1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. Confined Disposal Alternatives
11/23/2018

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

18. 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

19. Seepage
Excess Pore Water
Long Term Seepage

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

21. Ross Island
11/23/2018

22. 11/23/2018

23. 11/23/2018

24. Typical Cross Section
11/23/2018

25. Disposal Methods
11/23/2018

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

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

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

29. Groundwater Movement through Cells
11/23/2018

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

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

32. Slope Instability
11/23/2018

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

34. 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

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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

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

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

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