Columbia River Estuary dredging and in-water disposal handbook

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

DREDGING AND IN-WATER DISPOSAL
PAP HANDBOOK

December 1989

Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
C@_

COASTAL ZONE
TC MATION CENTER
187 INFOR
B37
1989

U.S. OF COMMERCE NOAA
CENTER
20N AVENUE
28C 2S405-2413

Columbia Rivet Estuary Study Taskforce

Property of CSC Library

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

DREDGING AND IN-WATER DISPOSAL HANDBOOK

U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON -2K 2@405- 24 13

Mark R. Barnes
Carol M. Rushmore
David S. Fox

December 1989

This Project was funded by the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.,
through a grant made under Section 309 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, to the National Coastal
Resources Research and Development Institute, Newport, Oregon.
cr

cllz@

TC187 .B37 1987
22418740
FEB 12 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Project Description 1

1.2. Contents 2

2. SEDIMENT QUALITY 5

2.1. Sediment Quality Data: Background Information 5

2.2. Sediment Data Collection: Sampling and
Analysis Considerations 21

2.3. Sediment Quality, Summary 25

3. PERMIT PROCESS 27

3.1. Section 404 Permit 27

3.2. Washington Hydraulics Project Approval 33

3.3. Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) Review 33

3.4. Proprietary Management of Submerged Lands
in Washington 33

3.5. Oregon Fill and Removal Permit 33

3.6. Local Permits 37

3.7. Permit Summary 39

4. GLOSSARY 41

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY 47

i
I

LIST OF MAPS
Page No. i
Map I Columbia River Estuary 3 1
11,

I
II
I
It
I

I
I

I
I
I
I
iv I

LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.

Figure 1 Tiered Sediment Evaluation 7

Figure 2 Grain Size Distribution Chart 9

Figure 3 Sampling Equipment 23

Figure 4 Portland District Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit Application 29

Figure 5 Seattle District Corps of Engineers Section 404
Permit Application 31

Figure 6 Section 404 Permit Process 29

Figure 7 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review Process 35

Figure 8 Local Permit Review Process 38

1.-INTRODUCTION

The Columbia River Estuary contains valuable aquatic and biological
resources as well as economically significant navigational facilities.
Dredging and dredged material disposal are essential for maintaining the
Estuary's navigation channels, turning basins, anchorages and mooring
facilities. Dredging and dredged material disposal, and particularly in-water
disposal of contaminated sediment, may damage aquatic and biological resources.
A number of regulatory programs at the local, state and federal level seek to
manage in-water disposal in a manner that minimizes damage to the aquatic
environment. The regulatory programs are complex. This report describes the
permit process for in-water dredged material disposal in the Columbia River
Estuary, and the steps that should be followed by those seeking permits for in-
water dredged material disposal.

1.1. Project Description

This report describes the regulatory process used for making permit
decisions about in-water dredged material disposal in the Columbia River
Estuary. The estuary is defined here as extending from the river mouth
upstream to approximately river mile 45 (see Map 1). In-water disposal of
dredged material includes flowlane disposal using a hydraulic dredge, or open
water disposal using a barge. Local, state and federal agencies are involved
in the permit process for in-water dredged material disposal.

The permit process is complex, but not just because water quality is a
complex issue. Three additional complicating factors are also present. The.
Columbia River Estuary is a bi-state water body, so regulatory agencies from
two states are involved. The Washington Department of Ecology and the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality cooperate, but their regulations and
administrative procedures are not identical. Sediment quality is a relatively
new area for regulatory attention, and regulations are still evolving and being
developed. The passage of time will improve this situation. Finally, the
Columbia River Estuary is a large and dynamic estuary The aquatic environment
in the Columbia River Estuary is significantly differ;nt from other marine and
estuarine environments, and would be expected to respond differently to
sediment quality problems. For these reasons and others, the permit process
for in-water dredged material disposal is slow, confusing and, at times,
frustrating. There is little certainty in the process. There are, however,
procedures that can be followed by a permit applicant that will minimize these
problems. Those procedures are described in this report.

This report is one of-four documents addressing sediment quality and
dredging in the Columbia River Estuary. The other three documents are:

Columbia River Estuary Sediment Quality Policy Evaluation.
(CREST 1989)

Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Policy Evaluation. (CREST 1987)

Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material Management Plan. (CREST 1986)

All-four of these reports are prepared by the Columbia River Estuary Study
Taskforce (CREST), a bi-state council of local governments serving communities
on the lower Columbia River. This report, as well as the three reports cited
above, were funded in whole or in part by the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., through a grant made under Section
309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, to the National
Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute, Newport, Oregon.

1.2. Contents

This report includes two principal chapters. Chapter 2, Sediment Quality,
provides background information on some of the principal issues and concerns
about sediment contamination in the Columbia River Estuary. It describes the
procedures for providing sediment quality information needed for review of in-
water disposal permits. Adequate information about the sediment proposed for
in-water disposal is an essential part of the permit review process.

Chapter 3 provides procedural and substantive information about the permit
process. Most in-water disposal projects on the Columbia River Estuary will
require a federal permit, one or more state permits, and a local permit. For
projects that occur in both states (such as dredging in Washington waters and
disposal in Oregon waters), additional permit review will be required. Despite
the number of permits involved, the different agencies coordinate their permit
review efforts reasonably well. Permit considerations are described in Chapter
3.

A glossary of technical terms used in this report and elsewhere is
included following Chapter 3, along with a list of reference documents.

a 2
Ig@t

U'
on -1;,

BAKER

Rocl@, 11,
BAY'
A
JGRAYS BAY@
pigt,op Bluff
G,.y@ P1.
Peacmk Spit

Harrington Pt.
cuff P,

fall
hinook 6. C
+
is- +

PACIF1 0 Tq!.1 Sands
NT,1
S..h CLATSOP - UNTY

10and
i-RESTLE COLUMBIA RIVER
Ong P
Ad.

Desdentona.Sands . - - CATHLAMET
n

Wand
and BAY
T.-Y P1.

Aid- C
Cu- 5mith Pt
We
YO
'7 NG5
BAY,
P1.
10,
+

PACIFIC OCEAN

2"-

All
+ +
L
124-W k. A'al a

Columbia River Estuary ---f- Shoreline (limit of non-aqu

Scale 1:160,000 Interlidal vegetation

0 1 2 3 4 S 67 If q 10 Kilometer,
17- - i-
'S

U
0
C
C

M
u
T
y
S!A

BIA

ento
I- d na Sad

Ald

YOUNC;5
BAY
P,

OL 2 4 4 5 f, h4de, Shoals and flats

Map produced in 1983 by Northunest Cartography. Inc.
for the Columbia Myer Estuainy Data Drwelopment Program Lakes. rivers, other non-ti

2. SEDIMENT QUALITY

The presence or absence of chemical contaminants in sediment, and their
potential affects on aquatic organisms, are major considerations during review
of permits for in-water dredged material disposal. Instances of severe
sediment contamination have not been reported in the Columbia River Estuary,
but because they have occurred in other estuaries., regulatory agencies are
justifiably cautious when reviewing proposals for in-water disposal in the
Columbia River.

Sediment quality can be evaluated against several different parameters.
For regulatory purposes, these parameters can be broadly classified as
biological, chemical, physical or locational. Data needed for evaluating
sediment quality for permit review purposes is normally supplied by the permit
applicant, at the applicant's expense. The types of data needed vary from
project to project. This Chapter describes the types of data needed for
evaluating sediment quality as well as methods for collecting and presenting
the data. Section 2.1. describes the physical, locational, chemical and
biological data used for evaluating sediment. Section 2.2. provides guidelines
on generating the data.

2.1. Sediment Quality Data: Background Information

As mentioned in the introduction to this section, the different kinds of
data reviewed by regulatory agency staff when evaluating sediment suitability
for in-water disposal can be divided into four categories: locational,
physical, chemical and biological. These four data types are used sequentially
for evaluating sediment quality in the Columbia River Estuary. The sequential
use of these data is sometimes called a tiered approach to sediment evaluation.
Although there are many different ways a tiered approach might be implemented,
its basic outline is relatively simple. A decision is made at each tier
whether the existing sediment data at that tier criteria-can support approval
for in-water disposal. If the data is sufficient, there is no need to proceed
to the next tier. If not, data corresponding to the next tier are required
before sediment may be approved for in-water disposal. This tiered arrangement
is summarized in Figure 1. The four tiers and the data associated with each
tier are described below.

Locational Factors

A dredging site's location within the estuary can provide a significant
amount of information about sediment that may be found there. This
information, under some circumstances, may be useful for evaluating sediment
suitability for in-water disposal. Locational data may also help guide and
fine-tune other evaluative efforts. The best kind of data at this tier are
physical, chemical or biological test data that have been previously collected
at or near the proposed dredge site. Data that show a history of clean
sediment at the proposed dredge site, plus no reason to suspect recent
contamination, may speed the sediment evaluation process significantly.
Sediment chemistry data are available for a number of dredging sites in the

estuary, especially the main navigation channel, areas in Baker Bay, Cathlamet
Bay, the Skipanon River and the Port of Astoria docks.

Areas of fine grain sediment accumulation are generally believed to be
areas where sediment contaminants might be found. This is expected because
many compounds have electrochemical properties that cause an affinity for fine
grain sediment. Existing data tend to support this (for example, Felstul,
1986). Therefore, areas in the estuary with a predominance of coarser grain
sediment are likely to be clean, and may not require further evaluation for in-
water disposal. Sediment from the main navigation channel typically consists
of less than twenty percent silt, clay and finer material, and often is
approved for in-water disposal without detailed physical, chemical, or
biological study. Fine-grain sediments accumulate in shallow areas, semi-
enclosed embayments, marinas, or other areas not affected by strong currents.
Sediment from these areas will probably require additional testing before
approved for in-water disposal.

Figure 1: Tiered Sediment Evaluation

Tier 1:
Locational Data

Do
Tier I dat
support approval
yes for in-water disposal No

Tier 2:
Physical Data

Do
Tier 2 dat
support approval
-yes for in-water disposal No-
?

Tier 3:
Chemical Data applicant
may skip
forward

Do
Tier 3 dat
support approval
yes for in-water disposa
?

Tier 4:
Biological Data

Do
Tier 4 data
support approval
yes for in-water disposal No

No
@o

Ny -1/
approve for in-water dispos al Fd--y for in-water dispos--11

-7

.Historical information may be-useful for evaluating sediment quality at
the first tier. Tongue Point sediment, for example, is believed to be
contaminated as a result of U.S. Navy activities conducted there after the
Second World War; The Pacific Power and Light coal gasification plant in
Astoria may be the source of coal tar contamination in a portion of Youngs Bay.
Areas of the estuary where boat building or fishpacking has occurred over a
long period are suspected of retaining sediment contaminants associated with
these industries. The fact that these activities have occurred does not by
itself imply that sediment from those areas is unsuitable for in-water
disposal, however, it probably indicates additional information on physical and
chemical sediment characteristics will be necessary. - I
Locational factors are the first tier in the tiered approach to sediment
evaluation. If existing locational data adequately support a decision in favor
of in-water disposal, data from the subsequent tiers are not needed. If
locational data suggest that sediments at the dredge site may be contaminated,
or if the data are inconclusive, unreliable, or otherwise insufficient, data
from one or more of the subsequent. tiers will be necessary.

Physical Factors

Up to twelve physical parameters are useful in determining sediment
quality, although only one of them -- grain size data -- is used often. The
variables described here include grain size, oil and grease, total organic
carbon, volatile solids, pH, total sulfides, total nitrogen, ammonia,
biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, petroleum hydrocarbons, and
dissolved sulfides. Of these, grain size data are the most frequently
measured. With the possible exception of pH, all of these tests involve
laboratory analysis of samples collected in the field. The paragraphs below
describe a physical sediment parameter, its uses and limitations, and typical
ranges for the parameter in the Columbia River Estuary.

Grain size information are probably the most frequently collected data for
sediment evaluation purposes. Sediment in the Columbia River Estuary ranges
from gravel-sized material to very fine clay. A widely used classification
system for sediment uses phi units, named after the 23rd letter of the Greek
alphabet. Grain size decreases as phi units increase. Phi units are negative
for grain sizes larger than one millimeter in diameter. Sand is between about
0.08 millimeters and 5 millimeters in diameter (4 phi and -2 phi,
approximately). Finer material is silt and clay. Coarser material is gravel.
Sediment grain size data are occasionally presented graphically using the
graphic format shown in Figure 2.

More than 2,000 sediment samples from the Columbia River Estuary collected
during different times of the year and at depths ranging from the intertidal
zone to over 100 feet below MLLW were examined by the Columbia River Estuary
Data Development Program in 1982. Mean grain sizes ranged from -1.12 phi
(about 2.2 mm, or very fine gravel) to 8.17 phi (about 0.0035 mm, or coarse
clay). The average of the mean grain sizes was about 2.5 phi (about 0.18 mm,
or fine sand).

Grain size is a commonly measured sediment characteristic because it
involves a relatively inexpensive test, and the results are applicable to
sediment evaluation decisions. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

SIEVE ANALYSIS 1_5 YDROMETER ANALYSIS
SIZE or OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM
v m N Cw!
100 0

1-7 T--
90 10

60 . ...... 20

70
30

40
w
60

...... cc
Lu
w 50 so (A

U.
t .
40 60
w
cr --- w
14 u
To
co A. 5
uj
30
CL
U
X_
0 20 so

10 - ------ go

Ilia I I
_A= - -----

H 0 100
80 0 to It M N III I cl c!
CID
Q) GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
M COBBLES V FINE ICOARS
GRA EL I SAND
COARSE I El MEDIUM I FINE FINES

z SAMPLE NAT, LL PL PI
.14 NO. DEPTH-FT. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION W.C.

u
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
J1,

1 171-1

CC-
-4

*0 AM Im @w so AN
0 law

disposal permits, uses a 20% silt (-4 phi and finer) content threshold for
further testing. Sediment with 20% or less silt and finer material would
generally be approved for in-water disposal without additional testing.
Sediment with a silt content exceeding 20% would require additional chemical
and possibly biological testing before it could be approved by ODEQ for in-
water disposal. This 20% threshold is in a draft form at this time. If
adopted, it would be a guideline, and not a substitute for professional
judgement on the part of ODEQ officials. Other agencies involved in the review
of proposed in-water dredged material disposal are not obligated to follow this
guideline, so chemical testing may be required even if the 20% silt content
threshold is not adopted.

Grain size analysis is accomplished with graduated sieves for sand and
coarser material (4 phi and coarser). Silt and clay fractions are measured
using a technique that depends on'differential settling rates among particle
size classes. This test takes up to thirty hours for material finer than 10
phi (fine clay). It is usually completed in a commercial laboratory, using
standardized analytical techniques. Sediment for a grain size analysis must be
collected from the disposal site, and stored and transported in a manner that
maintains its integrity. Sediment for grain size analysis may be stored for up
to six months, and should be refrigerated. At least 100 grams of sediment are
needed for the test. Sediment collection depths should normally correspond to
planned dredging depths, and sample collected with a coring device may be
subdivided by depth. Coring devices or grab samplers are suitable for sediment
collection for grain size analysis: less sophisticated tools may also be
appropriate.

Oil and grease content in sediment is typically reported in dry-weight
parts.per million (ppm). Oil and.grease tests measure hydrocarbons, vegetable
oils, animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases and related compounds. Oil and grease
in Columbia River Estuary sediment may range anywhere from 0 ppm to more than
3,000 ppm. "Draft Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" issued by the Oregon
Department of Environme ntal Quality (ODEQ) for use in evaluating sediment
quality set a limit of 1,000 ppm oil and grease for in-water disposal approval.
Sediment with oil and grease in excess of 1,000 ppm may require further testing
before approval for in-water disposal. Sediment samples collected for analysis
of oil and grease content should be refrigerated. At least 100 grams of
sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for oil and grease must
be stored in glass containers. Collection methods are similar to those
described for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored for about one month
refrigerated, and up to six months frozen.

Total organic carbon (TOC) is a measure of organic compounds (that is,
compounds containing carbon) in a sediment sample. It is usually reported as
milligrams per gram dry weight (mg/g) or as parts per thousand (ppt). Sediment
analysis sometimes requires that the concentration of a compound in sediment be
normalized to the total organic carbon content. Total organic carbon content
in Columbia River Estuary sediment may exceed 100 mg/g in some cases, but
probably averages between 10 and 20 mg/g. Sediment samples to be analyzed for
total organic carbon content should be frozen until analysis. Only 25 grams of
sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for total organic carbon
may be stored in either glass or polyethylene containers. Collection methods
are similar to those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored
for up to six months frozen.

Yolatile solids are the solid-materials in a dry sediment sample that burn
or evaporate at a temperature of 550*C (1,022*F). The sediment is weighed
before and after the heating: the weight loss represents total volatile solids.
Volatile solids are usually reported as a percent of dry weight. Volatile
solids content is a measure of a sediment sample's organic content, and may be
used for normalizing other sediment contaminant concentrations to the sediment
carbon content. The volatile solids content of Columbia River Estuary sediment
may exceed 20 percent in some cases, but probably averages between zero and
five percent. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has'issued
"Draft Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" for their use in evaluating
sediment quality. The guidelines establish a limit of five percent for
volatile solids. Sediment with more than five percent volatile solids is
subject to additional chemical testing before it may be approved for in-water
disposal. The ODEQ volatile solids limit is a guideline and subject to
professional judgement on the part of ODEQ staff. Sediment samples collected
for volatile solids analysis should be frozen until analysis. At least 50
grams of sediment per sample are needed, Sediment samples may be stored in
either glass or polyethylene containers. Collection methods are similar to
those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored for up to six
months frozen.

Sediment acidity is represented by a pH measurement. pH values between 0
and 7 indicate acidity. pH values between 7 and 14 represent alkalinity.
Sediment pH is not always measured. Sediment pH for 3 samples taken at the
Port of Astoria docks in 1988 ranged from 6.9 to 7.5. Its use in evaluating
sediment for in-water disposal is limited. It is one of the few tests that can
be performed in the field.
The amount of acid soluble H2S, HS-, and S2- in a sample is measured as
total sulfides. These compounds may be toxic and have a strong odor. Total
sulfides are usually reported in units of mg/kg dry weight (ppm). A. zinc
acetate preservative is often added in the field to sediment samples tested for
sulfides. Samples should be refrigerated until analysis. At least 50 grams of
sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for total sulfides may
be stored in either glass or polyethylene containers. Collection methods are
similar to those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored for
about one week refrigerated.

Total nitrogen values in sediment are not normally measured on the
Columbia River Estuary, and no data showing representative nitrogen levels in
Columbia River Estuary sediment are available. If required, sediment tests may
be ordered for total nitrogen. Samples should be frozen until analysis. At
least 25 grams of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment may be stored in
Me& either glass or polyethylene containers. Collection methods are similar to
those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored for up to six
months frozen.

Measures of ammonia are typically represented as mg/kg dry weight for
_44 sediments, or as mg/liter for elutriates. Four sediment samples taken at
Tongue Point were measured for ammonia: they ranged up to 131 mg/kg, and
averaged 74 mg/kg. Sample collection methods are similar to those described
for grain size analysis.

Biochemical oxygen demand is a measure of the dissolved oxygen consumed
by microbial organisms while assimilating and oxidizing the organic matter in

actually available to organisms, in contrast with other measures of the total
amount of organic matter (e.g., total volatile solids, total organic carbon,
chemical oxygen demand). Biochemical oxygen demand is typically reported as
mg/kg dry weight. Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of
biochemical oxygen demand are similar to those described for grain size
analysis. Samples should be refrigerated until analysis. At least 50 grams of
sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for biochemical oxygen
demand may be stored in either polyethylene or glass containers. Samples may
be stored for about one week refrigerated.

Chemical oxygen demand is a measure of the organic,content of a sample
susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant at an elevated
temperature and a reduced pH. Data are typically reported as mg/kg dry weight.
Columbia River Estuary sediment measures of chemical oxygen demand are not
available. Samples should be refrigerated until analysis. At least 50 grams
of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for chemical oxygen
demand may be stored in either polyethylene or glass containers. Collection
methods are similar to those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be
stored for about one week frozen.

Measures of petroleum hydrocarbons in sediment are often needed for
sediment evaluation, particularly in areas where petroleum products may have
been spilled. This test measures the same compounds as the oil and grease
test, minus polar compounds (vegetable oils, animal fats, soaps). Four
sediment samples from Cathlam t Bay tested for petroleum hydrocarbons ranged
from less than 5 mg/kg dry weight to 23 mg/kg. Measures of oil/grease and
petroleum hydrocarbons for the Cathlamet Bay sites were comparable: oil and
grease averaged 54.7 mg/kg dry weight for the composited samples, compared to
23.0 mg/kg dry weight petroleum hydrocarbons. Sediment samples to be analyzed
for petroleum hydrocarbons should be refrigerated until analysis. Collection
methods are similar to those described for grain size analysis.

Dissolved sulfide measurements are intended as an indicator of biolog-
ically available sulfide compounds in a sediment sample. The procedure for
this test measures only water soluble sulfides, and should yield a smaller
sulfide concentration than the total sulfides test. Dissolved sulfides are
typically reported as mg/kg dry weight. Cathlamet Bay sediment analyzed was
found to have an average dissolved sulfide content of 44.5 mg/kg dry weight.
Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of dissolved sulfides
are the same as those for total sulfides. A zinc acetate preservative is often
added in the field. Samples should be refrigerated until analysis. At least
50 grams of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for
dissolved sulfides may be stored in either glass or polyethylene containers.
Collection methods are similar to those described for grain size analysis.
Samples may be stored for about one week refrigerated.

Total solids are a measure of inorganic and organic materials remaining
after a sediment sample has been completely dried. Total solids are usually
reported as a percent of the sample's wet weight. This may be used to convert
concentrations of other compounds in sediment from a wet weight to a dry
weight basis. Drying temperatures are typically 103* C (217* F). Samples
should be frozen -until analysis. At least 50 grams of sediment per sample are
needed. Sediment to be tested for total solids may be stored in either glass
or polyethylene containers. Collection methods are similar to those described
for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored for about six months frozen.

The thirteen physical parameters described above can, singly or in
combination, provide a second tier estimate of overall sediment quality. The
most frequently measured of these parameters are grain size, total organic
carbon and volatile solids. The other parameters may be required in specific
situations. The grain size analysis is needed because it may satisfy the data
requirements for this analytical tier, and result in in-water approval for the
sediment without further testing. Measures of total organic carbon or volatile
solids in sediment are often used to normalize the concentrations of certain
organic chemicals.

Chemical Factors

Two groups of chemical parameters for sediment evaluation are covered in
this subsection: metals and organic compounds. Two different kinds of chemical
analysis are used for metals and organic compounds: elutriate and bulk
sediment tests. Elutriate tests involve analysis of water that has been
exposed to test sediment. An elutriate test is a laboratory simulation of
dredging and in-water disposal. Test sediment is mixed with disposal site
water and mixed. After the sediment settles, water is removed, filtered and
centrifuged, and analyzed for chemical contaminants. The elutriate test is
useful for estimating the impact of dredging and disposal on water quality.
Results can be compared to existing state and federal water quality standards.
It measures only those contaminants that are likely to enter the water column
after dredging and disposal are conducted. Elutriate test results may not be
appropriate for estimating the effects of disposal on benthic organisms.
Elutriate test results are usually reported in units of chemical per liter of
water. Specific procedures for elutriate tests have been developed, and lab
reports normally document these procedures.

Bulk sediment tests measure the concentration of a chemical in a sediment
sample. Water is completely removed prior to analysis. The dried sediment
sample is subjected to either strong oxidation, acid digestion, or organic
solvent extraction. These procedures are harsher than the elutriate test
described above, and do not reproduce dredging or disposal conditions. Results
of bulk sediment tests do, however, facilitate estimates of effects on benthic
organisms. Bulk sediment analysis results are usually reported in units of
chemical per gram (or per milligram or microgram) of dry sediment. Specific
procedures for bulk sediment tests have been developed, and the laboratory test
results should document these procedures.

Chemical Factors: Metals

Metals analysis focuses on metals listed by the EPA as priority
pollutants. Up to 15 different metals are often targeted for analysis in
Columbia River-Estuary sediment. They are:

arsenic antimony
cadmium beryllium
chromium iron
copper manganese
lead nickel
mercury selenium
zinc silver
tin

The most frequently measured of these are in the left-hand column, above,
but those on the right are targeted for analysis in some circumstances. All
are described in the following paragraphs. Detection limits for metals are
also mentioned in each paragraph. These are the lowest concentrations of each
metal that can be reliably detected using standard analytical procedures.

Beryllium is a hard metal found in alloy with copper and other metals.
It is not often measured in Columbia River Estuary sediment because it is not
known to be present above background levels. Beryllium is not used by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality or the Washington Department of
Ecology as a sediment quality parameter in the Columbia River Estuary. When
targeted, it is reported in units of pg/gram. The detection limits for
beryllium in bulk sediment are 1 pg/gram. Sediment from thirteen sites in the
Columbia River Estuary have been examined for beryllium. The bulk sediment
tests yielded measurements at or below detection limits. Elutriate tests
yielded beryllium concentrations ranging from 10 to 20 pg/liter, averaging
about 12.3 pg/liter.

Chromium is occasionally measured in Columbia River Estuary sediment. It
is toxic to aquatic organisms. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
has established a limit of between 20 and 300 mg/kg for chromium in sediment.
Sediment with chromium in excess of this guideline will not normally be
approved for in-water disposal without further testing. There is no
corresponding Washington sediment standard for chromium in Columbia River
Estuary. Mainstem and side channel sediment samples have been analyzed by
several researchers for chromium content. Results ranged from 1.7 to 72 mg/kg.

Manganese is not an Environmental Protection Agency priority pollutant
metal, but it is occasionally included in analysis of Columbia River Estuary
sediment. Researchers have found manganese in Columbia River sediment ranging
between 0 and 1,100 mg/kg. Detection limits for manganese in bulk sediment are
2 mg/kg, dry weight.

Iron, like manganese, is not an Environmental Protection Agency priority
pollutant. Iron concentrations in Columbia River sediment have ranged from 0
to 49,000 mg/kg dry weight.

Nickel is a metal on the Environmental Protection Agency's list of
priority pollutants because of its toxicity to aquatic organisms. There is
some evidence suggesting that nickel may be present in sediment due to natural
sources. Nickel in Columbia River Estuary sediment has ranged from 0 to 44
mg/kg dry weight. The detection limit for nickel in bulk sediment is 0.1 mg/kg

14
II I

dry weight. For elutriate tests it-is 1.0 pg/liter. There are no Oregon or
Washington sediment quality guidelines for nickel in sediment applicable to the
Columbia River Estuary. Puget Sound sediment evaluated for nickel must meet a
threshold of 140 mg/kg or be subject to additional testing under the Puget
Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program.

Copper is an Environmental Protection Agency priority pollutant and is
included in many sediment tests due to widespread concern about its toxicity
and its presence in the aquatic environment. Anti-fouling marine paints and
wood preservatives often contain copper compounds. The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality's "Draft Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" set
threshold concentrations for copper. Sediment with a copper content exceeding
50 mg/kg will not be approved for in-water disposal without further evaluation.
The Washington Department of Ecology has not established a sediment standard
for copper in Columbia River Estuary sediment, but the PSDDA program threshold
for copper in Puget Sound sediment is 81 mg/kg. Puget Sound sediment exceeding
this concentration is subject to additional testing before it can be approved
for in-water disposal. Researchers have found copper in Columbia River Estuary
sediment ranging between 1.5 to 91 mg/kg, dry weight. Detection limits for
copper in bulk sediment are 0.1 mg/kg, dry weight. For elutriates, copper
detection limits are 1.0 pg/liter.

Zinc is a bluish-white metal with a number of applications in maritime
industries as an anti-corrosive agent. Zinc is an Environmental Protection
Agency priority pollutant and is toxic. The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality's "Draft Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" sets a threshold
concentration for zinc. Sediment with more than 250 mg zinc per kg will
require additional testing before approved for in-water disposal. There is a
corresponding Washington sediment quality standard for zinc in Puget Sound.
PSDDA sets a threshold of 160 mg/kg for zinc in Puget Sound sediment. Puget
Sound sediment with more than 160 mg zinc per kg sediment is subject-to
additional testing before it can be approved for in-water disposal. Zinc in
Columbia River Estuary sediment has ranged from 18 mg/kg dry weight to 300
mg/kg. Detection limits for zinc in bulk sediments are 0.2 mg/kg dry weight.
For elutriate tests, zinc detection limits are 1.0 pg/liter.

Arsenic is a highly toxic metalloid on the Environmental Protection
Agency's priority pollutant list. The Washington Department of Ecology has not
established a sediment quality guideline for arsenic applicable to the Columbia
River Estuary. The PSDDA threshold for arsenic in Puget Sound sediment is 57
mg/kg. Puget Sound sediment exceeding this arsenic concentration is subject to
additional testing before it can be approved for in-water disposal. The Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality's "Draft Interim Sediment Quality
Guidelines" sets threshold concentrations for arsenic. Sediment with 40 or
more mg arsenic per kg is subject to additional testing before it can be
approved for in-water disposal. Arsenic in Columbia River sediment has been
found in concentrations ranging from 0 to 20.5 mg/kg dry weight. The detection
limit for arsenic in bulk sediment is 0.1 mg/kg dry weight. For elutriates,
the detection limit is 1.0 pg/liter.

Selenium is a toxic element on the Environmental Protection Agency's
priority pollutant list. There are no data for selenium levels in Columbia
River Estuary sediment. Neither the Washington Department of Ecology nor the

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality have established threshold limits
for selenium in sediment.

Silver is a toxic metal on the Environmental Protection Agency's priority
pollutant list. There are no state standards for silver in sediment for the
Columbia River Estuary. Silver in Puget Sound sediment proposed for in-water
disposal may not exceed 1.2 mg/kg without additional testing under the PSDDA
program. Data on silver concentrations in Columbia River Estuary sediment
could not be found. The detection limit for silver in sediment is 0.1 mg/kg
dry weight. For elutriate tests, it is 0.2 pg/liter.

.Cadmium is a toxic metal on the Environmental Prote ction Agency's
priority pollutant list. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's
"Draft Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" for evaluating sediment quality in
Oregon estuaries establishes a threshold of 1.0 mg/kg cadmium per kilogram of
sediment. Sediment with cadmium concentrations in excess of 1.0 mg/kg is
subject to additional testing before approval for in-water disposal. The
Washington Department of Ecology has not established corresponding standards
for cadmium in sediment applicable to the Columbia River Estuary: however, the
PSDDA program sets an additional testing threshold of 0.96 mg/kg for in-water
disposal in Puget Sound. The detection limit for cadmium in sediment is 0.1
mg/kg dry weight. For elutriate tests the detection limit is 0.1 Pg/liter.

Antimony is a toxic metal that contaminates sediment and is on the
Environmental Protection Agency's priority pollutant list. Antimony is not
frequently measured in Columbia River Estuary sediment. Neither the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality nor the Washington Department of Ecology
have established threshold limits for antimony in Columbia River Estuary
sediment. Antimony in Puget Sound sediment destined for in-water disposal may
not exceed 20 mg/kg without additional testing under the PSDDA program.
Smelter slag is occasionally tainted with antimony. The detection limit for
antimony in bulk sediment is 0.1 mg/kg. For elutriate tests the detection
limit for antimony is 3.0 pg/liter.

Mercury is a highly toxic metal with well documented adverse impacts on
aquatic life and human health. It is an Environmental 'Protection Agency
priority pollutant. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has
established "Draft Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" for mercury. Sediment
with mercury concentrations in excess of 0.15 mg/kg require additional testing
before it can be approved for in-water disposal. The Washington Department of
Ecology has not adopted sediment guidelines for mercury in Columbia River
sediment. PSDDA standards for in-water disposal of Puget Sound sediment call
for additional testing if mercury concentrations exceed 0.21 mg/kg. Mercury
levels in the Columbia River Estuary have been recorded as high as 0.72 mg/kg.
Detection limits for mercury in sediment are 0.01 mg/kg, dry weight. For
analysis of elutriates, detection limits are 0.2 pg/liter.

Lead is a heavy toxic metal on the Environmental Protection Agency's
priority pollutant list. It is associated with anti-fouling paints and other
industrial sources in the aquatic environment. The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality has established "Draft Interim Sediment Quality
Guidelines" for evaluation of sediment. The guidelines set threshold
concentrations for lead and other compounds. Sediment with lead in excess of
40 mg/kg is subject to additional analysis before it can be approved for in-

water disposal. There are no Washington sediment quality guidelines for lead
applicable to the Columbia River Estuary. Lead in Puget Sound sediment must
not exceed a concentration of 6.6 mg/kg under the PSDDA program. Sediment with
higher lead levels is subject to additional testing before it can be approved
for in-water disposal. Lead concentrations in Columbia River Estuary sediment
have been recorded up to 40.0 mg/kg, dry weight. Lead detection limits using
standard analytical techniques are 0.1 mg/kg dry weight for bulk analysis. For
elutriate analysis, lead detection limits are 1 pg/liter.

Tin is an infrequently examined metal in Columbia River Estuary
sediments. Organotin compounds are used in anti-fouling paints, so their
presence in sediment is a potential problem near boat yards or marinas. The
family of organotins most frequently cited as a concern are tributyltins. It
is not an EPA priority pollutant, and water quality criteria are not
established for it. There are no'sediment quality guidelines for tin compounds
in either Oregon or Washington that are applicable to the Columbia River
Estuary. PSDDA establishes an additional testing threshold for tributyltin in
Puget Sound sediment of 30 mg/kg.

Chemical Factors: Organics

Organic compounds are chemicals containing carbon. They include many
pesticides, industrial solvents, petroleum products,'and PCBs, among other
compounds. Organic compounds in sediment are typically measured using a gas
chromatograph/mass spectrophotometer (GC/MS). This method, and the quality
control/quality assurance measures that accompany it, are well-documented by
all qualified labs. Documentation should be included in the lab report on
organic compounds in test sediment. Sediment samples collected for organic
analysis are stored in glass containers, and refrigerated. Some of the
volatile compounds begin to break down after 14 days, so analysis must begin as
soon as possible after collection.

Three groups of organic compounds in sediment have drawn regulatory
attention in the Columbia River Estuary: PCB, DDT, and Dioxin. Polychlorinated
bipbenols (PCBs) are a group of about seventy closely related organic compounds
consisting of carbon, hydrogen and chlorine. PCBs are not water soluble, and
can persist in the food chain. Their principal use is as an insulating fluid
in electrical transmission and generating equipment. PCBs are suspected of
causing cancer in humans. The insecticide DDT has been banned for use in the
United States for several years, but it persists in the aquatic environment.
DDD and DDE, two decomposition products of DDT, are also found in Columbia
River Estuary sediment. DDT, DDE, and DDD have been implicated in the decline
of the northern bald eagle population in the estuary. Dioxin is a byproduct of
the bleaching process used by the pulp and paper industry. It may also enter
the environment through other avenues. While PCBs and DDTs are frequently
targeted in sediment analysis, dioxin content is rarely measured. Dioxin
analysis is expensive compared to analysis for other organic compounds. Dioxin
is highly toxic, and debate currently revolves around its fate in the aquatic
environment.

The most frequently targeted organic compounds in Columbia River sediment
are:

Aldrin Naphthalene
Chlordane Acenaphthylene
DDT Fluorene
DDD Phenanthrene
DDE Anthracene
Methoxychlor Methylnaphthalene
2,4-D (Silvex) Fluoranthene
Heptachlor Pyrene - I
Acenaphthene Benzo(a)anthracene
Phenanthrene Chrysene
PCBs Benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
2 Methylphenol
4 Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Benzyl alcohol
Benzoic acid
Dibenzofuran
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylene
Dieldrin

The organic compounds in the left-hand column are those listed in the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality's (ODEQ) draft "Interim Sediment Quality
Guidelines". Except for the herbicide silvex (2,4-D), the compounds in the
left-hand column are also routinely tested in Puget Sound sediment under the
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA). The compounds in the right-hand
column are also listed by the PSDDA program, but are not listed by ODEQ.

Although the PSDDA program is not applicable to the Columbia River Estuary,
Federal regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Washington Department of Ecology will sometimes use it as a guide for
sediment evaluation outside of Puget Sound.

Biological Factors

Biological testing constitutes the fourth and final tier in the tiered
sediment evaluation methodology. Biological tests provide a better basis for
sediment evaluation than do the other parameters described above. Bioassay and
bioaccumulation studies are relatively expensive, however, and their results
are subject to interpretation. Two kinds of biological studies are considered
here: bioassay and bioaccumulation, A bioassay is a laboratory test used for
evaluating the toxicity of a sediment sample on aquatic organisms. Behavioral,
physiological, or lethal response is measured. Bioaccumulation means the
build-up of chemical compounds in an organism's tissues. A bioaccumulation
study exposes aquatic organisms to a test sediment in the laboratory, and then
analyzes their body tissues for contaminants. A third type of biological test
is disposal site monitoring. Disposal site monitoring is essentially an on-
site experiment that, unlike the bioassay and bioaccumulation studies mentioned
above, relies on actual site conditions and disposal conditions. It also
differs from the two tests mentioned above in that the results can only be made
available after dredging and disposal have been conducted. Monitoring is more
likely to be a condition on an approved permit for in-water disposal, and it is
not addressed in this document for that reason. Bioassay and bioaccumulation
studies, the conditions under which they may be required, and the standards
used for interpreting these tests, are described.in this section.

A bioassay is a laboratory test that assesses sediment toxicity by
hanges in organisms exposed to a test sediment. The test is done by
measuring c
a qualified lab, in aquaria. Several different kinds of bioassay tests can be
designed. The principal variables are the species used as test organisms; the
length of the test; the nature of exposure to test sediment; and the type of
response measured.

Bioaccumulation tests measure the accumulation of sediment contaminants in
a test organism's tissues. Bioaccumulation test results report the levels of
contaminants in test organism tissues in units of weight of chemical per wet
weight of tissue. Bioaccumulation tests help determine whether a sediment
contaminant is likely to accumulate in the aquatic food chain, but do not
necessarily help evaluate sediment toxicity. There are no standards for
bioaccumulation tests on Columbia River Estuary sediment evaluation. The Puget
Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) has developed standards applicable in
Puget Sound. These are summarized in the PSDDA report "Unconfined Open-water
Disposal of Dredged Material, Phase II" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989c).

Both the bioassay and the bioaccumulation study need to be professionally
interpreted. Sophisticated biostatistical analytical techniques are often
applied. The lab report for a bioassay or bioaccumulation study should include
test results, as well as analysis of the results.

2.2. Sediment Data Collection: Sampling and Analysis Considerations

A number of factors need to be considered when preparing to collect
sediment information. Chief among these are:

quality control/quality assurance;

sampling strategies;

chemical analysis; and

biological tests.

These four factors are described in this section.

Quality Control/Quality Assurance

Appropriate quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures
ensure that the resulting sediment quality data are of an acceptable level of
quality, and that the level of quality attained is well-documented. Quality
assurance refers to the total integrated program for assuring the reliability
of monitoring and measurement data. It is a system for integrating the quality
planning, quality assessment, and quality improvement efforts to meet user
requirements. Quality control is the routine application of procedures for
obtaining prescribed standards of performance in the monitoring and measurement
process.

Laboratories and consultants involved in the collection, analys is and
interpretation of sediment quality data should document their QA/QC efforts in
their reports. Some examples of such documentation include:

A chain-of-custody form that follows sediment samples from their
collection point to the analytical lab;

Calibration schedules for the analytical equipment used in chemical and
biological tests;

References for analytical methods used; and

Accurate records of sampling station location.

It is assumed that good QA/QC procedures-have been followed. When they
have not been followed, orwhen they can not be documented, the validity of the
sediment data can be questioned.

Sampling Strategies

A number of factors should be considered when developing a sediment
sampling strategy. The overall goal of the strategy should be to generate
sediment quality data that are useful to the sediment evaluation process and

that meet regulatory agency needs-. For this reason it is essential that
sediment sampling plan development be coordinated with resource agency staff.
A sampling plan should consider:

The volume of sediment to be disposed of in-water;

The size of the area to be dredged;

The maximum depth of dredging; and

The type of analytical work needed (such as chemical or
biological analysis).

These are reviewed in the following paragraphs.

Disposal volumes and sampling requirements are closely related. Larger
projects require more extensive sampling than smaller projects. The Puget
Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program has established a guideline of
one sediment sample for each 8,000 cubic yards of sediment to be disposed of
in-water. This is a guideline, and not a regulation; and it is not applicable
to dredging and disposal conditions in the Columbia River Estuary. Dredging
volumes in the Columbia River Estuary are generally larger than in Puget Sound ,
so a ratio of one sample per 10,000 or even 20,000 cubic yards may be more
representative of actual practice. Most sampling plans rely on at least three
or four samples, regardless of the disposal volume.

The size of the area to be dredged is related to disposal volume and comes
into consideration when determining the number of sediment samples needed, and
when determining sample location. A preliminary estimate of sediment
homogeneity may be helpful. If site conditions are believed to be unchanging
over the entire site, a minimal number of samples may adequately characterize
site sediments. If parts of the site are known or suspected to have
distinctive sediment or water quality characteristics, a more thorough sampling
plan may be appropriate. For a very large project, a reconnaissance
sampling/analysis effort may be needed to help design the full sampling plan.
The sampling density is difficult to subjectively link to the dredging site
size. Statistical analysis is of little help, because it results in a
prohibitively large number of samples for most projects. Sample location
requirements are equally unclear. Sample locations should be evenly spread
throughout the dredging area. The location of each sampling station sbould be
accurately fixed on a dredging site map using compass bearings or LORAN
readings.

.Dredging depth affects the depth of the sampling effort and, at some
point, the number of samples needed. Samples should be taken to the same depth
as the proposed dredging. This will account for layers of sediment with
differing characteristics. Dredging more than approximately 30 centimeters
will require core samples rather than grab samples (see Figure 3 for the
different kinds of sampling equipment) to obtain the necessary depth. It may
also be necessary to subsample a core at different depths: at 30 centimeter
depth increments for example. This allows comparison of sediment
characteristics throughout the proposed dredging depth.

Figure 3: Sampling Equipment

GRAVITY CORER

CABLE RING

FINS

CONTROL VALVE

PONAR GRAB SAMPLER

METAL ENCASEMENT

ELLARD SAMPLER

,-SCOOPING MECHANISM
WEIGHTS

CABLE ATTACHMENTS

CORE SAMPLE HOLDER

SAMPLE HOLDER OPENING

CORE CATCHER

METAL CUTTING SHOE

-The number of sediment samplescollected and the number of analyses
conducted is not necessarily the same. As mentioned above, a single deep
sample may result in several sediment analyses, each at a different depth.
Several samples from-a dredging site may be mixed together in the lab for a
single analysis. This is often described as "compositing" samples.
Compositing has a number of potential advantages. It can result in relatively
lower costs because the cost of collecting a sediment sample is often less than
the cost for a single analysis. A large site may also be better characterized
by, for example, ten samples composited for five analyses rather than seven
samples individually analyzed.' The risks involved in compositing are that
differences in sediment characteristics between the sampling stations are
masked. A single "hot spot" in one sample may be interpreted as wide spread
low-level contamination in a composited analysis.

The analytical purpose for callecting sediment samples should be
considered when developing a collection plan. Sediment for metal and organic
compound analysis requires special handling methods not needed for sediment
grain size analysis. The lab performing the analysis should describe
collection, handling, storage and labeling procedures before collection begins.
Sediment collected for grain size analysis requires fewer special handling
considerations than does sediment for organics analysis or biological tests.

Chemical Analysis

State or federal resource agencies may indicate which chemicals need to be
evaluated. More often, it will be up to the permit applicant or their
consultant to suggest a list of target chemicals for analysis, and seek agency
agreement on the list. Section 2.1. of this report lists a number of metals
and organic compounds that have been targeted in Columbia River Estuary
sediment tests. These lists are not exhaustive, and special circumstances may
require that additional chemicals be targeted. It may be cost-effective for a
permit applicant to order the full array of metals and organics tests even if
the resource agencies are not requiring it. If an initial sediment analysis
reveals elevated levels of, for example, mercury, resource agencies may then
require a more exhaustive analysis of organic compounds. Because sediment
samples have a finite shelf life, this may require collection of a second group
of sediment samples.

Detection limits must be established. The lab, permit applicant, and
resource agencies must all agree on detection limits for each compound. This
may be difficult to achieve. The Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA)
program has established detection limits for a number of compounds of interest
in Puget Sound. Labs in Washington, the Washington Department of Ecology, and
federal agency staff are all aware of these detection limits. Some Oregon labs
may not be familiar with the sample preparation measures needed to achieve the
PSDDA detection limit. These differences must be resolved before the analyses
are ordered if expensive retesting is to be avoided.

The type of chemical analysis needed -- bulk tests, elutriate tests or
both -- need to be established. Bulk sediment tests are generally, but not
always, preferred by the resource agencies.

Biological Tests

Data from the lower tiers may suggest that biological tests are needed.
The type of biological test, the species involved, duration, and other special
conditions need to be established with the resource agencies. Some of the
considerations for chemical analysis apply if a bioaccumulation study is
necessary: detection limits and target compounds must be established. The
test organism, exposure method, and test duration must also be specified.
Often additional test sediment from the dredge site will be needed, and this
test sediment may need to be chemically analyzed. A bioassay test will require
that some of the same kinds of decisions be made. The consultant or lab
performing the biological tests may suggest appropriate test procedures to the
resource agencies, or everyone may agree on one of several standard biological
test protocols.

2.3. Sediment Quality, Summary

Developing adequate sediment quality data is one of the most essential,
and most difficult, parts of the in-water disposal permit process. Despite the
ambiguities involved in identifying agency data needs, there are measures that
will improve the efficiency of the permitting processes. These are summarized
below.

A sediment sampling and analysis plan should be developed prior to
submitting permit applications if physical, chemical, or biological data
are likely to be needed.

Sediment data collection should be structured so as to avoid repeat sample
collection or analysis. In most cases, it is more cost effective to
collect and analyze the largest number of sediment samples for the widest
range of chemicals, rather than sample and analyze twice.

3. PERMIT PROCESS

The permit process for in-water disposal of Columbia River sediment is
complex. This chapter provides procedural and substantive information about
the-permit process. Most in-water disposal projects on the Columbia River
Estuary will require a federal permit, one or more state permits, and a local
permit. For projects that occur in both states (such as dredging in Washington
waters and disposal in Oregon waters), additional permit review will be
required. Despite the number of permits involved, the different agencies
coordinate their permit review efforts reasonably well. The permits needed for
in-water dredged material in the Columbia River Estuary are described in this
chapter.

3.1. Section 404 Permit

All in-water dredged material disposal in the Columbia River Estuary will
require a permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers. These permits are
issued under the Federal Water Quality Act, and are known as Section 404
permits, after the section of the Act that describes the permit process. This
section provides some background and procedural information about Section 404
permits.

All Section 404 permits on the Oregon side of the Columbia River Estuary
are managed by the Corps' Portland District office. The Portland District also
manages Section 404 permits on the Washington side of the estuary when a port
district is involved. Other Washington side permits on the Columbia River
Estuary are administered through the Corps' Seattle District office. Although
the review process is the same, the Portland and Seattle District use different
application forms (Figures 4 and 5).

Water quality concerns associated with in-water dredged material disposal
are normally addressed during review of a Section 404 permit primarily through
the Section 401 water quality certification process. The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality and the Washington Department of Ecology share Section
401 water quality certification responsibilities on the Columbia River Estuary.
The section 401 process certifies that the applicable state water quality
standards will not be violated by the dredging or disposal of contaminated
sediments. Many dredging and disposal projects in the Columbia River Estuary
will affect water in both states. In these cases, water quality certification
should be obtained from both Oregon and Washington. This is rarely done: more
typically, only the state where the dredging or disposal actually occurs issues
a Section 401 certification. Federal agencies are also involved reviewing
water quality issues, particularly the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).

Section 401 water quality certifications can be denied for lack of
sufficient data, as well as when disposal would violate water quality
standards. The need for decision making information for the Section 401
certification process is the impetus for most of the project-specific sediment
testing, both chemical and biological, in the Columbia River Estuary.
Providing sufficient data for state water quality certification may, under some
circumstances, be one of the most significant and expensive obstacles for a
permit applicant to overcome. Chemical analysis of sediments to be dredged
biological investigations on the test sediments, pre-dredging surveys of the
A

~qM~q.~q.~qY:.y ~qM~q,-y d~q.n~qt~qe~qd ~qppr~qo-I ~qf
~24q0 ~q- ~24qO~qN~q.~6q-I~qf~qy~q.~q.. Pit...

JOINT APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
STATE OF OREGON, DIVISION OF STATE LANDS
WHEREAS Department of the Army permits for propsed work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the
discharge of dredged or fill material into those waters, and the transport of dredged material for the purpose of
dumping it into ocean waters are authorized by Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 60 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, and Section 10) if the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaties Act of 1972, respectively,
---And-- permits for that part of those project activities which includes the removal or fill in the waterways of
Oregon of rock, grave, silt, and clay are authorized by the State of Oregon under O.R.S. 361.603 to 541.693--- This
APPLICATION WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH AGENCIES.

Corps of
Engineers_________________ State of Oregon
_________________________ ______________
Date received___________ Date received____________
Name of River Local
Waterway_______________ Mile___________ Name_______
Section__________________ Township__________ Range________
Estimated Startin Estimated Completion
Date of Project____________ Date of Project_________
Name of Authorized
Applicant____________________ agent_______________
Address____________________ Address_______________
City, State.______ City, State,______
Zip Code________ Zip Code_______
Area Area
Phone: Work ( )___ Home ( )_______
Project Area
Supervisor__________________ Phone: Work ( )
Property Owner
If Other Than Project
Applicant________________ Address___________
Address__________________ City, County, State
Zip Code__________________
City, State,
Zip Code_______________ Assessor's Records--
Shown on Map ______________Tax Lot #________
Phone: Work Area Area Name of
( )_________Home ( )___ Subdivision_______________Lot________Block______

In order to expedite the processsing of this application, the following city and/or county department, which has local
jurisdiction over the proposed project, has been contacted:

Name of Department:_______________
Address: ____________________
Phone Number:_____________
APPROVALS OR CERTIFICATIONS applied for or already obtained from either agencies (Federal, Interstate, state, county,
city, area) for any of the proposed projects described in this application:

Issuing Agency Type of Approval Identification# Date of Approval

Figure 4: Portland District Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Application

Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herin or for any other activity related to i*
Yes No If yes, please explain in remarks.
Adjoining Property on the Waterway: Give names, addresses, and phone numbers of owners and/or occupants.

PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL your plans to restore the area to its natural condition.

INFORMATION FOR FILL OR REMOVAL:
FILL WILL INVOLVE__________ cubic yards annyually and_________cubic yards for the total project.
Riprap Rock Gravel SAnd Silt Clay Organic
REMOVAL WILL INVOLVE___________cubic yards annually, and __________cubic yards for the total project.
Rock Gravel Sand Silt Clay
DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY---its primary purpose and secondary purpose, if any,---intended use (private,
public, commercail)---type of structures and use--type of vessels using facility---facilities for handling wastes---
type of conveyance and manner of extraction of any fill or removal---the quantity and composition of, and the source
and disposal sites for any fill or removal. (If additional space is needed, use plain sheet of paper.)

Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities herein. I certify that I as
familar with the information contained in this application, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, such
information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed
activities.

Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent
is USC 1001 provides in part: "Whenever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department... of the
United States knowingly and willfully falsifies... a material fact or makes any false...statement of...i*
any false...document...shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0702-0036
(33 CPR 328) Expires 30 June 1989

The Department of the Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the River an &Hazbor Act 0(1899. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine. Protection. Research and Sanctuari" Act. These Laws require permit, authorizing
activities In or affecting runwisb W wstersofthe United States. the discharge of red ed or fill mate" In to watersof the United States.
an the transportation o cc material for the purpose of dumping It Into ocean waters. Information provided no this form W be
used in evaluating the application for a permit. Information in thin application I. made a matter of public record through issuance are
public notice. Disclosure of the Information requested in voluntary; however. the data requested we neccamaxy is order to communicate
with the applicant and to evoilusle, the permit application. If necessary Information I. not provided. the permit application cannot be
procconed nor can a permit Ile issued.
One act of original drawings of good reproducible copies which &how the location and character of the proposed activity must be
attached to thin application (see sampte drawinis and instructions) ard be submitted to the District Engineer having Jurisdiction over
the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.

1. APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by Coprs) 3. NAME. ADDRESS. AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT

2. NAME NO ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Telephone no. during business hours

A/C I I (Residences)
AIC I I (Offices)
Statement of Authorication: I hereby designate and authorize
to act in my behalf as my
Telephone no. during hours agent in the processing of this permit application and so furnish, upon request
supplemental information in support of the application.
.
A/C I I (Ranididences) SIGNATURE Or, APPLICANT
A/C I I (Offices)
10
4. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY

4a. ACTIVITY

4b. PURPOSE

4c. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL

5. NAMES AND ADRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS , ETC, WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY

6. WATERBODY AND LOCATION ON WATERBODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED

7. LOCATION ON LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED
ADRESS:

STREED, ROAD, ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION

COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE

LOCAL GOVERNING BODY WITH JURISDICTION OVER SITE

8. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete? YES
If answer is "YES" give reason, month and year the activity was completed. Indicate the existing work on the drawing.

9. List all approvals or certifications and de received from federal, interstate, state or local agencies for any structure, construction.

ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF DENIAL

10. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activites described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the Information contained in
this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the
authority to undertake the proposed activities or I am acting as the Gulv authorized agent of the application

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE

The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicatn) or it may be signed by a duty
authorized agent if the statement in Block 3 has been filled out and signed.

18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fradulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or documents knowing same to contain any false fictitious or
fradulent statement or entry, shall be fines not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both

Do not send a permit fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assured when a permit is issued.

Figure 5: Seattle District Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Application

disposal site, and post disposal monitoring may all be required of a Section
404 permit applicant.

The section 404 permit review process is described graphically in Figure
6. The process involves an opportunity for public and agency comment on the
proposal. Sediment quality data is reviewed here. Compliance with a number of
other federal and state laws is also checked at this stage.

3.2. Washington Hydraulics Project Approval

Applicants for projects on the Washington side of the estuary must apply
for a permit under the Washington Hydraulic Code from the Washington Department
of Fisheries. A section 404 permit application to the Seattle District Corps
of Engineers office is a joint application for this permit. Review is normally
concurrent with the federal review. Impacts on fish are this permit's
principal focus.

3.3. Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) establishes a review
process for projects that may have environmental impacts in the state. In-water
disposal of dredged material on the Washington side of the Columbia River
Estuary is subject to SEPA requirements. The SEPA process is described in
Figure 7. The process starts with completion of an environmental checklist.
Review of the checklist by the lead agency, which may be Wahkiakum County,
Pacific County, the Department of Ecology or Fisheries, or some other agency,
results in either a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), or preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Sediment quality may be included in
the EIS.

3.4. Proprietary Management of Submerged Lands in Washington

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages state owned
Submerged lands in the Columbia River Estuary and elsewhere in Washington. DNR
administers a program for reviewing use of submerged lands for dredged material
disposal that runs concurrently with other state and federal permit programs.
In-water disposal of dredged material on the Washington side of the estuary
will need to comply with this program.

3.5. Oregon Fill and Removal Permit

The Oregon Division of State Lands administers a permit program for
filling and dredging in Oregon waters. In-water dredged material disposal on
the Oregon side of the Estuary will require a permit under this program. The
US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit application form used by the
Portland District office is a joint application for both the Section 404 permit
and this permit. Public review and agency comment are required for this
permit. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality are the principal commenting agencies for in-water
disposal permits under this program.

Figure-6: Section 404 Permit Proclass

inwater disposal project
--- - --- 4- - - - - - -,
1preapplication meeting withl
_resource agency staff

sediment permit application submitted t
information Corps Portland.or Seattle office

general Corps staff
or letter,;E preliminary review
permit

public
input

resource normal section 404
agency review process:
input public notice

section
401
cert.
Corps
evaluation

denial oval W/ additional information
ions requested from applicant

final
permit
Ea prova.1 w/
p
d @it i o Pn

Figure 7: State Environmental- Policy Act (SEPA) Review Process

PERMIT APPLICATION RECEIVED;
PLAN OR REGULATION DEVELOPED
-T
INFORMATI011 INCOMPLETE; REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS E TEXEMPT; SEPA SATISF1
TO APPLICANT FOR C014PLE AND EXEMPTION TO SEPA
NOT LFAD AGENCY; SENT) COPY OF F-
APPLICATION TO LEAD AGENCY DETERMINE LEAD AGENCY
WITH COVER LETTER

LEAD AGENCY; APPLICANT COMPLETES ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST-W ITH/WITHOUT AGENCY ASSISTANCE

EVALUATE CHECKLIST

IF RESPONSE TO "REOUEST FOR EARLY
NOTICE" INDICATES SIGNIFICANT
DETERMINATION POSSIBLE, APPLICANT
MAY ALTER PROPOSAL TO ADD
MITIGATING MEASURES

MAKE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
T

IF THERE ARE PROBABLE SIGNIF] IF THERE ARE NO PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
FT@@AADVERSE IMPACTS ADVERSE IMPACTS, ISSUE DETERMINATION
7- OF NONSIC NIFICANCE
ISSUE DETERMINATION OF I
SICNIFICANCE/SCOPING @OTICEJ
PROPOSAL DOES NOT INVOLVE PROPOSAL DOES INVOLVE
ANOTHER AGENCY WITH ANOTHER AGENCY WITH
JURISDICTION, "MITIGATED" JURISDICTION, '" :TICATED"
DNS OR A DNS ISSUED AFTER DNS, OR A DNS SSUED
CIRCULATE OS/SCOPING NOTICE; DS WITHDRAWN AFTER DS WITHDRAWN
mirp "01,91 IC NOTICE" (ALLOW
PREPARE DRAFT EIS 1 21 DAYS FOR WRITTEN
COMMENT; FOR EXPANDED
SCOPING ALLOW UP TO 30 DAYS) AGENCY DECISION (1) CIRCULATE DNS FOR 15 DAY
COMMENT PERIOD
(2) SEND COPY OF DNS TO
DISTRIBUTE DEIS FOR 30 DAY @COMMEDNT ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL
REQUIRE
PERIOD; "PUBLIC NOTICE' REOUIRED REVIEW
(3) GIVE "PUBLIC NOTICE" AS
SPECIFIED IN PROCEDURES

REVIEW, EVALUATE, RESPOND TO RECEIVE, EVALUATE COMMENTS
DEIS COMMENTS; PREPARE FINAL EIS L

DISTRIBUTE FEIS
WITHDRAW
DNS
WAIT 7 DAYS I I
START AGENCY
PROCESS DECISION
AGENCY DECISION OVER
AGAIN

source: Washington Department of Ecology, 1988
35

3.6. Local Permits

Both Oregon and Washington local governments on the Columbia River Estuary
administer local permit processes-that affect in-water dredged material
disposal within their jurisdiction. Figure 7 graphically describes the basic
local permit review process, although there are differences between the way
each city and county handle these permits. The most significant of these
differences are between Oregon and Washington local governments.

Oregon Local Governments

Clatsop County, Astoria, Warrenton and Hammond each administer a
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance that regulates, among a great many
other things, in-water disposal of dredged material. Each jurisdiction has
adopted a zoning map that designates dredged material disposal sites. These
are shown in the CREST publication "Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material
Management Plan" (Fox, 1986), and on local zoning maps. Some types of in-water
dredged mater ial disposal may be allowed without obtaining a local permit,
particularly if it is associated with ongoing maintenance of an existing
facility, and disposal occurs at a designated and regularly used site. New
projects and changed maintenance disposal methods and sites will usually
require approval of a local permit.

The local permit review process in Oregon starts with completion of an
application form, The completed form is reviewed administratively, and a
permit may be issued administratively without a public hearing in some cases.
Most in-water disposal permits will require a public hearing before a planning
commission. A permit is issued or denied, which can then be appealed to the
city or county governing body. From there the appeal route is to the-Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA), the Court of Appeals, and finally to the State Supreme
Court. There have been no LUBA appeals of dredging permits to date. The
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development monitors local permit
activity, but does not have the ability to veto a local permit.

Washington Local Permits

Pacific County, Wahkiakum County, Cathlamet and Ilwaco each administer a
Shoreline Master Program that sets up a permit program for, among other things,
in-water disposal of dredged material. In-water dredged material disposal
sites are designated in the Shoreline Master Programs, and in the CREST
publication "Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material Management Plan" (Fox,
1986). Most in-water disposal projects will require a Substantial Development
Permit, issued by the county or city planning commission. Permits may be
appealed to the State Shoreline Hearing Board, and from there into the State
court system. The Washington Department of Ecology can veto a Substantial
Development Permit it feels is not consistent with the local Shoreline Master
Program. This is a tool that its Oregon counterpart, The Oregon Department of
Land Conservation and Development, lacks.

Figure 8; Local Permit review Process

Dredging or
Disposal Project

Staff-level Administrati vel->
review decision

< Administrativ Public review
decision

Public h

Decision

Appeals
process

Final
Decision

Note: dashed lines indicate a review route not available in all
Columbia River Estuary jurisdictions.

3.7. -Permit Summary

The permit process for in-water dredged material disposal in the Columbia
River Estuary is complex, and there are no shortcuts to the regulatory
procedure. There are, however, several courses of action open to a permit
applicant that will usually avoid some of the potential problems inherent in a
multi-agency regulatory environment. These are summarized below.
Local, state, and federal permits should be requested at the @ame time,
rather than sequentially. These programs are designed to run
concurrently.

Pre-application contact with resource agency staff may prove helpful,
especially for large projects, or for first-time applicants.

Preparation of a sediment sampling and analysis plan should begin prior to
submitting permit applications if sediment physical, chemical or
biological data are likely to be needed.

The permit process may take anywhere from two to six months, depending on
the complexity of the project, the degree of controversy it generates, and
the permit applicant's flexibility.

4. GLOSSARY

Absorption: To be assimilated, taken in.

Accuracy: The closeness of a measured or computed value to its true value.

Acute Effect: A toxic effect on an organism occurring with in a short period
of time, usually 96 hours or less.

Adsorption: Dissolved substance becomes bound to the surface of the particle.

Analyte: The specific component measured in a chemical analysis.

Apparat Effects Threshold: The sediment concentration above which
statistically significant biological effects would always be expected.

Batch: Usually refers to the number of samples that can be prepared or
analyzed at one time. A typical commercial batch size is 20 samples for
extraction of organic compounds.

Bedload: Medium to coarse sands transported along the bed bottom.

Benthic Organisms: Organisms that live in or on the bottom of a body of water.

Bioaccumulation: Process by which a chemical accumulates in an organism's
tissues.

Bioassay: Test procedure to measure response of living plants, animals or
other organisms to a test sediment or elutriate.

Bulk Chemical Analyses: Chemical analyses performed on an entire sediment
sample, without separating water from the solid material in a sample.

Blank -Corrected: The concentration of a chemical in a sample adjusted for the
concentration of that chemical in the method blank carried through the proce-
dure concurrently with the sample.

Calibration: The systematic standardization of either the response of instru-
ments used for measurements or the chemical separation achieved by a labora-
tory cleanup procedure.

Chronic Effect: A toxic effect on an organism occurring after chemical
exposure of long duration.

Coefficient of Variation: The standard deviation expressed as a percentage of
the mean.

Composite: A sediment sample that consists of several samples mixed together;
also, the mixing together of two or more sediment samples.

Contaminant: A substance not naturally present in the environment or present
in unnaturally high concentrations which can affect the environment.

Contaminated Sediment: A sediment that contains measurable levels of
contaminants; or, a sediment that contains sufficient concentrations of
chemicals to produce unacceptable adverse environmental effects and thus
require restrictions for dredging and disposal.

Control Limit: Defines the minimum quality of data as measured'by some
indicator (e.g., recovery) required to assume that the system or method is
performing as expected. Exceeding a control limit triggers action by the
laboratory to correct the problem before data are reported.

Dredged Material: Sediment, gravel and other solids removed from an aquatic
area.

Duplicate Analysis: A second analysis made on the same (or identical) sample
of material to assist in the evaluation of measurement variance.

Effluent: Water flowing out of a contained disposal facility during and
immediately following a disposal operation.

Elutriate: The extract resulting from mixing water and dredged material in a
laboratory test. The resulting elutriate can be used for chemical and
biological testing to assess potential water column effects of dredged material
disposal.

Equilibrium Partitioning: A methodology for estimating the interstitial water
concentration of a sediment contaminant.

GC/MS'- Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy. An instrumental technique
useful for breaking organic compounds into characteristic fragments that can
be used to determine the original structure of the compound.

Inorganic Chemicals: Compounds not containing carbon: includes metals,
ammonia, acids used in pulp/paper processing.

Matrix: The sample material in which the chemicals of interest are found
(e.g., water, sediment, tissue).

Matrix Spike: An analysis conducted by adding a known amount of chemicals of
interest to an actual sample (i.e., matrix), usually prior to extraction or
digestion, and then carrying the spiked sample through the analytical
procedure. The final matrix spike results are reduced by the amount of each
chemical found in a replicate analysis of the sample conducted without spikes.
A comparison of these results with the known concentration of spike added to
the sample enables an evaluation of the effect of the particular sample matrix
on the recovery of compounds of interest.

Method Blank: A measure of the contribution of analytes from all laboratory
sources external to the sample. The method blank value is determined by
proceeding through all phases of extraction and analysis with no addition of
sample.

Method Spike: A method blank to which a known amount of surrogate standards
and analytes (compounds of interest) have been added.

NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service

Noise: The electronic signal intensity attributed to instrument "background"
or electronic current from chemical interferents (i.e., any part of an elec-
trical signal that cannot be related in a known way to the electronic signal
from a target compound).

ODEQ: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ODLCDC: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

ODSL: Oregon Division of State Lands

ODFW: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Organic Chemicals: Chemicals containing carbon, including plastics,
herbicides, rubber, PCB's, or petroleum - related products.

PPB: Parts per billion, or pg/gram.

PPM: Parts per million, or mg/kg, or pg/gram.

Phi: A measurement unit for sediment grain size. Phi = _1092d, where d is
the grain diameter in millimeters.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB): A group of manmade organic chemicals,
including about 70 different but closely related compounds made up of carbon,
hydrogen, and chlorine. If released to the environment, they persist for long
periods of time and can concentrate in food chains. PCB's are not water
soluble and are suspected of causing cancer in humans. PCB's are an example of
an organic toxicant.

Polycyclic (Polynuclear) Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH): A class of complex
organic compounds, some of which are persistent and cancer-causing. These
compounds are formed from the combustion of organic material and are ubiquitous
in the environment. PAH's are commonly formed by forest fires and by the
combustion of fossil fuels. PAH's often reach the environment through
atmospheric fallout, highway runoff, and oil discharge.

Precision: The degree of mutual agreement characteristic of independent
measurements as the result of repeated application of a method under specified
conditions.

Priority Pollutant: Toxic pollutants defined by the US EPA in 1976 that are
the primary subject of regulation of the Water Quality Act. A list of these
substances can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations Volume 40, Section
401.15.

PSDDA: Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis

QA/QC: Quality assurance/quality control (see below).

Quality Assurance: The total integrated program for assuring the reliability
of monitoring and measurement data. A system for integrating the quality
planning, quality assessment, and quality improvement efforts to meet user
requirements.

Quality Control: The routine application of procedures for obtaining pre-
scribed standards of performance in the monitoring and measurement process.

Quantification: The determination or expression of the number or amount of a
variable.

RM: River Mile

Recovery: The amount of a chemical detected in a sample extract at the end of
a procedure relative to the total amount present in a sample before the
procedure was begun. Also, the amount of a chemical detected in a sample
relative to the amount added (i.e., spike) or known to be present (i.e., in a
naturally derived standard reference material). Recovery is usually expressed
as a percentage.

Replicate: One of several identical experiments, procedures, or samples.
Duplicate is a special case of replicates consisting of two samples. or
measurements.

Reproducibility: The ability to produce the same results for a measurement.
Often measured by calculation of relative percent difference or coefficient of
variation.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds: Organic compounds with moderate vapor pres-
sures that can be extracted from samples using organic solvents and analyzed
by gas chromatography. Semivolatile organic compounds include the US EPA
acid/base/neutral compounds (including pesticides and PCBs) as well as numerous
other neutral and organic acid compounds of regional interest (e.g., carbazole,
retene, coprostanol, 4-methylphenol).

Sensitivity: Capability of a method or instrument to discriminate between
samples having differing concentrations of a chemical. The degree to which an
instrument responds to low concentrations of a chemical.

SEPA: Washington State Environmental Policy Act

Significant Figure: A figure(s) that remains to a number or decimal after the
zeros to the right or left are cancelled.

Spike: The addition of a known amount of a substance to a sample.

Standard (analytical): A substance or material, the properties of which are
believed to be known with sufficient accuracy to permit its use to evaluate the
same property of a sample. In chemical measurements, a standard often
describes a solution of chemicals, commonly prepared by the analyst, to
establish a calibration curve or the analytical response function of an
instrument.

Standard (regulatory): A threshold for regulatory action. With respect to
sediment evaluation' the amount of a compound that triggers a particular
regulatory decision.

Surrogate Spike Compound: A known amount of a compound that has character-
istics similar to that of a compound of interest, added to a sample prior to
extraction. The surrogate compound can be used to estimate the recovery of
chemicals in the sample. These compounds are also called "recovery internal
standards".

Target Compounds: The chemicals of interest in a sample that can be
quantified relative to response factors of reliable standards (in contrast to
tentatively identified compounds).

Tentatively Identified Compounds: Chemicals identified in a sample on the
basis of mass spectral characteristics held in common with a reference mass
spectra of a known chemical. These compounds cannot be more confidently
identified unless a reliable standard of the compound is obtained and is
confirmed to co-elute with the tentatively identified compound and generate
similar mass spectra using the same gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer.

TOC: Total Organic Carbon

Turbidity: A measure of the amount of suspended material in the water.

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

US EPA CLP: United States Environmental Protection Agency Contract Laboratory
Program.

USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Volatile Organic Compounds: Organic compounds with high vapor pressures that
tend to evaporate readily from a sample. In this document, volatile organic
compounds are the 29 US EPA priority pollutants considered as volatiles (e.g.,
benzene).

WDOE: Washington De partment of Ecology

WDF: Washington Department of Fisheries

WDNR: Washington Department of Natural Resources

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

AM Test, Inc. 1981. Grays Harbor and Chehalis River improvements to
navigation environmental studies: chemical testing of sediments in Grays
Harbor, Washington. Seattle, WA: US Army Corps of Engineers.

American Public Health Association (APHA), 1985. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater, 16th ed. American Public Health
Association (APHA), American Waterworks Association (AWWA), Water
Pollution Control Federation (WPCF).

Arnold, F. D.; Lowe, J.A.; Farrow, D. R. G. 1988 Analysis of pollutant
discharges from west coast point sources. Rockville, Maryland: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Battelle Memorial Institute. 1988. Confirmatory chemical analyses and solid
phase bioassays on sediment from the Columbia River estuary at Tongue
Point, Oregon.

Battelle Ocean Sciences. 1988. Overview of methods for assessing and managing
sediment quality. Seattle, WA: Environmental Protection Agency.

Bottom, D.; Jones, K.K.; Herring, M.L. 1984. Fishes of the Columbia River
Estuary. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Data Development
Program.

Chapman, P.M. (In press). Oligochaete respiration as a measure of toxicity
in Puget Sound, Washington. In: Proceedings of the Third
International Symposium on Aquatic Oligochaete Biology, Hamburg,
Germany, Sept. 30 through Oct. 5, 1985 (Mitt. Hamb. Zool. Mus..
Inst.).

Chapman, P.M.; Fink, R. 1984. Lifecycle studies with the polychaete
Capitella capitata exposed to contaminated whole sediments and
elutriates. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33:451:459.

Chapman, P.M.; Vigers, G.A.; Farrell, M.A.; Dexter, R.N.; Quinlan, E.A.;
Kocan, R.M.; Landolt, M.L. 1982. Survey of biological effects of
toxicants upon Puget Sound biota. I. Broadscale toxicity survey.
Seattle, Washington: NOAA.

Chapman, P.M.; Munday, D.R.; Morgan, J.; Fink, R.; Kocan, R.M.; Landolt, M.L.;
Dexter, R.N.. 1983. Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon
Puget Sound biota. II. Tests of reproductive impairment. Seattle,
Washington: NOAA.

Chapman, P.M.; Dexter, R.N.; Morgan, J.; Fink, R.; Kocan, R.M.; Landolt, M.L.
1984. Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon Puget Sound
biota. III. Tests in Everett Harbor, Samish, and Bellingham bays.
Seattle, Washington: NOAA.

Chapman, P.M.; Dexter, R.N.; Kocan, R.M.; Long, E.R. 1985. An overview of
biological effects testing in Puget Sound, Washington; methods,
results and implications. pp. 344-363. In: R.D. Cardwell, R.
Prudy, and R.C. Bahner (eds) Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium ASTM STP 854.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and
Materials.

Coffey Labs. 1987. Port of Astoria sediment analysis. Portland, Oregon.

Day, W.D.; Hall, C.A.S; Kemp, W.M.; Yafiez-Arancibia, A. 1989. Estuarine
ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Doucette, W, J., and Andren, A. W. 1988. Aqueous solubility of selected
biphenyl, foran, and dioxin'congeners. Chemosphere, vol. 17, No. 2, pp.
243 - 252.

Enviro Science, Inc. 1987. Tongue Point project sediment evaluation.
Portland, Oregon.

Felstul, D. 1988. An evaluation of Oregon sediment quality. Presented at
the Oregon Sediment Workshop 1988. US Army Corps of Engineers.

Felstul, D. Sediment database. US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland
District.

Fong, Calvin C.; Daniels, Karen L.; Lee, Wendy W.N. 1982. A method for
assessing the potential impacts of discharges of dredged material
into San Francisco Bay. pp259-269. In: W.J. Kickelman, T.J.
Conomos, and A.E. Leviton (eds) San Francisco' Bay: Use and
Protection. Proceedings of the Sixty-First Annual Meeting of-the
Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science.

Fox, D; Barnes, M.; West, H.; Marshall, J. 1987. Columbia River Estuary
regional management plan. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary
Study Taskforce.

Fox, D. 1986. Columbi a River Estuary dredged material management plan.
Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce.

Fox, D. 1987. Dredging and dredged material disposal policy evaluation.
Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce.

Fox, D.S.; Bell, S.; Nehlsen, W.; Damron, J. 1984. The Columbia River
Estuary: atlas of physical and biological characteristics. Astoria,
Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program.

Francingres, N.R. Jr.; Palermo, M.R.; Lee, C.R.; Peddicord, R.K. 1985.
Management strategy for disposal of dredged material: contaminant
testing and controls.

Frey, B.E.; Small, L.F.; Lara-Lara, R. 1984. Water column primary
production in the Columbia River Estuary. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia
River Estuary Data Development Program.

Fuhrer, G.J. 1984. Chemical analyses of elutriates, native water, and bottom
material from the Chetco, Rogue, and Columbia Rivers in western
Oregon. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey.

Fuhrer, G.J. 1986. Extractable cadmium, mercury, copper, lead, and zinc in
the lower Columbia River Estuary, Oregon and Washington. Portland,
Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey.

Fuhrer, G.J. 1989. Quality of bottom material and elutriates in the lower
Willamette River, Portland Harbor, Oregon. Portland, Oregon: U.S.
Geological Survey.

Fuhrer, G.J.; Horowitz, A.J. 1989. The vertical distribution of selected
trace metals and organic compounds in bottom materials of the
proposed lower Columbia River export channel, Oregon, 1984.
Portland, Oregon; U.S. Geological Survey.

Fuhrer, G.J.; Rinella, F.A. 1983. Analyses of elutriated, native water, and
bottom material in selected rivers and estuaries in we'stern Oregon
and Washington. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey.

Giari, Michael J. 1982. Dredging. pp.243-258. In: W.J. Kockelman; T.J.
Conomos, and A.E. Leviton (eds) San Francisco Bay: Use and
Protection. Proceedings of the Sixty-First Annual Meeting of the
Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science.

Guerin, William F. 1989. Phenanthrene degradation by estuarine surface
microlayer and bulk water microbial populations, in Microbial
Ecology. 19:89-104, 1989.

Hamilton, S.F. 1984. Estuarine mitigation, the Oregon process. Salem,
Oregon: Division of State Lands.

Hazel, C.R.; Ives, J.H.; Miller, K.J.; Edwards, D.K.; Tinling, J.S.; Dorsy,
G.L.; Green, M.; Crawford, J.A. 1984. Avifauna of the Columbia
River Estuary. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Data
Development Program.

Holton, R.L.; Cutshall, H.H.; Gordon, L.I.; Small, L.F. 1978. Aquatic
disposal field investigations, Columbia River disposal site, Oregon;
appendix B; water column, primary productivity, and sediment studies.
Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station.

Holton, R.L.; Higley, D.L.; Brezezinski, M.A.; Jones, K.K.; Wilson, S.L.
1984. Benthic infauna of the Columbia River Estuary. Astoria,
A Oregon: Columb@ia River Estuary Data Development Program.

Jeffries, S.J.; Treacy, K.D.; Geiger, A.C. 1984. Marine mammals of the
Columbia River Estuary. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Data
Development Program.

Jones, K.K.; Bottom, D.L. 1984. Zooplankton and larval fishes of the
Columbia River Estuary. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Data
Development Program.

Krumbein, W.C.; Pettijohn, F.J. 1938. Manual of sedimentary petrology. New
York.

McCain, B.B.; Myers, M.S.; Varanasi, U.; Brown, D.W.; Rhodes, L.D.; Gronlund,
W.D.; Elliott, D.G.; Palsson, W.A.; Hodgins, H.O.; Malins, D.C.
1982. Pathology of two species of flatfish from urban estuaries in
Puget Sound. Seattle, Washington: Environmental Protection Agency

Northwestern Aquatic Sciences. 1988. Toxicity of dredge site sediments for
Port of Astoria. Astoria, Oregon; Columbia River Estuary Study
Taskforce.

Ogden Beeman and Associates, Inc. 1985. Studies to control shoaling of the
navigation channel, lower Columbia River. Portland, Oregon: US Army
Corps of Engineers.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1989. Department of environmental
quality's draft interim sediment quality guidelines. Portland, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1986. Regulations relating to
water quality control in Oregon. Portland, Oregon: State of Oregon.

PTI Environmental Services. 1989. Contaminated sediments criteria report,
for Washington Department of Ecology. Seattle, Washington: Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1988. Issue paper: contaminated
sediments and dredging. Seattle, Washington: Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1988. State of the sound 1988 report.
Seattle, Washington: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 1987. Staff
report on water quality in San Francisco Bay. San Francisco,
California: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission.

Sawyer, H. 1987. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Personal
communication.

Schroeder, W. L. 1977. Dredging in Estuaries: A guide for review of
Environmental Impact Statements. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State
University.

Sherewood, C.R.; Creager, J.S.; Roy, E.H.; Gelfenbaum, G.; Dempsey, J. 1984.
Sedimentary processes and environments in the Columbia River Estuary.
Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program.

Simenstad, C. 1986. Epibenthic organisms of the Columbia River Estuary.
Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program.

Simenstad, C.; Jay, D.; McIntire, C.D.; Nehlsen, W.; Sherwood, C.; Small, L.
1984. The dynamics of the Columbia River estuarine ecosystem, Vols.
I and II. Astoria, Oregon: Columbia River Estuary Data Development
Program.

Sustar, John F. 1982. Sediment circulation in San Francisco Bay pp.271-279.
In: W.J. Kockelman; T.J. Conomos, and A.E. Leviton (eds) San
Francisco Bay: Use and Protection. Proceedings of the Sixty-First
Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986. Recommended protocols for measuring selected
environmental variables in Puget Sound. Seattle, Washington: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Tietjen, J.M.; Lee, J.J. 1984. The use of free-living nemotodes as a
bioassay for estuarine sediments. Mar. Environ. Res. 11:233-252.

Turner, R. 1987a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal communication.

Turner, R. 1987b. Tiered sediment quality evaluations for dredging projects.
Proceedings of the 1987 coastal zone' symposium.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976. Channel maintenance dredging, Coos Bay:
Final EIS. Portland, Oregon.

U,S* Army Corps of Eng ineers, 1911, Dredging and dredged material disposal -
engineer manual. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Management Strategy for disposal of
dredged material : contaminant testing and control. Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987a. Columbia River downstream of Bonneville
Dam maintenance disposal plan. Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987b. Department of the Army permit #071-
OYA-2-007577.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987c. Unpublished sediment evaluation data
for Chinook Channel, Oregon and Washington.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989a. Long-term management strategy for
40-foot channel maintenance dredging in the Columbia River Estuary,
phase I report. Portland, Oregon.

U.S.. Army Corps of Engineers. 19.@9b. Tongue Point, Oregon navigation
improvements: final detail project report, an environmental
assessment. Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989c. Management plan report: unconfined open-
water disposal of dredged material, phase II. Seattle, Washington.

U.S. Congress. 1972. Federal water pollution control act amendments.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress 1972. Marine protection research and sanctuaries act of 1972.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress. 1977. Clean water act of 1977. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress. 1987. Water qua lity act of 1987. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Congress. 1988. Ocean dumping act of 1988, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test methods for evaluating
solid waste. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. USEPA contract laboratory
program, statement of work for organics analysis. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Interim sediment criteria values
for nonpolar hydrophobic organic contaminants. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards Washington* 'D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Evaluation of the apparent
effects threshold (AET) approach for assessing sediment quality. Office
of the Administrator: Washington, D.C.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1988. State Environmental Policy
Handbook. Washington Department of Ecology : Olympia, Washington.

Washington State Department of Ecology and US Department of Commerce. 1983.
Grays Harbor estuary management plan: program draft environmental
impact statement. Olympia, Washington.

Washington State Department of Ecology and US Department of Commerce. 1988.
Wetlands regulation guidebook. Washington Department of Ecology:
Olympia, Washington.

Weightman, Tom. 1989. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco. Personal
Communication.

I
I
I
I
I COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY
SEDIMENT QUALITY POLICY EVALUATION
I
I December 1989
Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Columbia River Estuary-Study Taskforce

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

SEDIMENT QUALITY POLICY EVALUATION

Mark R. Barnes
Carol M. Rushmore
David S. Fox

December 1989

This Project was funded by the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington,
D.C., through a grant made under Section 309 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, to the National
Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute,
Newport, Oregon.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1

1.2. CONTENTS 1-2

2. REVIEW OF DREDGING PRACTICES AND IMPACTS 2-1

2.1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTENT 2-1

2.2. DREDGING 2-2

2.2.1. Dredging Practices 2-2

2.2.2. Dredging Impacts 2-2

2.3. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 2-3

2.3.1. Dredged Material Disposal Practices 2-3

2.3.2. Dredged Material Disposal Impacts 2-3

2.4. DREDGE PROJECT SITES, DISPOSAL SITES AND
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

2.5. THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 2-27

2.6. COMPARATIVE DREDGING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS 2-29

2.6.1. Physical Processes 2-29

2.6.2. Sediment Contamination 2-30

2.7. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY 2-31

3. SEDIMENT QUALITY PARAMETERS 3-1

3.1. LOCATIONAL FACTORS 3-3

3.2. PHYSICAL PARAMETERS 3-7

3.2.1. Grain Size 3-7

3.2.2. Oil and Grease 3-11

3.2.3. Total Organic Carbon 3-12

Page No.

3.2.4. Volatile Solids 3-12

3.2.5. pH 3-13

3.2.6. Total Sulfides 3-13

3.2.7. Total Nitrogen 3-14

3.2.8. Ammonia 3-14

3.2.9. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 3-14

3.2.10. Chemical Oxygen Demand 3-15

3.2.11. Petroleum Hydrocarbons 3-15

3.2.12. Dissolved Sulfides 3-15

3.2.13. Total Solids 3-16

3.2.14. Conventional Sediment Variables Summary 3-16

3.3. CHEMICAL PARAMETERS 3-19

3.3.1. Metals and Metaloids 3-19

3.3.2. Organic Compounds 3-28

3.3.3. Sediment Quality Chemical Standards- 3-29

3.4. BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS 3-39

3.4.1. Bioassay Studies 3-39

3.4.2. Bioaccumulation 3-40

3.4.3. Site Monitoring 3-44

3.5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 3-45

4. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS 4-1

4.1. INTRODUCTION 4-1

4.2. PHYSICAL PROCESSES 4-1

4.3. SOURCES OF CONTAMINANTS 4-2

Page No.

4.4. REVIEW OF SEDIMENT ANALYSIS METHODS 4-3

4.4.1. Biological Tests 4-3

4.4.2. Chemical Analysis 4-4

4.5. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS OF METALS IN THE COLUMBIA
RIVER ESTUARY 4-6

4.5.1. Metal Correlations in the Columbia
River Estuary 4-12

4.5.2. Baker Bay 4-13

4.5.3. Chinook Channel 4-15

4.5.4. Ilwaco Channel 4-16

4.5.5. Skipanon Channel and Basin 4-18

4.5.6. Cathlamet Bay 4-19

4.5.7. Columbia River Channel 4-21

4.5.8. Port of Astoria Docks 4-22

4.5.9. Tongue Point --4-23

w.
4.5.10. Other Sediment Samples 14-24

4.6. REVIEW OF EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY
ASSESSMENT METHODS 4-25

4.6.1. Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) 4-25

4.6.2. Field Bioassay 4-26

4.6.3. Screening Level Concentration
Approach (SLC) 4-26

4.6.4. Sediment Quality Triad 4-26

4.6.5. Reference Area Approach 4-26

4.6.6. Infauna Community Structures 4-27

4.6.7. Water Quality Criteria Approach 4-27

4.6.8. Equilibrium Partitioning Approach
(Sediment-Water) 4-27

Page No.

4.6.9. Spiked Sediment Bioassay 4-28

4.6.10. Army Corps of Engineers Three Tiered Approach 4-28

4.7. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY 4-29

5. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 5-1

5.1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTENT 5-1

5.2. FEDERAL REGULATIONS 5-3

5.2.1. Water Quality Act 5-3

5.2.2. Rivers and Harbors Act 5-7

5.2.3. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 5-7

5.2.4. Fishery Conservation and Management Act 5-7

5.2.5. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act 5-7

5.2.6. Endangered Species Act 5-8

5.2.7. National Environmental Policy Act 5-8

5.2.8. Coastal Zone Management Act 5-8

5.3. STATE REGULATIONS - WASHINGTON 5-9

5.3.1. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) 5-9

5.3.2. Hydraulics Project Approval 5-9

5.3.3. Shoreline Management Act 5-10

5.3.4. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 5-10

5.3.5. Water Quality Programs; WashingtonDepartment
of Ecology 5-10

5.3.6. Proprietary Regulation of In-water Disposal 5-13

Page No.

5.4. STATE REGULATIONS - OREGON 5-15

5.4.1. Oregon Fill and Removal Law 5-15

5.4.2. State wide Lane Use Planning Goal 16
Estuarine Resources 5-15

5.4.3. Water Quality Programs; Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality 5-16

5.4.4. Proprietary Regulation of In-water Disposal 5-16

5.5. LOCAL PROGRAMS 5-19

5.5.1. Oregon Local Governments 5-19

5.5.2. Washington Local Governments 5-21

5.5.3. Permit Administration 5-21

5.6 UNIFIED REGULATORY PROGRAM 5-23

6. GLOSSARY 6-1

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY -7-1

vii

LIST OF MAPS

Page No.

Map 1.1 Columbia River Estuary 1-3

Map 2.1 Dredged Material Disposal Sites 2-6

Map 3.1 Patterns of Sediment Transport and Deposition
in the Columbia River Estuary 3-5

Map 4.1 General Sampling Areas for Columbia River,
Baker Bay, Ilwaco Channel and Chinook Channel 4-8

Map 4.2 General Sampling Areas for Columbia River,
Hammond Boat Basin, Skipanon River, Youngs
Bay and Port of Astoria Docks 4-9

Map 4.3 General Sampling Areas for Columbia River,
and Cathlamet Bay 4-10

Map 4.4 General Sampling Areas for Columbia River
and Skamokawa Creek Channel 4-11

LIST OF TABLES Page No.

Table 2.1 Dredge Project Sites 2-7

Table 2.2 Dredged Material Disposal Sites 2-11

Table 2.3 Biological Characteristilcs of Dredged Material Dis-
posal Sites and Potentially Affected Adjacent Areas 2-19

Table 3.1 Grain Size Classes 3-8

Table 3.2 Correlation Coefficients for Metals in Columbia
River Sediment 3-10

Table 3.3 Conventional Sediment Variables - Summary 3-17

Table 3.4 Iron in Columbia River Estuary Sediment 3-22

Table 3.5 Organic Compounds 3-30

Table 3.6 Sediment Chemistry Guideline Values 3-36

Table 3.7 PSDDA Bioaccumulation Study Summary 3-42

Table 3.8 Summary of Sediment Evaluation Criteria Advantages
and Disadvantages 3-46

Table 4.1a Average Concentrations and Correlation Coefficients -_
for Metals in the Columbia River Estuary 4-7

Table 4.1b Average Metal Concentrations in Samples with Over 50%
Silt/Clay Composition 4-7

Table 4.1c Average Metal Concentrations in Samples with Over 50%
Sand Composition 4-7

Table 4.2 COLUMBIA RIVER MAINSTEM CHANNEL: Correlation Co-
efficients for Metals and Grain Size Distribution 4-13

Table 4.3 CHINOOK CHANNEL: Correlation Coefficients for Metals
and Grain Size Distribution 4-13

Table 4.4 Metals in Baker Bay with Concentrations Higher than
one Standard Deviation from the Average of all Colum-
bia River Estuary Samples and Samples Consisting of
>50% Silt and C lay, and samples with >50% sand 4-14

Page No.

Table 4.5 Metals in the Chinook Channel with Concentrations
Higher than One Standard Deviation from the Average
of all Columbia River Estuary Samples, Samples with
>50% Silt and Clay, and Samples Consisting of >50%
Sand 4-16

Table 4.6 Metals in the Ilwaco Channel with Concentrations
Higher than one Standard Deviation from the Average
of all Columbia River Estuary Samples and -Samples
Consisting of >50% Silt and Clay 4-17

Table 4.7 Metals in the Skipanon Channel with Concentrations
Higher than One Standard Deviation from the Average
of all Columbia River Estuary Samples and Samples
Consisting of >50% Silt and Clay 4-18

Table 4.8 Metals in the Cathlamet Bay with Concentrations
Higher than One Standard Deviation from the Average
of all Columbia River Estuary Samples, Samples con-
sisting of >50% Silt and Clay, and Samples Consisting
of >50Z Sand 4-20

Table 4.9 Metals in the Columbia River Mainstem Channel with
Concentrations Higher than One Standard Deviation
from the Average of all Columbia River Estuary Samples;
Samples Consisting of >50% Silt and Clays; and, Samples
Consisting of >50% Sand -4-21
Table 4.10 Average Concentrations of Metals at North Tongue 4-24
Point (Solid Phase Bioassay)

Table 5.1 Water and Sediment Quality Standards and
Guidelines 5-17

LIST OF FIGURES Page No.

Figure 3.1 Grain Size Distribution Chart 3-9

Figure 3.2 Summary of PSDDA Bioassay Requirements 3-41

Figure 3.3 Tiered Sediment Evaluation 3-47

Figure 5.1 Section 404 Permit Process 5-6

Figure 5.2 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Review Process 5-11

Figure 5.3 Water Quality Certification Process 5-12

Figure 5*4 Local Permit Review Process 5-20

Figure 5.5 Seattle District Corps of Engineers Section 404
Permit Application 5-25

Figure 5.6 Portland District Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit Application 5-27

Figure 5.7 Hydraulic Project Application, Washington 5-29

xiii

1. INTRODUCTION

The Columbia River Estuary contains valuable aquatic and biological
resources as well as economically significant navigational facilities.
Dredging and dredged material disposal needed for maintaining the estuary's
navigation channels, turning basins, anchorages and mooring facilities can
degrade water quality and harm aquatic organisms. Dredging and dredged
material disposal are regulated to assure that these necessary activities are
conducted in a manner that minimizes damage to the aquatic environment. The
regulatory programs addressing dredging and dredged material disposal are
complex; particularly so with respect to in-water disposal of contaminated
sediment. This report describes Columbia River Estuary sediment quality
evaluation procedures and the dredged material disposal decision-making
process. Also suggested are ways that this evaluation and decision-making
process might be improved.

1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This report describes current information on sediment quality and dredging
in the Columbia River Estuary. The estuary is defined here as extending from
the river mouth upstream to approximately river mile 45 (see Map 1.1).
Although Columbia River Estuary sediment is comparatively clean, there is
evidence suggesting that some sediment quality problems may be present. These
may be localized instances of sediment contamination, or more widespread
problems associated with a particular chemical.

This report also describes the current regulatory framework for managing
sediment quality in the Columbia River Estuary. Local, state and federal
agencies are involved. The regulatory decision-making process for in-water
dredged material disposal is complex, but not just because water quality is a
complex issue. Three additional complicating factors are also present. The
Columbia River Estuary is a bi-state water body, so regulatory agencies from
two states are involved. The Washington Department of Ecology and the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality cooperate with each other, but their
regulations and administrative procedures are not identical. Sediment quality
is a relatively new area for regulatory attention, and regulations are still
evolving and being developed. The passage of time will improve this situation.
Finally, the Columbia River Estuary is a large and dynamic estuary, and unlike
most other estuarine ecosystems in the nation. The aquatic environment in the
Columbia River Estuary is significantly different from other marine and
estuarine environments, and would be expected to respond differently to
sediment quality problems. For these reasons and others, sediment quality
regulatory programs are multilayered, evolving, and not necessarily well-
matched to Columbia River Estuary environmental conditions. There are,
however, procedures that can be followed that will meet all regulatory
requirements. Those procedures are described in this report.

This report is one of four documents addressing sediment quality and
dredging in the Columbia River Estuary. The other three documents are:

1-1

Columbia River Estuary dredging and in-water disposal handbook.
(CREST 1989)

Dredging and dredged material disposal policy evaluation. (CREST 1987)

Columbia River Estuary dredged material management plan. (CREST 1986)

All four of these reports are prepared by the Columbia River Estuary Study
Taskforce (CREST), a bi-state council of local governments serving communities
on the lower Columbia River. This report, as well as the three reports cited
above, were funded in whole or in part by the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., through a grant made under Section
309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, to the National
Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute, Newport, Oregon.

1.2. CONTENTS

This report is organized into seven chapters. Each chapter is described
below, and outlined in the Table of Contents.

Chapter 2, Review of Dredging Practices and Impacts, summarizes dredging
sites, volumes, techniques and disposal methods on the Columbia River Estuary.
This chapter also briefly looks at dredging requirements and restraints of
other west coast estuaries.

Chapter 3, Sediment Quality Parameters, describes the types of data used
for evaluating sediment quality. This data fall into four broad categories or
tiers: information about the dredging site, conventional sediment variables*
(such as grain size), sediment chemistry, and biological data.

Chapter 4, Sediment Analysis, describes some of the sedimentary
processes, contaminant sources, contamination trends, and analytical methods
germane to the Columbia River Estuary. This chapter summarizes some of the
existing sediment contamination data for specific subareas of the Columbia
River Estuary.

Chapter 5, Regulatory Environment, reviews existing federal, state, and
local legislation and regulatory programs affecting sediment quality management
on the Columbia River Estuary. The principal regulatory program is established
under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit
process and the state Section 401 water quality certification process are both
products of the Clean Water Act. Several state and local regulatory programs
are also relevant to sediment quality management. Chapter 5 also identifies
the critical components of the regulatory environment that need to be followed
for the Columbia River Estuary. This is complex because the Columbia River
Estuary is a bi-state estuary, and because local governments participate in
regulation of dredging and dredged material disposal.

Chapter 6 is a glossary of technical terms used in this report and
elsewhere. Chapter 7 lists reference documents.

1-2

S,
+

0*,"',

BAKER

Rocky ft.
BAY
A
GRAYS @A'
J)Ponugue@ Kz
P.Secln 810
P*-k W G'.y@ ft
Iva,
Hnmgton P1.
r

k k +
+ - + ---- ---

F111
*I- _PA OVNT Tayjor Sands
r CFC - - , @ --
_'Als.,;COUNTY
S.,h

C
RESTLE OLUMBIA RIVER
AY ci
z
P1. AdAm,

Desdernona Sands CATHLAMET
dion Wind

BAY 4TA
an,y Pt.

Ald,
S-h ft '2
YOUNGS

AY
N.
10, +

PACIFIC OCEAN

'6'

Ttg v@
At

+
124-00' =L

Columbia River Estuary Shoreline (limit of non-aqua

Scale 1:160,000 Intertidal vegetation

0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1,1111MI-11-11
T- -
0 1 2 1 4 Shoals and flats
VNTY
__ \E.7
up"y

Map produced in 19&3 bv Northwest Carioqraphk. In(
lor the Columbia River Estuarv Dala Devel,opmens Program Lakes, rivers, other non-tid

2. REVIEW OF DREDGING PRACTICES AND IMPACTS

2.1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTENT

Dredging is the removal of sediment or other material from an aquatic
area for the purpose of deepening navigation channels, mooring basins or other
navigational, mining or mineral extraction or obtaining fill material.
Approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of sediment are dredged annually from the
Columbia River Estuary. Dredging activities occur in extensively developed
areas as well as in pristine areas. Some of this material is disposed of at
upland sites, but a significant portion of the dredged material is disposed of
in-water. Sediment contamination levels can range from below detection limits
to significantly elevated concentrations. Potential adverse effects of this
material on water quality and aquatic habitat raises concerns regarding the
policy of in-water disposal and under what circumstances it is appropriate.
Dredging and the disposal of the dredged material are generally not allowed in
the Columbia River Estuary envir.onments locally designated asAquatic Natural,
but are often permitted in Conservation, Rural, Development and Industrial
Zoned Aquatic environments, subject to-standards or conditional uses.

In 1986, the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce updated the Dredged
Material Management Plan of 1979 to establish consistent policies and stan-
dards for regulating dredging and dredged material disposal in the estuary and
to identify sites that can sufficiently meet projected disposal needs. The
revisions were necessary to address federal, state and local changes in policy,
dredging needs, and disposal site requirements. Changes in policies concerning
water and sediment quality is the impetus for this report. Sediment analysis
and monitoring of dredging and dredged material disposal activities are
necessary to protect aquatic resources and minimize resuspension and relocation
of contaminated sediments. All dredge projects are subject to federal and
state regulations and local Comprehensive Plans (Oregon) or Shoreline
Management Master Programs (Washington). Dredge projects are also subject to
federal and state environmental regulations addressing chemical and physical
contamination levels in water and sediments,

2-1

2.2. DREDGING

2.2.1 Dredging Practices

Dredge projects in the Columbia River Estuary are performed by the
federal government, local governments, ports, private developers and the
diking districts. In the Columbia River Estuary the US Army Corps of
Engineers maintains the mouth of the Columbia River, the Columbia River Main
Navigation Channel, Baker Bay West Channel (16 foot channel to Ilwaco),
Chinook Channel, Channel to Hammond Boat Basin, Skipanon Channel and Skamokawa
Creek Channel. Dredging of port slips, boat basins and waterward of boat
ramps is the responsibility of ports and local governments. Several diking
districts in the estuary repair their dikes by dredging adjacent to the repair
site and disposing of the material directly on the dikes.

Dredging in the Columbia River Estuary occurs predominantly during the
summer and fall months, from May to November when weather conditions and
currents are most favorable. Scheduling of dredging projects must consider
the weather and currents and minimize impacts on aquatic habitats, migrating
and spawning fish, and drift-net fisheries. Between RM 3 and 20, hopper
dredges are used exclusively to maintain the mouth of the Columbia River and
main navigation channel due to the lack of upland disposal sites in the lower
estuary and the large wave and swell action making conditions for pipeline
dredging risky. Above RM 20 both hoppers and pipeline dredges are used for
maintaining the navigation channel and other navigational projects. Hopper
dredges are typically used on small shoals or rapidly forming shoals requiring
immediate dredging. Pipeline dredging is limited because disposal areas must
be relatively close to the dredging site, however, large.volumes of material
may be removed in a short period of time. Historically, bucket dredging has
not been used for maintaining the deep draft navigation channel, but is used
for small dredging projects in confined areas, or when disposal is on adjacent
shoreland.

2.2.2 Dredging Impacts

Adverse effects of dredging can include increased turbidity, release of
heavy metals, sulfides, organic materials or toxic substances, oxygen deple-
tion, loss of benthic productivity, disruption of the food chain, and distur-
bance of aquatic habitat. Dredging can alter existing sediment relationships
such as particle size distribution, sediment stability and organic carbon
content. In areas with high concentrations of contaminants, resuspension in
the water column could potentially have a devastating effect on the
bioproductivity of the area and potentially expose species that have already
been adversely,impacted by contaminants (i.e., bald eagles and shore animals
feeding on contaminated fish). Dredging in intertidal areas destroys wetlands,
shallow water habitats, and migratory and feeding areas for juvenile fish.
Impacts on aquatic life and habitats may also affect commercial and
recreational fisheries.

2-2

2.3. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL

2.3.1 Dredged Material Disposal Practices

Dredged material from the Columbia River Estuary may be disposed of in-
water, which includes flowlane disposal, sump disposal, beach nourishment,
ocean disposal and estuarine water disposal. Columbia River dredged material
is also disposed of on the landward side of flood control dikes, on shorelands
and uplands. The Dredged Material Management Plan lists the current and
potential disposal sites in the Columbia River Estuary with capacity to meet
at least the disposal requirements through 1992.

The US Army Corps of Engineers follows a disposal regime of like-on-like
sediments unless the best disposal alternative, considering all factors,
requires mixing particle size distributions. Other factors, such as distance
from the dredge site, cost, currents and scheduling requirements are important
in determining not only the dredge method but also the disposal site. For
example, for ocean disposal to be cost effective, dredging must occur within
the first 20 miles of the Columbia River mouth but preferably within the first
10 miles. Dredging projects with proposed ocean disposal must be scheduled to
end prior to mid-October. Bar transit becomes hazardous at this time and the
increase in transit time and associated costs reduces overall cost efficiency.
Upland disposals must not impact wetlands and preferably should occur where the
dredged material will restore degraded habitat or where the site's final use
will benefit from the deposition. Dredging or disposal activities should also
be scheduled so as not to conflict with critical fisheries or other aquatic
biological occurrences.

2.3.2. Dredged Material Disposal Impacts

Impacts resulting from disposing of dredged materials are much the same
as that resulting from dredging. Additionally, there is a chance for sedi-
ments disposed of in-water to be recirculated and redistributed in the estuary
resulting in increased shoaling. Material disposed of in-water at a non-
dispersive site can cause smothering of organisms at the disposal site and
adjacent areas. Disposal islands and beach nourishment sites experience some
erosion of the disposed material back into the estuary. The like-on-like
disposal regime discussed in the previous section helps to minimize sediment
instability and associated adverse impacts from mixing particle sizes. Upland
disposal sites must have properly designed drainage systems for adequate
dewatering of materials. Spoils containing organic, chemical or other
potentially toxic pollutant material must be properly contained to avoid
leaching in order to minimize health and environmental hazards.

2-3

2.4. DREDGE PROJECT SITES, DISPOSAL SITES AND BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The following tables were compiled from information collected from the
Dredged Material Management Plan (Fox 1986), the US Army Corps of Engineers
Columbia River Maintenance Disposal Plan, direct communication with the US
Army Corps of Engineers Operations Division and miscellaneous reports on
specific projects in the Columbia River Estuary that provide information on
dr edging, dredged material disposal and sediment characteristics.

Table 2.1 provides information pertaining to dredging projects. The
sediment volumes dredged through 1986 were obtained from the US Army Corps of
Engineers Maintenance Disposal Plan and the Dredged Material Management Plan.
Dredge volumes for 1987 and 1988-were provided by the US Army Corps of
Engineers and from their Long Term Management Study Phase I Report. The asso-
ciated sites in Table 2.1 refer to disposal sites used when dredging the
referenced site. This information was obtained from the same sources.
Sediment characteristics and potential contaminants were obtained from the same
souTces as well as other reports investigating specific contaminants or
particular subareas in the Columbia River Estuary.

Table 2.2 provides information pertaining to dredged material disposal
sites currently incorporated into the Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material
Management Plan. Most of these sites are shoreland or beach nourishment
sites. Flowlane disposal sites are not listed but include a 600 foot wide
strip on either side of the Main Navigation Channel; The Environmental
Protection Agency's designated ocean disposal sites are included. All dredged
material disposals must comply with the dredged material policies and standards
of local Comprehensive Management Plans or Shoreline Master Programs and any
sediment quality policies that may be adopted by the states. The site
designation for Table 2.2 is set up in the following manner:

Example:

Cc - B - 36.8
(Tenasillahe Island)

Key:

Planning Jurisdiction - Type of Disposal Site Approximate Columbia
Jurisdiction Abbreviations: River Mile

As - City of Astoria
Cc - Clatsop County
Ha - Town of Hammond
Pa - Pacific County
Wa - City of Warrenton
Wk - Wahkiakum County

2-4

Disposal Site Abbreviations:

S - Shoreline Disposal
B - Beach Nourishment
E - Estuarine In-Water Disposal
0 - Ocean Disposal

Entries in the tables are consecutively ordered by river mile. A map (Map 2.1)
is provided showing disposal sites.

Table 2.3 describes the biological characteristics of the disposal sites.
The information is a general summary of the aquatic species, birds, mammals,
and vegetation at each site or potentially impacted by disposal at the site.
There will be other species found at or near the sites which are not included
in the list. Many of these species can be found throughout the estuary. Much
of this information was compiled from Environmental Impact Statements, the
Corps' Long-Term Management Strategy Phase I Report and CREST's Oil Spill
Protection Plan for Columbia Rive@r Estuary Resources.

2-5

Wk-S

-S-22.9

w
W S-22.4
a-S".3.2
a-S- .1

Pa S-8.9
c S-3.11
P
a-
rea
OArea E c C'- S - bAs- -S, Wk-S-21.2/
C-8-27.2

.2
+ + +

0 CC-E-S 5
CC-E-21.0
OArea F.
oArea A

-8.0

r1k
Ak
X, Ha-S-7.9 -S 16.3
S-10.7 S-S
Wa-S-9.4o--
cc-S

V
+ + S Oi. cc-
w
S-

-S
-1 .9

cc 2.

2 3 4

2 3
+ + + + +

Map 2.1: Dredged Material Disposal Site*

2-6

W-11 I I= on go on so low Iva M so

TABLE 2.1: DREDGE PI@OJECT SITES

Dredge Site River Mile Amount Dredged Dredge Method Depth Sediment Potential Contaminants Associated Sites

MCR 22,056,300m cy Hopper 55' Medium to fine sands Areas A, B, E, F
1984 - 1986
32,800 cy 1987

Baker Bay 2.5 Average of Hopper 16' Medium to fine sand silts lead, copper, mercury, Area D, E
West 33,000 cy/yr Clamshell and clays zinc, iron, nickel
1982-1986

1985 495,000 cy Pipeline West Sand Island - Fine Sand Island
Material

Desdemona 4.4-10 Approximately Hopper 40' Medium sands Area D, R
Shoal 350,000 cy
1985-1987
_j Skipanon 10.1 Average of Hopper 30' Fine organic silts cadmium, copper, lead, Area D - uncontaminated
Channel and 87,000 cy/yr main- chromium, nickel, zinc, Sediments
Basin Pipeine tained wood fiber, sunken logs,
at 14' jetsam Tansy Point Sump

Flavel Shoal 10-13.6 Average of Hopper' 451 Medium to fine sands Area D
600,000 cy per In-water disposal at
year Tansy Point
Harrington Sump
Upper Sands 13.6-17.5 183,000 cy Hopper- 410 Medium sands Area D
Shoal in 1986 Harrington Sump

Tongue Point 17.5-21.4 Average of Hopper 44' Medium sands Harrington Sump
Crossing 300,000 cy Pipeline Rice Island
annually 1982-
1987 except for
1.5m cy in 1984

Miller Sands 21.4-22.52 675,000 cy/yr Pipeline 45' Medium to fine sands Northside Miller.Sands
from 1982-1988 Hopper Harrington Sump

Harrington 21.0 1.32m cy in 2 Pipeline to Medium sands From Harrington Sump
Sump dredgings last Rice Island to Rice Island
5 years

to aw Am M 40 me so Im @1'90 04

TABLE 2.1: DREDGE PROJECT SITES

Dredge Site River Mile Amount Dredged Dredge Method Depth Sediment Potential Contaminants Associated Sites

Pillar Rock 26.4-27.9 Average of Pipeline 40' Medium sands Jim Crow Sands
aka Jim Crow 300,000 cy Hopper Flowlane disposal
Sands annually Harrington Sump
1982 - 1987

Brookfield- 28.7-32.2 Average of Pipeline 40' Medium sands Fitzpatrick Island
Welch Island 110,000 Cy Hopper In-water (future)
Reach annually
1982-1986
50,000 cy in
1987

Skamokawa 32.6-36.6 Average of Hopper 451 Medium sands Welch Island Beach Nourishment
Bars 179,000 cy each Pipeline Price Island Shoreline
of 3 yrs 1982- Replenishment 00
1986
2 of 5 yrs
591,000 cy each

Skamokawa 33.2 1985 22,000 cy Pipeline 6.5' very fine sands silts manganese, nickel W-33.4
Creek and clays; medium sands
closer to channel

Puget Island 37.4-38.4 Average of Hopper 401 Coarse to medium Tenasillahe Island Beach
Bar 181,000 cy each Nourishment
of 3 years
1982-1986

Average of Pipeline Lower Puget Island
660,000 cy
remaining 2 yrs
1982-1986

Wauna and 40.8-44.5 Average of Hopper 40' Coarse to medium Westport Slough Beach Nourish-
Lower 105,000 cy each ment
Westport of 3 years
Bars 1982-1986
Average of Pipeline Coarse to medium Various others see pink book
521,000 cy each
of 3 years
1982-1986

M@w MAE4060*101@" M'"Naw wim mtm mom M

TABLE 2.1: DREDGE PROJECT SITES

Dredge Site River Mile Amount Dredged Dredge Method Depth Sediment Potential Contaminants Associated Sites

Westport 44.5-48.2 Average of Hopper 40' Coarse to medium Sites in Columbia County
Bars 560,000 each of
4 yrs 1982-
1986
470,000 cy in Pipeline Wk-B-45
remaining year Wk-S-45
1982-1986 Wk-S-46.3

Gull Island 48.2-51.9 2 of 5 yrs Hopper Sites in Columbia County
67,000 cy each
time

Ports; Boat Basins; Boat Ramps

Ilwaco Boat 4 Chan- Very fine sand silt and mercury* nickle, cadmium
Basin - nel clay
16'

Moor-
ing
Basin
10,

Chinook 5 Average of Hopper 10, Very Fine Sands, silts arsenic, copper, lead, Area D
Basin and 26,000 cy/yr and clays cadmium East Sand Island
Channel 1982-1986

1986-124,000 cy Clamsbell

Pipeline

Hammond Boat 7 1982-24,000 cy Pipeline 10, Very fine sands silts and copper, cadmium Ha-S-8.0
Basin clays

Warrenton 11 copper, cadmium Ha-S-8.0
Boat Basin

Youngs Bay 12 Very fine sands, silts Youngs Bay - nickel,
and clay cadmium, copper

W AM, W Jft "W M

TABLE 2.1: DREDGE PROJECT SITES

Dredge Site River Mile Amount Dredged Dredge Method Depth Sediment Potential Contaminants Associated Sites.

Port of 13 Very fine sand silt and nickel, arsenic Flowlane
Astoria clay
Slips and Sometimes medium, coarse
Dock in river adjacent

tongue Point Fine sand. silt and clay cadmium, lead, zinc,
Channel, Block of basalt off end nickel
piers and of pier 8
turning
basin

C'4

M, OEM M am

TABLE 2.2: DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

Site Amount Total Remaining Method of
Designation Deposited Area Capacity Capacity Disposal Associated Sites

Pa-S-3.0 Spoils since 1979 - 26.1 acres 420,000 cy 420,000 cy Pipeline Baker Bay West Channel
None

CC-S-3.1 Spoils since 1979 - 83.3 acres 2.5m cy 2.08m cy Pipeline Baker Bay West Channel
(West Sand 420,000 cy
Island)

Pa-S-3.2 10.7 acres 17,000 cy/year Stockpiled for Pipeline Port of 11waco Boat Ba.sin
reuse

CC-B-5.8 Spoils since 1979 - 4,100 feet 450,000 cy 450,000 cy Pipeline Port of Ilwaco Boat Basin
(East Sand None
Island)'.

CC-S-6.8 Spoils prior to 18 acres 1.02m cy 580,000 Cy Pipeline Northern portion of Chinook Channel
(East Sand June 1986 - (Reserved for
Island) 440,000 Cy fine grained
material)

Ha-S-7.6 Spoils prior to 9.5 acres 150,000 cy 150,000 cy Pipeline Hammond Boat Basin expansion
June 1986 - None

Ha-S-7.9 Spoils prior to 6 acres 145,000 cy 45,000 cy Pipeline Hammond Boat Basin
Ha-S-8.0 June 1986 -
100,000 Cy

Pa-S-8.1 Spoils prior to 143 acres 2.3m cy 2.3m cy Chinook Channel realignment
June 1986 - None

CC-E-8.5 Restricted to 5,000' x 2,000' ACOE 3.25m Hopper fine ACOE-maintenance of Desdemona
(Area D) 650,000 cy/yr or 38' deep cy/5yrs Non- grained Shoal, Flavel Shoal, Upper Sands
3.25m cy over 5 yrs Fed 100,000 Shoal, Tongue Point Crossing,
cy/yr Chinook Channel, Baker Bay West
Channel, Skipanon Channel, Columbia
River Bar, Non-federal projects

Pa-S-8.8 Spoils prior to 3 acres 20,000 Cy Depends on Chinook Channel
June 1986 - None amount removed Chinook Boat Basin
for reuse

"Im, An no 40 aw no am,

TABLE 2.2: DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

Site Amount Total Remaining Method of
Designation Deposited Area Capacity Capacity Disposal Associated Sites

Pa-S-8.9 Spoils prior to 15.3 acres 250,000 cy 250,000 cy Chinook Channel
June 1986 - None Chinook Boat Basin

Wa-S-9.4 Spoils prior to 26 acres 420,000 cy 420,000 cy
June 1986 - None

Wa-S-10.1 Spoils prior to 15 acres 240,000 cy 240,000 cy Skipanon Channel
June 1986 - None Warrenton Boat Basin
West Bank Skipanon Development

Tansy Point Spoils since 1970 1,500' x 1,700' Hopper
(RM 10.01 W) None 45' deep
In-water
Disposal
Cq
Wa-S-10. .5 70 acres 1.13m cy 1.13m cy Skipanon Channel 4
Warrenton Boat Basin C14
East & West Bank Skipanon
Development

Wa-S-10.7 Spoils since 1979 4.8 acres 39,000 cy 39,000 cy Trucked in West Bank Skipanon Development
- None disposal
(possibly to
high for
clamshell or
pipeline

Wa-S-10.9 Spoils since 1979 15.5 acres 213,000 cy None Pipeline
(East Bank 300,000+cy
Skipanon
Peninsula)
(Site 1)

Wa-S-10.9 Spoils since 1979 33.6 acres 461,000 cy 221,000 cy Pipeline Flavel Shoal
(Site 2) 240,000

Wa-S-10.9 Spoils since 1979 48.8 acres 657,000 cy 657,000 cy pipe I i lie Skipanon Channel, Warrenton Boat
(Site 3) None Basin, East and West Bank Skipanon
Development

MAMA= swan nomwaft'm In go*= to 'm

TABLE 2.2: DREDGED MATERIA1 DISPOSAL SITES
Site Amount Total Remaining Method of
Designation Deposited Area Capacity Capacity Disposal Associated Sites
Wa-S-10.9 Spoils since 1979 - 40.5 acres 277,000 cy 277,000 cy Pipeline Flavel Shoal
(Site 4) None
Wa-S-10.9 Spoils since 1979 - 50.3 acres 650,000 cy 650,000 cy Pipeline Flavel Shoal, Skipanon Channel,
(Site 5) None East and West Bank Skipanon
Development
Wa-S-11.7 Spoils prior to 32 acres 260,000 cy 260,000 cy Youngs Bay and River
June 1986 - None Lewis & Clark River entrance
Port of Astoria Maintenance
Wa-S-11.8 Spoils prior to 131 acres 1.06m cy 1.06m cy Youngs Bay and River
June 1986 - None Lewis & Clark River entrance
Port of Astoria Maintenance
LO. Wa-S-11.9 Spoils prior to 10.6 acres 170,000 cy 170,000 cy Youngs Bay and River
June 1986 - None Lewis & Clark River entrance
Port of Astoria Maintenance
Wa-S-12-1 Spoils prior to 16.7 acres 135,000 cy 135,000 cy Youngs Bay and River
June 1986 - None Lewis & Clark River entrance
Port of Astoria Maintenance
Wa-S-12-5 Spoils prior to 17 acres 137,000 cy 137,000 cy Youngs Bay and River
June 1986 - None Lewis & Clark River entrance
Port of Astoria Maintenance
Wa-S-12-6 Spoils prior to 103 acres 831,000 cy 831,000 cy Pipeline Youngs Bay and River
June 1986 - None Lewis & Clark River entrance
Port of Astoria Maintenance
Cc-S-12-7 Spoils prior to 2.9 acres 69,000 cy 69,000 cy Pipeline Lewis & Clark log sort yard
June 1986 - None
Cc-S-12.9 Spoils prior to .5 acres 7,400 cy 5,400 cy Pipeline AMCCO Boat Basin Maintenance
June 1986 - 2,000 Clamshell
cy Fine sediments
As-S-16.3 Spoils from 1979 - 7 acres 112,000 cy 112,000 cy Pipeline East Mooring Basin
(East Mooring 1986 - None Tongue Point Coast Guard Dock
Bas i n)

swam 40-ow wa so

TABLE 2.2: DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

Site Amount Total Remaining Method of
Designation Deposited Area Capacity Capacity Disposal Associated Sites

As-S-18.2 Spoils prior to 8 acres 128,000 cy 128,000 cy Pipeline Tongue Point Development
(N. Tongue June 1986 - None Clamshell
Point)

Cc-S-18.6 Spoils prior to 59 acres 845,000 cy 845,000 cy Pipeline Tongue Point Development
(John Day June 1986 - None
River)

As-S-18.7 Spoils prior to 59 acres 950,000 cy 950,000 cy Pipeline Tongue Point Development
(S. Tongue June 1986 - None
Point)

Cc-S-18.8 Spoils prior to 1.6 acres 27,000 cy 27,000 cy John Day Boat Ramp Maintenance
June 1986 - None

Wk-S-20.7 Spoils prior to 15 acres 240,000 cy 240,000 cy Grays Bay Channel
(Deep River) June 1986 - None Deep River Channel

Cc-E-21.0 1.32m cy in 2 VIA NIA NIA dependent Hopper Flavel Shoal
(Harrington dredgings last 5 on capacity of Upper Sands Shoal
Sump) years removed from Rice Island Tongue Point Crossing Shoal
Harrington Sump (pipeline from Miller Sands Bar
Harrington Pillar Rock
Sump)

Wk-S-21.1 Spoils prior to 22 acres 350,000 cy 350,000 cy Deep River Channel
(Deep River) June 1986 - None

Wk-S-21.2 12m cy has been 250 acres 6.9m cy To maximum Pipeline Harrington Sump (Cc-E-21.0)
CC-S-21.2 disposed of here in height limit of Miller Sands Bar
(Rice Island) last 25 years 45 feet

Wk-S-22.4 Spoils prior to 19 acres 307,000 cy 307,000 cy Grays Bay Channel
June 1986 - None Grays River Channel

Wk-S-22.9 Spoils prior to 25 acres 400,000 cy 400,000 cy Grays River Channel
June 1986 - None

M AIIIIIIIIII 2-0 am an M, as go 4W M 4111111111 fm IM, do Im M

TABLE 2.2: DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

Site Amount Total Remaining Method of
Designation Deposited Area Capacity Capacity Disposal Associated Sites

Cc-B-23.1 90 acres 415,000 cy Limited by Pipeline Miller Sands Bar
(Miller Sand erosion
spit)

Cc-S-23.5 154 acres Limited by Pipeline Miller Sands Bar
(Miller Sand erosion some from Tongue Point and Pillar
Island) approximately Rock
2.Om cy

Cc-S-24.0 Prior to June 1986 282 acres 4.5m cy 4.4m cy Port of Astoria
(Svenson - 100,000 cy West Mooring Basin
Island@. Tongue Point Coast Guard Docks
Tongue Point Development

Cc-S-27.2 Prior to June 1988 50 acres Limited by bank Pipeline Pillar Rock Bar
(Jim Crow - 800,000 cy erosion
Sands)

un Cc-B-27.2 5,400 feet 300,000 cy Pillar Rock Bar
(Jim Crow
Sands)

RM 27/28) Presently used as
(In-water relief for
disposal) Harrington Sump

R14 29 (B) 1973 - 110,000 cy Pillar Rock Bar
(Woody
Island)

Cc-S-31.2 26 acres 425,000 cy Brookfield Welch Island Bars
(Fitzpatrick
Island)

Wk-B-33.4 3,300 feet 250,000 cy Skamokawa Creek Improvement
(Skamokawa) Skamokawa Bar

OR Ift M) AN 00 NP AM M@ 10M 00 AS IW 60 09 SO IM 00

TABLE 2.2: DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

Site Amount Total Remaining Method of
Designation Deposited Area Capacity Capacityi Disposal Associated Sites

RM 34 (B) Spoils in 1986
(Welch 435,000 cy
Island)

Cc-B-36.8 Spoils prior to 2,500 feet 90,000 cy 90,000 cy Puget Island Bar
(Tennasillahe June 1986 - None Skamokawa Bar
Island)

Wk-S-36.9 7.5 acres 120,000 cy Elochoman Slough
(Elochoman
Slough)

Wk-S-38.1 3.6 acres 58,000 cy Cathlamet Boat Basin

Cc-B-38.3 2,400 feet 175,000 cy Puget Island Bar

37 acres 595,000 cy Puget Island Bar
Cc-S-38.3

Wk-S-38.4 Spoils from 1979- 8 acres 128,000 cy Depends on Pipeline Puget Island Bar
1986 unknown amount removed
for reuse

Wk-B-38.7 2,900 feet 216,000 cy Depends on Pipeline Puget*Island Bar
(downstream amount removed
Puget Island) for reuse

Wk-B-38.8 800 feet 62,000 cy Pipeline Puget Island Bar
(downstream
Puget Island)

Cc-S-38.9 Spoils prior to 26 acres 420,000 cy 420,000 cy Water Dependent Development at site
(Bradwood) June 1986 - None Puget Island Bar

Wk-B-40.8 900 feet 33,000 cy Pipeline Wauna/ Lower Westport Bars
(near Welcome
Slough)

Wk-B-40.9 2,500 feet 92,500 cy Pipeline Wauna/ Lower Westport Bars
(near Welcome
Slough)

USIM man M14now Mo)-m MM M"MM-Aw

TABLE 2.2: DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

Site Amount Total Remaining Method of
Designation Deposited Area Capacity Capacity Disposal Associated Sites

Wk-S-41.2 5.3 acres 85,000 cy Pipeline Welcome Slough
(near Welcome
Slough)
Wk-B-41.3 4,000 feet 148,000 cy Pipeline Wauna/Lower Westport Bars
(Coffee Pot
Island)

Wk-S-41.8 Spoils prior to 6.2 acres 100,000 cy 100,000 cy can Pipeline Wauna/Lower Westport Bars
June 1986 None be used for
stockpile

Wk-B-42.4 4,200 feet 310,000 cy Pipeline Wauna/Lower Westport Bars

Wk-B-42.5 35 acres 560,000 cy Pipeline Wauna/Lower Westport Bars

Cc-S-42.9 95 acres 1.5m cy Pipeline Wauna/Lower Westport Bars
Westport Slough

Wk-B-43.8 39250 feet 120,000 cy Pipeline Wauna/Lower Westport Bars
(Pancake
Point)

cc-B-44.0 4,600 feet 340,000 cy Pipeline Wauna/Lower Westport Bars
(Westport)

Cc-B-45.0 28 acres 450,000 cy We .stport Bars

Wk-B-45.0 5,400 feet 300.000 cy Pipeline Westport Bars
(White
Island)

Wk-S-46.3 60 acres 960,000 cy Pipeline Westport Bars

Wk-B-46.3 6,000 feet 330,000 cy Pipeline Westport Bars

Wk-B-51.8 3,100 feet 230,000 cy Pipeline Eureka Bar

not Im go, An Sol (40 1w.

TABLE 2.2: DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

Site Amount Total Remaining Method of
Designation Deposited Area Capacity Upacity Disposal Associated Sites

OCEAN
DISPOSAL

Area A Approximately lm cy 5,000' x 2,000' Hopper (Medium Mouth of the Columbia River - Bar
67' deep to fine sands) Channel

Area B 4m cy/year 5,000' x 2,000' Hopper (Medium Mouth of the Columbia River - Bar
85' - 130' deep to fine sands) Channel

Area E Approximately lm cy 4,000' x 1,000' Hopper (Medium Baker Bay West Channel
70' deep to fine sands) Mouth of the Columbia River - Bar
Channel

Area F 1.8 mcy 1989 1,800ox 1,800' Hopper Tongue Point Channel, Pier Heads 00
(sandy silt) and Turning Basin

Table 2.3: Biological Characteristics of Dredged Material Disposal Sites and
Potentially Affected Adjacent Areas

DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES AQUATIC SPECIES BIRDS MAMMALS VEGETATION

Pa-S-3.0 Starry Flounder Seabirds, including: Coyotes Native sand dune
Cc-S-3.1 Salmon Glaucous-Winged Gull Otter plants
West Sand Island Dungeness Crab Western Gull European beach
Cape Disappointment Northern Anchovy Waterfowl grass
Pacific Herring Diving Birds, including: Hair grasses
Shiner Perch Brown Pelicans Forbes
Crabs Wading Birds, including:
Great Blue Heron
Shorebirds, including:
Dunlin
Western Sandpiper
Sanderling
Raptors, including:
Bald Eagles

Pa-S-3.2 Shorebirds, including:
Ilwaco Dunlin
Western Sandpiper
Sanderling
Seabirds

Cc-B-5.8 Starry Flounder Seabirds, including: Harbor Seal European beach
Cc-B-6.8 Salmon Glaucous-Winged Gull grass
East Sand Island American Shad Western Gull Hair grasses
Northern Anchovy Caspian Tern Forbes
Pacific Herring Waterfowl, including: Shrubs
Canada Goose
Mallards
Pintail
Wigeon
Surf Scoter

Table 2. 3:

DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES AQUATIC SPECIES BIRDS MAMMALS VEGETATION

Ha-S-7.6 Waterfowl, inc4lding:
Ha-S-7.9 Surf Scoter .
Ha-S-8.0 Western Grebe
Hammond Wading birds, including:
Great Blue Heron

Pa-S-8.1 Muskrat Sitka Spruce
Pa-S-8.9 Nutria Alder
Raccoon
Otter
Deer

Pa-S-8.8
Port of Chinook

Cc-E-8.5 Starry Flounder
Area D Sturgeon
Pacific..Herring
American Shad
Salmon
Longfin Smelt

Wa-S-9.4

Wa-S-10.1

Wa-S-10.7 Water fowl
West Bank Skipanon Shorebirds
River

Wa-S-10.9 Waterfowl
East Bank Skipanon Shorebirds
River Wadingbirds

IMM MAN MMM MM MM MMMM, M

Table 2. 3:

DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES AQUATIC SPECIES BIRDS MAMMALS VEGETATION

Wa-S-11.7 Wading birds, 'including: Muskrat Lyngby's Sedge
Wa-S-11.8 Great Blu'e Hieron Nutria Hairgrass
Wa-S-11.9 Waterfowl, including: Raccoon Rushes
Wa-S-12.1 Canvasback
Wa-S-12.5 Greater Scaup
Wa-S-12.6 Scoters
Airport Western Grebe
Mallard
Shorebirds, including:
Sanderling
Western Sandpiper

Cc-S-12.7 Salmon Muskrat Tufted Hairgrass
Cc-S-12.9 Steelhead Nutria Lyngby's Sedge
Raccoon
Lewis and Clark
River

As-S-16.3
East End Mooring
Basin

As-S-18.2 starry' Flounder Raptors, including: Nutria Lyngby's Sedge
As-S-18.7 Salmon Bald Eagles Otter Bulrush
Tongue Point Steelhead Osprey Beaver
Cutthroat Trout Waterfowl, including: Muskrat
Common Merganse
Western Grebe
Wading Birds, including:
Great Blue Heron

Cc-S-18.6 Starry Flounder Waterfowl, including: Otter Lyngby's Sedge
Cc-S-18.8 Salmon Common Merganser Beaver Bulrush
John Day River Steelhead Western Grebe Muskrat
Cutthroat Trout Shorebirds, including: Nutria
Western Sandpiper
Dunlin
Sanderling
Raptors, including:
Bald Eagles
Osprey

NOW 4W SM no Ift owl' Im so, 40, 10, No. Aff no, M W M,

Table 2.3:

DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES AQUATIC SPECIES BIRDS MAMMALS VEGETATION

Wk-S-20.7 Starry Flounder Raptors, including: Otter Bulrush
Wk-S-21.1 Salmon Bald Eagles Beaver Lyngbyls Sedge
Deep River Steelhead Waterfowl Muskrat Tufted Hairgrass
Shorebirds, including:. Nutria
Western Sandpiper Deer.
Dunlin
Sanderling

Cc-E-21.0 Starry Flounder Diving birds, including:
Harrington Sump Salmon Double-Crested
Pacific Herring Cormorant
Cutthroat Trout Seabirds, including:
Steelhead G'laucous-Winged Gull
Western Gull
Caspian Tern

Wk-S-21.2 Starry Flounder Diving birds, including: Grasses
Salmon
Cc-S-21.2 Double-Crested
Rice Island Pacific Herring Cormorant
Seabirds, including:
Glaucous-Winged Gull
Western Gull
Caspian Tern
Waterfowl, including:
Canada Goose
Surf Scoter
Snow Goose
Western Grebe
Common Merganser

Wk-S-22.9 Starry Flounder Muskrat Bulrush
Wk-S-22.4 Salmon Nutria Lyngby's Sedge
Gray's River Steelhead Beaver Tufted Hairgrass
Raccoon
Otter
Deer

Table 2.3:

DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES AQUATIC SPECIES BIRDS MAMMALS VEGETATION

Cc-B-23.1 Diving birds, including: Nutria Lower End -
Cc-S-23.5 Double-Crested Harbor Seal Forbes
Miller Sands Cormorant
Seabirds, including: Upper End -
Glaucous-Winged Gull Lupine
Western Gull Velvet grass
Caspian Tern Red fescue
Waterfowl, including: Cottonwoods
Canada Goose
Mallard
Common Merganser
Western Grebe
Shorebirds, including:
Dunlin
Western Sandpiper
Sanderling

Cc-S-24.0 Starry Flounder Raptors, including: Otter Agricultural
Svenson Island Salmon Bald Eagles Beaver
Osprey Muskrat
Waterfowl, including: Nutria
Western Grebe
Mallard
Green7Winged Teal
Shorebirds, including:
Dunlin
Western Sandpiper
Sanderling
W,.:.ading Birds

No AN' W, Im ion M dW Im As, W so M M M 9-90 411j

Table 2-3:

DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES AQUATIC SPECIES BIRDS MAMMALS VEGETATION

Cc-B-27.2 Salmon Waterfowl, including: Muskrat Lyngby's Sedge
Cc-S-27.2 Steelhead Canada Goos6 Nutria Bulrush
Jim Crow Sands Sturgeon Mallard
Cutthroat Trout Western Grebe
Common Merganser
Shorebirds, including:
Dunlin
Western Sandpiper
Sanderling
Raptors, including:
Bald Eagles
Diving Birds, including:
Double Crested
Cormorants

RM 29 Salmon Shorebirds, including: Muskrat Lyngby s Sedge
Woody Island Steelhead Dunlin Nutria Bulrush
Sturgeon Western Sandpiper
Sanderling
Raptors, including:
Bald Eagles
Waterfowl, including:
Common Merganser
Mallard

Cc-S-31.2 Salmon Waterfowl, Including: Harbor Seal Bulrush
Fitzpatrick Island Cutthroat Trout Surf Scoter Muskrat Lyngby's Sedge
Mallard Nutria
Shorebirds, including:
Dunlin
Western Sandpiper
Sanderling
Raptors, including:
Bald Eagles
Wading Birds, including:
Great Blue Herons

@Wm@

Table 2. 3:

DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES AQUATIC SPECIES BIRDS MAM14ALS VEGETATION

Wk-B-33.4 Salmon Waterfowl, including: Beaver Grasses
Skamokawa Cutthroat Trout Surf Scoter Muskrat
Mallard Nutria
Raptors, including:
Bald Eagles
Shorebirds, including:
Dunlin
Western Sandpiper
Sanderling

Wk-S-38.4 Salmon Raptors, including: Columbia White-
Wk-S-36.9 Steelhead Osprey Tailed Deer
Elochoman Slough Cutthroat Trout Bald Eagle Muskrat
Nutria, Beaver

Wk-S-38.1 Salmon Raptors, including: Columbia White-
Cathlamet Steelhead Osprey Tailed Deer
Cutthroat Trout Bald Eagle Muskrat
Nutria
Beaver

Cc-B-38.3 Salmon Waterfowl Beaver
Cc-S-38.3 Steelhead Raptors, including-: Muskrat
Tenasillahe Island Cutthroat Trout Bald Eagles Nutria
(upper end) Wading Birds, including: Raccoon
Great Blue Heron

Wk-S-38.4 Salmon Waterfowl Columbia White
Wk-B-38.7 Steelhead Tailed Deer
Wk-B-38.8 Cutthroat Trout
Puget Island

Cc-S-38.9 Nutria
Bradwood Muskrat

M M W,

Table 2. 3:

DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITES AQUATIC SPECIES BIRDS MAMMALS VEGETATION

Wk-B-40.8 Salmon Shorebirds Raccoon
Wk-B-40-9 Steelhead Waterfowl
Wk-S-41.2 Sturgeon
Wk-S-41.8
Wk-B-42.4
Puget Island

Wk-B-41.3 Salmon Waterfowl, including,
Wk-S-42.5 Steelhead Surf Scoter
Coffee Pot Island Sturgeon

Wk-B-43.8 Wading Birds, including: Otter
Wk-S-45 Great Blue Heron Beaver
Wk-B-45 Muskrat
Puget Island Nutria
Columbia White-
Tailed Deer
Raccoon

Cc-B-44 Salmon Waterfowl Columbia White-
Westport Steelhead Tailed Deer
Sturgeon

Wk-S-46.3 Salmon Waterfowl Otter
Wk-B-46.3 Wading Birds, including: Beaver
Brown Island Great Blue Heron Muskrat
Nutria

Source: Data compiled from US Army Corps of Engineers' Long-Term Management Strategy, 1989; CREST Oil Spill
Protect-ion Plan for Columbia River Estuary Resources 1988; and David Fox, Paul Benoit Physical and
Biological Characteristics of the Columbia River Estuary by Sub-Region, 1985.

2.5. THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

The Columbia River Estuary, because it spans the state boundaries of
Oregon and Washington, is subject to a unique policy and regulatory regime.
Any action that might affect the water quality or natural resources of the
Columbia River Estuary is subject to review and jurisdictional authority of
both Oregon and Washington states. This means that regulatory programs of
both states affect dredging, in-water dredged material disposal, water and
sediment quality analyses. Yet the states have different requirements
regarding permitting procedures, review criteria and allowable contamination
levels.

Neither state has established sediment quality guidelines, yet both are
in the process of preparing them'7 separately. Oregon Department of Environ-
mental Quality is formulating general guidelines to be utilized for testing
sediments in Oregon rivers and estuaries. Draft Interim Sediment Quality
Guidelines distributed in September 1989 by the Department of Environmental
Quality were adapted from the Corps of Engineers Three Tiered Approach.
Through the National Estuary Program, the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
program was initiated by US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Washington Department of Ecology and US Environmental
Protection Agency to study open water unconfined disposal sites and to develop
sediment quality values for use in managing contaminated sediments in Puget
Sound. Due to differing physical processes, contamination levels, and
regulatory requirements and authorities between Puget Sound area and the
Columbia River Estuary, these guidelines may not be appropriate for use in the
Columbia River Estuary.

In addition to state jurisdiction and review, dredging and dredged
material disposal on the Columbia River Estuary is also subject tofederal
approval by the Army Corps of Engineers and review by local city and county
governments through Shoreline Management Master Programs (Washington) or
Comprehensive Plans (Oregon).

The remainder of this chapter briefly summarizes physical processes.,
dredging requirements, and sediment quality from other west coast estuaries.
This information allows a comparison for differentiating dredging needs,
requirements and impacts between the Columbia River Estuary and other
estuaries. These differences in requirements suggest a need for establishing
effective sediment quality guidelines specific to the Columbia River Estuary.

2-27

2.6. COMPARATIVE DREDGING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS

Dredging maintenance needs and quantities differ from estuary to estuary.
The US Army Corps of Engineers currently dredges and disposes of approximately
2.2 million cubic yards of sediment annually from the Columbia River Estuary
to maintain the mainstem navigation channel from the mouth to the lower end of
Puget Island (RM 39). The Washington Department of Natural Resources estimates
approximately 1.13 million cubic yards are dredged annually in Puget Sound
(PSWQA, 1986). San Francisco Bay area requires 9 million cubic yards of
material to be dredged each year to maintain the bar, navigation channel and
access to the ports and harbors (Weightman 1989). Coos Bay, Oregon and Grays
Harbor, Washington have approximately 1.4 and 1.8 million cubic yards
respectively, dredged annually for channel maintenance. These volumes as well
as the content and composition of the dredged sediments are influenced by flow
patterns, flushing, sediment transport, erosion and navigational requirements.

2.6.1 Physical Processes

Puget Sound has approximately 75 river systems draining into the Sound
area for an average total of 45,000 cfs of fresh water flow. In comparison,
the Columbia River Estuary has tremendous flow, discharging an average of
260,000 cfs. The central basin of Puget Sound, however is 600 feet deep, a
fjord carved by glacial activity. At the north end where it connects with the
Strait of Juan de Fuca there is a shallow sill of 125 feet. This relatively
shallow barrier effectively prevents sediments from being carried out to the
ocean. The water is diverted and recirculated back into the Sound. Suspended
sediments remain in the area and are very likely to settle out. The Columbia
River Estuary, however, retains very little of its suspended load.

In San Francisco Bay, tides profoundly affect water movement.;,'-The tidal
motion, however, is oscillatory with horizontal motions; the motiongreatly
dispenses sediments, but very little is actually transported out to the ocean.
Seventy percent (70%) of the Bay is less than 18 feet deep. Water residence
depends on seasonal freshwater flows and is estimated to be from 2 weeks (high
flow) to 5 months (low flow) (Sustar, 1982). Most new sediment enters the Bay
from the Central Valley drainage basin during periods"of high fluvial flow and
is deposited in the shallow water areas. A large percentage of the in-flowing
sediments remain within the estuary for a number of years. Wave and wind
erosion recirculate and resuspend the sediment. Sediment deposited in the
deeper channels is influenced more strongly by tidal flows and is eventually
transported out of the estuary.

Grays Harbor, Washington is predominantly a shallow basin averaging less
than 20 feet deep, although the mouth is approximately 75 feet. The 23 mile
navigation channel is maintained at 30 feet. Tidal flows dominate the river
flows. The Chehalis River system transports approximately 2 million cubic
yards of sediments per year into the estuary. It is also estimated that a
imilar amount of marine sediments enters the mouth. During the winter
months, periods of high fluvial flow, flushing is fairly good throughout the
estuary. However, in low flow summer months, flushing and sediment transport
out of the estuary is reduced. Suspended sediments tend to settle out in the
central harbor. What little sediment is retained in the Columbia River Estuary
tends to settle in the peripheral bays and back channels.

2-29

2.6.2 Sediment Contamination

Most dredging projects in Puget Sound occur in the active harbors. These
areas have been shown to contain high chemical concentrations in the sediments.
Contamination levels may be at least 100 times higher than levels found in the
cleanest rural bays. The heavily industrialized areas of Seattle and Tacoma
are the most contaminated areas thus far studied in the Puget Sound Basin,
showing elevated concentrations of arsenic, mercury, silver, cadmium, copper,
lead and zinc. High concentration levels of contaminants have been associated
with adverse biological effects in fish, including fin erosion, liver tumors
and reproduction failures.

The contaminated areas in San Francisco Bay are the enclosed bodies of
water within the San Francisco Bay complex, which includes the harbors.
Dredging is required to maintain'these ports and harbors as well as the
navigation channel. In these-peripheral areas, the sedimentation rate is
higher, energy levels are lower, and sediment composition consists of finer
materials, mostly from silt and clay. Heavy metals come primarily from
surface runoff as well as fluvial flow from agricultural areas. Chromium,
mercury and silver concentrations in San Francisco Bay are high in particular
hot spots.

The central portion of Grays Harbor, where the' majority of suspended
sediments settle out, accumulates contaminants as a result of low fluvial
flows and poor flushing. This midreach area has had a history of poor water
quality since the earliest recorded measurements. Sediment testing of the
midreach area in the early 1980's indicated levels of copper, zinc and PCB's
exceeded EPA criteria (AM Test, Inc., 1981).

Felstul's (1988) investigation of Oregon estuaries determined--the state's
estuaries with the highest metal concentrations. Coos Bay had the@highest
levels of lead and zinc. Tillamook Estuary had the highest levels.of
chromium, nickel, and cadmium. Elevated levels of arsenic were found in
Chinook Channel, manganese and mercury in Cathlamet Bay, and copper in the
Columbia River mainstem channel.

2-3Q

2.7 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

Dredging in the Columbia River Estuary is necessary to maintain the
navigational channel, the mouth of the Columbia River, and access to the ports
and mooring basins. Approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of sediment is
dredged annually to preserve the Columbia River as a significant transpor-
tation and economic system* Dredging and the disposal of dredged material can
have adverse effects on water quality and aquatic habitat, dependent in part on
the type of dredging equipment used, disposal methods, sediment quality, and
time of year of the project. Some of the adverse effects of dredging and
dredged material disposal include increased turbidity, release of heavy metals,
organic materials or toxic substances, oxygen depletion, loss of benthic
productivity, disturbance of aquatic habitat and recirculation of sediments.

Variable riverf low discharges, tidal motions, geographical locations,
industrial pursuits and other human pressures on west coast estuaries affect
the amount of material required to be dredged from each estuary and the'means
by which the material is disposed of. These same parameters also affect the
quantities and types of toxic discharges in estuarine areas with a higher
probability of pollutant retention. It is important to consider when
determining the impacts of dredging and dredged material disposal, the unique
resources characteristic of a specific estuary and estuarine subarea as well as
the potential cumulative effects and individual elements adversely impacting
the estuary's resources.

2-31

3. SEDIMENT QUALITY PARAMETERS

Locational factors are addressed in Section 3.1. Locational factors
include the wide range of information about sediment quality that can be
inferred from a dredging project's location in the Columbia River Estuary.
This may include old physical, chemical or bioassay analysis on sediments from
the dredging site; historic information about the site's use; or other data
about the dredging site that may provide clues to sediment characteristics.

Physical sediment parameters'are described in Section 3.2. The principal
physical characteristics are sediment grain size data. Grain size data can,
within limits described below, be used for predicting chemical contamination in
sediment. A number of other factors are also considered in Section 3.2.: oil
and grease content, total organic carbon, ammonia content, biochemical oxygen
demand, chemical oxygen demand, petroleum hydrocarbons, and dissolved sulfides.
These are sometimes referred to as conventional sediment variables.

Chemical parameters are described in Section 3.3. These include metals
(beryllium, aluminum, chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium,
silver, cadmium, antimony, barium, mercury, tin and lead) and organic compounds
(for example, insecticides and PCBs). Typically only ten or eleven of the
metals are measured. The list of organic sediment contaminants covers nearly
100 compounds. A typical sediment test may examine only a few organic
compounds.

Biological data are used for evaluating sediment suitability for in-water
disposal. Two different kinds of tests are commonly employed: bioassay, and
bioaccomulation studies. A bioassay evaluates the toxicity of a sediment or
wastewater by measuring behavioral, physiological or lethal response in test
organisms. A bioaccumulation study determines the amount of a chemical
accumulated in a test organism's tissue as a result of exposure to a test
sediment. Both of these kinds of tests can involve several different species
of aquatic organisms. A third type of information focused primarily on
biological effects may be obtained from post-disposal monitoring. Biological
parameters are described in Section 3.4.

These four data types -- locational, physical, chemical and biological --
can be used in a sequential manner for evaluating sediment quality in the
Columbia River Estuary. This sequential approach is sometimes called a tiered
approach. Although there are many different ways a tiered approach might be
implemented, its basic outline is relatively simple. At each tier a decision
is made regarding whether the existing data are sufficient. If they are, there
is no need to proceed to the next tier. If not, data at the next tier are
required before sediment may be approved for in-water disposal. This tiered
arrangement is summarized in Figure 3.3.

3-1

3.1. LOCATIONAL FACTORS

A dredging site's location within the estuary can provide a significant
amount of information about the sediments that may be found there. This
information, under some circumstances, may be useful for evaluating sediment
suitability for in-water disposal. Locational data may also help guide and
fine-tune other evaluative efforts. This section examines some locational
aspects of sediment characteristics in the Columbia River Estuary for sediment
quality regulatory programs.

Areas of fine grain sediment accumulation are generally believed to be
areas where sediment contaminants might be found. This is expected because of
physical and chemical differences between the different grain sizes: many
compounds have electrochemical properties that cause an affinity for fine grain
sediment. Existing data tend to-support this (for example, Felstul, 1986).
Therefore, areas in the estuary with a predominance of coarser grain sediment
are likely to be clean, and may not require further evaluation for in-water
disposal. Sediment from the main navigation channel typically consists of less
than twenty percent silt, clay and finer material, and is usually approved for
in-water disposal without detailed physical, chemical, or biological study.
Map 3.1 shows generalized sediment characteristics in the Columbia River
Estuary. Fine-grain sediments accumulate in shallow areas, semi-enclosed
embayments, or other areas not affected by strong currents.

Some sites in the estuary are located near known or suspected sources of
contamination. Activities with the potential for generating localized sediment
contamination are boat and ship building and repair; marine fuel storage or
dispensing; sewage treatment or storm drainage; railroad or highway bridge
crossings; and sand blasting. The Columbia River Estuary does not have a long
history of urban and industrial activity, so the incidence of sediment
contamination related to a specific identifiable activity is low. Because the
Columbia River Estuary is downstream from industrial and urban activities in
the Portland/Vancouver area, and intensive agricultural activities further
upstream, much of the sediment contamination present in the estuary may come
from non-estuarine locations.

Historical information may be useful in evaluating sediment quality.
Tongue Point sediment, for example, is believed to be contaminated as a result
of U.S. Navy activities conducted there after the Second World War. The
Pacific Power and Light coal gasification plant in Astoria may be the source of
coal tar contamination in a portion of Youngs Bay. Areas of the estuary where
boat building or fishpacking has occurred over a long period may be reasonably
suspected of retaining sediment contaminants associated with these activities.
The fact that these activities have occurred does not by itself imply that
sediment from those areas is unsuitable for in-water disposal. Instead, it
supports a need for additional information on physical and chemical
characteristics of the sediment at the dredge site.

Locational factors are the first tier of a tiered approach to sediment
evaluation (see page 3-45, and Figure 3.3). If existing locational data
adequately support a decision in favor of in-water disposal, no additional
tiers of data are needed. The second tier, consisting of physical parameters,
must be evaluated if locational data are inadequate, or if they are
unfavorable.

3-3

4V is,
+ + + +

SUSPENDEE
TRAN@

Net of revers

Unidirectiona

Long term accumulation of fine sediments
Seasonal deposition of fine sediments related to the turbidity maximum
Long term net accumulation over the entire region due to channel migration 0 1 2 3 4
or sand spit growth 0 1 2
+ +

Map 3.1 Patterns of sediment transport and deposition in the Columbia River Estuary (Sherwood et al. 1984).

3-5

3.2. PHYSICAL PARAMETERS

Twelve conventional parameters are useful in determining sediment
quality. The variables described here include grain size, oil and grease,
total organic carbon, volatile solids, pH, total sulfides, total nitrogen,
ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, petroleum hydro-
carbons, and dissolved sulfides. Of these, grain size data are the most
frequently measured. With the possible exception of pH, all of these tests
are conducted in a laboratory on samples collected in the field. Field sample
collection considerations are described in Chapter 5 of this report, and in a
separate report: Columbia River Estuary in-water disposal handbook (CREST
1989). Each subsection below describes a physical sediment parameter, its uses
and limitations, and typical ranges for the parameter in the Columbia River
Estuary.

3.2.1. Grain Size

Sediment in the Columbia River Estuary ranges from gravel-sized material
to very fine clay. Table 3.1 summarizes a widely used classification system
for sediment. The units in the right-hand column are phi units, named after
the 23rd letter of the Greek alphabet. Phi units are defined as:

phi = -1092d

where d is the grain size diameter in millimeters.

The phi scale is used because, for most sediment samples, a nearly normal
distribution curve results from plotting each size class interval's weight
against a logarithmic size scale. The log transformation used to convert
diameter measurements to phi units allows a more sensitive statistical
description of the size distribution curve (Sherwood, et al. 1984).

Sediment grain size data are often presented as the percent ofsand (4
phi and coarser), silt (5 through 8 phi), and clay (9 phi and finer). Greater
detail may be collected on the sand and silt fractions; perhaps the percent of
a sample in each phi increment. These grain size data are also occasionally
presented graphically, using the graphic format shown in Figure 3.1.

The distribution of grain sizes in sediment may vary with the sample
location, time of year, and sample depth. Sample location influences grain
size characteristics because different locations in the estuary are subject to
different current regimes. Generally speaking, areas with stronger currents
will have coarser sediment than backwater areas. The estuary 's channels have
predominantly coarse-grain sediment, while its bays and shallow areas tend
toward finer sediment. Current patterns are also subject to seasonal
variation, and a site may have significantly different grain size
characteristics from one season to the next. The depth of a sediment sample
also influences grain size characteristics. This is due to seasonal influences
mentioned above, longer-term changes in the estuary's current patterns, and
erosion and depositional trends.

Single summary measures of sediment characteristics are sometimes used,
both to investigate statistical relationships with other parameters, and to
facilitate comparisons between sediment samples. Some of the measures used

3-7

Table 3. 1: Grain Size Classes

CLASS NAME METRIC UNITS ENGLISH UNITS PHI
(Mm) (inch) UNITS

Cobble Large 256 - 128 10 - 5 -8 to -7
Small 128- 64 5 - 2.5 -7 to -6

Gravel Very coarse 64 - 32 2.5 - 1.25 -6 to -5
Coarse 32 - 16 1.25 - 0.625 -5 to -4
Medium 16 - 8 0.625 - 0.31 -4 to -3
Fine 8- 4 0.31 - 0.16 -3 to -2
Very fine 4- 2 0.16 - 0.08 -2 to -1

Sand Very coarse 2.000 - 1.000 -1 to 0
Coarse 1.000 - 0.500 0 to 1
Medium 0.500 - 0.250 1 to 2
Fine 0.250 - 0.125 2 to 3
Very fine 0.125 - 0.062 3 to 4

Silt Coarse 0.062 - 0.031 4 to 5
Medium 0.031 - 0.016 5 to 6
Fine 0.016 - 0.008 6 to 7
Very fine 0.008 - 0.004 7 to 8

Clay Coarse 0.004 - 0.002 8 to 9
Medium 0.002 - 0.001 9 to 10
Fine 0.001 - 0.0005 10 to 11
Very fine 0.0005 0.00024 11 to 12

Source: Sherwood, et al. 1984

.3-8

SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
-7-riumir I
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES R MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM

0 If m N
100

10
90

so 4___
20

To 30
I- t

60 40 3:
uj

cc
ui so (A
50 Lu

40 60
4_1 C)
p u
cr
Lu
ca IL
30 70
IL
_c IL,
0 0 so

10 t 90
@4
4-J
co TTr 100
of I 1 11 1 u 17
8 8 coo 9 ON co to v 0 8 'cot c"I 10
Q) N GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SAND
COARSE I FINE lCOARSEl MEDIUM FINE FINES
COBBLES F GRAVEL I --d

SAMPLE LL PL PI
.ri NO. DEPTH-FT. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION NAT.
W.C. %
cq
@4

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

@4
:3

are mean grain size, median grain size, modal grain size, percent sand,
percent silt, and percent clay. Measures of skewness and kurtosis are also
employed. Factor analysis and cluster analysis are sometimes used in compar-
ing sediment samples.

Felstul (1988) examined median grain size measurements for 78 sediment
samples from the Columbia River Estuary. The median sediment sizes ranged from
0.006 mm (7.4 phi) to 0.410 mm (1.3 phi). The average of the medians was 0.111
mm, or 3.2 phi. Felstul reported correlation coefficients for mainstem
Columbia River Estuary sediment samples between certain trace metals and five
grain size measures. These are summarized in Table 3.2. Only values of r2
greater than 0.50 are reported.

Table 3.2: Correlation Coefficien ts for Metals in Columbia River Sediment

Median
Metal % Sand % VF Sand % Silt % Clay Grain Size

As - - - - -
Cd - - - - -
Cr - - - - -
Cu - - - - -
Fe - 0.60 0.59 0.65 0.65
Pb - - - - -
Mn - 0.52 0.51 0.68
Hg - - - -
Zn - 0.51 0.64

Source: Felstul (1988)

Sherwood, et al. (1984) examined more than 2,000 sediment samples from the
Columbia River Estuary during different times of the year and at depths
ranging from the intertidal zone to over 100 feet below MLLW. Mean grain
sizes ranged from -1.12 phi (about 2.2 mm, or very fine gravel) to 8.17 phi
(about 0.0035 mm, or coarse clay). The average of the mean grain sizes was
about 2.5 phi (about 0.18 mm, or fine sand). There was no overall correlation
between grain size and depth (r2 = 0.10), but Sherwood did find spatial
patterns of different grain sizes using factor analysis.

Grain size analysis is accomplished with graduated sieves for sand and
coarser material (4 phi and coarser). Silt and clay fractions are measured
using a pipet technique that depends on differential settling rates among
particle size classes. This is a time-consuming test that takes up to thirty
hours for material finer than 10 phi (fine clay). The procedure for this test
is outlined in Kurmbein and Pettijon (1938).

3-10

Grain size is a commonly measured sediment characteristic because it
involves a relatively inexpensive test, and the results are applicable to
dredged material management decisions. The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) has issued "Draft Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" for use
in evaluating sediment quality. The guidelines set a 20% silt content
threshold for further testing. Sediment with 20% or less silt and finer would
generally be approved for in-water disposal without additional testing.
Sediment with a silt content exceeding 20% would require additional chemical
and possibly biological testing before they could be approved by ODEQ for in-
water disposal. This 20% threshold, if finalized., would be a guideline only,
and not a substitute for professional judgement on the part of ODEQ officials.
Other agencies involved in the review of proposed in-water dredged material
disposal are not obligated to follow this guideline.

Sediment for a grain size analysis must be collected from the disposal
site, stored and transported in a*manner that maintains its integrity, and
handled in the laboratory according to accepted procedures. Sediment for grain
size analysis may be stored.for up to six months, and should be refrigerated.
At least 100 grams of sediment are needed for the test. Sediment collection
depths should normally correspond to planned dredging depths, and sample
collected with a coring device may be subdivided by depth. Coring devices or
grab samplers are suitable for sediment collection for grain size analysis:
less sophisticated tools may also be appropriate.

3.2.2. Oil and Grease

Oil and grease content in sediment is typically reported in dry-weight
parts per million (ppm). Oil and grease tests measure hydrocarbons, vegetable
oils, animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases and related compounds. Sulphur
compounds, organic dyes, and chlorophyll may also be measured, depe'nding on the
extraction solvent used.

Felstul (1988) reported oil and grease content for 86 sediment samples in
Columbia River Estuary mainstem and side channel areas. They ranged from 0
ppm to 2,800 ppm. The mean oil and grease concentration was 423 ppm for these
sediment samples. In the mainstem samples, Felstul found that oil and grease
was only weakly correlated with sediment grain size (for example, r2 = .39 for
percent of very fine sand with oil and grease). He also found that oil and
grease were somewhat correlated with mercury concentrations (r2 = .59).

"Draft Interim Sediment Quality Quidelines" issued by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for use in evaluating sediment
quality set a limit of 1,000 ppm oil and grease for in-water disposal approval.
Sediment with oil and grease in excess of 1,000 ppm require further testing
before they can be approved for in-water disposal. As with the ODEQ grain size
guideline described in Subsection 3.2.2.,, this oil and grease concentration is
simply a guideline.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established quality criteria
for oil and grease in water (EPA 1986). The criteria are based on affects on
aquatic life. Criterion (2) states that:

3-11

Levels of oils or petrochemicals in the sediment which cause deleterious
effects to the biota shall not be allowed.

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of oil and grease
content are described in Tetra Tech (1986). Samples should be refrigerated
until analysis. At least 100 grams of sediment per sample are needed.
Sediment to be tested for oil and grease must be stored in glass containers.
Collection methods are similar to those described for grain size analysis.
Samples may be stored for about one month refrigerated, and up to six months
frozen.

3.2.3. Total Organic Carbon

Total organic carbon (TOC) is a measure of volatile, nonvolatile,
partially volatile and particulate organic compounds in a sediment sample. It
is usually reported as milligrams per gram dry weight (mg/g) or as parts per
thousand (ppt). Total organic carbon content can be used to estimate the
interstitial concentrations of certain non-polar organic compounds in a
sediment sample using an equilibrium partitioning approach. This is described
in Subsection 3.5.

Felstul (1988) exAmined total organic carbon measures for eighty-six
sediment samples from Columbia River Estuary main channel and side channel
areas. They ranged from 0 to 74.9 mg/g, and averaged 8.9 mg/g. Felstul also
reported a moderate inverse correlation between total organic carbon and medium
grain size (r2 = .51) for mainstem sediment samples.

Total organic carbon measurements include some of the components of oil
and grease measurements, plus many other compounds. In Felstul's data set,
average TOC measurements were about 2,000 times larger than averageoil and
grease measurements.

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of total organic
carbon are described in Tetra Tech (1986). Samples should be frozen until
analysis. Only 25 grams of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be
tested for total organic carbon may be stored in either glass or polyethylene
containers. Collection methods are similar to those described for grain size
analysis. Samples may be stored for up to six months frozen.

3.2.4. Volatile Solids

Volatile solids are the fraction of total solids lost on ignition at a
temperature higher than that used to determine total solids (see subsection
3.2.13.). Sediment samples are weighed, heated to 550*C (1,022*F), then re-
weighed. The weight loss represents total volatile solids. Volatile solids
are usually reported as a percent of dry weight. Volatile solids content is a
measure of a sediment sample's organic content.

Felstul (1988) examined 86 sediment samples from Columbia River Estuary
mainstem and side channel areas, with volatile solids ranging from zero to 13.8
percent, and averaging 3.0 percent. Higher volatile solids fractions are
correlated with a higher percentage of very fine sand, silt and clay (r2

3-12

0.64, 0.68 and 0.74), and with iron (r2 = .71), manganese (r2 = .66), and zinc
(r2 = .52).

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has issued "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" for their use in evaluating sediment
quality. The guidelines establish a limit of five percent for volatile solids.
Sediment with more than five percent volatile solids are subject to additional
chemical testing before they may be approved for in-water disposal. The ODEQ
volatile solids limit is a guideline and subject to professional judgement on
the part of ODEQ staff.

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of volatile 'solids
in sediment are described in Tetra Tech (1986). Samples should be frozen until
analysis. At least 51 grams of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be
tested for volatile solids may be-stored in either glass or polyethylene
containers. Collection methods are similar to those described for grain size
analysis. Samples may be stored for up to six months frozen.

3.2.5. pH

Sediment acidity is represented by a pH measurement. pH is the logarithm
of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration. pH values between 0 and 7
indicate acidity. pH values between 7 and 14 represent alkalinity.

Sediment pH is not always measured. Sediment pH for 3 samples taken at
the Port of Astoria docks in 1988 ranged from 6.9 to 7.5. Its use in
evaluating sediment for in-water disposal is limited.

3.2,6, Total Sulfides ;r
The amount of acid soluble H2S, HS-, and S2- in a sample is measured as
total sulfides. These compounds may be toxic and have a strong odor. The
hydrogen sulfide compound (H2S) is believed to contribute more to overall
sulfide toxicity than either HS_ or S2-. They are indicative of anaerobic
conditions in the sediment. Total sulfides are distinguished from water-
soluble sulfides (see subsection 3.2.12.). Total sulfides are usually reported
in units of mg/kg dry weight (ppm).

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of total sulfides
are described in Tetra Tech (1986). A zinc acetate preservative is often added
in the field. Samples should be refrigerated until analysis. At least 50
grams of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for total
sulfides may be stored in either glass or polyethylene containers. Collection
methods are similar to those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be
stored for about one week refrigerated.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established water quality
criteria for sulfides in water. A long-term level of 2.0 pg/liter would
constitute a hazard to aquatic life forms.

3-13

3.2.7. Total Nitrogen.

Total nitrogen values in sediment are typically used to calculate
carbon/nitrogen ratios. It is a parameter not normally measured on the
Columbia River Estuary, and no data could be found showing representative
nitrogen levels in Columbia River Estuary sediment.

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of total nitrogen
are described in Tetra Tech (1986). Samples should be frozen until analysis.
At least 25 grams of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment may be stored in
either glass or polyethylene containers. Collection methods are similar to
those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored for up to six
months frozen.

3.2.8. Ammonia

Measures of ammonia (NH3) are typically represented as mg/kg dry weight
for sediments, or as mg/liter for elutriates. Four sediment samples taken at
Tongue Point were measured for ammonia. It ranged from below detection limits
(about 14 mg/kg) to 131 mg/kg, and averaged 74 mg/kg.

Techniques for analysis of ammonia content are described in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APRA 1985). Collection
methods are similar to those described for grain size analysis. The
Environmental Protection Agency has established water quality criteria for
ammonia that are applicable in reviewing sediment quality. The criteria for
ammonia are temperature and pH dependent, and are described in the criteria
(EPA 1986).

3.2.9. Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Biochemical oxygen demand is a measure of the dissolved oxygen consumed
by microbial organisms while assimilating and oxidizing the organic matter in
a sediment sample. It is used to estimate the amount of organic matter
available to organisms, in contrast with other measures of the total amount of
organic matter (e.g., total volatile solids, total organic carbon, chemical
oxygen demand). In addition to oxygen used for degrading organic matter,
biochemical oxygen demand may also measure oxygen used to oxidize inorganic
material (e.g., sulfide, ferrous iron) and reduced forms of nitrogen.
Biochemical oxygen demand is typically reported as mg/kg dry weight.

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of biochemical
oxygen demand are described in Tetra Tech (1986). Samples should be
refrigerated until analysis. At least 50 grams of sediment per sample are
needed. Sediment to be tested for biochemical oxygen demand may be stored in
either polyethylene or glass containers. Collection methods are similar to
those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored for about one
week refrigerated.

3-14

3.2.10. Chemical Oxygen Demand

Chemical oxygen demand is a measure of the oxygen equivalent of the
organic content of a sample susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical
oxidant at an elevated temperature and a reduced pH. Data are typically
reported as mg/kg dry weight.

No Columbia River Estuary sediment measures of chemical oxygen demand
could be found. Fuhrer (1989) reported results of chemical oxygen demand for
five Columbia River sites near Portland, Oregon. They ranged from 43,000
mg/kg to 76,000 mg/kg, and averaged 62,400 mg/kg.

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of chemical oxygen
demand are described in Tetra-Tech (1986). Samples should be refrigerated
until analysis. At least 50 grams of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment
to be tested for chemical oxygen demand may be stored in either polyethylene or
glass containers. Collection methods are similar to those described for grain
size analysis. Samples may be stored for about one week frozen.

3.2.11. Petroleum Hydrocarbons

This test measures the same compounds as the oil and grease test (subsec-
tion 3.2.2.), minus polar compounds (vegetable oils, animal fats, soaps).

Battelle Labs (1989) measured petroleum hydrocarbons in four sediment
samples from Cathlamet Bay. They ranged from less than 5 mg/kg dry weight to
23 mg/kg. The two samples with 23-mg/kg petroleum hydrocarbons were actually
made up of several composited samples. Measures of oil/grease and,petroleum
hydrocarbons for the Cathlamet Bay sites were comparable: oil and grease
averaged 54.7 mg/kg dry weight for the composited samples, compare& to 23.0
mg/kg dry weight petroleum hydrocarbons.

Sediment samples to be analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons should be
refrigerated until analysis. Collection methods are.similar to those described
for grain size analysis.

3.2.12. Dissolved Sulfides

Cathlamet Bay sediment analyzed by Battelle Labs (1989) was found to have
an average dissolved sulfide content of 44.5 mg/kg dry weight.

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of dissolved
sulfides are the same as those for total sulfides, and are described in Tetra
Tech (1986). A zinc acetate preservative is often added in the field. Samples
should be refrigerated until analysis. At least 50 grams of sediment per

3-15

sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for dissolved sulfides may be stored
in either glass or polyethylene containers. Collection methods are similar to
those described for grain size analysis. Samples may be stored for about one
week refrigerated.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established water quality
criteria for dissolved sulfides. A long-term level of 2.0 Pg/liter would
constitute a hazard to aquatic life forms.

3.2.13. Total Solids

Sediment sample collection considerations for analysis of total solids are
described in Tetra Tech (1986). Samples should be frozen until analysis. At
least 50 grams of sediment per sample are needed. Sediment to be tested for
total solids may be stored in either glass or polyethylene containers.
Collection methods are similar to those described for grain size analysis.
Samples may be stored for about six months frozen.

3.2.14. Conventional Sediment Variables - Summary

The thirteen physical parameters described above can, singly or in
combination, provide a first-order estimate of overall sediment quality. Table
3.3 summarizes information on these thirteen variables. The second.,column
reports an approximate range of values for each parameter. These range
estimates are based on sediment data for the Columbia River that must be used
with caution. Because of the differences between analytical methods, data from
different researchers is often not comparable. The range estimates reported in
this table are based on data from several different researchers. A second
cautionary note concerns the use of these range estimates. They are not
regulatory thresholds and may not even be representative of sediment in the
Columbia River Estuary.

3-16

Table 3.3: Conventional Sediment Variables Summary

Parameter Approximate Range Notes

Grain size 4 mm - .004 mm Oregon DEQ physical
parameter

Oil and grease 0 - 2,800 ppm Oregon DEQ physical
parameter

Total organic carbon 0 - 75 mg/gram Oregon DEQ physical
parameter

Volatile solids 0 - 14%

PH 6 - 8 based on very few
samples
Total sulfides

Total nitrogen

Ammonia 14 - 130 mg/kg based on very few samples

Biochemical oxygen demand

Chemical oxygen demand

Petroleum hydrocarbons <5 - 25 mg/kg

Dissolved sulfides

Total solids

(* An asterisk in column 2 indicates that data for this variable are not
available for the Columbia River Estuary.)

Source: subsections 3.2.1 - 3.2.13

3-17

3.3. CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

Two groups of chemical parameters for sediment evaluation are covered in
this subsection: metals and organic compounds.

Two different kinds of chemical analysis are described during discussion
of chemical parameters: elutriate and bulk sediment tests. Elutriate tests
involve analysis of water that has been exposed to test sediment. An elutriate
test is a laboratory simulation of dredging and in-water disposal. A volume of
test sediment is mixed with four times its volume of disposal site water and
mixed for thirty minutes. Water is removed after one hour of settling,
filtered and centrifuged, and analyzed for chemical contaminants. The
elutriate test is useful for estimating the impact of dredging and disposal on
water quality. Results can be compared to existing state and federal water
quality standards. It measures only those contaminants that are likely to
enter the water column after dredging and disposal are conducted. It does not
measure chemicals that are tightly bonded to sediment gr ains, or are part of
the sediment grains themselves. Elutriate test results may not be appropriate
for estimating the effects of disposal on benthic organisms. Elutriate test
results are usually reported in units of chemical per liter of water. Specific
procedures for elutriate tests are described in Tetra Tech (1986).

Bulk sediment tests measure the concentration of a chemical in a sediment
sample. Water is completely removed prior to analysis. The dried sediment
sample is subjected to either strong oxidation, acid digestion, or organic
solvent extraction. These procedures are harsher than the elutriate test
described above, and do not reproduce dredging or disposal conditions. Results
of bulk sediment tests do, however, facilitate estimates of effects on benthic
organisms. Bulk sediment analysis results are usually reported in units of
chemical per gram (or per milligram or microgram) of dry sediment- Specific
procedures for bulk sediment tests are described in Tetra Tech (1986).

3.3.1. Metals and Metaloids

The presence and concentration of certain metals is used as a measure of
sediment quality. The metals described in this subsection are the most likely
to be examined in Columbia River Estuary sediment.

Metals analysis focuses on thirteen metals and metaloids listed by the
EPA as priority pollutants. They are:

antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc.

3-19

These are described in the following subsections. Most subsections
include information on detection limits. These are the lowest concentrations
of each metal that can be reliably detected using standard analytical
procedures.

Beryllium (Be)

Beryllium is a hard metal found in alloy with copper and other metals.
It is not often measured in Columbia River Estuary sediment because it-is not
known to be present above background levels. Beryllium is not used by the
Oregon DEQ as a chemical parameter in its Draft Interim Sediment Quality
Guidelines. It is typically reported in units of pg/gram.

The Envir onmental Protection Agency has established the following water
quality criteria for beryllium. Freshwater acute and chronic effects criteria
are 130 and 5.3 pg/liter respectively (USEPA 1986). The detection limits for
beryllium in bulk sediment are 1 pg/gram.

Fuhrer and Rinella (1987) analyzed sediment from 13 sites in the Columbia
River Estuary for beryllium. The bulk sediment tests yielded measurements at
or below detection limits. Elutriate tests yielded beryllium concentrations
ranging from 10 to 20 pg/liter, averaging about 12.3 pg/liter.

Chromium (Cr)

Chromium Is occasionally measured in Columbia River Estuary sediment. It
is toxic to aquatic organisms, and the Environmental Protection Agency has
established the following water quality criteria for chromium: w I
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 11 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 50 pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (I hour): 16 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 1,100 pg/L saltwater

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has established a limit of
between 20 and 300 mg/kg for chromium in sediment. Sediment with chromium in
excess of this guideline will not normally be approved for in-water disposal
without further testing.

Felstul (1988) examined results from analysis for 86 Columbia River
Estuary mainstem and side channel sediment samples for chromium content. He
found an average concentration of 19.6 mg chromium per kg sediment, with a
range of 1.7 to 72.0 mg/kg. Felstul found a weak relationship between the
percentage clay and the concentration of chromium in Columbia River Estuary
mainstem sediment (r2 = .38) and between chromium and iron content in Columbia
River Estuary mainstem sediment (r2 = .39).

Other researchers on the Columbia River Estuary have examined chromium in
sediment and found concentrations similar to those reported by Felstul.

3-20

Eighteen sites examined by three researchers yielded chromium concentrations
ranging from 2 to 72 mg/kg, averaging about 23 mg/kg (Fuhrer 1984; Fuhrer and
Horowitz 1989; Fuhrer and Rinella 1983)-.

Manganese (Mn)

Manganese is not an Environmental Protection Agency priority pollutant
metal, but it is occasionally included in analysis of Columbia River Estuary
sediment as an indexing parameter. Metals from pollution sources may be
selectively enriched within sediment fractions with a high manganese content.
The presence of manganese may also affect the toxicity of other metals.

Felstul (1988) examined results of analysis of 86 sediment samples in the
Columbia River Estuary mainstem and tributaries for manganese. The average
manganese concentration was 232.7 mg/kg, ranging between 0 and 900 mg/kg.
Felstul also' examined the relationship between manganese concentrations and
other sediment parameters. He found relativel strong correlations between
manganese and the percent of very fine sand (r@ = .52), percent of silt (r2
51), percent of clay (r2 = .68), percent volatile solids (r2 = .66), and iron
concentrations (r2 = .73). Manganese concentrations do not correlate very
well with priority pollutant metals. Felstul found correlation coefficients
ranging from 0.54 for manganese and zinc to about 0.14 for manganese and
mercury.

Other investigators have also examined manganese levels in sediment.
Fuhrer (1989) found Portland harbor sediments to have between 400 and 1,200 mg
manganese per kilogram sediment (dry weight). Fuhrer and Horowitz (1987)
found manganese levels between 400 and 1,100 mg/kg for sites in the@ lower
Columbia.

Detection limits for manganese in bulk sediment are set at 2 mg/kg, dry
weight, by the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program.

Iron (Fe)

Iron, like manganese, is not an Environmental Protection Agency priority
pollutant. It is included in some sediment tests because it may be useful as
an indexing or standardizing factor. Iron may also affect the toxicity of
other metals. Environmental Protection Agency water quality guidelines for
iron are 300 pg/liter for domestic water supplies, and 1,000 Vg/liter for
freshwater aquatic life.

Fuhrer (1988) measured iron in Columbia River Estuary mainstem and
tributary sediment, and found concentrations ranging from 0 to 49,000 mg/kg
dry weight. The average concentration was 17,302 mg/kg dry weight. Felstul's
analysis of Columbia River Estuary mainstem sediments revealed moderately
strong correlation coefficients for iron and the conventional sediment vari-
ables: r2 for iron and very fine sand was .60; for iron and silt, r2 = .59;
for iron and clay r2 = .65; for iron and volatile solids r2 = .71. For other
metals, iron is strongly correlated only with manganese: r2 = .73. Corre-

3-21

lation coefficients for other metals and iron range from 0.15 for arsenic to
0.44 for zinc.

Other investigators have also examined iron in Columbia River Estuary
sediment. Fuhrer and Rhinella (1983) reported average iron levels at seven
Columbia River Estuary locations. These are summarized in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Iron in Columbia River Estuary sediment

Location Number of Samples Average Maximum

Baker Bay 5 10,600 mg/kg 22,000 mg/kg
Chinook 2 10,850 mg/kg 17,000 mg/kg
Tansy Point 1 4,500 mg/kg 4,500 mg/kg
Skipanon River 1 19,000 mg/kg 19,000 mg/kg
Youngs Bay 1 11,000 mg/kg 11,000 mg/kg
Port of Astoria 1 11,000 mg/kg 11,000 mg/kg
Skamokawa 2 13,450 mg/kg 21,000 mg/kg

Total 13 11,008 mg/kg 22,000 mg/kg
Source: Fuhrer and Rhinella 1983.

Nickel (Ni)

Environmental Protection Agency water quality criteria for nickel are as
follows:

aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 160 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 8.3 Pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (I hour): 1,400 Pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (I hour): 75 Vg/L saltwater

The freshwater acute and chronic water quality criteria reported above are for
water with a hardness of 100 mg CaC03 per liter.

Felstul (1988) evaluated nickel concentrations in 86 sediment samples from
Columbia River Estuary tributaries and the main navigation channel. The
nickel content ranged from 0 to 44 mg/kg dry weight, and averaged 9.16 mg/kg.
The average for silty samples (greater than 50% 'silt) was 11.6 mg/kg, as
compared to the average for sandy samples (50% or less silt) of 6.5 mg/kg.

The detection limit for nickel in bulk sediment is 0.1 mg/kg dry weight.
For elutriate tests it is 1.0 pg/liter.

3-22

Copper (CU)

aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 12 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 2.9 pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 16 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 2.9 pg/L saltwater

The freshwater acute and chronic water quality criteria reported above are for
water with a hardness of 100 mg CAC03 per liter.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has established "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" that set threshold concentrations for
several metals, including copper. Sediment with a copper content exceeding 50
mg/kg will not be approved for in-water disposal without further evaluation.

Felstul (1988) examined results of analysis for copper in 86 sediment
samples from the Columbia River Estuary main navigation channel and some side
channels. He found copper concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 91 mg/kg, dry
weight, and averaging about 25.31 mg/kg. Silty sediments had an average
copper content of 35.7 mg/kg, compared to an average of 13.9 for sandier
sediment samples. There was a relatively weak correlation between copper and
percent silt in these 86 samples: r2 = 0.20. For the mainstem samples, copper
was also correlated with cadmium (r2 = 0.52).

Detection limits for copper in bulk sediment are 0.1 mg/kg, dry weight.
For elutriates, copper detection limits are 1.0 pg/liter.

Zinc (Zn),

Zinc is a bluish-white metal with a number of applications in maritime
industries as an anti-corrosive agent. Zinc is an Environmental Protection
Agency priority pollutant, and is toxic. The Environmental Protection Agency
water quality criteria established for zinc are as follows:

aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 110 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 95 pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 120 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 95 pg/L saltwater

The freshwater acute and chronic water quality criteria reported above are for
water with a hardness of 100 mg CaC03 per liter.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has established "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" that set threshold concentrations for
several metals, including zinc. Sediment with more than 250 mg zinc per kg
require additional testing before they are approved for in-water disposal.

3-23

Felstul (1988) examined zinc concentrations in 86 sediment samples from
the Columbia River Estuary navigation channel and side channel areas. Zinc
concentrations ranged from 18 mg/kg dry weight to 300 mg/kg, and averaged
about 92 mg/kg. There was a tendency for finer-grain size samples to have
higher zinc levels. Forty-five samples with more than 50 percent silt and
finer particles had an average zinc concentration of 125.8 mg/kg, while 41
samples with 50 percent or less silt and finer material had an average zinc
concentration of 55.0 mg/kg. There was a relatively stron I correlation between
the percent silt in a sample and its zinc concentration: r = 0.60. Felstul
found that, for mainstem samples only, zinc content-was associated with
percent very fine sand (r2 = 0 251), percent silt (r2 = 0.48 percent clay (r2
= 0.64), median grain size (r = 0.49), volatile solids (r = 0.52), and
manganese (r2 = 0.55).

Detection limits for zinc in' bulk sediments are 0.2 mg/kg dry weight.
For elutriate tests, zinc detection limits are 1.0 pg/liter.

Arsenic (As)

Arsenic is a highly toxic metalloid on the Environmental Protection
Agency's priority pollutant list. Environmental Protection Agency water
quality criteria for arsenic are as follows:

aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 190 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 36 pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 1360 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (I hour): 69 pg/L.saltwater

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has established."Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" that set threshold concentrations for
several sediment contaminants, including arsenic. Sediment with 40 or more mg
arsenic per kg is subject to additional testing before it can be approved for
in-water disposal.

Felstul (1988) examined the results of sediment analysis for arsenic
content in 86 Columbia River Estuary mainstem and side channel sediment
samples. Arsenic values ranged from 0 to 20.5 mg/kg dry weight. The average
arsenic content was 6.76 mg/kg. Samples with more than 50 percent silt or -
finer content averaged 8.4 mg arsenic per kg sediment. Samples with 50 percent
or less silt content averaged 4.92 mg arsenic/kg sediment. Felstul measured
correlation between arsenic and other sediment variables in the mainstem
samples. The strongest correlation was with clay, but it was weak at r2

The detection limit for arsenic in bulk sediment is 0.1 mg/kg dry weight.
For elutriates, the detection limit is 1.0 pg/liter.

Selenium (Se)

Selenium is a toxic element on the Environmental Protection Agency's
priority pollutant list. There are no data for selenium levels in Columbia
River Estuary sediment. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has not

3-24

established threshold limits for selenium in sediment. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has established the following water quality criteria for
selenium:

aquatic organisms, 24 hour average: 35 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, maximum at any time: 260 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, 24 hour average: 54 pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, maximum at any time: 410 pg/L saltwater

Silver (AR)

Silver is a toxic metal on the Environmental Protection Agency's priority
pollutant list. The Oregon Department of environmental Quality has not
established threshold limits for silver in sediment. Environmental Protection
Agency water quality criteria for silver are as follows:-

aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 0.12 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (I hour): 4.1 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (I hour): 2.3 pg/L saltwater

The freshwater acute water quality criterion reported above is for water with a
hardness of 100 mg CaC03 per liter.

Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) metals protocols reported
average silver concentrations in Puget Sound reference sediments of 1.2 mg/kg
dry weight, and ranging between 0.02 and 3.3 mg/kg dry weight (Tetra Tech Inc.
1986). No data could be found for silver in Columbia River Estuar@'sediment.

The detection limit for silver in sediment is 0.1 mg/kg dry weight. For
elutriate tests, it is 0.2 pg/liter.

Cadmium (Cd)

Cadmium is a toxic metal on the Environmental Protection Agency's
priority pollutant list. Environmental Protection Agency water quality
criteria for cadmium are as follows:

aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 1.1 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 9.3 pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 3.9 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 4.3 pg/L saltwater

The freshwater acute and chronic water quality criteria reported above are for
water with a hardness of 100 mg CaC03 per liter.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has established "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" for evaluating sediment quality in Oregon
estuaries. The draft guidelines establish a threshold of 1.0 mg/kg cadmium per

3-25

kilogram of sediment. Sediment with cadmium concentrations in excess of 1.0
mg/kg is subject to additional testing before approval for in-water disposal.

Felstul (1988) examined results of analysis of 86 Columbia River Estuary
mainstem and side channel sediment samples for cadmium content. There are two
different analytical techniques for bulk cadmium analysis. The techniques
tend to yield different values, and there is little consensus as to which
technique is more appropriate. Average cadmium content using the "furnace
method" of cadmium analysis was 0.26 mg/kg dry weight, compared to 0.95 mg/kg
for the alternative method. Cadmium content did not correlate strongly with
any other sediment variable measured by Felstul.

The detection limit for cadmium in sediment is 0.1 mg/kg dry weight. For
elutriate tests the detection limit is 0.1 pg/liter.

Antimony (Sb)

aquatic organisms, chronic toxicity: 1,600 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute toxicity: 9,000 pg/L freshwater

Neither the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality nor the Washington
Department of Ecology have established threshold limits for antimony in
Columbia River Estuary sediment. Smelter slag is occasionally tainted with
antimony, which is why it is of concern in Puget Sound sediment.

Puget Sound reference sediment samples have antimony ranging from 0.0 to
1.7 mg/kg, and average values ranging from 0.32 to 0.38 mg/kg, all dry
weights. The detection limit for antimony in bulk sediment is 0.1 mg/kg. For
elutriate tests the detection limit for antimony is 3_0 pg/liter.

Barium (Ba)

Barium is a toxic metal occasionally measured in Columbia River Estuary
sediment. It is not an EPA priority pollutant. Barium water quality criteria
for aquatic life are not established because barium reacts with other chemicals
in the aquatic environment to form generally non-toxic compounds. Neither the
Washington Department of Ecology nor the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality have established threshold limits for barium in Columbia River Estuary
sediment.

Barium measurements of Columbia River Estuary sediment available to this
project have always been at or below detection limits for barium in bulk
sediment: 1.0 mg/kg.

3-26

Mercury (Hg)

Mercury is a highly toxic metal with well documented adverse impacts on
aquatic life and human health. It is an Environmental Protection Agency
priority pollutant. Environmental Protection Agency water quality criteria for
mercury are as follows:

aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 0.012 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 0.025 pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (I hour): 2.4 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (I hour): 2.1 pg/L saltwater.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has established "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" for sediment contaminants in Oregon
estuaries. The guidelines set threshold limits for mercury and other
compounds. Sediment with mercury concentrations in excess of 0.15 mg/kg
requires additional testing before it can be approved for in-water disposal.

Mercury levels in 86 Columbia River Estuary mainstem and side channel
sediment samples examined by Felstul (1988) averaged 0.07 mg mercury per kg
sediment, dry weight. Mercury content ranged from 0 to 0.72 mg/kg. The
average mercury concentration for samples with a silt content of 50% or more
was 0.09 mg/kg, compared to 0.04 mg/kg for the sandier samples. For mainstem
samples only, Felstul found mercury content correlated relatively well with oil
and grease content (r2 = 0.59).

Fuhrer (1982) examined three Columbia River Estuary sediment samples for
mercury content. His low and high values were 0.06 and 0.01 mg/kg. The
average for the three samples was 0.03 mg/kg.

Mercury at Puget Sound reference sites ranged from 0.01 to 0.28 mg/kg,
and averaged about 0.08 mg/kg, dry weight (PSDDA, 1986).

Detection limits for mercury in sediment are 0.01 mg/kg, dry weight. For
analysis of elutriates, detection limits are 0.2 pg/1-iter or, using a special
gold-amalgamation-cold-vapor technique, 0.02 pg/liter (PSDDA, 19861. These
detection limits do not reach the freshwater aquatic life acute water quality
criterion reported above.

The PSDDA analytical protocol for mercury in sediment, and for most other
metals in sediment, uses a strong acid total digestion extraction technique.
This may be inappropriate for Columbia River Estuary sediments, due to the
presence of mercury-bearing rocks in the upper watershed. A partial digestion
method is often used for mercury analysis of Columbia River Estuary sediment.

Lead (Pb)

3-27

aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 3.2 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, chronic exposure (4 day): 5.6 pg/L saltwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 82.0 pg/L freshwater
aquatic organisms, acute exposure (1 hour): 140.0 pg/L saltwater

The freshwater acute and chronic water quality criteria reported above are for
water with a hardness of 100 mg CaC03 per liter.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has established "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" for evaluation of sediment quality in
Oregon estuaries. The guidelines set threshold concentrations for lead and
other compounds in sediment. Sediment with lead in excess of 40 mg/kg is
subject to additional analysis before it can be approved for in-water disposal.

Felstul (1988) examined analytical results of 86 sediment samples from the
Columbia River Estuary mainstem and side channels for lead concentrations. He
found values ranging from 0.4 mg/kg to 40.0 mg/kg, dry weight. The average
value was 11.6 mg/kg. Samples with more than 50% silt had an average lead
content of 14.3 mg/kg, while those with coarser sediment averaged 8.6 mg lead
per kg sediment. For mainstem samples only, Felstul's analysis showed no
correlation between lead and any other sediment parameter larger than r2
0.32, for lead and clay content. Lead levels in Puget Sound reference
sediments reported by PSDDA ranged from 0.1 to 24 mg/kg dry weight, and
averaged about 9.8 mg/kg dry weight.

Lead detection limits using PSDDA protocols are 0.1 mg/kg dry weight for
bulk analysis. For elutriate analysis, lead detection limits are 1 pg/liter.

Tin (Sn)

Tin is an infrequently examined metal in Columbia River Estuary
sediments. Organotin compounds are used in anti-fouling paints, so their
presence in sediment is a potential problem near boat. yards or marinas. The
family of organotins most frequently cited as a concern are tributyl tins. It
is not an EPA priority pollutant, and water quality criteria are not
established for it. The Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) sets a
t1screening level" of 30 ppm dry weight for tributyltin, but only for certain-
defined areas in Puget Sound.

3.3.2. Organic Compounds

There are a number of subcategories into which organic compounds measured
in sediment may be divided. The Puget Sound Dredge Disposal Analysis (PSDDA),
divides these compounds into "volatile", "semi-volatile", and
"Pesticides/PCBs". Other investigators have used different sub groupings:

pesticides
chlorinated hydrocarbons

3-28

low molecular weight hydrocarbons
poly-nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
acid/base neutral extractables
poly-chlorinated byphenyls (PCBs)

Some of these subgroupings overlap, and the compounds included under some of
these subgroupings do not strictly match their titles. Reporting conventions
vary, too. Sometimes these compounds are listed by their molecular weight, or
an order based on groupings with similar chemical properties. Table 3.5 lists
a number of organic compounds sometimes associated with sediment contamination.

Organic compounds are typically measured using a gas chromatograph/mass
spectrophotometer (GC/MS). This method, and the quality control/quality
assurance measures that must accompany it, are described in Tetra Tech (1986).
Sample gathering, handling and storage techniques are also described in Tetra
Tech (1986). Sediment samples are stored in glass containers, and
refrigerated. Some of the volatile compounds begin to break down after 14
days, so analysis must begin as soon as possible after collection.

Three groups of organic compounds have drawn the attention of researchers
and regulatory personnel in recent months and years: PCB, DDT ' and Dioxin*
These compounds and information about their association with Columbia River
Estuary sediment is discussed in the paragraphs below.

Polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) are a group of about seventy closely
related, organic compounds consisting of carbon, hydrogen and chlorine. PCBs
are not water soluble,and can persist in the food chain. Their principal use
s as an insulating fluid in electrical transmission and generating equipment.
PCBs are suspected of causing cancer in humans.
i

The insecticide DDT has been banned for use in the United States for
several years, but it persists in the aquatic environment. DDD and DDE, two
decomposition products of DDT, are also found in Columbia River Estuary
sediment. DDT, DDE, and DDD have been implicated in the decline of the
northern bald eagle population in the estuary.

Dioxin is a byproduct of the bleaching process lased by the pulp and paper
industry. It may also enter the environment through other avenues, It is not
often measured in sediment because its analysis is relatively expensive.
Dioxin is highly toxic, and debate currently revolves around its fate in the
aquatic environment.

3.3.3. Sediment Quality Chemical Standards

U.S6 Environmental Protection Agency water quality criteria for organic
compounds are listed in Table 3.5. The EPA has not established sediment
quality standards for chemicals. The two state water quality agencies have
taken steps in this direction. The Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
(PSDDA) establishes two sets of chemical standards for Puget Sound sediment.
These standards are not applicable in the Columbia River Estuary, but they are
indicative of general regulatory trends in this area. The PSDDA screening
levels and maximum levels are summarized in Table 3.6. The PSDDA screening

3-29

Table 3.5: Organic Compounds

Priority Aquatic Life
Organic Compound Pollutant Water Quality Criteria

Pesticides/PCBs

alpha-BHC no none established

beta-BHC no none established

delta-BHC no none established

gamma-BHC(Lindane) no none established

Heptachlor yes acute fresh: 0.52 pg/L
acute marine: 0.053 Pg/L
chronic fresh: 0.0038 Pg/L
chronic marine: 0.0036 Pg/L

Aldrin yes acute fresh: 3.0 pg/L
acute marine: 1.3 pg/L

Endosulfans yes acute fresh: 0.22 pg/L
acute marine: 0.034 pg/L
chron ic fresh: 0.056 pg/L
chronic marine: 0.0067 pg/L

Dieldrin yes acute fresh: 2.5 pg/L
acute marine: 0.71 pg/L
chronic fresh: 0.0019 pg/L
chronic marine: 0.0019 pg/L

4,4'-DDE yes acute fresh: 1.050 pg/L
acute marine: 14 pg/L

Endrin yes acute fresh: 0.18 pg/L
acute marine: 0.037 pg/L
chronic fresh: 0.0023 wg/L
chronic marine: 0.0023 Pg/L

4,41-DDD yes acute fresh: 0.06 pg/L
acute marine: 3.6 pg/L

4,41-DDT yes acute fresh: 1.1 pg/L
acute marine: 0.13 pg/L
chronic fresh: 0.001 Pg/L
chronic marine: 0.001 pg/L

2,4-D (silvex) no none established

3-30

Table 3.5, Continued-

Methoxychlor no chronic fresh: 0.03 pg/L
chronic marine: 0.03 pg/L

Chlordane yes acute fresh: 2.4 pg/L
acute marine: 0.09 pg/L
chronic fresh: 0.0043 vg/L
chronic marine: 0.0040 pg/L

Toxaphene yes acute fresh: 0.73 pg/L
acute marine: 0.21 pg/L
chronic fresh: 0.0002 pg/L
chronic marine: 0.0002 pg/L

PCBs yes acute fresh: 2.0 pg/L
acute marine: 10.0 pg/L
chronic fresh: 0.014 pg/L
chronic marine: 0.03 pg/L

Volatiles

Chloromethane no none established

Bromomethane no none established

Vinyl Chloride yes none established

Chloroethane no none-established

Methylene Chloride no none established

Acetone no none established

Carbon Disulfide no none established

1,1-Dichloroethene no none established

1,1-Dichloroethane no none established

Chloroform yes acute fresh: 28,900 pg/L
chronic fresh: 1,240 pg/L

3-31

Table 3.5, Continued

1,2-Dichloroethane yes acute fresh: 118,000 pg/L
acute marine: 113000 pg/L
chronic fresh: 20,000 pg/L

2-Butanone no none established

1,1,1-Trichloroethane yes acute marine: 31,200 pg/L

Carbon Tetrachloride yes acute fresh: 35,200 pg/L
acute marine: 50,000 pg/L

Dichloropropane yes acute fresh: 23,000 pg/L
acute marine: 10,300 pg/L
chronic fresh: 5,700 pg/L
chronic marine: 3,040 pg/L

Dichloropropene yes acute fresh: 6,060 pg/L
acute marine: 790 pg/L
chronic fresh: 244 pg/L

1,1,2-Trichloroethane yes chronic fresh: 9,400 pg/L

Benzene yes acute fresh: 5,300 pg/L
acute marine: 5,100 pg/L
chronic marine: 700 pg/L

Bromoform no none established

4-Methyl-2-pentanone no none established

2-Hexanone no none established

Tetrachloroethene no none established

Toluene yes acute fresh: 17,500 pg/L
acute marine: 6,300 pg/L
chronic marine: 5,000 pg/L

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane yes none established

Ethyl Benzene yes acute fresh: 32,000 pg/L
acute marine: 430 pg/L

Styreen no none established

Xylenes no none established

3-32

Table 3.5, Continued_

Semivolatiles

Phenol yes acute fresh: 10,200 pg/L
acute marine: 5,800 pg/L
chronic fresh: 2,560 pg/L

bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether yes none established

2-Chlorophenol yes acute fresh: 4,360 pg/L
chronic fresh: 2,000 pg/L

Benzyl alcohol no, none established

Dichlorobdnzene yes acute fresh: 1,120 pg/L
acute marine: 1,970 pg/L
chronic fresh: 763 pg/L

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether yes none established

Hexachloroethane no acute fresh: 960 pg/L
acute marine: 940 pg/L
chronic fresh: 540 pg/L

Nitrobenzene yes acute fresh: 27,000 pg/L
acute marine: 6,600 pg/L

Isophorone yes acute fresh: 117,000 pg/L
acute marine: 12,900 pg/L

Nitrophenol yes acute fresh: 230 pg/L
acute marine: 4,85-0 pg/L
chronic fresh: 150 pg/L

2,4-Dimethylphenol yes acute fresh: 2,120 pg/L

Benzoic acid no none established

2,4-Dichlorophenol no acute fresh: 2,020 pg/L
chronic fresh: 365 pg/L

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene no none established

Napthalene yes acute fresh: 2,300 pg/L
acute marine: 2,350 pg/L
chronic fresh: 620 pg/L

4-Chloroaniline no none established

3-33

Table 3.5, Continued

Hexachlorobutadiene yes acute fresh: 90 pg/L
acute marine: 32 pg/L
chronic fresh: 9.3 pg/L

Parachlorometacresol no none established

2-Methylnaphthalene no none established

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene yes acute fresh: 7 pg/L
acute marine: 7 pg/L
chronic fresh: 5.2 pg/L

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol yes chronic fresh: 970 pg/L

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol no none established

2-Chloronaphthalene no none established

Nitroaniline no none established

Dimethylphthalate yes none established

Acenaphthene yes acute fresh: 1,700 wg/L
acute marine: 970 pg/L
chronic fresh: 520 pg/L
chronic marine: 710 pg/L

2..4-Dinitrotoluene no none established

Acenaphthylene no none established

Dibenzofuran no none established

Diethylphthalate yes none-established

Fluorene no none established

Nitroaniline no none established

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol no none established

Nitrosoamines yes acute fresh: 5,850 pg/L
acute marine: 3.3 g/L

4-Bromophenyl-phenylether no none established

Hexachlorobenzene yes none established

3-34

Table 1.5, Continued

Pentachlorophenol yes acute fresh: 5.5 pg/L
acute marine: 13 pg/L
* chronic fresh: 3.5 pg/L
chronic marine: 7.9 pg/L

* at PH =6.5

Phenanthrene no none established

Anthracene no none established

Dibutylphthalate yes none established

Fluoranthene yes acute fresh: 3,960 pg/L
acute marine: 40 pg/L
chronic marine: 16 pg/L

Pyrene no none established

Butylbenzylphthalate no none established

Dichlorobenzidine yes none established

Benzo(a)anthracene no none established

Chrysene no none established

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate no none established

Di-n-octylphthalate no none established

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene no none established

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p- yes acute fresh: 0.01 pg/L
dioxin acute marine: 0.00001 pg/L

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: EPA, 1986; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989c.

3-35

Table 3.6: Sediment Chemistry Guideline Values

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSSDA PSSDA ODEQ
screening maximum draft
Chemical level level level

Metals (PPM)

Antimony 20 200 --
Arsenic 57 700 40
Cadmium 0.96 9.6 1.0
Copper 81 810 50
Lead 6.6 660 40
Mercury 0.21 2.1 0.15
Nickel 140 --
Silver 1.2 6.1 --
Zinc 160 1,600 250
Tributyltin 30 -- --
Chromium -- 20 300

Organics (PPB)

Total LPAH 610 6,100
Naphthalene 210 2,100
Acenaphthylene 64 640
Acenaphthene 63 6,300 7,330*
Fluorene 64 6,400
Phenanthrene 320 3,200 1,390*
Anthracene 130 1,300 --
2-Methylnaphthalene 67 670

Total HPAH 1,800 51,000
Fluoranthene 630 6,300
Pyrene 430 7,300
Benzo(a)anthracene 450 4,500
Chrysene 670 6,700
Benzofluoranthenes 800 8,000
Benzo(a)pyrene 680 6,800
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 69 5,200
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 120 1,200
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 540 5,400

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 170
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 26 260
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 19 350
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 6.4 64
Hexachlorobenzene 23 230

3-36

Table 3.6, continued

Phthalates
Dimethyl phthalate 160
Diethyl phthalate 97
Di-n-butyl phthalate 1,400
Butyl benzyl phthalate 470
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3,100
Di-n-octyl phthalate 6,200

Phenols
Phenol 120 1,200
2 Methylphenol 10 72
4 Methylphenol 120 1,200
2,4-Dimethylphenol 10 50
Pentachlorophenol 69 690

Miscellaneous Extractables
Benzyl alcohol 10 73
Benzoic acid 216 690
Dibenzofuran 54 540
Hexachloroethane 1,400 14,000
Hexachlorobutadiene 29 290
N-Nitrosdiphenylamine 22 220

Volatile Organics
Trichloroethene 160 1,600
Tetrachloroethene 14 210
Ethylbenzene 10 50
Total xylene 12 160

Pesticides
Total DDT 6.9 69 8.28*
Aldrin 10 --
Chlordane 10
Dieldrin 10 --
Heptachlor 10 1.10*
Lindane 10 1.57*
Methoxy chlor --
2,4-D (Silvex) -- --

Total PCBs 130 2,500 500

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989c; ODWQ, 1989: USEPA 1988.

*: established using Equilibrium Partitioning (USEPA 1988) with a total organic
carbon level of 1% and assuming fresh water conditions.

3-37

level identifies chemical concentrations below which there is no reason to
believe that in-water disposal would result in unacceptable adverse impacts.
No biological evaluation is needed to approve these sediments for in-water
disposal in Puget Sound. The PSDDA maximum level corresponds to the
concentration above which there is reason to believe that the material would be
unsuitable for in-water disposal. These guidelines are implemented as follows:

(1) all chemicals are below their screening levels: sediment may be
approved for in-water disposal without biological testing.

(2) one or more chemicals are between their screening and maximum levels:
standard PSDDA biological evaluation is required before the sediment
can be approved for in-water disposal.

(3) a single chemical exceeds its maximum level by less than 100%:
standard PSDDA biological testing is required before the sediment may
be approved for in-water disposal.

(4) a single chemical exceeds its maximum level by more than 100%, or two
or more chemicals are above their maximum levels: special PSDDA
biological testing is required before the sediment can be approved
for in-water disposal.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Draft Sediment Criteria in
Table 3.6 are similar in their implementation: sediment within the draft DEQ
level may be approved for in-water disposal without biological testing.
Bioassay or bioaccumulation testing is required for in-water disposal if any of
the guideline values are exceeded.

3-38

3.4. BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS

Biological testing provides a better basis for sediment evaluation than do
any of the other parameters described above. Bioassay and bioaccumulation
studies are relatively expensive, however, and their results are subject to
interpretation.

Three kinds of biological studies are considered here: bioassay.,
bioaccumulation, and disposal site monitoring. A bioassay is a laboratory test
used for evaluating the toxicity of a sediment sample on aquatic organisms.
Behavioral, physiological, or lethal response is measured.

Bioaccumulation means the buildup of chemical compounds in an organism's
tissues. A bioaccumulation study exposes aquatic organisms to a test sediment
in the laboratory, and then analy.@,,es their body tissues for contaminants.

Disposal site monitoring is essentially an on-site experiment that, unlike
the bioassay and bioaccumulation studies mentioned above, relies on actual site
conditions and disposal conditions. It also differs from the two tests
mentioned above in that the results can only be made available after dredging
and disposal have been conducted.

These three types of tests, the conditions under which they may be
required, and the standards used for interpreting these tests, are described in
this section.

3.4.1. Bioassay Studies.

A bi oassay is a laboratory test that assesses sediment toxicity by
measuring changes in organisms exposed to a test sediment. This is
accomplished in aquaria, in a controlled laboratory environment. Several
different kinds of bioassay tests can be designed. The principal variables are
the species used as test organisms; the length of the test; the nature of
exposure to test sediment, and the type of response measured.

Bioassay test organisms include oyster larvae (Crassostrea gigas),
amphipods (such as Rhepoxinius abronius, Eohaustarius estuarius, or
Grandidierella japonica), polychaetes (such as Abarenicola pacifica , Neanthes
arenaceodentata, Nephtys caecoides), clams (such as Mncoma balthica or M.
nasuta) and other species. Some of these species do not occur at Columbia
River Estuary dredged material disposal sites, so the applicability of these
tests to actual disposal site biological conditions is subject to
interpretation.

Bioassay tests are time consuming. A ten-day exposure period is commonly
used to measure acute toxicity in the solid phase test (US Army Corps of
Engineers 1989c; Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory 1988).

Two basic kinds of exposure to test sediments are commonly used: suspended
phase and solid phases. In a solid phase evaluation the test sediment is
allowed to settle on the bottom of the aquarium. The suspended phase test uses
water and suspended test sediment. The suspended phase test simulates
conditions during and immediately after in-water disposal. The suspended phase

3-39

acute mortality test using the oyster larvae Crassostrea gigas is conducted for
48 or 96 hours.

Several different types of response are measured. These are sometimes
characterized as lethal and sublethal responses. A lethal response is recorded
when a test organism is dead after the test period. Sublethal responses
include retarded growth, physical abnormalities, reduced reproductive vitality,
or lack of response to stimuli when compared to control organisms.

There are no standards for interpreting bioassay tests for in-water
disposal sediment evaluation in the Columbia River Estua.ry. The Puget Sound
Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program has developed interpretation
standards for bioassay tests on Puget Sound Sediments. They are not applicable
to Columbia River Estuary dredging or disposal conditions, but they are
indicative of general regulatorytrends. Figure 3.2 shows a summary of the
PSDDA bioassay review process. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) does not have any standards for evaluating bioassays. ODEQ staff rely
on professional judgement for evaluating bioassay tests in the Columbia River
Estuary and elsewhere in Oregon. The Washington Department of Ecology will
also rely on professional judgement, while using the PSDDA guidelines as a
rough bench mark.

3.4.2. Bioaccumulation

Bioaccumulation tests measure the accumulation of sediment contaminants in
a test organism's tissues. Test organisms include some of the organisms listed
under section 3.4.2. Bioaccumulation test results report the levels of
contaminants in test organism tissues in units of weight of chemical per wet
weight of tissue. Bioaccumulation tests help determine whether a sediment
contaminant is likely to accumulate in the aquatic food chain, but---do not
necessarily help evaluate sediment toxicity.

There are no standards for bioaccumulation tests on Columbia River Estuary
sediment evaluation. The Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) has
developed standards applicable in Puget Sound. The PSDDA bioaccumulation
studies are used to determine impacts on human health. Table 3.7 summarizes
PSDDA standards for bioassay studies. The first column in Table 3.7 shows the
threshold for conducting bioaccumulation tests expressed in terms of chemical
content of the sediment. A test sediment exceeding one or more of these test
thresholds must be subjected to a bioaccumulation study before it can be
approved for in-water disposal in Puget Sound. The second column includes
tissue guidelines, which are intended as a human health protection threshold.
Test organism tissues with a level exceeding a guideline value are indicators
that the test sediment is unsuitable for in-water disposal.

3-40

Figure 3.2: Summary of PSDDA Bioassy Reuirements

TABLE 1 Control Limits, Amphipad and Juvenile infaunal Species mortality 10% absolute. Larval Sediment
Test T final mortality plus abnormality in Seawater Control must be 50% of T initial Seawater Control.
TABLE 2 Reference Limits, For all Tests; 20% Over Control. in the Case of the Amphipod, >20% may be Accepted
by the PSODA Agencies on a Case-by-Case Basis for Sediments with High Fines.

NOTE 1 At this Step in the Flow Chart, the 404 Bioassays are Amphipod and Juvenile Infaunal Species; the
401 Bioassays include Those Tests Plus the Sediment Larval Bioessay. The 404 Water Column Bivalve
Larval Bioassay is Not in This Flow Chart [Microtox, a 401 Test, Entem in a Later Step (Two Hit)].
NOTE 2 If any Bioassay Fails QC Limits, it Generally Must be Rerun, Unless the PSDDA Agencies Decide to
Interpret Suitability Based on Remaining Test Results.
NOTE 3 Generally a Single-tailed Student's T comparison of Mean Test Sed. response versus Mean Reference
Sed. response (Ho: they are equal).alpha level of .05
NOTE 4 This decision block refers to Nondispersive Sites (Commencement Say, Port Gardner. Elliott Say,
Anderson-Ketron Is. and Bellingham Say). For Dispersive Sites (Port Angeles, Port Townsend and
Rosario Straits).The Single Hit rule is >10% over Reference and Statistically Significant for the Amphipod
and Juvenile Infaunal Species Test, and >15% over Reference and Statistically Significant for the
Sediment Larval Test.
NOTE S(This applies to Nondispersive Sites and the Two Hit case)-Microtox is an additional 401 Test that Must
be Considered at This Point. Microtox Results of the Test Sediments Must be Statistically Significant from
Reference Results and >20% Below Control Response to Count as a Hit.

Source: U.S. Army Coprs of Engineers, 1989c

3-41

Table 3.7 PSSDA Bioaccumulation study summary

Chemical Threshold for conducting Tissue guidelines
bioaccumulation tests
(dry weight) (wet weight)

Antimony 126.0 ppm 5,600.0 ppm

Arsenic 393.1 ppm 10.1 ppm

Mercury 1.5 ppm 1.0 ppm

Nickel 504.0 ppm 20,000.0 ppm

Silver 4.6 ppm 200.0 ppm

Fluoranthene 4,600 ppb 8,400.0 ppm

Benzo(a)pyrene 43-964 ppb 1.2 ppm

1.2-Dichlorobenzene 37 ppb 300.0 ppm

1.3-Dichlorobenzene 1,241 ppb 300.0 ppm

1.4-Dichlorobenzene 190 ppb 300.0 ppm

Dimethyl phthalate 1,168 ppb 300,000.0 ppm

Di-n-butyl phthalate 10,220 ppb 30,000.0 ppm

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) 13,870 ppb 18,000.0 ppm@7
phthalate

Hexachloroethane IpO22 ppb 98.0 ppm

Hexachlorobutadiene 212 ppb 180.0 ppm

Phenol 876 ppb 3pOOO.O ppm

Pentachlorophenol 504 ppb 900.0 ppm

Ethylbenzene 27 ppb 600.0 ppm

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 161 ppb 2,845.0 ppm

Hexachlorobenzene 168 ppb 180.0 ppm

Tributyltin 219 ppb -----

Trichloroethene 1,168 ppb 127.0 ppm

Tetrachloroethane 102 ppb 27.0 ppm

3-42

Table 3.7
Total DDT , Continued 50 ppb 41.0 ppm

Aldrin 37 ppb 1.2 ppm

Chlordane 37 ppb 8.7 ppm

Dieldrin 37 ppb .046 ppm

Heptachlor 37 ppb 4.2 ppm

Total PCBs 38 ppb 2.0 ppm

Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989c.

3-43

3.4.3. Site Monitoring

Disposal site monitoring is essentially an on-site experiment that, unlike
the bioassay and bioaccumulation studies mentioned above, relies on actual site
conditions and disposal conditions. It also differs from the other tests in
that the results can only be made available after dredging and disposal have
been conducted.

Disposal site monitoring may involve a number of activities, and would
typically be conducted for a year or more. A monitoring program would be
designed to collect data that allows comparison of pre-disposal with post-
disposal conditions. Bathymetry, sediment grain size and chemical data, and
benthic organism communities are of interest.

There are no standards for conducting disposal site monitoring. A
monitoring plan would normally be developed at the request of resource
agencies. A pre-disposal site survey is conducted. This provides the baseline
data against which subsequent post disposal data are evaluated. surveys of the
disposal site are conducted after the disposal operation is completed, and the
data are compared.

There are no standards for evaluating disposal site monitoring data.
Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 16, dealing with estuarine resources, states
that monitoring is carried out "to assume that estuarine sedimentation is
consistent with the resource capabilities and purposes of affected natural and
conservation management units".

3-44

3.5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Locational, physical, chemical and biological sediment data are all useful
for evaluating sediment suitability for in-water disposal. However, each has
significant drawbacks. Table 3.8 summarizes each parameter's principle
advantages and disadvantages.

The tiered approach to sediment evaluation, using locational, physical,
chemical and biological data as needed in a sequential manner, is a reasonable
mpromise between two competing demands on the sediment evaluation process.
On the one hand is the need to protect valuable Columbia River Estuary aquatic
coesources from preventable adverse impacts, and the associated high costs of
making a permit decision that results in avoidable damage to those resources.
On the other hand are the high costs of gathering sediment data, particularly
at the biological tier, and the need to maintain essential navigation
facilities in a cost-effective manner. The tiered approach to sediment
evaluation, summarized graphically in Figure 3.3, provides a framework for
making decisions on in-water disposal that has the potential for meeting
resource protection and navigation needs on the Columbia River Estuary.

3-45

Table 3-8: Summary of Sediment Evaluation Criteria Advantages and Disavantages

Parameter Advantages Disadvantages

Locational data: lowest cost sensitive to unknown
quality of historic
data;

assumes that impacts on
aquatic habitat can be
predicted from existing
data.

Physical data
grain size: relatively low cost assumes a strong
relationship between
grain size and
chemistry exists;

other physical data: relatively low cost assumes strong
fast (two six weeks). relationship between
grain size and sediment
chemistry.

Chemical data: moderate cost: less does not provide
costly than biological information about
testing; biological response;

provides accurate data statisticalily unsound
that can be compared to (hot spots ignored).
existing standards.

Biological data: provides direct data on generally does not use
impacts to aquatic on site organisms;
organisms.

expensive;

slow;

"laboratory effects"
are hard to account
for.

3-46

Figure 3.3. Tiered Sediment Evaluation

Tier 1:
Locational Data

Do
Tier I dat
support approval
yes for in-water disposal No
?

Tier 2:
Physical Data

Do
Tier 2 dat
support approval
@yes for in-water disposal No-

Tier 3:
Chemical Data applicant
may skip
forward

Do
Tier 3 dat
support approva
yes for in-water disposa
?

No
%V
Tier 4
Biological Data

Do
Tier 4 data
support approval
yes for in-water disposal No

No
approve for in-water disposal] 3-47 1 E-ny :for: in -water disposal

4. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

4.1. INTRODUCTION

This section provides a brief summary of the sedimentary process of the
Columbia River and means by which these sediments and the water column may
become contaminated. Common sediment analysis methods used by testing labs
are summarized. Specific subareas and contaminants discovered during sediment
sampling of those subareas since 1980 are also discussed. The end of this
section describes various sediment quality assessment methods used in other
estuaries, and some of the advantages and disadvantages for each method.

4.2. PHYSICAL PROCESSES

Prior to extensive damming of the mainstem, Columbia River and its tribu-
taries as well as increased water diversion demands, the discharge from the
Columbia River ranged from 65,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to as much as
1.2 million cfs, Spring freshets due to snow melts significantly impacted
flow regime and sedimentary deposits. Currently, the average discharge of the
Columbia River is approximately 260,000 cfs. Spring freshets now have minimal
impacts on flows and channel formations because of upstream storage and flow
regulations. Tidal flows are the largest influencing factor of hydraulic
conditions and sediment transport in the lower estuary. Although tidal
influence extends upstream to Bonneville Dam (RM 145), upriver from Tongue
oint (RM 18) fluvial flows dominate sediment transport.

According to previous studies, the Columbia River drains annually 667,000
square kilometers total of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks and
extensive alluvial and eolian surfi'cial deposits (Creagor, 1984). The
majority of the sediment in the Columbia River Estuary is comprised of fine to
medium grained sand. Sediment transport in the Columbia River Estuary
consists of suspended fine sediments (which are mostly discharged out to sea)
and bedload transport of medium grained sands. The estimated average of the
total suspended load in the Columbia River Estuary is 10 million tons per
year. The small fraction of fine grained suspended sediments retained in the
estuary is usually found in peripheral bays and back channels. Whereas the
Columbia River Basin previously was the major source of bedload materials, due
to upstream reservoirs, primary sources of bedload are now from volcanic
eruption, Aannel meandering, beach erosion and channel slope adjustments.
These bedload sediments are transported through and deposited in the main
navigation channel. The bedload supply is estimated at approximately 1
million tons per year. It is this bedload transport that is the key to
erosion and deposition of sediments in the estuary. Flow regime, sediment
transport, seasonal fluctuations and historical uses are important components
to be considered when developing a plan for determining under what circum-
stances sediment analysis should occur.

4-1

4.3. SOURCES OF CONTAMINANTS

Sediments in aquatic environments can be contaminated from airborne
polluted particles settling on the water surface and dissolving or from
precipitation washing the particles into streams, storm drains, and ground.
water supplies which eventually drain into the Columbia River. Contaminants
are also directly discharged into water as a result of human activities and
development. Point sources include industrial outlets, sewers and storm
drains directly discharging into the river. Other activities potentially
contributing localized sediment contamination include shipbuilding and repair,
marine fuel dispensing or storage areas, sand blasting, and bridge painting.
Non-point sources such as boating activities, agricultural and forest uses and
ground runoff from roads and septic systems can contribute a significant amount
of contaminants to rivers and estuaries. Point source discharges often have
limits placed on their effluents to minimize contaminant discharges. However,
non-point sources are not so easily controlled and more difficult to regulate.
Pesticides and herbicides ased in agriculture and forest practices can be
limited and regulated to minimize time of use and quantity but the ground
absorption, runoff, and overall region-wide use is less controllable. High
contamination levels in urban estuaries and bays are probably most associated
with industrial outputs, but a significant amount of pollutants also enter the
river from storm drains and through ground runoff where solid waste and
automobile fluids collect and are transported to the water. High levels of
sediment contamination may also be as a result of historical uses. For
example, sediments located*near the piers of Tongue Point are believed to
contain "hot spots" of pollutants as a result of U.S. Naval activities
occurring at Tongue Point after World War II.

Dredging is-necessary in the Columbia River Estuary in order to maintain
shipping facilities and services but it is a means by which contaminants re-
enter the estuary. Dredging and the disposal of the dredged material
recirculates contaminants that have settled out in the bottom sediments. This
increase in turbidity and potential release of metals, organic substances and
other toxic materials can cause serious adverse effects on water quality,
aquatic resources and habitats. Thus sediment testing is vitally important in
order to determine potential impacts of dredging or dredged material disposal,
and to minimize these potential impacts.

4-2

4.4. REVIE W OF SEDIMENT ANALYSIS METHODS

Federal and state agencies have developed quantitative assessment methods
for evaluating levels of contamination in dredge material sediments. Earlier
methods based analysis on comparisons of chemical concentrations in sediments
from the contaminated area to those of a control site. More recent evaluation
methods consider impacts of contamination levels in dredged sediments on the
biological resources at the dredge site as well as at the dredged material
disposal site.

The main impetus for sedimentological research is the requirement to
maintain navigational access. Since such a large quantity of material is being
displaced, contamination levels in those sediments must be determined and
evaluated to estimate potential effects. Trace metals bonded to sediments are
present in various physical and chemical forms, each form capable of having
different biological availability. During in-water disposal of dredged
material, those metals that deposited and settled at the dredge site accumulate
at the surface/water interface resulting in potential adverse impacts on
benthic deposit feeders. Potential effects will vary, dependent on
concentrations of and reactions to other metals or contaminants, organic matter
content, oxidation-reduction, pH and salinity conditions of the sediment (US
Army Corps of Engineers, 1983). The following paragraphs generally describe
the methods used to analyze sediment composition and content

4.4.1. Biological Tests

Bioassay

Bioassay tests are used to determine the effects of contaminants on
biological organisms. Test organisms are exposed to dredged material for a
specific period of time. Following exposure, response of the organism is
determined by observation and by chemically testing tissues of the organisms
to determine if contaminants from the dredged material were incorporated or
bioaccumulated.

Two types of bioassays may be performed: a suspended-particulate phase
and a solid phase. The suspended-particulate phase introduces a predetermined
mixture of disposal site water and dredged material to three sensitive resident
species. Effects on the species are determined for various quantities of the
mixture. The solid phase requires the placement of a layer of dredged mater-
ial over a layer of clean material and impacts of the benthic organisms are
measured. In both cases, impacts are determined by the survival rates.

Bioassays reflect the cumulative influence of all contaminants and
provide an indication of potential overall biological effects of a dredged
material discharge. Bioassays can be conducted in situ or in controlled
aboratory conditions. This kind of test cannot be used to characterize or
delineate specific chemicals, metals, or other contaminants. A bioassay is
u1seful however, in determining problem sediments and developing dose-response
relationships.

4-3

Indigenous Biota

Evaluations of indigenous biota usually focus on benthic macroinver-
tebrates. These organism are preferred because they are bottom-dwelling, are
relatively stationary, can be sampled quantitatively and exhibit more predic-
table responses to environmental stress (PTI, 1989). Since benthic organisms
are continuously exposed to contaminants in the sediment and have varying
sensitivities to toxicity, they provide an estimate of combined effects of
acute and chronic exposure to toxic chemicals. These organisms are evaluated
for changes in abundance of individuals, abundance of species and bioac-
cumulation.

This method is advantageous because effects are evaluated in natural
conditions rather than controlled laboratory situations, and are subjected to
varying environmental conditions. However, the research may be costly for the
same reason, in addition to the extensive data and taxa identification
requirements.

4.4.2. Chemical Analysis

Water Column

Contaminants in the sediments and suspended in the water column are
present in various physical and chemical forms. There may be unequal distri-
bution of contaminants dependent on the physical/chemical conditions of the
surface sediments and overlying water column. Contaminants that settle and
bond to the surface bottom sediments usually remain dissolved but become
absorbed or adsorbed to the sediment as ionized constituents, form organic
complexes or participate in oxidation-reduction reactions (US Army Corps of
Engineers, 1983). Elutriate tests are used to simulate the conditions of the
dredging and disposal process and to measure chemicals released from the
agitated sediments. Predetermined amounts of water and sediments from the
dredge site are mixed together to approximate the dredged material slurry.
The material is chemically analyzed to determine contaminant concentrations.
Concentrations should be compared to background levels and to state water
quality objectives to determine the potential impact of the material during
dredging and discharge.

Elutriate tests are also performed using predetermined amounts of sedi-
ment from the dredge site and water from the disposal site. This combination
allows an analysis of the amount of metal concentrations contributed from the
sediment by subtracting from the mixture chemical concentrations in the water.
Mixing sediment and water from each site also provides another means to
evaluate potential reactions and impacts during disposal operations. Elu-
triate tests only register pollutants that dissolve or resuspend out of
sediments. Pollutants that are bound to sediments, i.e., DDT, are likely to
remain undetected during an elutriate test, yet still have the potential to
cause adverse impacts. Elutriate test results also must be reviewed concerning
consequences of dissolved oxygen depletion during the testing procedure
especially if the disposal site is well oxygenated. Depletion could effect
measured metal concentrations and evaluations of environmental impacts (Fuhrer
and Horowitz, 1988). Other factors which could influence elutriate test results
include sediment-water ratio, shaking time, settling time, method of agitation
and salinity of the water (Schroeder 1977).

4-4

Sediments

Bulk sediment or total sediment analysis measures the presence of a
contaminant in the sediment and compares the chemical similarity between
sediments at the dredge site and sediments at the disposal site. The sediment
sample is digested using hydrofluoric acid to break down silicate matrices of
the sediment and release the chemical constituents.

ItTr

4-5

4.5. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS OF METALS IN COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY

Felstul (1988) examined 86 Columbia River mainstem channel and tributary
samples determining grain size, percent of sand, Silt and clay and the concen-
trations of heavy metals, oil and grease, volatile solids, total organic
content and ammonia in each sample. The samples were collected by the U.S.
Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 1980 to 1987.
The 86 Columbia River mainstem channel and tributary samples investigated by
Felstul are part of a larger project that includes over 160.samples collected
al ong the Oregon coastline. For purposes of this project, the data for the 86
lower Columbia River Estuary sampling sites was separated from the overall
Oregon estuary database in order to analyze sediment samples specifically from
the Columbia River Estuary. This estuary-wide analysis of sediments and
contaminants will allow comparisons between areas within the estuary, between
other estuaries and other regions in the country. The analysis will also
identify areas or projects with potential regulatory conflicts and provide a
foundation for developing & coordinated sediment quality management plan for
the Columbia River Estuary.

It is believed that the distribution of metals and organic compounds is
dependent on the association with fine grained particles. Therefore, it is
important to investigate correlations in the Columbia River Estuary between
certain metals and grain size distribution to determine if this is the case
for the Columbia River Estuary. Felstul investigated correlations between
concentrations of contaminants and sediment grain size distribution. He found
that as his sample site narrowed geographically, his correlations improved.
For example, correlations between heavy metals and grain size distribution in
Chinook Channel were higher than correlations in the Columbia River mainstem
channel which were higher than correlations using data from all Oregon
estuaries. Chinook Channel has a greater percent of silt/clay sediments than
does the Columbia River mainstem channel. The higher correlations'between
heavy metals and grain size distribution in Chinook Channel seems consistent
with the concept linking elevated levels of contaminants with finer sediments.
This result might also suggest that each project site has its own unique
characteristics; physical parameters specific to each site should be estab-
lished for each project and used as part of the evaluation criteria during
sediment analysis.

The following sections describe contamination levels specific to smaller
geographical areas in the Columbia River Estuary. Felstul's data was sorted
and analyzed according to the following areas: Chinook Channel, Skipanon
Channel and Basin, Ilwaco Channel, Columbia River Mainstem Channel to river
mile 18.5, Baker Bay, and Cathlamet Bay. Felstul and Fuhrer and Rinella
analyzed one sample from Hammond, Astoria, Tansy Point, Youngs Bay and
Skamokawa. Maps 4.1 through 4.4 show the generalized areas where samples were
collected. Information from other reports that analyzed sediments in the
Columbia River Estuary, including the Port of Astoria docks, is also used in
the discussions below.

4-6

wM '40 w Ift ow 06 on w

Columbia River Ars-i1c Chromium Cropper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickle Zinc Cadmium Cadmium
Main Channel (A.,;) (Cr) (CU) (Fe) (Pb) (4n) (11g) (NI) (Zn) (cd Flame) (cd Furn)
and TribuLaries
n-86

Average 6.76 19.63 25.31 17,302 11.60 232.70 .07 9.16 92.08 .94 .26
(mg/kg)
Standard 4.78 14.13 16.34 12,051, 6.93 196.48 .09 10.78 53.15 1.33 .39
Deviation
(mg/kg)
r2 .116942 .066982 .529961 .021457 .207608 .000666 .118330 .102785 .599160 .004033 .161129

TABLE 4.1b: Average Metal Concentrations in Samples With Over 502 Silt/Clay Composition

Samples With Arsenic Ch@omium Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickle Zinc Cadmium Cadmium
Greater Than (As) (Cr) (C.) (Fe) (Pb) (Hn) (Hg) (NO Un) (cd Flame) (cd Furn)
50% Silt
n=45

Average 8.44 22.15 35.7 17.842.22 14.31 223.18 .09 11.59 125.83 1.05 .40
(mg/kg)
Minimum 0.0 10.0 8.3 0.0 4.20 0.0 0.0 0.0 54 0.0 0.0
(mg/kg)
Maximum 20.5 72.0 56.9 49,000 40.0 700.00 .31 44 300 8.0 1.93
(mglkg) (Chinook (Skipanon (Skipanon (Baker Bay) (Skipanon (Skipanon (Chinook (Skipanon
Channel) Channel) Channel) Channel) Channel) Channel) Channel)
Standard 4.66 12.90 10.05 12.884.45 7.68 179.19 .07 11.81 49.64 1.72 .49
Deviation
(mg/kg)

TABLE 4.1c: Average Metal Concentrations In Samples With Over 502 Sand Composition

Samples With Arsenic Chromium Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickle Zinc Cadmium Cadmium
Greater Than (As) (Cr) (CU) (Fe) (Pb) (Mn) (Hg) (NO (Zn) (cd) (cd Furn)
502 Sand
n=41

Average 4.92 16.85 13.90 16,709.76 8.62 243.16 .04 6.5 55.04 .84 .11
(mg/kg)
Minimum 0.0 1 1.5 0.0 .40 0.0 0 0 18.00 0 0
(mg/kg)

Maximum 16.00 57.00 91.00 41,000 20.00 900.00 .72 27.00 126.00 2.3 .43
(mg/kg) (Columbia (Cathlamet (Cathlamet
River Bay) Bay)
Channel)
Standard 4.19 14.88 14.17 11.040.83 4.37 213.37 .11 8.77 24.46 .66 .11
Deviation
(mg/kg)

Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R. Felstul in "An Evaluation of
Oregon Sediment Quality". Corps of Engineers, 1988.

q 15, Ora

ENS& MANO,
'f So
eg!
8.p;

WO - "M T

7
*1119 a Oi. 1-9 8 3, 1,,I),813AKER

B
Y
A

WIN'!

Fg,

Peacock Spit

1980,

9 a
1982
E. Sand Island

X" Chinook Pt...
AL1986

198b,1986

C'
South

1 9 8 2

Map 4.1: General Sampling Areas for Columbia River,
Baker Say, Ilwaco Channel and Chinook Channel

4-8

Ch'nook

_.__PA C11_'1.C__C0UN'F Pt. Ell
CLAI-Sop*
UNT

COLUMBIA

Pt Adams

987 Desdemona Sands-_-----.,

A,
1982,1986
A
n@
w
A 9 8 2. 19 8 4, 19 8 6
A@ 9 so '19 8 6
W.. N.,
@q@ge t@. -W
Tansy Pt.
Wn' Al 982
e
co Smith Pt.
W
t YOUNG5
- ------- BAY Al 9's,
Daggett
V
A,
Wo

C
Ic

Map 4.2 General Sampling Areas for Columbia River,

Hammond Boat Basin. Skipanon River,

Youngs Say and Port of Astoria's Docks

4-9

,L:.Ij

Rocky Pt.

..........
JGRAYS BAY
Portuguese P1.
Grays Pt. Pigeoln BIL.

x Sands

Al 982,1986
Tongue Pt.
Al 982
(-,A.IHLAMET
C
Al
-04 tt Wa id
BAY

IN WP M

M a p 4.3: General Sampling Areas for Columbia River
and Ca.thiamet Say

4-10

IVA

NUMB, X

-id
--0
1 980
M, I
-W
N. a
aw M,
ONIEW-W
0"
Iffl-KNI, "' 1- - M @111

M:
RIM.
2.1 N

INN
elch lslao(j'
.5o
".0
nf
@V. @:.Z. ,0
-Nlx@7,m, q:
sm,
N.
0.: 1:30Kti AIN"
W"M
f-W

Ak,
S

1". 03.01

10@

Map 4.4: General Sampling Areas for Columbia River

and Skamokawa River

4-11

Pertinent information specific to each individual metal is discussed in
Chapter Three. In the following sections, the contamination levels for the
Columbia River Estuary, determined by combining all 86 Columbia River mainstem
channel and tributary samples, are reviewed first. Table 4.la-c summarizes
metal concentrations estuary wide. Correlation coefficients derived for 10
metals show the relationship between the concentration of metal, as found
estuary wide, and the sediment grain size distribution. Smaller geographical
areas are then discussed individually and compared to the combined data for the
entire estuary. Tables are presented which show the estuary-wide average. A
metal is considered elevated in this chapter if the contamination level exceeds
one standard deviation fron the estuary-wide average concentration for that
metal. When discussing a subarea's mostly silt samples, a metal is considered
elevated if the contamination level exceeds one standard deviation for the
metal for all Columbia River Estuary samples of mostly silt. The same method
applies for sandy samples. The smaller Tables in this chapter are descriptive
of a specific subarea and should be used in conjunction with Table 4.la-c.

4.5.1. Metal Correlations in the Columbia River Estuary

When comparing concentrations of each of the 10 metals from all 86
Columbia River Estuary samples to sediment grain size composition, only two
metals, copper and zinc, showed a strong relationship between high concen-
tration levels and fine grained particles (Table 4.1a). The correlation
coefficient r2 was over 0.5 for both: copper r2=.5299 and zinc r2=.5991. The
remaining c@rrelations were under r2=0.2.

However, as the sample site narrows geographically, correlations improve
somewhat. For example, correlations between metal concentrations and the 29
sediment samples for the Columbia River mainstem subarea show stronger
correlations (r2=0.5 or more) for iron, manganese and zinc (Table 4.2).

il
Likewise, correlations between high metal concentrations and fine grained
particles for Chinook Channel reveal even stronger correlations specific to
this subarea (Table 4.3). This could be due in part to higher quantities of
the fine grained particles that are found in the peripheral bays than in the
main channel. In Chinook Channel, lead, manganese and nickel are the only
metals having higher correlations with sandy sediments rather than with finer
sediments. Additional descriptions of sediments particular to specific
subareas within the Columbia River Estuary are discussed in the following
sections.

4-12

Table 4. 2:
COLUMBIA RIVER MAINSTEM CHANNEL
Correlation Coefficient for Metals and Grain Size Distribution

METAL Z VERY FINE SAND SILT CLAY MEDIAN
GRAIN SIZE

Fe .60 .59 .65 .65
Mn .52 .51 .68
Zn .50 .64

Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R. Felstul in
"An Evaluation of Oregon Sediment Quality", 1988.

Table 4.3: CHINOOK CHANNEL
Correlation Coefficient for Metals and Grain Size Distribution

METAL % SAND VERY % SILT Z CLAY MEDIAN
FINE GRAIN
SAND SIZE

Cr .78 .89 .97 .97 .89
Cu .77 .76 .83 .87 .76
Fe .78 .89 .97 .97 .89
Pb .62 .50 .58
Mn .89 .69 .66 .66 .69
Hg .62 .66 .57 .61
Ni .76 .53 .59 .59 .53
Zn .52 .69 .78 .76 .72
Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R. F;,Istul in
"An Evaluation of Oregon Sediment Quality", 1988.

4.5.2. Baker Bay

Felstul (1988) examined five samples that were collected in Baker Bay in
July of 1980 (see Map 4.1). Two of the samples had a grain size distribution
consisting of over 90% silt and clay. The remaining three samples consisted of
sands. The two samples consisting of silt and clay consistently exhibited
higher levels of metals than the samples of mostly sand, with concentrations of
lead, mercury, nickel and zinc exceeding one standard deviation limit in one or
both samples (see Table 4.4). One of the silt samples exhibited the highest
concentration 'of lead, 40 mg/kg, of all 86 Columbia River Estuary samples
analyzed. This concentration is right at the threshold level established by
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in the "Draft Interium Sediment
Quality Guidelines" at which additional analysis would be required for in-water
disposal of dredged materials. One of the samples consisting of mostly sand
also showed a concentration of lead (20 mg/kg) which exceeded one standard
deviation. Felstul indicated that additional samples were taken in 1987
(although not part of this database) also showing elevated levels of lead. The
higher levels of lead could be due in part to leaded fuels.

4-13

Table 4.4: Metals in Baker Bay with Concentrations Higher than one Standard
Deviation from the Average of all Columbia River Estuary Samples and Samples
Consisting of >50% Silt and Clay, and samples with >50% sand.

ELEVATED METALS IN BAKER BAY
Columbia River Estuary Samples
n=86

METAL AVERAGE STANDARD OF BAKER
CONCENTRATION DEVIATION (SD) BAY SAMPLES
IN CRE (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Zn 92.08 53.15 2
Ni 9.16 10.78 1
Hg .07 .09 2
Pb 11.6 6.93 2
Cu 25.31 16.34 1

Columbia River Estuary Samples Of >50% Silt and Clay
n=45 1. 1

METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION STANDARD OF BAKER
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) BAY SAMPLES
>50% SILT (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Zn 125.83 49.64 1
Ni 11.59 11.81 1
Hg .09 .07 2
Pb 14.31 7.68 2

Columbia River Estuary Samples Of >50% Sand
n=41

METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION STANDARD OF BAKER
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) BAY SAMPLES
>50% SAND (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Pb 8.62 4.37 1

Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R. Felstul in
"An Evaluation of Oregon Sediment Quality", 1988.

Other investigators examined trace metal concentrations in Baker Bay
using a soft digestion (lN HCl) extraction of bottom material. Fuhrer (1986)
examined six bottom material samples taken form Baker Bay in 1983. Two samples
had concentrations of cadmium (flame) (1.9 and 2.2 mg/kg) above the average
concentration (.95 mg/kg) determined by Felstul for 86 Columbia River Estuary
samples, but just within one standard deviation. One of these same samples
also had higher levels of manganese and zinc compared to Felstul's averages,

4-14

but within standard deviations. Lead concentration for one sample (31.8 mg/kg)
exceeded the standard deviation for lead from all 86 Columbia River Estuary
samples.

Total organic carbon (TOC) content was elevated in Baker Bay sediments
consisting of >50% silt and clay. Measures in Baker Bay ranged below the
average of 8.9 mg/g for all Columbia River Estuary sediments up to 18.7 and
19.7 mg/g for the two Baker Bay samples from Felstul's data of mostly silt and
clay. Fuhrer (1986) found, however, that higher levels of TOC were in sandier
sediment samples. He attributes this factor to the possible presence of
discrete heavy fragments of organic detritus material. Ammonia concentrations
were much higher in siltier samples, measuring over 130 mg/kg compared to under
5 mg/kg for Baker Bay samples consisting of mostly sand. Measures for volatile
solids for all Baker Bay samples ranged from 0 to 5.53 percent.

4.5.3. Chinook Channel

Twenty-one sediment samples were included in Felstul's database for
Chinook Channel. One sample was taken in 1980, fourteen in December 1986 and
six samples in July of 1987 (see Map 4.1). Fifteen samples consisted of over
50% silt and clay.

Eleven samples of arsenic and eight samples of copper exhibited concentra-
tions higher than one standard deviation for each metal from the 86 samples
analyzed in the Columbia River Estuary. Three of the arsenic samples were
above one standard deviation limit for Felstul's 45 samples consisting of
greater than 50% silt and clay and 2 samples consisting of greater than 50%
sand were above the limit. The one site sampled in 1980 was resampled in 1986
resulting in some considerable differences. Concentration of arsenic doubled'
to 20.5 mg/kg being the sample with the largest concentration of arsenic of all
86 sites sampled in the Columbia River Estuary. This level of arsenic is below
the threshold level (40 mg/kg) established by the Oregon Department of
Envioronmental Quality at which additional sediment analysis would be required
for in-water disposal.

Of the eight samples exhibiting elevated levels of copper, one sample,
consisting of 56.9 mg/kg of copper also exceeded Oregon's Department of
Environmental Quality threshold level (50 mg/kg) established in the "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines." Cadmium showed a marked decrease from
being the highest concentration in the Columbia River Estuary in 1980 at 8
mg/kg to being well below the average concentration of .26 mg/kg. There was
also a decrease in the concentration of lead from 30 mg/kg to 11 mg/kg. Three
sites consisting of mostly silt were sampled in December of 1986 and again 6
months later in July of 1987. Concentration levels for arsenic decreased in
that time period but levels of chromium, copper and lead increased. This
increase could in part be due to lower river flows, more turbidity from
dredging activities during the summer months and increased boating activities.

Chinook Channel sediments consisting of over 50% silt and clay had higher
measures of Total Organic Carbon content (TOC) than did Chinook Channel
sediment samples consisting of mostly sand. Measures ranged from .28 mg/g to
26.6 mg/g. The average TOC content however, was the same 8.9 mg/g as the
average TOC of all 86 Columbia River Estuary sediments. Measures of volatile
solids ranged from .50 percent of dry weight to 6.6 percent.

4-15

Table 4.5: Metals in the Chinook Channel with Concentrations Higher than One
Standard Deviation from the Average of all Columbia River Estuary Samples,
Samples with >50% Silt and Clay, and Samples with >50% Sand

ELEVATED METALS IN CHINOOK CHANNEL
Columbia River Estuary Samples
n=86

METAL AVERAGE STANDARD OF CHINOOK
CONCENTRATION DEVIATION (SD) SAMPLES
IN CRE (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

As 6.76 4.-78 11
Cd (furn) .26 .39 1
Cu 25.31 16.34 8
Pb 11.60 6.93 1
Zn 92.08 53.15 1

Columbia River Estuary Samples of >50% Silt and Clay
n=45

METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION STANDARD OF CHINOOK
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) SAMPLES
>50% SILT (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

As 8.44 4.66 3
Cd (furn) .40 .49 1
Cu 35.7 10.05 1
Pb 14.31 7.68 1
Mn 223.18 179.19 1

Columbia River Estuary Samples of >50% Sand
n=41

METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION STANDARD OF CHINOOK
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) SAMPLES
>50% SAND (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

As 4.92 4.19 2
Cd (furn) .11 .11 1

Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R. Felstul. in
"An Evaluation of Oregon Sediment Quality", 1988.

4.5.4. Ilwaco Channel

Felstul examined eight samples in Ilwaco Channel that were collected in
1987 (see Map 4.1). Five of the samples were comprised of a grain size

4-16

distribution of greater than 65% silt. Two of the remaining samples consisted
of at least 50% sand and only one sample was almost 80% coarser than medium
sand. One of the samples-comprised of mostly silts had concentrations of
mercury (.184 mg/kg), nickel (22.6 mg/kg) and cadmium (1.13 mg/kg) (furnace)
higher than one standard deviation for those metals for all 86 Columbia River
Estuary samples. These concentrations for mercury and cadmium slightly exceed
the threshold level (.15 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg respectively) established by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in the "Draft Interim Sediment
Quality Guidelines." The samples consisting mostly of sand had much lower
concentrations of metals than those comprised of silts and clays. However, the
one sample consisting of coarser sands showed a slight increase in
concentration levels for most metals than the other two mostly sand samples,
but well within one standard deviation.

Table 4.6: Metals in the Ilwaco Channel with Concentrations Higher than one
Standard Deviation from the Average of all Columbia River Estuary Samples and
Samples Consisting of >50% Silt and Clay

ELEVATED METALS IN ILWACO CHANNEL
Columbia River Estuary Samples
n=86

METAL AVERAGE STANDARD OF ILWACO
CONCENTRATION DEVIATION (SD) SAMPLES
IN CRE (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Hg .07 .09 1
Ni 9.16 10.78 1
Cd (furnace) .26 .39 2

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY SAMPLES of >50% SILT AND CLAY
n=45

METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION STANDARD OF ILWACO
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) SAMPLES
>50% SILT (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Hg .09 .07 1
Cd (furnace) .40 .49 1

Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R , Felstul in
"An Evaluation of Oregon Sediment Quality", 1988.

Ilwaco sediment samples consisting of more than 50% silt and clay had
elevated amounts of total organic carbon compared to Ilwaco sediment samples
consisting of mostly sand. Measures of TOC ranged from 7.63 mg/g to 13.10 mg/g
for samples of mostly silt and clay. Samples consisting of mostly sand had a
TOC content under .55 mg/g. The same pattern held true for the percent of
volatile solids in the sediment. Measures of TOC ranged from .6 percent (sandy
sample) to 6.03 percent (silt and clay samples).

4-17

4.5.5. Skipanon Channel and Basin

Skipanon Channel and Basin proved to have high concentrations of most
metals. The high levels of contaminants were probably due to development and
industrial outputs. Felstul analyzed fourteen samples taken from the Skipanon
area. Seven sites in the channel were sampled in 1984, and seven sites in the
basin area from 1980 to 1987 (see Map 4.2). All sites sampled.except for two
consisted of very fine sediments. Twelve of the 14 samples had a grain size
distribution of 50% or more silt sediments and seven of those consisted of more
than 20% clay. Neither of the two samples that consisted of sandier sediments
had concentrations of metals exceeding one standard deviation. Three of the
samples had the highest concentrations of a metal of all Columbia River Estuary
samples. One sample had the highest concentration of chromium (72 mg/kg), iron
(49,000 mg/kg) and nickel (44 mg/kg). Another sample was determined to have
the highest level of zinc at 300 mg/kg and a third sample had the highest level
of cadmium (furnace) at 1.83 mg/kg. These concentrations of zinc and cadmium
both exceed threshold levels (250 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg respectively) established
by the Oregon Department of*Environmental Quality in the "Draft Interim
Sediment Quality Guidelines".

The samples with grain size distribution of more than 50% silt and clay
consistently had a total organic carbon (TOC) content higher than the average
TOC content for all 86 Columbia River Estuary samples. TOC measures ranged
from 0.0 mg/g to 74.9 mg/g. The average amount of TOC for sediment samples in
Skipanon Channel and boat basin was 17.75 mg/g compared to the average TOC of
8.9 mg/g for all 86 Columbia River Estuary sites. Measures for volatile
solids in the Skipanon Channel and boat basin ranged from 0.0 to 13.79 percent.

Table 4.7: Metals in the Skipanon Channel with Concentrations Higher than One
Standard Deviation from the Average of all Columbia River Estuary Samples and
Samples Consisting of >50% Silt and Clay

ELEVATED METALS IN SKIPANON CHANNEL
Columbia River Estuary Samples
n=86

METAL AVERAGE STANDARD OF SKIPANON
CONCENTRATION DEVIATION (SD) SAMPLES
IN CRE (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Cd (furnace) .26 .39 8
Cr 19.63 14.13 2
Cu 25.31 16.34 8
Fe 17302.00 12054.00 4
Pb 11.60 6.93 4
Mn 232.70 196.48 1
Hg .07 .09 6
Ni 9.16 10.78 7
Zn 92.08 53.15 9

4-18

Table 4.7, Continued

Columbia River Estuary Samples of >50% Silt and Clay
METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION n=45 STANDARD OF SKIPANON
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) SAMPLES
>50% SILT (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Cd (furnace) .40 .49 8
Cr 22.15 12.90 2
Cu 35.70 10.05 5
Fe 17842.22 12884.45 4
Pb 14.31 7.68 3
Mn 223.18 179.19 1
Hg .09 .07 6
Ni 11.59 11.81 3
Zn 125.83 49.64 5

Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R. Felstul in
"An Evaluation of Oregon Sediment Quality", 1988.

4.5.6. Cathlamet Bay

Felstul examined six samples collected from Cathlamet Bay in 1984 (see Map
4.3). Only one sample consisted of more than 50% silt and clay. All samples
tested had very high levels of chromium, iron, manganese and nickel, exceeding
one standard deviation above average concentrations. Two different samples,
both consisting of mostly sand, had the highest concentrations of manganese and
mercury (900 mg/kg and .72 mg/kg, respectively) of all 86 samples ei@'xamined by
Felstul in the Columbia River Estuary. Mercury exceeded the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality threshold level of .15 mg/kg established in "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" above which additional analysis would be
required for in-water disposal.

Fuhrer (1984) collected three sediment samples from Cathlamet Bay in 1982.
He found all metal concentrations were within one standard deviation of the
average for each metal as determined by Felstul for all 86 Columbia River
Estuary samples except for cadmium. A sample collected at the tip of Tongue
Point had a cadmium (flame) concentration of 10 mg/kg.

Total organic carbon (TOC) content in Cathlamet Bay sediment samples
examined by Felstul ranged from 3.2 to 13.3 mg/g. The average TOC in Cathlamet
Bay, 7.86 mg/g is just under the average 8.9 mg/g for all 86 Columbia River
Estuary samples.

4-19

Table 4.8: Metals in Cathlamet Bay with Concentrations Higher than One
Standard Deviation from the Average of all Columbia River Estuary Samples,
Samples consisting of >50% Silt and Clay, and Samples Consisting of >50% Sand

ELEVATED METALS IN CATHLAMET BAY
Columbia River Estuary Samples
n=86

METAL AVERAGE STANDARD OF CATHLAMET
CONCENTRATION DEVIATION (SD) BAY SAMPLES
IN CRE (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Cr 19.63 14.13 6
Fe 17302.00 12054.00 6
Mn 232.7 196.48 6
Ni 9.16 10.78 6
Hg .07 .09 1

Columbia River Estuary Samples of >50% Silt and Clay
n=45

METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION STANDARD OF CATHLAMET
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) BAY SAMPLES
>50% SILT (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

Mn 223.18 179.19 1

Columbia River Estuary Samples of >50% Sand
n=41

METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION STANDARD OF CATHLAMET
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) BAY SAMPLES
>50% SAND (mglkg) (mglkg) EXCEEDING SD

Cr 16.85 14.88 6
Fe 16709.00 11040.00 6
Mn 243.16 213.37 6
Ni 6.5 8.7 6
Hg .04 .11 1
Zn 55.04 24.46 3

Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R. Felstul in
"An Evaluation of Oregon Sediment Quality", 1988.

4-20

4.5.7. Columbia River Channel

Twenty-nine sites in the Columbia River mainstem channel to RM 18.5, and
one additional site at RM 32.7, were sampled and analyzed by Felstul (1988)(see
Maps 4.1 - 4.4). Twenty-five samples were collected in 1986, two each in 1980
and 1984. Only eight samples consisted of more than 50% silt and clay. Seven
samples consisted of sediments in which over 50% were coarser than fine to
medium sand.

Two 1984 sediment samples from RM 12.5 consistently showed high concen-
trations of iron, manganese, chromium and nickel. Only one sample, consisting
of mostly sand from RM 5.5, had an elevated concentration of copper, 91 mg/kg,
the highest concentration of all 86 Columbia River Estuary samples analyzed.
This concentration exceeded the threshold level of 50 mg/kg established by
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Cadmium (furnace) concentrations
in eight samples taken between RM .5 and 16.5 exceeded one standard deviation
of the metal for Columbia River Estuary sediments consisting of >50% sand, but
remained within one standard deviation for the metal combining all 86 Columbia
River Estuary samples. Elevated concentrations for arsenic were also-detected
in eight samples between RM 5.5 and 16.5. Three of these s"ples exceeded one
standard deviation for silt samples and four samples exceeded one standard
deviation for sand samples. However they were well under the threshold level
of 40 mg/kg established by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Manganese concentrations greater than one standard deviation of the metal for
sediments of mostly silts were detected in four samples between RM 10.5 and
18.5.

Fuhrer (1984) examined seven additional sediment samples from the Columbia
River collected in August of 1982. He found that soft digestion procedures on
bulk-samples yielded concentrations similar to Felstul's estuary-wide averages
for most metals.

Table 4.9: Metals in the Columbia River Mainstem Channel with Concentrations
Higher than One Standard Deviation from the Average of all Columbia River
Estuary Samples; Samples Consisting of >50% Silt and Clays; and, Samples
Consisting of >50% Sand

ELEVATED METALS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER MAINSTEM CHANNEL
Columbia River Estuary Samples
METAL AVERAGE n=86 STANDARD OF CR
CONCENTRATION DEVIATION (SD) CHANNEL SAMPLES
IN CRE (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

As 6.76- 4.78 8
Cr 19.63 14.13 3
Cu 25.31 16.34 1
Fe 17302.00 12054.00 2
Ni 9.16 10.78 2
Pb 11.60 6.93 1
Mn 232.70 196.48 6

4-21

Table 4.9 Continued

Columbia River Estuary Samples of >50% Silt and Clay
n=45

METAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION STANDARD OF CR
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) CHANNEL SAMPLES
>50% SILT (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

As 8.44 4.66 3
Cr 22.15 12.90 2
Fe 17842.22 12884.45 1
Ni 11.59 11.811 1
Pb 14.31 7.68 1
Mn 223.18 179.19 4

Columbia-River Estuary Samples of >50% Sand
n=41

METAL AVERAGE STANDARD OF CR
FOR CRE SAMPLES DEVIATION (SD) CHANNEL SAMPLES
>50% SAND (mg/kg) (mg/kg) EXCEEDING SD

As 4.92 4.19 5
Cd (furn) .11 .11 8
Cr 16.85 14.88 1
Cu. 13.9 14.17 1
Fe 16709.76 11040.83 1
Ni 6.5 8.77 1
Pb 8.62 4.37 5
Mn 243.16 213.37 1

Source: Compiled from Oregon estuarine database used by David R. Felstul in
"An Evaluationof Oregon Sediment Quality", 1988.

Total organic carbon content of sediments from the Columbia River
Mainstem Channel ranged from 0 mg/g to 23 mg/g. The average TOC for the
Columbia River Channel, 5.47 mg/g, was under the average 8.9 mg/g for all 86
Columbia River Estuary samples. The percentage of volatile solids in Columbia
River Mainstem Channel samples ranged from 0 to 4.3 percent.

4.5.8. Port of Astoria Docks

In 1988, the Port of Astoria contracted with Farr, Friedman and Bruya,
Inc. to analyze toxicity of sediment samples at the port slips in preparation
for dredging and disposing of this material. Bulk sediment analysis was
performed on two samples from Slip One. One sample was actually a composite
sample of three different sample sites. All samples consisted of fine grained
"muddy" sediments.

The samples had very high concentrations of arsenic, 55.6 and 63.8 mg/kg
compared to the average of 6.76 mg/kg reported for 86 Columbia River Estuary

4-22

samples by Felstul. These concentrations also exceed the threshold level (40
mg/kg) established by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in the "Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines" at which additional analysis is required
for in-water disposal. Copper, lead, mercury and zinc concentrations were also
higher than Felstul's estuary-wide averages.

Bulk sediment analysis by Coffey Laboratories in 1987 of seven samples at
the Port of Astoria Docks only showed lead in elevated contamination levels,
the highest concentration being 95,mg/kg. This exceeds the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality threshold level of 40 mg/kg of lead.

Fuhrer and Rinella (1983) collected nine samples from the Port of
Astoria's docks in 1980. Eight of those samples were dissolved in native water
and elutriates. One sample was analyzed by bulk sediment analysis. Three of
the elutriate samples had concentrations of iron over 2,000 Ug/L, the highest
concentration being 4300 Ug/L. Five of the elutriate samples had
concentrations of manganese between 5,500 Ug/L and 10,000 Ug/L. The bottom
material sample had only one heavy metal (nickel) exceeding one standard
deviation as determined by.-Felstul. Nickel was found to be at 20 mg/kg.

Fuhrer (1986) again examined two sediment samples collected in 1983 from
between piers 1 and 2 at the Port of Astoria docks. Bulk analysis yielded
metal concentrations similar to the averages determined by Felstul for 86
Columbia River Estuary samples.

4.5.9. Tongue Point

In 1988, Battelle/Marine Sciences laboratory conducted solid-phase
bioassays to provide technical data to the US Army Corps of Engineers for
evaluation of sediments at Tongue Point. The Oregon Department of Economic
Development was seeking to develop the site for commercial shipping. Samples
were collected and analyzed from stations at the ends of piers thrb-e through
eight at North Tongue Point. The metal concentrations found in Tongue Point
sediments were compared to concent'rations in shale and basalt soils world wide,
with sediments from the disposal site, and to a Columbia River Estuary refer-
ence point. Battelle found that the metal concentrations with the exception
of zinc and cadmium were average or comparable to concentrations of metals
found in shale soils world wide. However, when compared to basalt soils world
wide, metals were generally at elevated levels.

The results from Battelle's study were similar to Felstul's (1988)
findings for Columbia River mainstem and tributary sediment (see Table 4.10).
Concentrations of cadmium, lead, zinc and nickel sampled by Battelle exceeded
by more than one standard deviation of the average concentration for all
samples analyzed by Felstul in the Columbia River Estuary, Battelle's results
also confirmed in part a-previous analysis of sediments in the same area
conducted one year earlier in 1987 by Enviro Science. Enviro Science reported
elevated concentrations oflead and cadmium at the ends of the piers.

4-23

Table 4.10: Average Concentrations of Metals at North Tongue Point (Solid
Phase Bioassay) I I

Metal End of Piers End of Piers CRE SD
3, 4 and 5 6, 7 and 8 Average
(Battelle) (Enviro) (Battelle) (Enviro) (Felstul)
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

As 5.43 5.18 6.76 4.78
Cd 1.16* .87* 1.21* .69* .26 .39
Cr .25.00 15.90 22.80 14.60 19.63 14.13
CU 30.80 22.20 35.10 19.50 25.31 16.34
Hg .143 16 .07 .09
Ni 23.00 22 40* 9.16 10.78
Pb 18.38 16.70 20*52* 13.30 11.60 6.93
Zn 134.60 111.00 161.80* 101.10 92.08 53.15

indicates exceeds one standard deviation as determined by Felstul's
(1988) report

Source: Compiled from the Oregon estuarine database used by David R. Felstul
in "An Evaluation of Oregon Sediment Evaluation" 1988; Data collected by
Enviro Science, Inc., "Tongue Point Project: Sediment Evaluation," 1987; Data
collected by Battelle, Confirmatory Chemical Analyses and Solid Phase
Bioassays on Sediment from the Columbia River Estuary at Tongue Point, Oregon,
1988.

4.5.10. Other Sediment Samples

Only one bottom material sample from the Hammond area, collected in 1987,
was included in Felstul's database. The sample sediment composition was over
70% silt and clay. The sample had elevated concentrations of copper (43.1
mg/kg) and cadmium (furnace)(.94 mg/kg), exceeding one standard deviation of
the metal for all 86 Columbia River Estuary samples analyzed.

The one bottom material sample collected near Tansy Point in 1980 and
analyzed by Felstul consisted of sediments approximately 70% coarser than
medium to fine sands. The metals tested had concentrations below or similar to
the average concentrations for all Columbia River Estuary samples.

Fuhrer and Rinella (1983) examined one bottom material sample collected in
1980 from Youngs Bay at the confluence at Columbia River mile 12.0. The sample
was analyzed using a two-step extraction procedure on bulk samples. They
reported elevated levels of cadmium, copper and nickel. The copper
concentration was 180 mg/kg, substantially exceeding amounts of copper in
sediments examined by Felstul and exceeding the threshold value of 50 mg/kg
established by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Fuhrer and Rinella (1983) examined one bottom material sample from
Skamokawa Creek. Bulk sediment analysis yielded high levels of manganese (400
mg/kg) and nickel (30 mg/kg).

4-24

4.1, REVIEW OF EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY ASSESSMENT METHODS

Assessing sediment quality of a site is a critical step before deciding
the level of regulatory or managerial action needed to minimize environmental
impacts. At the very minimum, sediment evaluation should determine the
existing contaminants and the potential for the sediments, if contaminated, to
cause adverse environmental impacts. To be able to determine the potential
for adverse effects however, consistent standards and criteria for sediment
quality testing specific to the Columbia River Estuary must be established.
Uniform testing methods and threshold concentration levels of contaminants
above which more complex sediment analysis would be required, are vitally
important components of a regional sediment quality plan appropriate
specifically for the Columbia River Estuary.

Through the National Estuary Program, sediment quality testing methods
and protocols were developed for the Puget Sound area. The Puget Sound
Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) program was designed to specifically address
the circumstances and sediment contamination problems in Puget Sound. These
same guidelines are probably not appropriate for the Columbia River Estuary
because of differences in environmental conditions between Puget Sound and the
Columbia River Estuary (e.g., Columbia River's dynamic hydraulic regime
involving large tidal fluctuations and high seasonal fluvial flow). PSDDA
guidelines were formed for the more polluted waters of Puget Sound and are
probably not restrictive enough to adequately protect Oregon estuaries from
potential degradation (Felstul 1988). Oregon sediments, excepting Portland
harbor, should pass PSDDA standards. There are also differences in regulatory
approaches, management of resources and accepted contamination levels between
Oregon and Washington state agencies. This is further indication of the need
for a cohesive regional sediment quality plan.

Ten methods for assessing sediment quality are summarily reviqWed here.
Six methods rely more heavily on field based data while the remaining rely on
laboratory analysis. The PSDDA program uses the apparent effects threshold
(AET) approach to establish sediment quality values for Puget Sound and will
be reviewed first.

4.6.1. Apparent Effects Threshold (AET)

The AET approach attempts to determine the concentration of contaminants
in sediments above which statistically significant biological effects would
always be expected to occur (PTI Environmental Services, 1989). AET uses data
from sediment chemistry, benthic infaunal effects and sediment bioassays to
determine a single quantitative index identifying the threshold concentration
level.

The AET approach identifies the concentration of contaminants in sedi-
ments established as contaminated, but does not show cause-effect relation-
ships between contaminants and effects. The AET approach requires extensive
data collection for chemical variables as well as biological indicators.

4-25

4.6.2. Field Bioassay

This approach exposes test organisms to field collected sediment for the
purposes of comparing mortality or sublethal effects to effects observed from
using reference sediments. The combined effect of all contaminants in the
sediments is measured as a mixture. This is an advantage in one sense in that
chemical data is not required to identify a sediment as being contaminated and
adversely impacted; however, the bioassay only measures the combined effect,
providing no chemical characterization or delineation. This approach is
useful in identifying problem sediments and developing dose-response relation-
ships, but another approach would be required to determine chemical-specific
sediment quality values.

4.6.3. Screening Level Concentration Approach (SLC)

This approach correlates the presence of a specific benthic species in
field samples to sediment concentrations of a specific contaminant. The SLC
is determined as the sediment contaminant concentration in which 95% of the
benthic species enumerated for testing were able to survive. This method has
extensive data requirements: 20 testing stations and 10 enumerated taxa, for
each calculation, sampling stations arranged to cover a wide range of contami-
nant concentrations and taxa identified to genus level. Given a large data-
base, this approach provides a conservative estimate of the highest organic-
carbon-normalized concentrations of contaminants that can be tolerated by 95%
of the benthic influna, which data can also be extrapolated to other areas.

4.6.4. Sediment Quality Triad

The sediment quality triad testing method involves analyzing relation-
ships between sediment concentrations of chemical contaminants, sediment
bioassay end points (toxicity) and in situ (infauna) studies. This approach
allows a variety of bioassay species and endpoints, including species
lethality, alteration in respiration rate, development abnormalities and
mutagenicity and cytotoxicity, to be used. Common in situ measurements used
in this approach involve community structure expressed.as biomass, total abun-
dance, species richness, diversity or taxa/taxa ratios (Battelle, 1988).
Combining analysis of in situ studies with chemical bioassays that use a
variety of end points, different contaminants and various community structure
measures, provides an assessment of sediment quality which focuses on the
extent of biological damage contributed by chemical contamination. The
biological effects associated with sediment contamination may be differen-
tiated from naturally caused or laboratory induced effects.

This approach is extremely data intensive. The data for chemical analy-
sis, bioassays and in situ effects, although from the same geographical area,
may not be from the same sample or station. Sediment quality values also
include subjective determinations rather than solely statistical criteria.

4.6.5. Reference Area Approach

The reference area approach compares chemical concentrations at a given
site to the concentration levels at a previously chosen reference site. The
reference area may be a pristine or relatively undisturbed area or an area with
known low levels of contaminants and adverse biological impacts. Often,

4-26

comparisons are made using historical data for reference areas. A problem
with this approach is the subjectivity inherent in-arbitrarily choosing the
reference site. The chemical concentrations at the reference area are used to
derive sediment quality values of the project site, whether the concentration
levels are below or above the level at which adverse biological effects occur.
Only chemical concentration levels are compared; no consideration is given to
the sensitivity of organisms to various contaminants. This approach estab-
lishes regional comparisons specific to sample sites. The values obtained
from reference area analysis would not be applicable to other areas.

4.6.6. Infauna Community Structures

A sediment quality assessment based on either an indicator organism or on
infauna community structure is sometimes used to qualify changes of an eco-
system due to contaminants or other stress related factors, These approaches
require precise taxonomic identification and should be used in conjunction
with chemical analysis for a larger picture of causes and effects.

Indicator organisms are--used to measure biotic indices on the premise
that certain organisms are more sensitive or tolerant than others to par-
ticular metals, organics, or pesticides. Such a measure is restricted to
narrow geographical areas because indicator organisms vary geographically.
There are other factors in addition to levels of contaminants that can alter
the value of the indice. Consideration must be given to organism movement,
seasonal variations and patchiness.

The community structure approach based on a diversity indice looks at the
number of species in a community as well as the number of individuals within
each species. This approach is criticized however, because summarizing the
community structure in only one parameter reduces the information available of
overall community patterns. Measuring similar indices of a community struc-
ture compares joint species present or the proportional abundance of species.
These measurements may be useful in identifying gaps caused by contaminants in
communities of varying distances from pollutant sources.

4.6.7. Water Quality Criteria Approach

Concentrations of contaminants in interstitial water are compared with
EPA water quality criteria. Comparisons are made relying on existing EPA
toxicological database. Biological effects are not measured in this approach
nor are the effects of chemical mixtures. Comparisons are made chemical-by-
chemical with an additional limitation that EPA standards have been
developed for only 10 metals and 9 organic chemicals (PTI Environmental
Services, 1989). There are also no established procedures for collecting,
analyzing and validating water samples.

4.6.8. Equilibrium Partitioning Approach (Sediment-Water)

This approach describes the equilibrium partitioning of a contaminant
between sedimentary organic matter and interstitial water with little
consideration or reliance on other physical or chemical factors. The sediment
concentration, normalized to organic carbon content and corresponding with
interstitial water concentration equivalent to EPA water quality criterion for

4-27

the contami nant, is the sediment quality value for the contaminant. (Battelle
Ocean Sciences 1988).

This method is advantageous in that it uses existing EPA water quality
criteria database. It does not require the collection of biological data
however, this raises uncertainties regarding the application of data for water
column toxicity tests to organisms that may ingest sediments. This approach
also ignores the effects of chemical mixtures and assumes that there is always
equilibrium at the sediment water interface.

4.6.9. Spiked Sediment Bioassay

This approach consists of developing dose-response relationships by
exposing an indicator organism to sediments containing known level of contami-
nants. This approach can be used to determine cause-effect relationships
between a specific chemical or mixture and biological responses. The results
are laboratory findings and must be extrapolated to reflect field conditions.

4.6.10. Army Corps of Engineers Three Tiered Approach

The tiered sediment quality approach provides a systematic procedure for
conducting appropriate tests specific to the proposed action. This systematic
approach establishes a project-specific design where physical, chemical and
biological tests are conducted only as the need is demanded by preceding tier
test results. The tiered approach, as implemented by the US Army Corps of
Engineers will study and analyze sediment from each project approximately
every five years. Where elevated levels of contaminated sediments are found
and handled, testing will occur more frequently. For any dredge project,
available information necessary for predicting sediment quality (including
contaminant sources, historic uses, natural mineral deposits and rock charac-
teristics) is collected, reviewed and environmental concerns are identified.
Based on this information one or more tiers are entered.

Tier one analyzes basic physical/chemical properties of the sediments.
Criteria regarding grain size distribution, organic content, oil and grease
levels and the available information. If one or more of these criteria is
exceeded or in the case of the available information, lacking, then tier two
testing is required.

Tier two investigates chemical contaminant levels for total organic
carbon, heavy metalsi pesticides, PCB's, and additional compounds as the need
is indicated. If detrimental effects on biota could be expected to occur,
tier three is entered.

Tier three determines biological effects by testing using acute toxicity
bioassays, bioacculumation tests and chronic effects tests.

4-28

4.7. CONCLUSION AND SUMKARY

Dredging and dredged material disposal can recirculate contaminants that
have settled out in the sediments. Thus the testing of this material is an
3,Mportant data gathering step that provides a portion of the information
necessary for making management decisions concerning proper dredging and
disposal methods.

The peripheral bays of the Columbia River Estuary retain fine grained
sediments. Certain metals and contaminants are often associated with these
finer particles. Felstul, in his examination of 89 Columbia River Estuary
sediment samples found that as his sample site narrowed geographically and
focused on a particular estuarine subarea,- higher levels of contaminants and
fine grained particles improved.

Felstul examined 86 bottom material samples. He found that elevated
levels of zinc (contamination levels exceeding one standard deviation of all 86
Columbia River Estuary samples) were found in Baker Bay, Chinook Channel,
Skipanon Channel and boat basin, and Cathlamet Bay and the mainstem Columbia
River; mercury was found in high levels in Baker Bay, Ilwaco Channel, Skipanon
Channel and boat basin and Cathlamet Bay; elevated levels of lead was found in
Baker Bay, Chinook Channel, Skipanon Channel and boat basin and the mainstem
Columbia River; only Chinook Channel and mainstem Columbia River had high
levels of arsenic; cadmium (furnace) was found in high levels in Chinook
Channel, Skipanon Channel and boat basin and the mainstem Columbia River; and,
elevated levels of manganese, iron and chromium were found in Skipanon Channel
and boat basin, Cathlamet Bay and the mainstem Columbia River.

Each of these subareas differ in contaminants found and levels of
contaminants as well as in dredging and requirements. These subareas also may
be found in different jurisdictions under varying state and local regulation
authority, However, impacts from recirculation contaminants affect the estuary
as a whole. This necessitates the need for a uniform sediment quality
assessment method or testing protocols throughout the estuary.

4-29

5. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

5.1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTENT

This chapter reviews federal, state and local regulation of dredging and
dredged material disposal. The principal goals of this chapter are to describe
these programs' effect on sediment quality management and describe a unified
method for meeting sediment quality regulatory requirements. The different
sediment quality regulatory programs in effect on the Columbia River Estuary
are relatively complex, both procedurally and substantively. Significant
differences exist between the manner in which the various programs address
Columbia River Estuary sediment quality. The common theme among these programs
is their goal of assuring that dredging is conducted in a way that minimizes
damage to the aquatic environment.

The principal federal regulations affecting sediment quality are examined
in Subsection 5.2. The 1987 Water Quality Act is the most significant of the
federal programs. Other federal components of the sediment quality regulatory
framework are the Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10); the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act; Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act; Endangered Species Act; National Environmental
Policy Act; and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Programs under these federal
laws either directly or indirectly address sediment quality in the Columbia
River Estuary.

Subsection 5.3. examines state-level programs in Washington that affect
dredging and disposal decisions. The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE)
implements state regulations promulgated under Section 303 of the-Tederal Water
Quality Act. These regulations are chiefly implemented through state water
quality certifications issued for Federal Section 404 or Section 10 permits.
The Washington Hydraulics Project Act (HPA) also affects dredging and dredged
material disposal decision-making. These programs and others (such as the
State Environmental Policy Act, the Shorelines Management Act, and proprietary
regulation of submerged lands) are reviewed in Subsection 5.3.

Oregon sediment quality programs are examined in Subsection 5.4. Like
Washington, Oregon administers state water quality regulations under Section
303 of the federal Water Quality Act. These water quality programs are managed
by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). The state's Fill and
Removal Law, administered by the Oregon Division of State Lands, is also
applicable to sediment quality in the Columbia River Estuary. These two state
programs, along with others germane to sediment quality, are examined in
Subsection 5.4.

City and County governments along the Columbia River Estuary administer
programs that affect dredging, dredged material disposal and sediment quality.
These local requirements are the product of state programs under the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Three counties and five cities administer
locally developed Shoreline Management Master Programs (Washington) and
Comprehensive Plans (Oregon) that address dredging and dredged material
disposal. They are described in Subsection 5.5.

5-1

Subsection 5.6. summarizes the key components of local, state and federal
regulatory programs. The major substantive and procedural differences between
the programs are identified, as well as their effects on dredging, dredged
material disposal, and sediment quality in the Columbia River Estuary. Also
described is a unified method for meeting the different program requirements.

5-2

5.2. FEDERAL REGULATIONS

The major federal-regulations and programs affecting dredging, dredged
material disposal, and sediment quality in the Columbia River Estuary are
examined in this subsection. Programs under the following federal laws are
applicable:

1987 Water Quality Act
Rivers and Harbors Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
Ocean Dumping Act
Endangered Species Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Coastal Zone Management Act.-
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

This subsection also deisc-ribes how the different federal programs are
administered through the Corps of Engineers Section 10/Section 404 permit
process.

The legal and philosophical underpinnings of federal regulatory
intervention in dredging and dredged material disposal are relatively simple.
The waters of the Columbia River belong to the United States: protection of
these waters from degradation is, therefore, a federal concern. Federal
agencies such as U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service have stewardship responsibilities over living resources in the Columbia
River Estuary. The federally maintained navigation channel is essential for
interstate as well as international commerce: an obvious federal concern. The
federal government also has a long history of involvement in Columbia River
dredging. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been, and continues.to be, the
sponsor of most dredging on the River. These factors cumulatively support a
strong federal role in dredging and dredged material disposal regulation.

5.2.1. Water Quality Act

Federal legislation known as the 1987 Water Quality Act is actually a
package of amendments to the Clean Water Act of 1977, which was itself an
amendment of the original Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. Sections 404
and 401 of the Water Quality Act provide for public review of and comment on
dredging and dredged material disposal projects, as well as other in-water
activities. Section 404 is implemented through a permit process administered
by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Section 401 of the Water Quality Act
ensures that activities under federal permits (such as the Section 404 permits)
do not violate state or federal water quality regulations. Section 401 is
administered by the states through a certification process that, in the case of
dredging and disposal, i@; triggered through the Section 404 permit process.
Section 304 requires the development of water quality standards. These
standards are applicable for evaluating in-water disposal.

5-3

The Section 404 permit process and the Section 401'water quality certif-
ication are major components of the sediment quality regulatory framework. For
this reason they are described in some detail in this subsection.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is titled "Permits for Dredged or Fill
Material". The Section 404 permit process is administered by the US Army
Corps of Engineers. All Section 404 permits on the Oregon side of the Columbia
River Estuary are managed by the Corps' Portland District office. The Portland
District also manages Section 404 permits on the Washington side of the
estuary when a port district is involved. Other Washington side permits on
the Columbia River Estuary are administered through the Corps' Seattle
District office.

Section 404 permits are required for all discharges of dredged material
into waters of the United States. The Columbia River Estuary and all tribu-
taries to the head of tide are waters of the Unites States. Most non-tidal
wetlands along the Columbia River Estuary shoreline are also waters of the
United States and subject to'the Section 404 permit program.

In-water disposal of contaminated or potentially contaminated sediment
raises a number of water quality concerns. These concerns, discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3, include turbidity, chemical contamination, and degradation of
aquatic ecosystems. These are normally addressed during review of a Section
404 permit primarily through the Section 401 water quality certification. The
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Washington Department of
Ecology share Section 401 water quality certification responsibilities on the
Columbia River Estuary. The section 401 process certifies that the applicable
state,water quality standards will not be violated by the dredging or disposal
of contaminated sediments. These state water quality standards are described
in subsections 5.3 and 5.4. Many dredging.and disposal projects in--the
Columbia River Estuary will affect water in both states. In these cases, water
quality certification should be-obtained from both Oregon and Washington. This
is rarely done: more typically, only the state where the dredging or disposal
will actually occurs issues a Section 401 certification. Federal agencies are
also involved reviewing water quality issues, particularly the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Disposal of contaminated or potentially contaminated sediment at an
upland site is not covered by the Section 404 permit process, yet disposal site
runoff could have unwanted impacts on estuarine water quality and, possibly,
violate state water quality standards. The Section 401 certification process
does not come into play for non-404 dredging operations.

Section 401 water quality certifications can be denied for lack of
sufficient data, as well as when disposal would violate water quality
standards. The need for decision-making information for the Section 401
certification process is the impetus for most of the project-specific sediment
testing in the Columbia River Estuary and elsewhere. Providing sufficient data
for state water quality certification may, under some circumstances, be one of
the most significant and expensive obstacles for a permit applicant to
overcome. Chemical analysis of sediments to be dredged, biological
investigations on the test sediments, pre-dredging surveys of the disposal
site, and post disposal monitoring may all be required of a Section 404 permit
applicant.

5-4

Section 404 permits are circulated by the Corps for public comment and
resource agency input. The Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine
Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,- U.S. Coast Guard and other
interested federal agencies routinely comment on these public notices. In
addition, state and local agencies receive public notices of Section 404
permits and comment to the Corps on them. The Corps reviews the public
comments and makes a decision to either:

approve the proposal as submitted;

approve the proposal with special conditions to meet resource agency or
public concerns;

request additional information from the applicant addressing concerns
raised by commenting agencies and citizens; or

deny'the permit.

Requesting additional information from the applicant will often require
that the public notice be recirculated. A schematic representation of the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit process is shown in Figure 5.1.

5-5

Figure 5.1 Section 404 Permit Process

inwater disposal project

1preapplication meeting -1@7i7tvl
L - _resource agency staff

sediment permit application submittZd to
information Corps Portland.or Seattle c ffice

general Corps staff
or letter preliminary review
permit

public
input

resource normal section 404
agency review process-
input public notice*

sect'on
401
cert.
Corps
evaluation

W %, W
den approval w/ additional information
conditions requested from applicant

final
permit

5-6

5.2.2. Rivers and Harbors Act

The 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act ensures that navigable waters are not
obstructed. The Act applies to dredging and dredged material disposal, in
addition to other actions in, over or affecting navigable waters. The Columbia
River Estuary is a navigable waterway, so the Act is applicable. Permits under
Section 10 of the Act are reviewed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in a
manner similar to Section 404 permits described above. The Rivers and Harbors
Act does not directly address water quality or contaminated sediment. However,
review of Section 10 permits may reveal potential water quality or sediment
quality concerns that can be addressed under other regulatory programs.

5.2.3. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

This federal legislation is implemented by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (CUSFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and ensures that
project impacts on fish and wildlife resources are considered in the permit
decision-making process. The Act's requirements are typically fulfilled
through a report prepared by USFWS or NMFS describing affected fish and
wildlife resources, the project's potential impact on those resources, and
recommended mitigation measures. The report is used, for example, by the US
Army Corps of Engineers in its decision-making process on Section 404 and
Section 10 permits.

For most Columbia River Estuary projects, Coordination Act reports are
prepared by the USFWS' Portland Field Office. For a project involving dredging
or disposal of contaminated or potentially contaminated sediments, a
Coordination Act report would address the likely affects of the action on
aquatic organisms, and recommend ways of reducing negative impacts.,, These
recommendations might include changes in the proposed dredging methods and
timing, restrictions on disposal locations and timing, or similar
recommendations. These recommendations may become conditions of the Section
404 or Section 10 permit. Physical, chemical or biological data on the dredged
material may be evaluated by USFWA or NMFS in the course of preparing a
Coordination Act report.

5.2.4. Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act is only peripherally related
to in-water dredged material disposal. The Act give the National Marine
Fisheries Service the responsibility of protecting fisheries resources. NMFS
reviews in-water disposal proposals for their potential impact on fisheries
resources, and comments to the permitting agency.

5.2.5. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act

This act addresses, among other things, ocean disposal of dredged ma-
terial. There are four designated ocean dredged material sites offshore of
the Columbia River Estuary. These are referred to as Disposal Areas A, B, E
and F, and are located immediately outside of the river mouth (see Map 2.1).
Ocean disposal of dredged material is generally subject to more intense
scrutiny than in-water disposal in the estuary. Ocean dredged material

5-7

disposal involves the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a direct
regulatory role. Section 103 of the Act requires that all ocean dredged
material disposal be evaluated under EPA rules.

5.2.6. Endangered Species Act

This federal law does not directly affect contaminated sediments, but can
come into play because of the presence of endangered or threatened species in
the Columbia River Estuary. The endangered Peregrine falcon migrates through
the area. Threatened northern bald eagles are present in the estuary area both
as permanent and seasonal residents. Dredging and disposal of contaminated
sediment can result in toxins entering the food chain and affecting organisms
protected by the Endangered Species Act. Section 7 of the Act establishes a
consultation process that is often employed in the Columbia River Estuary.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assumes a special role during review of
Section 404 permit if an endangered specie is present. The Act requires that
activities that adversely affect threatened species be avoided, or if
unavoidable, be fully mitigated.

5.2.7. National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is applicable to major
federal actions that have significant adverse environmental impacts. This can
include water quality impacts caused by dredging or disposal of contaminated
sediment. No project in the Columbia River Estuary to date has resulted in
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA. The environmental
assessment, prepared under NEPA, results in either preparation of,an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).

Two key phrases in NEPA are noted here in connection with Columbia River
Estuary sediment quality. NEPA applies only to major activities: many
dredging and disposal projects are relatively minor.in nature, and would not
require NEPA review. NEPA also is applicable only to federal actions.
Although there is some non-federal dredging in the Columbia River Estuary, this
is covered by NEPA because the federal permits (under Section 404 or Section
10) are considered federal activities. The end result is that NEPA covers
almost all dredging in the Columbia River Estuary, but rarely goes beyond the
environmental assessment step.

5.2.8. Coastal Zone Management Act

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) resulted in the adoption of
Washington's Shorelines Management Act and Oregon's Coastal Land Use Planning
Goals. The key elements of this act for dredging and disposal of contaminated
or potentially contaminated sediment are the local plans, described under
Section 5.5. Shoreline Management Master Programs in Washington and
Comprehensive Plans in Oregon are the local government expression of the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

5-8

5.3. STATE REGULATIONS - WASHINGTON

The principal Washington state regulations and programs affecting
dredging, dredged material disposal, and sediment quality in the Columbia River
Estuary are examined in this subsection. The following programs and laws are
briefly examined.

Puget Sound Water Quality Programs
State Hydraulic code
Shoreline Management Act
State Environmental Policy Act

5.3.1. Puget Sound Water Quality'Programs

The Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) has developed a detailed
regulatory program addressing Puget Sound sediment quality. The PSDDA program
is not applicable to the Columbia River Estuary, or to any other waterbody
except Puget Sound. However, the PSDDA program follows the general framework
used elsewhere (a tiered approach to sediment evaluation), and relies on
existing permit programs that also pertain to the Columbia River Estuary
(Section 404, Hydraulics Permit, Shorelines Permit). Some of the PSDDA
guidelines are described in Chapter 3. This section describes the PSDDA
program's impact on Columbia River Estuary sediment evaluation.

The PSDDA program and related research and regulatory efforts are needed
in Puget Sound to address several water and sediment quality problems in the
Sound. Although it would be premature to judge PSDDA program's effectiveness
in addressing Puget Sound water and sediment contamination, their affect on
existing regulatory program operation is clear: clear and objective standards
for evaluating Puget Sound sediment quality exist, while other water bodies are
managed without such standards. Many of the federal and Washington state
regulatory staff assigned to review Columbia River Estuary dredging and
disposal permits are familiar with the PSDDA standards, and will refer to the
PSDDA guidelines when reviewing Columbia River Estuary sediment data. Contract
laboratories that handle sediment testing in the northwest are familiar with
the sediment and biological testing protocols developed under PSDDA, and the
list of target chemicals examined in Puget Sound sediment and bioaccumulation
tests. For these reasons, PSDDA's influence extends well beyond Puget Sound,
and the program affects sediment evaluation in the Columbia River Estuary.

5.3.2. Hydraulics Project Approval

The State Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100) establishes a permit process
designed to assure that the state's fisheries resources are protected from
potentially harmful in-water construction-related activities. Dredging and in-
water dredged material disposal are subject to the Hydraulic Code's permit
process, called the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). The Washington
Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife share administration of the program
statewide, but the Department of Fisheries is usually the lead agency for HPA
permits for in-water disposal on the Columbia. The HPA permit process usually
runs simultaneously with the Corps Section 404 permit process. The HPA permit
is closely coordinated with the State Environmental Policy Act process (see
subsection 5.3.4.).

5-9

5.3.3. Shoreline Management Act

Washington's Shoreline Management Act (SMA) establishes a statewide
framework for local Shoreline Master Programs everywhere-in Washington.
Pacific County, Wahkiakum County, Ilwaco and Cathlamet in the Columbia River
Estuary area administer their own Shoreline Master Programs under the SMA.
These are described in more detail in Section 5.5. At the state level, the SMA
gives the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) authority to veto local
permits issued under their Master Programs. DOE could use this permit veto
authority on projects that, in their opinion, are mistakenly approved at the
local level.

5.3.4. State Environmental Policy Act

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is a state-level
version of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA: see Section 5.2.7.).
SEPA establishes a process of environmental review. Most in-water disposal of
dredged material will probably be covered under SEPA. The SEPA review process
is diagramed in Figure 5.2. An "environmental checklist" is prepared for the
project. This is basically an inventory of the project's anticipated
environmental impacts on several different resources, including aquatic
resources. The checklist is reviewed by the lead agency, which can be.a local
government or a state agency, and a threshold determination is made based on
the checklist. If the threshold determination is that the project will have no
probable significant adverse impacts, a determination of non-significance (DNS)
is made, ending the SEPA process. If the threshold determination is that there
are probable significant adverse impacts, an environmental impact statement is
prepared. This is relatively thorough process, involving extensive
opportunities for public involvement and a wide-ranging review of environmental
impacts.

5.3.5. Water Quality Program Washington Department of Ecology

The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) is-the state's water quality
agency, and is responsible for administering state water quality standards in
the Columbia River Estuary and elsewhere in Washington. This responsibility
includes issuing the state water quality certification needed for approval of
federal Section 404 permits (see Section 5.2.1). All in-water disposal
proposals affecting the Washington side of the Columbia River Estuary will
require certification. Because the aquatic environment in the Columbia River
Estuary is so dynamic, most in-water disposal in the Columbia River Estuary
will affect both Oregon and Washington. It is reasonable to assume that both
Washington and Oregon must approve water quality certifications for a Section
404 permit in the Columbia River Estuary. This has not occurred, though WDOE
will comment on an Oregon permit on the Columbia River if it believes that
Washington waters might be*threatened.

WDOE follows their publication Guidelines for Issuing Water Quality
Certifications for Dredging and Disc@arge or Dredged Material Disposal
(Washington Department of Ecology, 1982). Although somewhat dated, these
guidelines provide a good general overview of the water quality certification
process in Washington. Figure 5.3 is a diagram of the process.

5-10

Figure 1.2, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review Process

:ATION RECEIVED;
LATION DEVELOPED

[WORMATION INCOMPLETE; RETI REVIEW FOR COMPLETENES PROJECT EXEMPT; SEPA SATISFIED
TO APPLICANT FOR TION
0
To AF COMPLE AND EXEMPTION TO SEPA

NOT LEAD AGENCY; SEND COPY OF
APPLICATION TO LEAD AGENCY <- INE_L--AD AGENC
WITH COVER LETTER
LEAD AGENCY; APPLICANT COMPLETES ENVIRONMENTALI
CHECKLIST WITH/WITHOUT AGENCY ASSISTANCE

,'HECKLIST

IF RESPONSE TO "REQUEST FOR EARLY
NOTICE" INDICATES SIGNIFICANT
DETERMINATION POSSIBLE, APPLICANT
MAY ALTER PROPOSAL TO ADD
MITIGATING MEASURES IF REQUESTED, RESPOND TO
TO REQUEST FOP EARLY NOTICE]
T-
KE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
T-

THERE ARE PROBABLE SIGNIFI IF THERE ARE NO PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACTS ADVERSE IMPACTS, ISSUE DETERMINATION
OF NONSIGNIFICANCE

ISSUE DETERMINATION OF I
SIGNIFICANCE/SCOPING NOTICE
PROPOSAL DOES NOT INVOLVE PROPOSAL DOES INVOLVE
ANOTHER AGENCY WITH ANOTHER AGENCY WITH
JURISDICTION, "MITIGATED" JURISDICTION, "MITIGATED"
DNS OR A DNS ISSUED AFTER DNS, OR A DNS ISSUED
CIRCULATE DS/SCOPING NOTICE; DS WITHDRAWN AFTER DS WITHDRAWN
GIVE "PUBLIC NOTICE" (ALLOW

COMMENT; FOR EXPANDED
PREPARE DRAFT EIS 21 DAYS FOR WRITTEN
SCOPING ALLOW UP TO 30 DAYS) AGENCY DECISION (1) CIRCULATE DNS FOR 15 DAY
COMMENT PERIOD
(2) SEND COPY OF DNS TO
DISTRIBUTE DEIS FOR 30 DAY COMMENT1 ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL
PERIOD; "PUBLIC NOTICE" REQUIRED REVIEW
(3) GIVE "PUBLIC NOTICE" AS
SPECIFIED IN PROCEDURES
REVIEW, EVALUATE ' RESPOND TO F@ECEIVE, EVALUATE COMMENTS
DEIS COMMENTS; PREPARE FINAL EIS.

DISTRIBUTE FEIS] WITHDRAW MODIFY RETAIN
DNS DNS DNS

WAIT 7 DAYS

AGENCY
IDECISION IDAEGEINSCION1
JAGENCY DECISION]
START
PROCESS
OVER
AGAIN

source: Washington Department of Ecology, 1988
5-11

Figure 5.3. Water Quality Certification Process.

SCHEMATIC OF WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROCESS

PUBLIC NOTICE

EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA OR
FAILS TO MEET CRITERIA -0 ;101,JFINED SITE WITH NO MEETS CRITERIA OR NO RUNOFF
RUNOFF TO STATE WATERS

DETERMINE POLLUTANT LEVELS

COMPARE ANALYSIS TO CONSIDERATION OF POINT AND NONPOINT
WOS AND EPA CRITERIA MEETS CRITERIA Po' SOURCES FROM PROJECT; OPERATIONAL
CONTROLS/CONDITIONS; MONITORING AND
REPORTING

DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA

CONSIDER THE DETRIMENTAL
EFFECTS ON FISH AND WILDLIFE DENY CERTIFICATION GRA14T CERTIFICATION
AND HUMAN HEALTH

CALCULATE A DILUTION ZONE DILUTION ZONE NOT ACCEPTABLE
IF.APPROPRIATE

CONSIDERATION OF POINT AND NONPOINT
DILUTION ZONE ACCEPTABLE Nb- SOURCES FROM PROJECT; OPERATIONAL
CONTROLS/CONDITIONS; MONITORING AND
REPORTING

source: Washington Department of Ecology, 1982

5-12

5.3.6. Proprietary Regulation of In-water Disposal

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages state-owned
submerged lands, including most designated in-water disposal sites on the
Washington side of the Columbia River Estuary. DNR's authority is principally
of a proprietary nature, and may not include environmental concerns. The
regulations covering DNR's management of submerged lands for in-water dredged
material disposal are in WAC 332-30-166. The following subsections of the code
are particularly applicable to sediment evaluation:

(3) Application for use of an established site must be for dredged
material that meets the approval of federal and state agencies and for
which there is no practical alternative upland disposal site or beneficial
use such as beach enhancement.

(4) The department (DNR) will only issue authorization for use of the site
after:

(a) The environmental protection agency and department of ecology
notify the department that, in accordance with Sections 404 and 401,
respectively, of the Federal Clean Water Act, the dredged materials
are suitable for in-water disposal and do not appear to create a
threat to human health, welfare, or the environment; and

(b) All necessary federal, state, and local permits are acquired.

5-13

5.4. STATE REGULATIONS - OREGON

The principal Oregon State regulations and programs affecting dredging,
dredged material disposal, and sediment quality in the Columbia River Estuary
are examined in this subsection. The following programs and laws-are briefly
described:

Oregon Fill and Removal Law

Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 16

Water Quality Programs, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Proprietary Regulation.of In-water Disposal

5.4.1. Oregon Fill and Removal-Law

The Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) administers a permit program for
dredging and disposal in Oregon waters and wetlands, including the Columbia
River Estuary. The States's Fill and Removal Law (ORS 541.605 through 541.990)
creates the permit program, which is run in tandem with Portland District
Section 404 permits. Proposed fill and removal permits are circulated for
public notice among the State resource agencies, local governments, and
interested citizens. State agencies, particularly the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Department of Environmental Quality, and Department of Land
Conservation and Development, frequently comment on public notices involving
in-water dredged material disposal. Their suggestions may become conditions on
a permit granted under the Fill and Removal Law.

5.4.2. Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources

Local governments administer plans and ordinances prepared under Statewide
Land Use Planning Goal 16, with the supervision of the Oregon Department of
Land Conservation and Development (ODLCD). These are described in more detail
in subsection 5.5. The actual goals of the Estuarine Resources Goal are:

To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social
values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and

To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate
restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values,
diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries.

The state's role in administering Goal 16 is limited primarily to federal
dredging projects. Permits for non-federal dredging projects are administered
by local governments. Federal dredging projects must be consistent with Goal
16 because Goal 16 is part of the Oregon's Coastal Zone Management Program.
The federal agency proposing in-water disposal (or other activity covered under
the state's Coastal Zone Management Program) reviews its proposal against the
relevant requirements. The federal agency involved is usually the Corps of
Engineers, and the applicable Coastal Zone Management Program requirements are
usually an elaboration of Goal 16 found in local plans (see Subsection 5.5).

5-15

The federal agency will then ask ODLCD for concurrence with its consistency
determination.
With the exception of federal consistency determinations, state
involvement in in-water disposal decision-making under Goal 16 is limited.
Goal 16 is primarily implemented through local governments.

5.4.3. Water Quality Programs: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) is involved in the
decision making process for in-water disposal principally through the Section
401 water quality certification process. ODEQ manages its certification
process in much the same way as does Washington's Department of Ecology (see
subsection 5.3.5).

ODEQ has no sediment quality standards to use for water quality
certification, though draft ones are being developed. Table 5.1 summarizes
existing water quality standards and draft sediment quality guidelines
developed by ODEQ.

5.4.4. Proprietary Regulation of In-water Disposal

The Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) manages state-owned submerged
land on the Oregon side of the Columbia River Estuary. ODSL does not manage a
formalized program like the one administered by its Washington counterpart, the
Department of Natural Resources (see Section 5.3.6). Virtually all in-water
disposal projects will require a state fill and removal permit from ODSL, and
proprietary concerns are addressed through this permit process.

5-16

Table 5.1 Water and Sediment Quality Standards and Guidelines

Chemical Water Quality Standard Sediment Quality
(mg/Liter) Guidelines

Mercury 0.15

Arsenic 0.01 40.0

Barium 1.0

Boron 0.5

Cadmium 0.003 1.0

Chromium 0.02 20 -300

Copper 0.005 50.0

Cyanide 0.005

Fluoride 1.0

Iron 0.1

Lead 0.05 40.0

Manganese 0.05

Zinc 0.01 250.0

Phenols (total) 0.001

Dissolved solids 500.0

Pesticides and other EPA quality criteria for See Table 3.6.
organic toxic substances water.

Source: ODEQ 1989; ODEQ 1986

5-17

5.5. LOCAL PROGRAMS

Eight local governments along the Columbia River Estuary administer
programs that affect dredging and dredged material disposal. Dredging
involving the main navigation channel occurs mainly in Clatsop or Wahkiakum
counties. Smaller projects are spread throughout the region's cities and
counties. Shoreline Master Programs and Comprehensive Plans in the Columbia
River Estuary area are required by state law to include program elements that
address dredging and dredged material disposal. The normal permit process for
local government dredging and disposal permits is outlined in Figure 5.4.

5.5.1. Oregon Local Governments

Oregon local governments develop and implement dredging regulations in
their local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances at the direction of the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (ODLCD). The State
requirement behind these local regulations is in Statewide Planning Goal 16;
Estuarine Resources:

"Unless fully addressed during the development and adoption of
comprehensive plans, actions which would potentially alter the estuarine
ecosystem shall be preceded by a clear presentation of the impacts of the
proposed alteration. Such activities include dredging, fill, effluent
discharge, flow-lane disposal of dredged material, and other activities
which could affect the estuary's physical processes or biological
resources.11

"Dredging and/or filling shall be allowed only:

A. If required for navigation or other water-dependent uses that
require and estuarine location or if specifically allowedi-by the
applicable management unit requirements of this goal; and,

b. if a need (i.e., a substantial public benefit) is demonstrated and
the use or alteration does not unreasonably interfere with public
trust rights; and

c. if no feasible alterative upland locations exist; and,

d. if adverse impacts are minimized."

"Local government and state and federal agencies shall develop
comprehensive programs, including specific sites and procedures for
disposal and stockpiling of dredged materials. These programs shall
encourage the disposal of dredged material in uplands or ocean waters, and
shall permit disposal in estuary waters only where such disposal will
clearly be consistent with the objectives of this goal and state and
federal law. Dredged material shall not be disposed in intertidal or
tidal marsh estuarine areas unless part of an approved fill project."

The Oregon requirements cited above are implemented through policies in
Clatsop County's, Warrenton's, Astoria's and Hammond's Comprehensiv'e Plans, and
through development standards in their zoning ordinances. Oregon local

5-19

Figure 5.4 Local Permit review Process

Dredging or
Disposal Project

loe

Staff-level Administrative,>
review >< decision
oe

< Administrative Public review
decision

Public he=aring

Decision

Appeals J
process

Final
Decision

Note: dashed lines indicate a review route not available in all
Columbia River Estuary jurisdictions.

5-20

governments have each adopted a zoning scheme that restricts in-water dredged
material disposal to only a few selected sites (see Section 2.4).

5.5.2 Washington Local Governments

Washington local governments in the Columbia River Estuary area (Pacific
County, Wahkiakum County, Cathlamet and Ilwaco) implement state regulations
under Washington's Shoreline Management Act. The local regulations concerning
dredging and dredged material disposal are in local Shoreline Master Programs.
The state regulations governing development of local Shoreline Master Programs
establish the following guidelines about dredging, from WAC 173-16-060(16):

Via. Local governments should control dredging to minimize damage to
existing ecological values and natural resources of both the area to be
dredged and the area for dep osit of dredged materials."

b. Local master programs must include long-range plans for the deposit
and use of spoils on land. Spoil deposit sites in water areas should also
be identified by local government in cooperation with the state
departments of natural resources, game and fisheries. Depositing of
dredge material in water areas should be allowed only for habitat
improvement, to correct problems of material distribution affecting
adversely fish and shellfish resources, or where the alternatives of
depositing material on land is more detrimental to shoreline resources
than depositing it in water areas."

"c. Dredging of bottom materials for the single purpose of obtaining fill
material should be discouraged."

5.5.3. Permit Administration
Estuary area governments on both sides of the River administer'permit
programs that facilitate implementation of their dredging and dredged material
disposal policies and standards. The permits are reviewed and approved or
denied by local planning commissions or, for some kinds of permits, by
administrative decision. In Oregon, local permit d4disions can be appealed to
the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. There have been no LUBA appeals to date
involving dredging. Washington local Shorelines Permits may be appealed to the
State Shorelines Hearing Board, or may be administratively vetoed by the
Department of Ecology. A number of dredging permits have been appealed,
principally in the Puget Sound area.

Federal dredging projects are sometimes handled outside of the normal
local permit process. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that
federal projects in the Ccvastal Zone, which includes the estuary, be consistent
with the approved state management programs, but only to the "maximum extent
practicable". Federal dredging and disposal projects in the Columbia River
Estuary have generally been fully consistent with Coastal Zone Management
plans. The process for determining consistency of a federal project is, in
Washington jurisdictions, simply the local permit process. Oregon
jurisdictions handle federal consistency in a slightly different manner,
relying on coordination between the appropriate federal agency (usually the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development, and the affected local government.

5-21

5.6. UNIFIED REGULATORY PROGRAM

This section summarizes the key components of local, state and federal
sediment quality programs, and identifies the essential program elements from
the permit applicants's perspective. These are drawn together in the form of a
unified method for meeting sediment evaluation requirements in the Columbia
River Estuary.

Section 404 Permit

All inwater dredged material disposal in the Columbia River Estuary will
require a permit issued by the US. Army Corps of Engineers. These permits are
issued under the Federal Water Quality Act, and are known as Section 404
permits, after the section of the Act that describing the permit process..
Background and procedural information about Section 404 permits.

All Section 404 permits on the Oregon side of the Columbia River Estuary
are managed by the Corps' Portland District office. The Portland District also
manages Section 404 permits on the Washington side of the estuary when a port
district is involved. Other Washington side permits on the Columbia River
Estuary are administered through the Corps' Seattle District office. The
review process is the same. Copies of Portland District and Seattle District
application forms are shown in Figures 5.5 and 5.6.

Water and sediment quality concerns associated with inwater dredged
material disposal are normally addressed during review of a Section 404 permit
primarily through the Section 401 water quality certification process. The
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Washington Department of
Ecology share Section 401 water quality certification responsibilities on the
Columbia River Estuary, The section 401 process certifies that the applicable
state water quality standards will not be violated by the dredging or disposal
of contaminated sediments. Many dredging and disposal projects in the Columbia
River Estuary will affect water in both states. In these cases, water quality
certification should be obtained from both Oregon and Washington. This is
rarely done: more typically, only the state where the dredging or disposal
actually takes place will issue a Section 401 certification. Federal agencies
are also involved reviewing water quality issues, particularly the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Section 401 water quality certifications can be denied for lack of
sufficient data, as well as when disposal would violate water quality
standards. The need for decision making information for the Section 401
certification process is behind most of the project-specific sediment testing,
both chemical and biological, in the Columbia River Estuary. Providing
sufficient data for state water quality certification may, under some
circumstances, be one of the most significant and expensive obstacles for a
permit applicant to overcome. Chemical analysis of sediments to be dredged,
biological investigations on the test sediments, pre-dredging surveys of the
disposal site, and post disposal monitoring may all be required of a Section
404 permit applicant.

5-23

The section 404 permit review process includes an opportunity for public
and agency comment on the proposal. Sediment quality data are reviewed here.
Compliance with a number of other federal and state laws is also checked at
this stage. Section 404 permits will either not be issued until all state and
local approvals are completed, or will be issued with a condition requiring
compliance with state and local permit requirements. A section 404 permit will
not be issued if a corresponding state or local permit has been denied.

Hydraulics Project Approval

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) establishes a review
process for projects that may have environmental impacts in the state. Inwater
disposal of dredged material an the Washington side of the Columbia River
Estuary is subject to SEPA requirements. The SEPA process is described in
Figure 5.2. The process starts with completion of an environmental checklist.
Review of the checklist by the lead agency, which may be Wahkiakum County,
Pacific County, the Department of Ecology or Fisheries, or some other agency,
results in either a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), or preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Sediment quality information may be
included in the EIS.

Proprietary Management of Submerged Lands

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages state owned
submerged lands in the Columbia River Estuary and elsewhere in Washington@ DNR
administers a program for reviewing use of submerged lands for dredged material
disposal that runs concurrently with other state and federal permit programs.
Inwater disposal of dredged material on the Washington side of the estuary must
comply with this program.

Oregon Fill and Removal Permit

The Oregon Division of State Lands administers a permit program for
filling and dredging in Oregon waters. Inwater dredged material disposal on
the Oregon side of the Estuary will require a permit under this program. The
US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit application form used by the
Portland District office is a joint application for both the Section 404 permit
and this permit. Public review and agency comment are required for this
permit. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of

5-24

5. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ECT.,WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0702-0036
(33 CFR 325) Expires 30 June 1989

Tbe Department of the Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine. Protection. Research and Sanctuaries Act. These laws require permits authorizing
activities in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided on this form will be
used in evaluating the application for a permit. Infornuition in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance of a
public notice. Disclosure of the Information requested is voluntary; however, the data requested are necessary in order to communicate
with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is not provided, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued. 6. WATERBODY AND LOCATION ON WATERBODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be
attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over
the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
1. APPLICATION HUMBER(To be assigned by Corps) 3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT
7. LOCATION ON LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED

ADDRESS:
2. NAME AND ADDRESS Of APPLICANT Thelephone no. during business hours STREET, ROAD, ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION
A/C ( ) (Residence)
A/C ( ) (Office)
Statement of Authorization: I hereby designate and authorize COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE
to act in my behalf as my
Telephone no. during business hours agent in the processing of this permit aaplication and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of the application. LOCAL GOVERNING BODY WITH JURISDICTION OVER SITE
A/C ( ) (Residence) SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE 8. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete? YES NO
A/C ( ) (Office) If answer Is "YES" give reason, month and year the activity was completed. Indicate the existing work on the drawings.
4. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY
4a. ACTIVITY

9. List all approvals or certifications and denials received from other federal, Interstate, state or local agencies for any structures, construction,
discharges or other activities described in this application.

ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF DENIAL

Ab. PURPOSE

10. Application is Hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familler with the information contained in
this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true,complete, and accurate. I further certify that I posses the
authority to understand the proposed activities or I am acting as the duty authorized agent of the applicant.

4c. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE

The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in Block 3 has been filled out and signed.

18 U.S.C. Section 1001 Provides that: Whoever, in any manner whithin the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by say trick, scheme, or devce a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false fictitious or
fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than 10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Do not send a permit promising fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued.

Figure 5.5: Seattle District Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Application

5-25

JOINT APPLICATION FOR PERMIT

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
STATE OF OREGON, DIVISION OF STATE LANDS

WHEREAS Department of the Army permits for proposed work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the
discharge of dredged or fill material into those waters, and the transport of dredged material for the purpose of
dumping it into ocean waters are authorized by Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act 1899. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, respectively,
---AND---permits for that part of those project activities which include the removal or fill in the waterways of
Oregon of rock, gravel, silt, and clay are authorized by the State of Oregon under O. R. S. 541.605 to 541.695---THIS
APPLICATION WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH AGENCIES.
For Agency Use Only For Agency Use Only
Corps of State of Oregon #
Engineers #

Date received Date received

Name of River Local
Waterway Miles Name

Section Township Range

Estimated Starting Estimated Completion
Date of Project Date of Project

NAME OF AUTHORIZED
APPLICANT AGENT

Adress Adress
City, State, City, State
Zip Code Zip Code
AREA AREA AREA
Phone: Work( ) Phone: Work ( ) Home ( )

PROJECT Area Area
SUPERVISOR Phone: ( ) Home ( )

PROPERTY OWNER
IF OTHER THAN PROJECT
APPLICANT ADDRESS

Address City, County, State
Zip Code
City, State,
Zip Code Assessor's Records--
Shown on Map Tax Lot#
Area Area Name of
Phone: Work ( ) Home: ( ) Subdivision Lot Block

In order to expedits the processing of this application, the following city and/or county department, which has loca
jurisdiction over the proposed project, has been contacted:

Name of Department:

Address:

Phone Number:

APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATIONS applied for or already obtained from other agencies (Federal, interstate, state, county,
city, area) for any of the proposed projects described in this application:

Issuing Agency Type of Approval Identification # Date of Application Date of Approval

NPP Form
OCT 1980 358
141-31-04-80 Inclosure 1

Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any other activity directly related to it?
Yes No If yes, please explain in Remarks.
ADJOINTING PROPERTY ON THE WATERWAY: Give names, addresses, and phone numbers of owners and/or occupants.

PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL your plans to restore the area to its natural condition.

INFORMATION FOR FILL OR REMOVAL:
FILL WILL INVOLVE cubic yards annually, and cubic yards for the total project.
Riprap Rock Gravel Sand Silt Clay Organic
REMOVAL WILL INVOLVE cubic yards annually, and cubic yards for the total project.

Rock Gravel Sand Silt Clay

DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY--- its primary purpose and secondary purpose, if any---intended use (private,
public, commercial)---type of structure and uses---type of vessels using facility---facilities---for handling waters---
type of conveyance and manner of extraction of any fill or removal---the quantity and compositon of, and the source
and disposal sites for any fill or removal. (If additional space is needed, use plain sheet of pater.)

Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activites described herein. I certify that I am
famaliar with the information contained in this application, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, such
information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed
activites.

Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent

18 USC 1001 provides in part "Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department...of the
United States knowingly and willfully falsifies... a material fact or makes any false... statement or... uses
any false...document...shall be fines not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Figure 5.6: Portland District Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Application

Figure 5.1: Hydraulic Project Application, Washington.

HYDRAULIC PROJECT
APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT OF GAME (R.C.W. 75.20.100) DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
600 Capitol Way North PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE G neral Admin. Bldg.
Olympia, Wa ;hlngton 98504 Olym:ia. Washington 98504
(206) 53-5897 DO NOT WRITE IN SHADED AREA (206) 753-6650

LAST MANE FIRST CONTACT PHONE(S)
234@tw
STREET OR RURAL ROUTE
WRIA

CITY STATE ZIP
Fe
D'

WATER TRIINTIARV To

OUARTER SECTION TOWNSHIP -RANGE tE-W) COLOM TYPE OF FROACT
SECTION

@'AIMESCRIPTION VF7@,WORK,"W"HOID,11AND, EQUIPIAEN"@',`

...............

PROPOSED STARTING DATE F#aSNV$G DATE

g $EPA AOfiNCV/OATT OF DMAUNIATION
ED OT.0 00-M

IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT NO WORK WILL
BE STARTED LWTIL A SIOWD APPROVAL
IS REC91YED
AMME'.UWATIO
a x

--M

'; I My,
M 7X4 11
G.. 111(ft- 9117, .11, wM

5-29

Local Permits

Both Oregon and Washington local governments on the Columbia River Estuary
administer local permit processes that affect inwater dredged material disposal
within their jurisdiction. Figure 5.4 graphically describes the basic local
permit review process, although there are differences between the way each city
and county handle these permits. The most significant of these differences are
between Oregon and Washington local governments.

Clatsop County, Astoria, Warrenton and Hammond each administer a
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance that regulates, among a great many
other things, inwater disposal of dredged material. Each jurisdiction has
adopted a zoning map that designates dredged material disposal sites. These
are shown in the CREST publication "Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material
Management Plan (Fox, 1986), and on local zoning maps. Some types of inwater
dredged material disposal may be allowed without obtaining a local permit,
particularly if it is associated with ongoing maintenance of an existing
facility, and disposal occurs at a designated and regularly used site. New
projects and changed maintenance disposal methods and sites will usually
require approval of a local permit. The local permit review process in Oregon
starts with completion of an application form. The completed form is reviewed
administratively, and a permit may be issued administratively without a public
hearing in some cases. Most inwater disposal permits will require a public
hearing before a planning commission. A permit is issued or denied, which can
then be appealed to the city or county governing body. From there the appeal
route is to the Land USe Board of Appeals (LUBA), the Court of Appeals, and
.finally to the State Supreme Court. There have been no LUBA appeals of
dredging permits to date. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development monitors local permit activity, but does not have the aLbility to
veto a local permit.

Pacific County, Wahkiakum County, Cathlamet and Ilwaco each administer a
Shoreline Master Program that sets up a permit program for, among other things,
inwater disposal of dredged material. Inwater dredged material disposal sites
are designated in the Shoreline Master Programs, and in the CREST publication
"Columbia River Estuary Dredged Material Management Plan (Fox, 1986). Most
inwater disposal projects will require a Substantial Development Permit, issued
by the county or city planning commission. Permits may be appealed to the
State Shoreline Hearing Board, and from there into the State court system. The
Washington Department of Ecology can veto a Substantial Development Permit it
feels is not consistent with the local Shoreline Master Program. This is a
tool that its Oregon counterpart, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development, lacks.

Conflicts Among Permitting Programs

One of the most significant causes of frustration with the permit process
for both applicants and permit reviewers are the inconsistencies between
different permit programs with generally similar goals. For inwater dredged
material disposal permits, these inconsistencies are in the area of sediment
chemistry evaluation. They involve the following specific regulatory elements:

5-30

What are the target chemicals for sediment analysis;

What are the standards against which sediment chemical data will.be
reviewed; and

Under what circumstances are bioassay and bioaccumulation studies needed.

These three regulatory conflicts are briefly described in the following
paragraphs.

Conflicts: Target Chemicals

Agreement among the resource* agencies about which chemicals should be
targeted for examination in Columbia River Estuary sediment is not always
achieved. The Oregon Department of-Environmental Quality's Draft Interim
Sediment Quality Guidelines lists seven metals and ten organic compounds as
targets for sediment chemistry analysis. In analysis of sediment for its own
dredging projects, the Corps of Engineers has tested a changing number of
chemicals. In tests conducted on Elochoman Slough sediment, the Portland
District Corps targeted nine metals and 34 organic compounds. The Washington
Department of Ecology has sometimes recommended that Columbia River Estuary
inwater disposal permit applicant consider testing for the nine metals and 48
organic compounds that the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) has
set standards for.

This conflict would be resolved by developing a uniform target chemical
menu for the Columbia River Estuary. Short of this solution, individual permit
applicants must determine the scope of chemical analysis for their project by
contacting several different agencies. This will result in compilation of an
aggregate list of chemicals of concern.

Conflicts: Evaluation Standards

Standards for evaluating results of sediment chemistry tests are lacking
in the Columbia River. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines is in a draft form as of the date of this
report. It relies on a method for setting standards for some organic
compounds, known as equilibrium partitioning, that the EPA may not accept. The
Puget Sound sediment standards developed under the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis (PSDDA) rely on an Apparent Effects Threshold method for determining
sediment standards that is not readily transferable to other aquatic
environments without additional research. The considerable investment in
sediment chemical tests is partially wasted because of the lack of evaluative
standards.

This conflict could be resolved by development and adoption of uniform
evaluation standards. A substantial amount of biological research would be
required to establish these standards, even if all of the agencies could agree
on a methodology for establishing standards. Short of uniform standards, the
applicant's lab or consultant should be prepared to interpret and circulate the
results of sediment analysis.

5-31

Conflicts: Biological Testing

Related to the lack of sediment chemistry standards is the lack of
threshold standards for requiring biological testing; the possibility that
standard bioassay and bioaccumulation tests may not be applicable to
environmental conditions in the Columbia River Estuary, and the lack of
standards for evaluating biological test results. The first of these problems
would be resolved for Oregon if the Department of Environmental Quality's Draft
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines were finalized. But a potential conflict
still exists unless federal and Washington state agencies agree with the
thresholds established under the Draft ODEQ Guidelines. The standardized
biological tests for sediment evaluation are designed for marine conditions,
and use marine organisms that may not be present in the Columbia River Estuary.
The applicability of these tests to local environmental conditions has not been
established. An estuary bioassay test has been developed (cite), but is not
widely applied. Standards for evaluating biological tests are needed. Like
chemical tests, biological tests are expensive. The investment in these tests
would be more effective if the results were evaluated against a standard.

This conflict could be resolved by developing biological test protocols
for the Columbia River Estuary. This has not been attempted, nor is there a
sufficient demand for biological testing in the Columbia River Estuary to
justify the effort. The labs that perform biological investigations can
address this problem by providing detailed evaluations and interpretations of
their results for the resource agencies.

5-32

6. GLOSSARY