Sediment Cleanup Options Choosing Among Options Regulatory framework for descisions (Materials courtesy of Portland Office, ACOE) CDF Example: Ross Island (Materials courtesy of Stuart Albright, Hart Crowser) Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor (Puget Sound) 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc.

Quantities of Dredged Sediments 250 million cubic yards from 25,000 miles of navigation channels 75 million cubic yards from permits 325 million cubic yards each year Self explanatory The figure at the bottom is an average for NW Division. Over half of hat is from the Columbia/Willamette system.

How Much Dredged Material? > 5½ feet deep over Washington, D.C. Take your choice but most folks prefer to see DC filled. > 1½ feet deep over Chicago

Authorization Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Clean Water Act Section 10 Clean Water Act Section 404 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act Section 103 These are the Three acts that give the Corps/EPA their Authorities to evaluate dredged material for suitability to dredge and dispose of. These acts also require the Corps to regulate the placement of dredged material from private/non federal dredging projects.

Regulatory Authorities U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Fish and Game Agencies State Water Quality Certifying Agencies State Coastal Zone Management Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies These are the various agencies which also have legislative authorities concerning dredge and fill activities in the US. We are required to consult and or seek approvals from them prior to initiating a dredging project.

Federal Standard The disposal alternative or alternatives identified by the Corps which represents the least costly alternative consistent with sound engineering practices and meeting the environmental standards established by the 404(b)(1) evaluation process or ocean dumping criteria. This is how we are to balance activities regulated by the laws. We are to weigh the alternatives and input from the public and agencies and public notice the alternative which strikes the best balance.

Framework for Environmental Acceptability of Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives Evaluation of Dredging Project Requirements Identification of Alternatives Initial Screening of Alternatives Here is the basic process that each of the disposal alternatives goes through. Detailed Assessment of Alternatives Alternative Selection

Technical Framework Summary Reflects real-world conditions Reflects aquatic, intertidal, and upland environments Indicates biological availability of contaminants Predicts potential environmental impacts Provides appropriate level of protection Is consistent with CWA, MPRSA, and NEPA In summary here is what EPA and the Corps hope to get out of utilizing the document.

TIER I TIER II TIER III TIER IV INCREASING COMPLEXITY/ COST Existing Data TIER II INCREASING COMPLEXITY/ COST ENHANCED RESOLUTION Physical/Chem. data Screening Tests Predictive models TIER III Toxicity Tests Bioaccumulation Tests Now to the tiered evaluation process EPA and the Corps use to evaluation the dredged materials suitability for the various disposal options we have worked through. It is a tiered approach with increasing cost and time as you work from tier 1 to 4. But with the gain of environmental understanding and lack of uncertainty TIER IV Chronic Sublethal Tests Steady-State Bioaccumulation Tests Risk Assessment

And here it is and one place where you can access it And here it is and one place where you can access it. I also have a few paper copies with me. https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/ec/h/hr/

Basic Dredge Types Hydraulic Mechanical Other / Combinations Pipeline Hopper Mechanical Clamshell Other / Combinations In order to assess a project first you decide on the type of equipment that can do the job

Factors in Selection of Dredging Equipment Physical characteristics of sediments Quantities to be dredged Dredging depth Distance to disposal area Physical environment of and between areas Contamination level of sediments Method of disposal Production required Types of dredges available Here are the factors we use to do that. In the interest of time I want go into detail on these.

Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives Open Water Placement Ocean ~ Estuarine ~ Lakes ~ Rivers Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) Diked containment Beneficial Use Applications Here are the three basic methods of disposal available after we select the type of equipment that can do the work.

Beneficial Use (BU) Applications BU is alternative of first choice Needs and Opportunities Material Suitability Logistical Constraints Regulatory Requirements Vary CWA / MPRSA Other The first thing we do is determine if there is a beneficial use for the material. This can be a combination of or either of the other alternatives.

Confined Disposal Facilities Site characterization / selection Engineering design Operational considerations Contaminant pathways and controls Long-term management Monitoring More considerations

Confined Disposal Alternatives 11/23/2018

Engineering Issues Reduce Contaminant Pathways Optimize Capacity Disposal pathways Physical disturbance Seepage Optimize Capacity

Physical Disturbance Erosion and Scour Slope Stability Nature of underlying materials Stability of existing and future slopes Excavation and Removal Intended End Use of Site Consolidation and Settlement Cap Properties

Seepage Excess Pore Water Long Term Seepage

Other Considerations Dredged disposal volume Area of land desired Habitat mitigation requirements Cost comparisons

Ross Island 11/23/2018

11/23/2018

11/23/2018

Typical Cross Section 11/23/2018

Disposal Methods 11/23/2018

Potential Contaminant Migration Pathways - Disposal Processes 11/23/2018

Potential Contaminant Migration Pathways - Groundwater Transport (Present and Future) 11/23/2018

Potential Contaminant Migration Pathways - Physical Disturbance 11/23/2018

Groundwater Movement through Cells 11/23/2018

Potential Groundwater Transport from Containment Cells Upward groundwater flow. Predicted discharge concentrations below risk-based criteria. 11/23/2018

Potential Physical Disturbance of Containment Cells Natural erosion (floods). Human influence (mining). Geotechnical stability. 11/23/2018

Slope Instability 11/23/2018

Potential Physical Disturbance of Cells Minimal erosion potential due to dike. Mining controls would avoid impacts. Slopes are receiving fills. 11/23/2018

W. Fish, Portland State University Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Bainbridge Island, in Central Puget Sound 3,780-acres Inactive 40-acre wood treating facility owned by Wyckoff Adjacent 500-acre Eagle Harbor Other upland sources of contamination (Shipyard) 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

W. Fish, Portland State University Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

W. Fish, Portland State University Site History Shipyard operated from 1903 to 1959 on the northwest shore of Eagle Harbor, resulting in releases of metals and organic contaminants. 1905 to 1988, wood treating operations were conducted on the southeast shore involving pressure treatment with creosote and pentachlorophenol 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

W. Fish, Portland State University Historical Sources Preservative chemicals were stored in tanks on the property. Contamination of soil and ground water at wood treatment facility led to seepage into adjacent sediments. Wastewater discharged into Eagle Harbor for many years; storing treated pilings and timber in the water continued until the late 1940's. 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

Contaminants of Concern Shipyard: Levels toxic to marine life polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other organics heavy metals such as mercury, copper, lead, and zinc 11/23/2018

Contaminants of Concern Wyckoff facility, soil and groundwater are contaminated with: Creosote Accompanying PAHs pentachlorophenol (PCP) 11/23/2018

W. Fish, Portland State University Discovery 1984: NOAA investigations of the Harbor revealed that sediment, fish, and shellfish from Eagle Harbor contained elevated levels of PAHs EPA required Wyckoff to conduct environmental investigation activities under RCRA, and the state required immediate action to control stormwater runoff and seepage of contaminants 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

W. Fish, Portland State University CERCLA Operable Units 1991, EPA defined three operable units at the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor site: Wyckoff (OU1) East Harbor (OU2) West Harbor (OU3) Wyckoff Facility groundwater (OU4, 1994) 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

East Harbor Capping (OU2) Sept 1993-March 1994, EPA and the Corps of Engineers covered contaminated sediments in the East Harbor Cap of clean sediment at water depths of 17 m and 13 m, respectively. Sediment was dredged from the Snohomish River as part of an annual project for ship navigation 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

W. Fish, Portland State University Capping Methods Split Hull: Fast but uneven. 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

W. Fish, Portland State University Capping Methods Hydraulic washoff: 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University

W. Fish, Portland State University West Harbor CDF (OU3) 11/23/2018 W. Fish, Portland State University