Technical_Exhibit_1.pdf

SEDIMENT EVALUATIO

FOR THE PACIFIC N

Northwest Regional SedimentEvaluatii

US Army Corps of Engineers @ Northwestern Division

&EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency c1-"'°'~ tZNOAA

·• • FISHERIES

""~moo<P'

West Coast Region

I•l :(•1 State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

SEDIMENT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

JULY 2016

PREPARED BY THE

NORTHWEST REGIONAL SEDIMENT EVALUATION TEAM AGENCIES:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

(NORTHWESTERN DIVISION AND PORTLAND, SEATTLE, AND WALLA WALLA DISTRICTS)

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 10

NOAA FISHERIES, WEST COAST REGION

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, PACIFIC REGION

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

CITATION:

Northwest Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (RSET). 2016. Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest. Prepared by the RSET Agencies, July 2016, 160 pp plus appendices.

Photos, front cover:

Top: Port of Tacoma, Commencement Bay, Puget Sound, Washington (Mt. Rainier in background)

Middle: NOAA Marine Operations Center- Pacific Fleet, Port of Newport, Yaquina Bay, Oregon

Bottom: Vibracore sediment sample collected from sand flats in Baker Bay near Chinook, Washington

2016 Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest

Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Overview..........................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1.2 Applicability and Limitations..................................................................................................1-2

1.1.3 SEF Tiered Sediment Evaluation ............................................................................................1-3

1.2 Regulatory Basis for Sediment Evaluation ......................................................................................1-5

1.2.1 Clean Water Act......................................................................................................................1-6

1.2.2 Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act ...................................................................1-6

1.2.3 Endangered Species Act..........................................................................................................1-7

1.2.4 Other Applicable Federal and State Laws and Regulations ....................................................1-7

1.3 Regional Sediment Evaluation Team.............................................................................................1-10

1.3.1 Development of the SEF .......................................................................................................1-10

1.3.2 RSET Mission and Structure.................................................................................................1-13

1.3.3 Public Review and the SEF...................................................................................................1-13

1.4 References......................................................................................................................................1-15

Regulatory and Civil Works Project Evaluations and the SEF ................................................2-1

2.1 Evaluation of Regulatory and Civil Works Projects ........................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Regulatory Program Permit Evaluations.................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Civil Works Project Evaluations .............................................................................................2-2

2.2 Local Review Teams........................................................................................................................2-3

2.2.1 Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET)..........................................................................2-3

2.2.2 Washington Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP)............................................2-5

2.2.3 Walla Walla-Idaho Sediment Team ........................................................................................2-5

2.3 Dispute Resolution...........................................................................................................................2-5

SEF Level 1 Evaluation............................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Project Description and Conceptual Dredging Plan.........................................................................3-2

3.2 Site History Information ..................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 Conceptual Site Model.....................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.1 Secondary Media and Release Mechanisms ...........................................................................3-6

3.3.2 Exposure Routes......................................................................................................................3-6

3.3.3 Pathway Completeness............................................................................................................3-6

3.4 Management Area Rank (MAR)......................................................................................................3-7

3.5 SEF Level 1 Determinations ............................................................................................................3-9

3.5.1 Data within Recency ...............................................................................................................3-9

3.5.2 Small Project Evaluations .....................................................................................................3-10

3.5.3 Low-Risk Project Evaluations...............................................................................................3-10

3.6 Federal and State Cleanup Actions and the SEF............................................................................3-11

3.7 References......................................................................................................................................3-12

Sampling and Analysis Plan and Field Sampling.....................................................................4-1

4.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan Preparation .........................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan Checklist....................................................................................4-2

FINAL iii July 2016

4.1.2 Allocation of DMMUs ............................................................................................................4-5

4.1.3 Post-Dredge Surface..............................................................................................................4-13

4.1.4 Selection of Sediment Sampling Equipment.........................................................................4-15

4.1.5 Compositing Scheme ............................................................................................................4-16

4.1.6 Conventional Parameters and Physical Screening ................................................................4-17

4.1.7 Sampling Approaches for Full Characterization ...................................................................4-18

4.1.8 Chemical Analyses................................................................................................................4-19

4.1.9 Biological Testing and Special Evaluations..........................................................................4-20

4.1.10 Timing of Sampling ............................................................................................................4-21

4.2 Field Sampling Protocols and Field Quality Assurance.................................................................4-21

4.2.1 Field Sampling Checklist ......................................................................................................4-21

4.2.2 Presampling Conference Call................................................................................................4-24

4.2.3 Horizontal and Vertical Positioning Methods.......................................................................4-24

4.2.4 Sample Collection and Handling Procedures........................................................................4-26

4.2.5 Common Field Sampling Errors ...........................................................................................4-31

4.3 References......................................................................................................................................4-33

Sediment Conventional and Chemical Testing Protocols and Data Quality ............................5-1

5.1 Sediment Conventional and Chemical Parameter Protocols............................................................5-1

5.1.1 Conventional Parameter Testing Protocols .............................................................................5-3

5.1.2 Chemical Parameter Testing Protocols ...................................................................................5-6

5.1.3 Testing Protocols for Site-Specific Chemicals of Concern.....................................................5-7

5.1.4 Evaluation and Nomination of Emerging Contaminants ........................................................5-8

5.2 Sediment Data Quality .....................................................................................................................5-9

5.2.1 Qualified Data: Analytical Sensitivity and Quantitation Limits ...........................................5-12

5.2.2 Federal and State Laboratory Accreditation Programs .........................................................5-13

5.3 References......................................................................................................................................5-14

Sediment Chemical Interpretive Guidelines and the Sediment Characterization Report.........6-1

6.1 Data Reporting .................................................................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Data Qualifiers ........................................................................................................................6-2

6.1.2 Chemical Summations ............................................................................................................6-4

6.2 Benthic Toxicity Screening Levels and Natural Background..........................................................6-6

6.2.1 Benthic Toxicity Screening Levels .........................................................................................6-6

6.2.2 Derivation of the Benthic Screening Levels..........................................................................6-10

6.2.3 Natural Background ..............................................................................................................6-11

6.2.4 Screening Evaluation of Chemical Results ...........................................................................6-12

6.3 Placeholder Screening Levels ........................................................................................................6-13

6.3.1 Water Quality-based SLs—Placeholder for the Protection of Water Quality.......................6-13

6.3.2 PAHs Framework—Placeholder for the Protection of Fish..................................................6-14

6.3.3 Future Listing of Benthic Invertebrate ESA species .............................................................6-14

6.4 Sediment Characterization Report .................................................................................................6-14

6.5 EIM Electronic Data Deliverable...................................................................................................6-15

6.6 Sediment Suitability Determinations .............................................................................................6-16

6.6.1 Dredged Material Suitability.................................................................................................6-16

6.6.2 Post-Dredge Surface (PDS) Suitability .................................................................................6-16

FINAL iv July 2016

6.6.3 Suitability Determination Memorandum (SDM) ..................................................................6-17

6.7 References......................................................................................................................................6-18

Biological Toxicity Testing......................................................................................................7-1

7.1 General Bioassay Information .........................................................................................................7-3

7.1.1 Volume, Holding Times, and Storage Temperature................................................................7-3

7.1.2 Reference Sediments...............................................................................................................7-3

7.1.3 General Bioassay Quality Assurance ......................................................................................7-4

7.2 Marine Bioassays .............................................................................................................................7-5

7.2.1 Marine Species Selection ........................................................................................................7-6

7.2.2 Interpretive Criteria and Performance Standards for Marine Bioassays .................................7-7

7.2.3 Marine Bioassay Confounding Factors .................................................................................7-10

7.3 Freshwater Bioassays.....................................................................................................................7-12

7.3.1 Freshwater Bioassay Species Selection.................................................................................7-12

7.3.2 Performance Standards for Freshwater Bioassays ................................................................7-13

7.3.3 Freshwater Bioassay Interpretive Criteria.............................................................................7-13

7.4 Fish Toxicity Testing—Placeholder ..............................................................................................7-16

7.5 References......................................................................................................................................7-17

Bioaccumulation Evaluation ....................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................8-1

8.2 Bioaccumulative CoCs.....................................................................................................................8-3

8.3 Bioaccumulation Triggers................................................................................................................8-4

8.4 Comparison to Background .............................................................................................................8-5

8.5 Standard Bioaccumulation Testing ..................................................................................................8-6

8.5.1 Standard Bioaccumulation Testing—Marine........................................................................8-10

8.5.2 Standard Bioaccumulation Testing—Freshwater..................................................................8-11

8.5.3 Marine In-Situ Tests..............................................................................................................8-11

8.5.4 Freshwater In Situ Tests........................................................................................................8-12

8.5.5 Collection of Field Organisms ..............................................................................................8-12

8.5.6 Target Tissue Levels .............................................................................................................8-12

8.5.7 Data Interpretation ................................................................................................................8-15

8.6 Steady-State Bioaccumulation Testing ..........................................................................................8-16

8.7 References......................................................................................................................................8-18

Special Evaluations ..................................................................................................................9-1

9.1 Water Quality at the Dredge and Disposal Sites ..............................................................................9-2

9.1.1 Elutriate Test Triggers.............................................................................................................9-3

9.1.2 Elutriate Tests for Dredging and Disposal ..............................................................................9-7

9.1.3 Elutriate Bioassay Tests ..........................................................................................................9-8

9.1.4 Evaluating Elutriate and Elutriate Bioassay Test Results .......................................................9-8

9.1.5 Water Quality Controls ...........................................................................................................9-9

9.2 Characterization of Generated Residuals .......................................................................................9-10

9.3 Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment ..................................................................................9-11

9.3.1 Oregon State Risk Assessment Guidance .............................................................................9-11

9.3.2 Washington State Risk Assessment Guidance ......................................................................9-12

9.3.3 Idaho State Risk Assessment Guidance ................................................................................9-12

FINAL v July 2016

9.3.4 Federal State Risk Assessment Guidance .............................................................................9-12

9.4 References......................................................................................................................................9-14

Dredged Material Disposal and Post-Dredge Surface Management ....................................10-1

10.1 Unconfined, Aquatic Disposal and Beneficial Use......................................................................10-2

10.1.1 Dispersive Disposal.............................................................................................................10-2

10.1.2 Nondispersive Disposal.......................................................................................................10-3

10.1.3 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material....................................................................................10-3

10.2 Contaminated Sediment Disposal ................................................................................................10-4

10.2.1 Confined Aquatic Disposal .................................................................................................10-4

10.2.2 Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility ................................................................................10-4

10.2.3 Upland Disposal ..................................................................................................................10-5

10.3 Post-Dredge Surface Management...............................................................................................10-5

10.3.1 Reducing Generated Residuals during Dredging ................................................................10-5

10.3.2 Monitored Natural Recovery...............................................................................................10-7

10.3.3 Capping ...............................................................................................................................10-7

10.4 References....................................................................................................................................10-9

Appendix A. Proposal to Revise Freshwater Screening Levels................................................................A-1

Appendix B. Public Process to Change the SEF.......................................................................................B-1

Appendix C. Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern Lists.....................................................................C-1

Appendix D. Biological Testing Toolbox.................................................................................................D-1

Appendix E. Derivation of Bioaccumulation Target Tissue Levels and Sediment Bioaccumulation

Triggers........................................................................................................................................ E-1

List of Tables Table 1-1. Summary of federal and state laws that may pertain to dredging projects. ..............................1-8

Table 3-1. Conceptual Site Model worksheet for dredging and disposal activities. ..................................3-5

Table 3-2. Management area rank definitions............................................................................................3-8

Table 3-3. Recency of data.† ......................................................................................................................3-9

Table 4-1. DMMU maximum volume guidelines (Portland District)........................................................4-6

Table 4-2. Example compositing scheme for vibracore sampling the dredge prism and Z-layer............4-17

Table 4-3. Sample storage criteria. ..........................................................................................................4-29

Table 5-1. Recommended sediment analytical methods and sample quantitation limits...........................5-4

Table 6-1. Toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCDDs and PCDFs.1................................................6-6

Table 6-2. Benthic toxicity screening levels. .............................................................................................6-8

Table 7-1. Interpretive criteria and performance standards for marine biological tests.............................7-9

Table 7-2. Ref Tox and purging triggers for the various bioassays. ........................................................7-11

Table 7-3. Freshwater biological tests, species, and applicable endpoints. .............................................7-13

Table 7-4. Interpretive criteria and performance standards for freshwater biological tests.....................7-15

Table 8-1. List 1 bioaccumulative chemicals of concern by subregion. ....................................................8-3

Table 8-2. Recommended tissue analytical methods and sample quantitation limits. ...............................8-9

Table 8-3. Test, reference, and sediment volume requirements for marine bioaccumulation testing......8-10

FINAL vi July 2016

Table 8-4. Test, control, and reference sediment volume requirements for freshwater bioaccumulation testing.....................................................................................................................................8-11

Table 8-5. Target tissue levels (TTLs) for the protection of aquatic life. ................................................8-14

Table 8-6. Target tissue levels (mg/kg ww) for the protection of aquatic-dependent wildlife. ...............8-15

Table 9-1. Elutriate testing triggers for freshwater sediment.*..................................................................9-6

Table 9-2. Elutriate testing triggers for marine sediment. .........................................................................9-7

List of Figures Figure 1-1. Geographic extent of SEF applicability. .................................................................................1-3

Figure 1-2. SEF tiered evaluation process. ................................................................................................1-5

Figure 1-3. Hierarchy of the Regional Dredging Team. ..........................................................................1-14

Figure 2-1. Regulatory permit evaluation and sediment evaluation interface. ..........................................2-2

Figure 2-2. Sediment evaluation during the lifespan of a Corps civil works project.................................2-4

Figure 3-1. Overview of the Level 1 evaluation. .......................................................................................3-1

Figure 3-2. Conceptual illustration of the CSM.........................................................................................3-4

Figure 4-1. SEF tiered evaluation process: sampling and analysis plan and field sampling. ....................4-2

Figure 4-2. Dredging project dimensions and zones..................................................................................4-7

Figure 4-3. Dredging project dimensions and zones and two dredge prism sampling strategies. .............4-8

Figure 4-4. Baker Bay West Channel—DMMU 1 is ranked low and composed of fine-grained sediment;

DMMU 2 (Figure 4-5) is ranked very-low and composed of sand..........................................4-9

Figure 4-5. Baker Bay West Channel—shoals (in red) consistently form at the same locations. .............4-9

Figure 4-6. DMMUs selected based on depth (CRD = Columbia River Datum). ...................................4-10

Figure 4-7. DMMUs defined by the shape of the dredge area.................................................................4-10

Figure 4-8. DMMU (and Z-layer) selection based on the geometry of the dredge cut............................4-11

Figure 4-9. Stratified maintenance and deepening DMMUs. ..................................................................4-12

Figure 4-10. Stratified DMMUs can be designated to characterize potentially contaminated sediments and mange for contamination that (A) decreases with depth or (B) increases with depth............4-12

Figure 4-11. Dredge prism characterization requiring four DMMUs and three subsamples per DMMU.

Side-by-side DMMUs require 12 cores; stratifying the DMMUs requires only 6 cores. ......4-12

Figure 4-12. Dredging residuals are composed of generated residuals(*) and undisturbed residuals. ....4-14

Figure 5-1. Laboratory chemical and physical analysis within SEF tiered evaluation process. ................5-2

Figure 5-2. Quality assurance stages of a project. ...................................................................................5-10

Figure 5-3. Quality assurance process for data review and interpretation. ..............................................5-10

Figure 6-1. SEF tiered evaluation and the sediment interpretive guidelines and data reporting. ..............6-2

Figure 6-2. Visual representation of data qualifiers based on detection and reporting limits....................6-3

Figure 6-3. Application of the SLs and background metals for dredged material evaluations................6-13

Figure 7-1. Overview of Level 2B benthic toxicity testing element..........................................................7-2

Figure 8-1. Bioaccumulation evaluation steps. ..........................................................................................8-2

Figure 9-1. Overview of special evaluations with respect to the sediment evaluation process. ................9-2

Figure 9-2. Depending on the contamination profile, significant contributions of generated residuals may result in (A) a more contaminated post-dredge surface (than indicated by the Z-layer analysis) or (B) Z-layer contamination in the post-dredge surface with cleaner generated residuals...9-11

FINAL vii July 2016

Figure 10-1. The sediment evaluation process culminates in a management decision for the dredged material and post-dredge surface. ..........................................................................................10-1

Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols µg/kg micrograms per kilogram (parts per billion) µg/L micrograms per liter µm micrometer or micron

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials

BCoCs bioaccumulative chemicals of concern

BT bioaccumulation trigger

CAD confined aquatic disposal

CDF confined disposal facility

CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm centimeters

CoCs chemicals of concern or contaminants of concern

Corps US Army Corps of Engineers

CSM conceptual site model

CWA Clean Water Act

DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DMMO Seattle District Dredged Material Management Office

DMMP Washington Dredged Material Management Program

DMMU dredged material management unit

DoD Department of Defense

EC effective concentration

Ecology Washington Department of Ecology

EDL estimated detection limit

FINAL viii July 2016

EIM Environmental Information Management (Ecology database)

EMPC estimated maximal potential concentration

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbons

ERDC US Army Engineer Research and Development Center

ESA Endangered Species Act

FPM Floating Percentile Method (for calculating freshwater screening levels) g gram gal gallon

HDPE high-density polyethylene

Hg mercury

HPAH high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (fluoranthene, pyrene, benz (a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b,j+k)fluoranthenes, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenz (a,h)anthracene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene)

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

L liter

LC lethal concentration

LPAH low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and anthracene)

MAR management area rank

MDL method detection limit mg/kg millgrams per kilogram (parts per million) mL milliliter

MLLW mean lower low water mm millimeter

MNR monitored natural recovery

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, aka Ocean Dumping Act

MRL method reporting limit (aka PQL, SQL)

NA not available/not applicable

NAD North American Datum

FINAL ix July 2016

NCMA normalized combined mortality and abnormality (sediment larval bioassay terminology)

NDT National Dredging Team

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

NOEC no observable effect level

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NWRDT Northwestern Regional Dredging Team

NWTPH-Dx NorthWest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, diesel and residual range hydrocarbons

NWTPH-Gx NorthWest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, gasoline range hydrocarbons

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODMDS ocean dredged material disposal site (selected/designated under MPRSA)

Opinion biological opinion issued by NMFS or USFWS oz ounce

PAHs polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)

PCDD/PCD polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans F

PDS post-dredge surface pg/kg picograms per kilogram (parts per trillion) ppt parts per thousand (salinity)

PQL practical quantitation limit (aka SQL, MRL)

PSDDA Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis

PSEP Puget Sound Estuary Partnership

PSET Portland Sediment Evaluation Team

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

Ref Tox reference toxicant (bioassay terminology)

RSET Northwestern Regional Sediment Evaluation Team

FINAL x July 2016

SAP sampling and analysis plan

SCR sediment characterization report

SDM suitability determination memorandum

SEF Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest

SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

SIM Selective Ion Monitoring

SLs benthic toxicity screening levels (freshwater or marine)

SQL Sample Quantitation Limit (aka MRL, PQL)

SSD species sensitivity distribution

SVOCs semivolatile organic compounds

TCDD tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

TEF toxicity equivalency factor

TEQ TCDD toxicity equivalent the Services NMFS and USFWS, collectively

TOC total organic carbon

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons

TSS total suspended solids

TTL target tissue level

U undetected/nondetected result

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

UTL upper tolerance limit

VPH volatile petroleum hydrocarbons

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

WGS World Geodetic System

WQ water quality

FINAL xi July 2016

Introduction

1.1 Overview

The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share federal responsibility for regulating dredged material within waters of the United States under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and for regulating dredged material in ocean waters under section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Under section 401 of the CWA, the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho must also certify that aquatic discharges do not violate state and federal water quality standards.

This Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest (SEF) provides a framework for assessing and characterizing sediment to determine the suitability of dredged material for unconfined, aquatic disposal; determine the suitability of post-dredge surfaces; and predict effects on water quality during dredging. The SEF describes procedures for evaluating potential contaminant-related environmental impacts of dredging and the aquatic placement of dredged material in inland waters and the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. The framework is designed for use in the Pacific Northwest, defined here as the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. It will be periodically revised and updated as warranted by advances in regulatory practice and technical understanding.

This 2016 SEF was prepared by the Northwestern Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (RSET) agencies1 and it replaces the 2009 SEF (Corps et al. 2009). It also replaces the freshwater benthic toxicity screening levels (SLs) published in the 2006 interim final SEF (Corps et al. 2006).

1.1.1 Purpose

The SEF serves as the Pacific Northwest’s joint regional implementation manual for the two national sediment testing manuals:

• Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal (Ocean Testing Manual), which satisfies MPRSA sediment testing requirements (EPA and Corps 1991)

• Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. – Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual), which satisfies CWA sediment testing requirements (EPA and Corps 1998)

Specifically, the SEF does the following:

• Provides a framework for characterizing marine and freshwater sediment quality in coordination with the public, stakeholders, and regulatory resource agencies.

• Provides a uniform framework under which the Corps meets CWA and MPRSA sediment testing requirements for both Corps civil works dredging and Corps Regulatory Program (Regulatory) permit evaluations.

1 Includes the US Army Corps of Engineers (Northwestern Division: Seattle, Portland, and Walla Walla Districts), Environmental Protection Agency-Region 10, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

FINAL 1-1 July 2016

• Provides a uniform framework for other federal and state agencies with statutory responsibilities related to the evaluation of dredged material.

• Identifies a regional database to track the long-term trends in sediment quality for specific dredging projects/locations and for the region.

• Provides procedures or references other regional/national guidance to assist in identifying and evaluating alternative sediment management options.

• Evaluates the need for federal and/or state environmental cleanup activities2, but not the actual cleanup remedy or removal action.

The SEF incorporates the best available science to evaluate discharges of dredged material; the RSET developed the SEF with the following qualities in mind:

• Consistent—Make sediment evaluation procedures as consistent as possible throughout the Pacific Northwest.

• Flexible—Evaluation procedures must be flexible enough to allow for exceptions due to project and site-specific concerns and be scalable to projects of any size.

• Accountable—The need for, and cost implications of, evaluation procedures must be justifiable to the individual stakeholder/permittee and to the public, and the local review teams who perform sediment evaluations must strive to meet civil works deadlines and Regulatory permitting timeframes.

project.

• Dynamic—Evaluation procedures must be based on best available technical and policy information; the RSET agencies are committed to periodically revising the SEF to incorporate the latest, best available science.

assurance and quality control guidelines, and have standardized protocols.

1.1.2 Applicability and Limitations

The SEF is primarily used to evaluate the suitability of dredged material for unconfined, aquatic placement. However, the SEF may also be used to evaluate discharges of dredged material associated with non-navigational projects (e.g., ecosystem restoration projects), as well as for antidegradation evaluation under the states’ authorities. Geographically, these evaluation procedures apply to dredging projects in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (generally conforming to the Seattle, Portland, and Walla Walla Corps District boundaries [Figure 1-1]).

2 For environmental cleanup activities, the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho will exercise their regulatory authority via their cleanup statutes (see section 1.2.5). EPA will manage federal cleanup activities per the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (i.e., Superfund).

FINAL 1-2 July 2016

Figure 1-1. Geographic extent of SEF applicability.

The SEF ensures consistency and public accountability for the assessment, characterization, and management of sediments in the Pacific Northwest region. This manual is aligned with other regional programs including the successful Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) in the state of Washington and the Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET) in Oregon. All pertinent federal and state laws, regulations, and guidance are considered in this SEF. As the regional implementation manual for the Pacific Northwest region, the SEF is consistent with the guidelines of the national-level sediment assessment manuals. Nothing in this SEF alters or limits agency responsibilities or imposes mandatory requirements beyond existing statute or regulation.

The SEF guidance regarding sample handling, storage, analysis, and biological testing is consistent with federal and state cleanup program guidance, which ensures consistent data quality across the programs.

However, this manual does not provide guidance for characterizing a contaminated site in order to make decisions regarding how the site will be managed. All sediment evaluations for cleanup actions are to be coordinated through the appropriate state and federal cleanup programs (see section 1.2.4).

1.1.3 SEF Tiered Sediment Evaluation

The SEF provides a risk-based sediment assessment framework that describes methods and procedures to evaluate dredging and the discharges of dredged material and inform sediment management decisions made by regulatory authorities. The SEF chapters follow the sequence of sediment evaluation for a project. However, the chapters are also written to enable the reader to obtain information from one technical aspect, if desired, without necessarily reading the entire manual.

FINAL 1-3 July 2016

The SEF uses a two-tiered evaluation process to assess the suitability of project sediments for unconfined, aquatic disposal (Figure 1-2):

• Level 1—Project Description and Site History Information—includes the following:

Defining the scope of the project (section 3.1) Collecting historically available data (section 3.2) Developing the Conceptual Site Model (CSM, section 3.3) Synthesizing available information to establish the management area rank for the project

(section 3.4).

If the Level 1 information is sufficient to conclude that the risk to ecological receptors is minimal and dredged material is suitable for aquatic disposal, then there is no need to collect additional data and a sediment suitability determination can be made at the end of Level 1 review. If the Level 1 information is insufficient to determine dredged material suitability, then Level 2 sediment evaluation is required.

• Level 2—Sediment Physical, Chemical, Biological, and Water Quality Evaluations—has two parts:

Level 2A documents sediment chemical and physical characteristics of the project. Steps in the Level 2A evaluation include the following:

(Chapter 6) If sediment chemical concentrations are above the regional sediment quality guidelines, Level 2B analyses are used to evaluate potential effects on water quality and ecological/human receptors. Level 2B evaluations may include one or more of the following:

evaluations, etc.) (Chapter 9).

The ultimate product of the SEF review is a sediment suitability determination for the project. Employing the methods prescribed in the SEF, the project proponent can provide sufficient information for the interagency local review team (see section 1.3) to make a sediment suitability determination for the project. The sediment suitability determination memorandum (SDM) informs the Corps project manager (civil works or Regulatory Program) if project sediments are suitable for unconfined, aquatic disposal.

The project proponent can use the information in the SDM to design the dredging project and identify appropriate disposal options. The SDM can also inform agencies of the need for project controls to meet state and federal regulatory requirements (Chapter 10).

Many sections of this SEF are cross-referenced to alert readers to relevant issues that might be covered elsewhere in the manual. This cross-referencing is particularly important for certain chemical or toxicological applications in which sample processing or laboratory procedures are associated with specific field sampling procedures.

FINAL 1-4 July 2016

Dredged Material Management

Decision (Sec. 3.5)

Define Project (Sec. 3.1) Compile Site History Information (Sec. 3.2) Develop Conceptual Site Model (Sec. 3.3) Establish Management Area Rank (Sec. 3.4)

Prepare Sampling and Analysis Plan (Sec. 4.1)

Conduct Field Sampling (Sec. 4.2) Chemical /Physical Analysis (CH 5) Sediment Characterization Report (CH 6)

NO

YES

Dredged Material Management

Decision (Sec. 6.6, CH 10)

NO

YES

and/or and/or Bioassays

(CH 7)

Bioaccumulation Studies (CH 8)

Dredged Material Management

Decision (CH 10)

LE

VE

L

LE

VE

L 2A

LE

VE

L 2B

Sufficient Data?

Sufficient Data?

Special Evaluations (CH 9) elutriate testing, water quality modeling, dredging residuals evaluation

Figure 1-2. SEF tiered evaluation process.

(*Note that Level 2B evaluations may be run concurrently with Level 2A.)

1.2 Regulatory Basis for Sediment Evaluation

Several state and federal entities have regulatory authority governing the management of dredged material and contaminated sediment in the Pacific Northwest. This section briefly describes the federal and state regulatory authorities governing sediment evaluation.

FINAL 1-5 July 2016

1.2.1 Clean Water Act

Section 404

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (amended and renamed the Clean Water Act of 1977) governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (inland of and including the territorial sea). The geographical limits of jurisdiction under the CWA include all waters of the United States as defined at 33 CFR 328.3.

Section 404(b)(1) requires the EPA, in conjunction with the Corps, to promulgate guidelines for the discharge of dredged or fill material to ensure that such proposed discharge will not result in unacceptable adverse environmental impacts either individually or in combination to waters of the United States. The Corps and EPA also have authority under the section 404(b)(1) guidelines to identify, in advance, sites that are either suitable or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Section 404(b)(1) assigns to the Corps the responsibility for authorizing all such proposed discharges and requires application of the guidelines in assessing the environmental acceptability of the proposed action. The Corps is also required to examine the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative to the proposed discharge, including alternatives to disposal into waters of the United States.

Subpart B of the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230.10–230.11) identifies restrictions on the discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States and the factual determinations that must be made in accordance with the restrictions. Subpart G of the 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230.60–230.61) identifies regulatory procedures for the general evaluation of discharges; Subpart G also identifies procedures for chemical, biological, and physical evaluation and testing of dredged and fill materials. In the Pacific Northwest, the SEF guidance is designed to help ensure that Corps civil works projects and federal permits comply with the CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines.

Section 401

CWA section 401 allows states to issue water quality certifications (with or without conditions), deny certification, or waive certification for any activity that results in a discharge to a water of the United States and requires a federal permit or license. A water quality certification certifies that the activity complies with all applicable federal and state water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions. No license or permit may be issued by a federal agency until the water quality certification required by section 401 has been granted. Further, no license or permit may be issued if certification has been denied.

The SEF guidance can be used to evaluate the potential water quality effects at the dredge area and at the disposal site. In the Pacific Northwest, the following agencies administer section 401 programs in their respective states: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ).

1.2.2 Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act

The MPRSA (also called the Ocean Dumping Act, 33 USC 1401 et seq.) governs the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of disposal into ocean waters. The EPA has authority under section 102 to designate ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs). The Corps is required to use designated ODMDSs to the extent feasible. Where infeasible, the Corps may, with the concurrence of EPA, select alternative ocean disposal sites using the EPA site selection criteria (see 40 CFR Parts 227–228). The

FINAL 1-6 July 2016 http:230.60�230.61 http:230.10�230.11

Corps must consider project effects to navigation, economic and industrial development, and foreign and domestic commerce and the availability of alternative sites.

The Corps may issue permits for ocean disposal under section 103 of the MPRSA. After the proposed permit action has been reviewed by EPA for compliance with the ocean dumping criteria and received EPA’s concurrence, the Corps may issue a permit for ocean disposal. If EPA determines the criteria are not met, disposal may not occur without a waiver of the criteria by EPA.

The criteria for evaluating the environmental impacts of ocean disposal, including disposal of dredged material, is provided in Subpart B of the ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR 227.4–227.13). In the Pacific Northwest, the SEF sediment testing guidance helps ensure that disposal of dredged material in the ocean is compliant with the MPRSA ocean dumping criteria.

1.2.3 Endangered Species Act

Section 7(a)1 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA in recovering ESA-listed species such that they can be delisted. Section 7(a)2 of the ESA outlines interagency cooperation procedures for federal action agencies to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together the Services) to ensure the actions they fund and/or permit do not jeopardize the existence of any ESA-listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat in the action area of the project.

Upon receipt of a request to consult from another federal agency, the NMFS and/or the USFWS—the agencies with the legislative mandate to oversee ESA listings and recovery planning—prepare Letters of Concurrence if they agree with the requesting agency that the federal action is not likely to adversely affect the subject listed species or its critical habitat.

If the action…