Howard Cumberland of Hart Crowser discussed sediment quality issues in Portland, Oregon.

The Portland area (Portland, Vancouver, Longview and Kalama) ports include bulk and container cargo and the export of grain and forest products. Proposed Corps deepening of the Columbia River from -40 to -43 ft (+5ft) and the Willamette River from -40 to -43 ft (+2ft) for a total of 115 miles from the Pacific Ocean would result in ~18.5 million cubic yards of dredged material.

Several sediment management efforts are under way in Oregon. The Dredge Material Evaluation Framework (Lower Columbia River Management Area, including the Willamette River) is based on PSDDA, the joint EPA/Corps Greenbook (ocean disposal) and Inland Testing Manual (disposal in waters of the U.S.). This coordinated effort on the part of the Corps, EPA, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Washington Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources is used in coastal estuaries. Framework includes tiered testing, and chemistry, bioassay and bioaccumulation assessments. The screening, bioaccumulation trigger and maximum levels are from PSDDA. Framework is somewhat controversial and not sufficient for clean-up projects.

The Portland Harbor Study was a result of interest on the part of the Governor and the public in the quality of Oregon’s rivers and watersheds, with particular focus on contamination of the Willamette River. The value of the watershed and the listing of steelhead and Chinook salmon underscored the importance of this effort. With EPA currently considering Portland Harbor for National Priorities List, DEQ began to develop a state lead sediment management plan as a collaborative effort of industry and the federal and state governments. The objectives of the study are to develop a comprehensive tool box for assessments for the maintenance of sediment quality to protect the benthic community, support commercial and human (recreational and occupational) harbor use, provide safe passage for migratory fish and protect resident, T&E, and other special status fish species and water-dependent wildlife populations. Data gaps include sediment chemistry, bioassay and benthic community data, fish tissue concentrations, identification of reference areas and investigation into river hydraulics and sediment transport.

Initial steps in the Portland Harbor effort include problem formulation – identification of contaminants of concern, with recognition of toxicity and bioaccumulation considerations, potential receptors and exposure pathways. Several programmatic tasks are planned, including development of sediment quality guidelines, establishing reference area selection criteria, harbor-wide biota-sediment accumulation function and calculation of default remedial action objectives, development of tissue guidelines and fish tissue screening concentrations, human and wildlife target tissue levels. The objectives for the benthic community include establishing an assessment endpoint, forming a testable problem statement and risk characterization.

B.Ross stated that reliance on screening levels can be a crutch and that flexibility is important. Depending on the purpose, use of screening values may not be appropriate. Levels established for materials from maintenance dredging would not be appropriate for remediation cleanup dredging. Factoring in toxicity and bioavailability considerations is important as some compounds may in fact not yield a toxic impact or bioaccumulate (H.Cumberland).

In the Portland effort, there are limited disposal and remediation options. An aquatic disposal contaminated dredge material capping site on Ross Island in the Willamette River had been used simultaneously as an active quarry site. Resulting problems underscored the need for a long-term management of such sites to retain the integrity of the confining cap.

Key to the whole concept of establishing a long-term strategy for contaminated sediments, establishing sediment quality guidelines, identification of remediation objectives and disposal options, is the requirement for a management structure. Recognition and support of the process require buy-in and involvement by the necessary agencies and stakeholders.

Focusing on sediment quality values, B.Ross noted that just as every area is different, available alternatives for establishing such numbers would be different. In the Northwest, they were successful in using locally derived numbers as the basis for the PSDDA values. Different approaches to establishing such values have marked strengths and weaknesses. Currently, EPA is pursuing establishing equilibrium screening guidelines, instead of criteria. To be successful on a local basis, all stakeholders need to be involved and supportive of the same approach and have buy-in on the problem the sediment values are intended to address. Developing a predictive tool would not replace sampling, but might involve different tests than are routinely being conducted in Southern California.

Commitment to establish sediment quality values would also require dedicated funding. H.Cumberland noted the need for funds to establish and maintain a database (long-term). Funds would be necessary to identify the data needs and to set up the database; B.Ross noted that the Corps RAM database was not adequate for the LTMS effort. H.Cumberland indicated that ballpark figures for the development of SQV would be 3 years of effort, between $2 and 6 million dollars.

B.Ross continued that in developing AETs for the Los Angeles region, it might be possible to use the PSDDA database, merging the data from LA with that database. However, this effort would still require extensive QA/QC and validation of the LA data. H.Cumberland noted that co-occurring compounds leading to slight differences might not make it possible to merge LA and PSDDA databases. Establishing screening levels is likely the easiest approach while setting cleanup levels, maximum levels, etc., due to the greater data requirement, would be more complex.

Several Subcommittee members raised the concern that, now armed with basic information on sediment quality values, guidelines and criteria, and an overview of the PSDDA program and Portland Harbor effort, the Subcommittee needs to reinitiate a discussion on the Subcommittee objectives. Specifically, defining what the problem is, what is wrong with the current sediment quality evaluation process, what changes the agencies would like to see made to the current process, and whether SQVs are a desired and/or reasonable goal for the Los Angeles area were listed as topics for the next Subcommittee meeting.