IJC, 1982); "Guidelines for the
Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario" (Persaud, et.al,
1992); "Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments"
(U.S.EPA, 1977); and 1994 draft sediment quality criteria proposed by U.S.EPA .
The disposal method for dredged sediment is determined following an evaluation of the
sediment type, contaminant type and concentration, potential beneficial reuse of the
material to be dredged, and availability of disposal sites. If sediments are determined to be
unsuitable for open water or in-water CDF disposal, upland disposal may be possible
depending on the presence of leachable substances that may pose a hazard to the
3
-------
environment. Michigan Public Act 451, Parts 115 and 201, the Solid Waste Management
Act, 1978 PA 641, as amended, and the Michigan Environmental Response Act, 1982 Act
307, as amended, and the administrative rules adopted pursuant to these acts, govern
many upland disposal options.
The Michigan Hazardous Waste Regulations, under the Hazardous Waste Management
Act (1979 PA 64, as amended), and 40 CFR 261 (1986) may also be applied to sediments
when upland disposal is proposed. Under these regulations, the person(s) doing the
dredging may be requested to conduct an extraction procedure toxicity test (EP tox)
and/or the toxicity character leaching procedure (TCLP) test to determine if the material is
hazardous. If the material is classified as "hazardous," under Act 64 and the Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), disposal in a licensed hazardous waste
landfill is required. Sediments determined to be toxic (i.e. for PCBs) must be disposed of
in compliance with the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (Jones, 1996).
New York
In 1989, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) proposed
sediment criteria as an appendix to a Cleanup Standards Task Force Report. The final
guidelines established by NYDEC are explained in detail in the "Technical Guidance for
Screening Contaminated Sediments", (NYDEC, 1994a). This document identifies
screening criteria concentrations for several contaminants to classify areas of sediment
contamination and evaluate the potential risk to human health and the environment. New
York defines a contaminated sediment as one in which the concentration of a contaminant
in the sediment exceeds any of the sediment criteria established for that contaminant.
New York based their sediment criteria for metals on work completed for Ontario's
"Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario"
(Persaud, et. al., 1992). In addition to the Ontario guidelines, New York used the
methods and data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA)
(Long and Morgan, 1990).
Two levels of screening criteria were established for New York which followed the
definitions provided in the Ontario guidelines. The two levels are Lowest Effect Level and
Severe Effect Level. The Lowest Effect Level indicates a contaminant level that can be
tolerated by the majority of benthic organisms, but still causes toxicity to a few species.
The Severe Effect Level is the concentration at which disturbance of the sediment benthic
community can be expected.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has also developed a
document entitled "Interim Guidance, Fresh Water Navigational Dredging" (NYDEC,
1994b). The document outlines an approach to screening sediments that are under
consideration for dredging activities for navigational maintenance. The document was
developed as interim guidance not law or regulation. It is intended to be used in
4
-------
conjunction with professional judgement in making decisions on the choice of specific
screening parameters and Best Management Practices. For a number of reasons identified
in the document, the Guidance differentiates between the pollutant thresholds for
navigational dredged material and those used for cleanup standards at inactive hazardous
waste disposal sites or Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle
C corrective action standards.
The Guidance includes:
A summary of the basic steps necessary for a technical review of dredging
projects.
General dredging guidelines that include environmental objectives for the
planning and conduct of dredging activities, and requirements of an
applicant relating to the description of dredging projects. The description
must include all the necessary physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the proposed dredging and disposal sites so that impacts
can be evaluated and appropriate conditions placed on the project.
Sampling requirements for site characterization, including:
- Sampling methodologies and number of samples.
- Identification of situations that should be exempted from
sampling requirements because of the size of the project or the
existence of information related to the condition of the
sediments.
- Methods for estimating costs for sampling.
Identification of sediment screening parameters including chemical
selection.
Guidance on the evaluation of results. Three classes of sediment quality
thresholds have been established by NYSDEC: No appreciable
contamination, moderate contamination and high contamination.
Management recommendations are identified based upon comparison of the
sampling results to the thresholds.
Guidance on the disposal of dredged material, including environmental
objectives, disposal facility design considerations for suspended solids
removal, upland management of navigational dredge material, and
dredging/disposal monitoring recommendations.
The Guidance is intended to be used by NYSDEC staff to make decisions related to dredging
projects so that a reasonably consistent, cost effective and environmentally protective
approach is taken throughout the State.
5
-------
Ohio
The U.S. EPA and the Buffalo District of the Corps together determine whether Lake Erie
harbor and federal navigation channel sediments in Ohio are acceptable for disposal in
previously established open lake disposal areas, or in a confined disposal facility. Suitable
sands dredged from some areas, such as Fairport Harbor, are discharged in the littoral area to
provide material for beach nourishment (building). The Corps and U.S.EPA
recommendations are always included with the Public Notice announcing the Corps' annual
maintenance dredging projects.
Dredging projects, CDF discharges, and runoff from upland disposal areas are reviewed by
Ohio EPA for Section 401 Water Quality Certification to determine whether the project will
comply with Ohio water quality standards, and whether the project will result in an adverse
long-term or short-term impact on water quality. Projects are addressed on a case by case
basis. Ohio EPA evaluates the impacts to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
the surface water (Merchant, 1996).
Ohio EPA evaluates data from bulk sediment sampling and compares the results to U.S.
EPA's "Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments" (U.S.
EPA, 1977) which classifies sediments into the following three categories; heavily polluted,
moderately polluted, or nonpolluted. These categories are based on individual parameters, for
example COD, ammonia, and mercury. The overall classification of a sediment by Ohio EPA
is based on best professional judgement depending on how many of the individual parameters
fall into the heavily polluted or nonpolluted ranges. Ohio EPA also uses criteria from Kelly
and Hite (1984) to determine appropriate disposal methods.
The Director of Ohio EPA may deny a Section 401 Certification if the project will degrade the
designated aquatic life use, violate a chemical water quality standard, or result in an adverse
long-term or short-term impact to water quality. If a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
is granted, there are usually conditions added to ensure maximum water quality protection.
In certain instances, Ohio EPA requires sediment testing to the depth of the proposed
excavation before dredging begins. If there is any possibility that hazardous substances may
be present, the applicant is required to conduct TCLP testing. Ohio EPA has also required
monitoring of CDF discharges for suspended solids. The higher the suspended solids
concentration, the greater the potential for impact on water quality due to contaminants
associated with the suspended sediment. Post-dredging monitoring in the dredging area has
been required in the Ashtabula River. Ohio EPA has also conditioned the Section 401
Certification for the Corps' Cuyahoga River maintenance dredging project, requiring the
Corps to participate in meetings to address the low dissolved oxygen problem. Low dissolved
oxygen levels are caused in part by dredging the river to a deep narrow ship channel
(Merchant, 1996).
6
-------
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management Act of 1980 covers the disposal of all solid wastes in
the State. Pursuant to the Act, Chapter 75 of the regulations define dredged material as
"construction/demolition" waste and requires a permit for disposal of solid waste on the
ground or into the waters of the state. In the past, because an in-water confined disposal
facility such as the Erie Harbor facility, did not meet the requirements of a suitable landfill,
solid waste permits would not be granted and subsequent Section 401 certification could not
be obtained. As a result, the Erie CDF that was constructed in 1979, is only filled to 15% of
the total capacity of 420,000 cubic yards (Burch, 1996).
The City of Erie's Harbor, the only dredged site in Pennsylvania's Lake Erie waters, has
traditionally required minimal dredging to maintain sufficient depth for deep-draft commercial
vessels. Only the entrance channel has required periodic dredging and these sediments have
consistently met U.S. EPA's criteria for open-lake disposal (U.S. EPA, 1977). Pennsylvania is
currently reviewing the regulations involving dredged materials to determine if any changes or
revisions should be made. A decision regarding the future use of the CDF and the
classification of dredged material as a solid waste is expected in the near future. A one-time
401 certification was issued to the Corps in late 1996 for sediments dredged from the slip for
the flagship Niagara. These sediments will be disposed in the Erie CDF (Burch, 1996).
Ontario
The guidelines for disposal of dredged sediment are outlined in Persaud, et. al., 1992. Most
sediment dredged from Canadian waters is open lake disposed. The Ontario Ministry of
Environment & Energy (OMEE) requires analysis of both the material to be dredged and the
existing sediments at the proposed open lake disposal site. Each parameter is compared to the
Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG) levels. The dredged material is matched to
the disposal area which is classified into one of the following three groups.
Group 1
a. The concentrations of contaminants in sediments in the disposal area are
below the No Effect Level. If the concentrations in the dredged material
are also below the No Effect Level, the material is suitable for disposal at
this site.
b. If the concentrations in the dredged sediments are above the No Effect
Level then this material is not suitable for disposal at the above described
site, since this would result in contamination of a clean site with sediment
of a lesser quality. However, if the concentrations in the dredged materials
are below the Lowest Effect Level, it may be suitable for disposal at
another site where existing sediment concentrations are above the No
Effect Level.
7
-------
c. Material that exceeds the Lowest Effect Level for any parameter is not
suitable for open water disposal at this site.
Group 2
a.
The sediments in the disposal area are above the No Effect Level but still
below the Lowest Effect Level. If the concentrations in the dredged
material are below the No Effect Level then the material is suitable for
open water disposal at this site.
Similarly, if the dredged material is above the No Effect Level but below
the Lowest Effect Level, the material is also suitable for disposal at this
site. Material that exceeds the Lowest Effect Level is not suitable for open
water disposal at this site.
Group 3
a.
If the sediments in the disposal area are contaminated to a level above the
Lowest Effect Level, material that is below the Lowest Effect Level is
suitable for open water disposal at this site.
Material that exceeds the Lowest Effect Level for organic compounds and
mercury is not suitable for open water disposal. Material that exceeds the
Lowest Effect Level for metals other than mercury is suitable for open
water disposal under certain conditions. If the material is at or below the
Great Lakes background and does not exceed ambient sediment levels then
the material is suitable for open water disposal at this site.
9.4 Summary of Current Dredging Activity
Table 9.1 provides a summary of the routine dredging done for navigational channel
maintenance in Lake Erie over the last ten years. It includes the total volume of material
dredged from Lake Erie and the associated costs for the five jurisdictions. The total
number of dredging locations within the jurisdiction is provided, as well as the number of
dredged locations which are also AOCs. Table 9.2 provides a detailed summary of the
dredging at each site.
Table 9.1 Summary of Lake Erie Dredging Activity 1984-1995, By Jurisdiction
(Volumes are in cubic yards)
.lurisrikiiun
Mk'hi"
-------
# of Locations
4 locations
3 AOCs
1 location
0 AOCs
12 locations
4 AOCS
7 locations
1 AOC
1 location
1 AOC
Volume (cu. yd.)
3,585,200
101,400
20,928,600
788,135
177,800
Cost
$25,642,900
$382,800
$71,007,700
$4,801,400
$502,300
9
-------
Year
1988
1989
1991
1992
Liver
Year
1985
1986
1987
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
iver
Year
1985
1986
1987
1989
1991
1992
1993
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Dredging Locations & Volumes Disposed, 1985-1994, for Navigational Maintenance Dredging by Lake
Erie Jurisdiction (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1996; Public Works Canada, 1996) (All volumes are
in cubic yards)
Confined Disposal and Beach Nourishment Total Volume 96,300 Total Cost $732,400
Volume Cost
43,000 $310,300
13,800 $138,100
37,300 $273,600
2,200 $10,400
Confined Disposal Total Volume 1,830,900 Total Cost $12,780,200
Volume Cost
722,300 $5,810,000
40,300 $390,000
65,000 $603,500
49,000 $1,017,300
234,000 $1,879,000
31,100 $209,400
476,000 $2,479,000
138,600 $1,274,000
74,600 $392,000
Confined Disposal Total Volume 326,900 Total Cost $3,160,400
Volume Cost
46,600 $719,000
59,400 $565,000
22,400 $388,600
63,000 $76,000
72,900 $801,200
5,700 $74,500
56,900 $536,100
Confined Disposal Total Volume 1,331,100 Total Cost $8,969,900
Volume Cost
454,400 $1,824,000
85,500 $1,891,000
129,800 $1,284,000
27,600 $522,900
126,700 $657,000
172,000 $993,000
1,000 $27,900
222,000 $1,063,400
1,200 $28,700
110,900 $677,700
10
-------
Table 9.2 (Continued)
New York
Dunkirk
Year
1993
Ohio
Ashtabula
Year
1987
1989
1990
1994
Ashtabula
Year
1993
Cleveland
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Cleveland
Year
1988
1989
1990
1992
Conneaut
Year
1986
1988
1989
1991
1993
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 101,400 Total Cost $382,800
Volume Cost
101,400 $382,800
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 412,200 Total Cost $1,958,000
Volume Cost
84,600 $343,800
87,000 $607,800
126,000 $512,700
105,300 $493,000
Confined Disposal Total Volume 28,000 Total Cost $750,000
Volume Cost
28,000 $750,000
Confined Disposal Total Volume 2,647,600 Total Cost $18,267,000
Volume Cost
215,000 $2,361,000
344,000 $1,829,000
325,400 $1,634,000
277,000 $2,078,000
81,800 $708,100
385,000 $2,897,000
257,000 $2,177,000
191,100 $1,185,000
283,800 $1,328,000
287,300 $2,069,000
Beach Nourishment Total Volume 215,900 Total Cost $1,070,200
Volume Cost
17,000 $105,000
50,600 $600,000
32,400 $233,300
27,900 $131,900
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 358,900 Total Cost $1,367,700
Volume Cost
68,000 $241,000
101,000 $428,000
20,000 $136,700
71,400 $252,000
98,500 $310,000
11
-------
Table 9.2 (Continued)
F airport Harbor
Open Lake Disposal
Total Volume 1,061,800
Year
Volume
Cost
1985
152,000
$712,000
1988
199,000
$607,000
1989
132,000
$777,200
1991
262,700
$873,400
1992
99,700
$415,800
1994
216,400
$767,000
Huron
Confined Disposal
Total Volume 487,300
Year
Volume
Cost
1985
46,000
$428,000
1987
124,300
$702,400
1988
128,000
$609,000
1990
189,000
$782,800
Huron
Open Lake Disposal
Total Volume 537,500
1992
227,900
$813,400
1994
309,600
$1,027,000
Lorain
Confined Disposal
Total Volume 812,100
Year
Volume
Cost
1985
164,000
$729,000
1986
201,000
$776,000
1987
141,300
$537,900
1989
133,000
$615,800
1992
172,800
$578,300
Rockv River
Open Lake Disposal
Total Volume 89,700
Year
Volume
Cost
1985
48,000
$385,000
1991
41,700
$204,400
Sanduskv
Open Lake Disposal
Total Volume 1,779,200
Year
Volume
Cost
1985
204,000
$918,000
1986
223,000
$1,048,000
1987
84,100
$470,700
1989
47,000
$436,400
1990
294,000
$997,900
1991
243,100
$742,200
1992
255,100
$769,100
1993
228,600
$619,300
1994
200,000
$51,000
Total Cost $4,152,400
Total Cost $2,522,200
Total Cost $1,840,400
Total Cost $3,237,000
Total Cost $589,400
Total Cost $6,052,600
12
-------
Table 9.2 (Continued)
Toledo
Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Toledo
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1992
1993
1994
Vermilion
Year
1985
1991
West Harbor
Year
1988
1993
Toussaint
Year
1991
Ontario
Colchester
Year
1988
Kingsville
Year
1986
1988
1991
1993
Confined Disposal Total Volume 6,612,700 Total Cost $10,159,200
Volume Cost
274,000 $1,561,000
183,000 $1,274,000
485,000 $1,712,000
211,300 $2,606,700
242,300 $477,300
617,500 $1,411,600
600,000 $1,117,000
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 6,095,500 Total Cost $17,444,500
Volume Cost
876,000 $3,802,000
1,238,000 $2,911,000
1,072,100 $2,613,000
503,600 $2,900,000
298,100 $1,274,000
289,000 $1,022,000
643,500 $1,651,300
231,900 $648,600
234,200 $622,000
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 84,300 Total Cost $701,500
Volume Cost
37,000 $485,000
47,300 $216,500
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 118,100 Total Cost $681,500
Volume Cost
66,000 $427,000
52,100 $254,500
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 47,000 Total Cost $214,300
Volume Cost
47,000 $214,300
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 10,464 Total Cost $103,400
Volume Cost
10,464 $103,400
Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 154,875 Total Cost $1,079,200
Volume Cost
59,280 $214,100
40,757 $312,200
36,854 $229,100
33,222 $323,800 (open lake and upland disposal)
13
-------
Table 9.2 (Continued)
Pelee Island Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 1,308 Total Cost $23,200
Year Volume Cost
1988 1,308 $23,200
Port Colbourne Confined and Upland Disposal Total Volume 31,928 Total Cost $321,100
Year Volume Cost
1989 31,928 $321,100
Port Dover Confined Disposal Total Volume 28,953 Total Cost $141,900
Year Volume Cost
1985 28,953 $141,900
Port Stanley Beach Nourishment Total Volume 542,491 Total Cost $3,093,900
Year Volume Cost
1985 205,022 $744,400
1987 139,834 $800,800
1991 52,399 $630,200
1992 127,729 $749,000
1994 17,507 $169,500
Wheatlev Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 2,878 Total Cost $38,700
Year Volume Cost
1993 2,878 $38,700
Pennsylvania
Erie Open Lake Disposal Total Volume 177,800 Total Cost $502,300
Year Volume Cost
1986 75,000 $238,000
1987 103,000 $264,300
14
-------
9.5 Status
Michigan
All of the material that is dredged from the Detroit, Rouge and Monroe AOCs must be
placed in confined disposal facilities. Material from the Detroit River has been placed in
CDF's for years as a result of high metals, PCBs, and mercury content. Those
concentrations have been reduced significantly over time, but hot spots are still of
concern. Dredged materials from the Rouge River have an average PCB content of 10
ppm.
Sediments dredged from the River Raisin navigation channel in Monroe have been placed
in the adjacent CDF. During the course of investigative studies for the River Raisin RAP,
several PCB hotspots were discovered with one site near the outfall of the former Ford
Motor Company as high as 40,000 ppm. Cleanup efforts are underway to further
delineate any sources and remove the PCB contaminated sediments for treatment and
disposal in special facilities. At least five other sites along the river are being investigated
under the Southeast Michigan Initiative as potential sources of contaminants to the river.
New York
Dunkirk Harbor is the only site along New York's Lake Erie shoreline that requires
dredging. Buffalo Harbor is dredged but is not included in the geographic scope of the
Lake Erie LaMP as the Buffalo River empties almost directly into the Niagara River and
has no significant impact on Lake Erie. All sediments dredged from the Buffalo River are
disposed of in the Buffalo Harbor CDF (Dike 4) that is located near the harbor. Again,
any runoff associated with the CDF would flow to the Niagara River. When Dunkirk
Harbor is dredged, the material is open lake disposed.
Ohio
Ohio has 12 sites along Lake Erie that are dredged. Of those sites, Toledo, Lorain, and
Cleveland require at least some dredged material to be placed in CDFs. The most
common contaminants of concern are heavy metals and PCBs. Phosphorus has been a
pollutant of concern in the Toledo Harbor as associated with the historically highly
eutrophic western basin. Sediments dredged from the Huron River were formerly placed
in a CDF, but have been clean enough for open lake disposal since 1992.
The Black River in Lorain has had a historic problem with PAHs near the outfall of an old
steel mill coking facility. In 1990, the USX/KOBE Steel Company removed about 40,000
cubic yards of PAH-contaminated sediments from an area upstream of the routinely
dredged navigation channel. The sediments were placed in an existing RCRA facility on
15
-------
USX property. Follow up monitoring has indicated low to non-detected levels of PAHS.
The high incidence of tumors in brown bullhead that was associated with the elevated
levels of PAHs in sediment has declined considerably after an initial rise when
contaminants were resuspended during dredging. Further monitoring continues.
Sediments in the Ashtabula River navigation channel are highly contaminated at depth.
This portion of the river had not been dredged for many years because the sediments were
contaminated, and also because a deep draft commercial navigation channel was no longer
needed. An interim dredging project in 1993 removed 28,000 cubic yards of moderately
contaminated sediments and deposited them in a small CDF adjacent to the river. The
Ashtabula River RAP, with the support of the Ashtabula River Partnership, is now
working to remove the contaminated sediments remaining in the river. A portion of these
sediments are classified as TSCA material with PCB concentrations greater than 50ppm.
Sediments dredged from the Ashtabula Harbor have historically been clean enough for
open lake disposal. However, contaminated sediments moving down the river have
impacted the harbor to the extent that open lake disposal may no longer be allowed. This
issue is being considered along with the full scale sediment remediation of the lower two
miles of the Ashtabula River through the RAP process.
There are several other dredging projects underway or being considered in the Maumee
AOC that are outside of the Maumee River navigation channel. Sediments dredged near
the mouth of Swan Creek in 1996 needed to be placed in a CDF. A remediation project is
underway on the Ottawa River which is addressing remediation of TSCA classified
sediments. Dredging near the mouth of the Ottawa River to maintain recreational
navigation is also being considered, but the contaminated sediments and a local cost share
requirement may delay this effort for some time.
Ontario
From 1985 to 1995 seven locations in Ontario within the Lake Erie Basin have been
dredged a total of sixteen times. Dredging activities in 1989 at Port Colbourne and in
1993 in Kingsville required a combination of open lake and upland/confined disposal. The
Port Colbourne disposal in a confined disposal facility resulted from the presence of nickel
in high concentrations. Nickel was found in concentrations of 121.83 ppm and the Severe
Effect Level for nickel is 75 ppm.
In general, there is no impairment to dredging activity in Lake Erie waters of the Province
of Ontario. There is very little industrial activity along the Ontario Lake Erie shoreline,
nor the need for maintenance of deep draft shipping channels. Instances of the need for
confined disposal are few and very localized. There are no consistent contaminants.
Pennsylvania
16
-------
The City of Erie's Harbor is the only site in Pennsylvania's Lake Erie waters that requires
dredging. Currently, the dredged material from Erie is open-lake disposed. Analysis of
the dredged material has shown that the sediments have consistently fallen below U.S.
EPA's criteria for open-lake disposal (Burch, 1996). As a result, the activity of dredging
and the disposal of dredged material are not impaired in Pennsylvania's Erie Harbor.
Impairment Conclusions
Over the past ten years, 25 navigational areas around Lake Erie have been dredged a
combined 120 times. Twelve of the 25 areas that are dredged have required the dredged
material to be disposed in a confined disposal facility at some time during this period.
Seven of these sites currently require confined disposal for most of the sediment dredged
from those areas. PCBs and heavy metals are the most commonly identified contaminants
that dictate confined disposal.
Because there are restrictions on disposal of dredged materials, this use is considered
impaired. The occurrence of restrictions on the disposal of dredged material is typically
located in industrial areas.
The trend of disposing of dredged materials into confined disposal facilities is changing.
As concentrations of contaminants in sediment continue to fall and CDFs reach their
maximum capacity, there is a greater likelihood that other alternatives such as open-lake
disposal, beach nourishment, upland disposal, or other beneficial reuse will occur. Both
Canada and the U.S. have funded programs to investigate and demonstrate the use of
remedial technologies to treat contaminated sediments and reduce the amounts that need
to be placed in disposal facilities. Although the major point sources of pollutants to
sediments have decreased, methods and criteria for assessing the effects of contaminated
sediments have become more stringent and could conversely contribute to a greater
amount of contaminated sediments to handle.
A PAH-contaminated site on the Black River (Ohio) was remediated by dredging and
remedial dredging is planned at least three other sites around the basin.
References
1. Burch, Kelvin. 1996. Personal communication. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection.
2. Evans, E.D., M. Wilson, and W. Creal. 1991. Assessment of Mercury
Contamination in Selected Michigan Lakes, 1987-1990: Historical Trends,
Environmental Correlates, and Potential Sources. MDNR, Surface Water Quality
Division. Report No. MI/DNR/SWQ-91/106.
17
-------
3. IJC. 1982. Guidelines and Register for Evaluation of Great Lakes Dredging
Projects. Report of the Dredging Subcommittee to the Water Quality Board,
International Joint Commission. 365 p.
4. IJC. 1989. Proposed Li sting/Deli sting Criteria for Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
Focus on International Joint Commission Activities. Volume 14, Issue 1, insert.
5. Jones, R.J. 1994. Reference Site Sediment Chemistry Report for Wadable
Streams, 1991 and 1993. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
6. Jones, Roger. 1996. Personal communication. Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality.
7. Kahn, Ansar. 1996. Personal communication. Public Works Canada.
8. Kelly, M., andR. Hite, 1984. Evaluation of Illinois Stream Sediment Data: 1974-
1980, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Pollution
Control.
9. Long, E., and L. Morgan, 1990. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-
Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National States and Trends Program, National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum No. 5,
OMA52, NOAA National Ocean Service, Seattle, Washington.
10. Merchant, Linda. 1996. Personal communication. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water.
11. New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), 1994a.
Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments, July, 1994.
12. NYDEC, 1994b. Interim Guidance Fresh Water Navigational Dredging.
13. Persaud, D., Jaagumagi, R., and A. Hayton, 1992. Guidelines for the Protection
and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Queen's Printer for Ontario.
14. U.S. EPA, 1977. Guidelines for the Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes
Harbor Sediments, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago,
Illinois.
15. U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (in press). Great Lakes Dredged
Material Testing Evaluation Manual.
18
-------
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1993. Development of Sediment
Quality Objective Concentrations for PCBs in Deposit A, Little Lake Butte des
Morts, February, 1993.
19
------- |