Although theoretically derived screening levels (e. g., those based on the EqP approach) can be used to predict levels that are safe, they are less accurate in predicting when these concentrations in the field will result in unacceptable risks to exposed aquatic organisms. This is not an issue at Superfund and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action sites, because site specific sediment toxicity tests or bioassessments can be performed onsite or using site collected sediments to empirically determine levels of effects. It is not clear, however, what the relationship is between mortality rate in a sediment test with Hyallela or reduction in species diversity and expected significant impacts on ecosystem function or structure in the contaminated waterbody. Additional work should be undertaken to improve existing screening values and develop new ones for bioaccumulative contaminants.

The FIELDS software tools contain an ecological risk module, peer reviewed by U. S. EPA Ecological Risk Assessors Forum, which includes screening values and can be used for analyzing the impact of contaminated sediments on ecological receptors. Further refinements underway on this module for FY02 include the addition of wildlife exposure models and the ability to evaluate risks based on tissue concentrations.

Science Needs U. S. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) and others have identified a number of science needs to further support regulatory use of the Agency's ESGs and other chemical specific screening values and sediment quality guidelines (SAB, 1992 and 1996). These science needs include:

C Field and laboratory studies to evaluate the accuracy of chemical specific sediment quality guidelines. These could include new studies and the use of existing data from contaminated sites where both contaminants and benthic community data are available. Sublethal sediment toxicity tests (in situ studies, laboratory studies of field collected sediment, and spiked sediment laboratory studies) using a range of species including benthic fish and algae, long term studies of population dynamics, and colonization studies are examples of sensitive tests that could be used to further validate sediment quality guidelines. Additional work should be undertaken to evaluate the range of Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 44 sediment types to which sediment guidelines can be applied. Field validation of these guidelines in different sediment types would help define the appropriate conditions for applying the guidelines. C Studies of chemical concentrations in interstitial water from natural sediment samples are needed. These values can be compared to predicted ESG values for the same sediments. C For ESGs, additional research can evaluate the relative significance of binding factors other than organic carbon and acid volatile sulfides that may affect bioavailability of contaminants. C Bioaccumulation from food and kinetic limitations on contaminant bioaccumulation should be further evaluated to determine their relevance for both equilibrium and nonequilibrium conditions. Additional work should be conducted to determine whether metals guidelines can be used to define conditions where sediment sorbed metals can be bioaccumulated by benthic organisms. These investigations can provide additional insight into the contributions of adsorbed or digested material to total exposure. C In addition to diet, habitat requirements of benthic infaunal and other sediment dwelling organisms may cause them to be exposed to higher concentrations of contaminants than those measured in bulk sediments. Investigations should be undertaken to determine the importance of contaminant exposure routes that are not now explicitly considered. For example, preferential sorting of particulates during tube building may be a route of exposure to contaminants that could be considered in applying sediment quality guidelines. C There has been considerable discussion about whether sediment quality guidelines should comprise a range of values reflecting uncertainty, or the current point estimates. Recent modeling work has attempted to address this by using the probability of effects to define sediment quality guidelines. The use of a range of values or the development of improved estimates of uncertainty could be considered. C Although U. S. EPA has conducted research to develop mixtures guidelines for PAHs and metals, additional work should be completed to understand how mixtures of contaminants in sediments should be handled. C Work is needed to develop a better understanding of the time and space scales over which sediment quality guidelines or other assessment tools are valid. Organisms are major contributors to sediment spatial heterogeneity and may affect oxygen penetration depth across spatial gradients. Sediment mixing affects redox regimes, which can affect the bioavailability of redox sensitive chemicals. It is necessary to understand how sediment biogeochemistry could affect the application of sediment quality guidelines.

3.5.2 Ecological Indicators Historically, sediment monitoring programs have used benthic community studies as indicators of the effects of sediment contaminants on aquatic ecosystems. An assessment of benthic community structure typically involves a field survey that includes sorting and Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 45 identification of organisms and analysis of the numbers of taxa, individuals, and biomass in each sample. At many sites, the objective of the benthic community survey is to determine if there are unacceptable risks to the communities of organisms that inhabit those sediments. Many different benthic community measures have been used as ecological indicators such as: species diversity indices; biotic indices; indicator organisms; species richness measures; enumeration of specific abundances of taxa present; indices measuring similarity between benthic communities at reference and study sites; community function measurements based on habitat; trophic structure and other ecological measures; and statistical approaches applied to determine whether the benthic community at a study site varies from reference or other sites. The major limitation associated with the use of these indicators is difficulty relating them to the presence of individual chemicals or other stressors.

Science Needs The development of new indicator methods for measuring risks from sediment contaminants will lead to more effective assessment and characterization of contaminated sites. Additional research should be conducted to develop new indicator methods at all levels of biological organization (molecular, cellular, organismal, population, and community). It is important that these biological responses can be linked to known chemical stressors. Cellular and biochemical measurements can be used to indicate the bioavailability of sediment contaminants to establish levels of exposure, and to facilitate fate and transport modeling of the contaminants. A number of specific science needs have been identified to link sediment contaminants and other stressors with biological impairment. These include:

° Development and assessment of statistical techniques to associate sediment contaminants with community level responses. ° Development of methods to characterize exposure to individual stressors and predict exposure to contaminant mixtures. ° Development of whole sediment toxicity identification methods. ° Development of tools to determine genetic impairment caused by contaminants in sediment. ° Development of diagnostic indicators for emerging chemicals such as endocrine disruptors. ° Development of mechanistic ecosystem models and a better understanding of benthic community structure and function. ° Development of methods to measure spatial and temporal variation in structural and functional properties of benthic communities, and an understanding of how this variation affects prediction and detection of impacts. ° Determination of the cause effect connection between sediment contamination and of behavioral responses, and the relevance of behavioral responses. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 46 3.5.3 Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Biota Studies at contaminated sediment sites have demonstrated that high concentrations of contaminants have resulted in direct toxicity to benthic invertebrates and to reductions in fish and wildlife populations. At some sites that are heavily contaminated from past mining operations, heavy rain events have resulted in acute lethality of salmonids due to short term pH induced increases in metal solubility in the water column.

Biological sediment testing has become an effective assessment tool that provides direct, quantifiable evidence of biological consequences of sediment contamination. Sediment tests can be used to: 1) determine the relationship between toxic effects and bioavailability, 2) investigate interactions among chemicals, 3) compare the sensitivities of different organisms, 4) determine spatial and temporal distribution of contamination, 5) evaluate dredged material, 6) rank areas for cleanup, and 7) set cleanup goals.

A variety of standard biological test methods have been developed for assessing the shortterm and long term toxicity of contaminants associated with freshwater and marine sediments using amphipods, midges, polychaetes, oligochaetes, mayflies, and cladocerans. These toxicity tests provide measures of several different endpoints including survival, growth, behavior, and reproduction. Sediment toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) procedures have also been used to identify toxic compounds in sediment samples containing mixtures of chemicals.

Science Needs Although a number of sediment toxicity test methods have been standardized, protocols using new test species should be developed to provide tests of greater sensitivity. It will also be necessary to standardize test methods using species that inhabit different geographic ranges and habitat types. Additional work will be necessary to:

C Develop a better understanding of how sediment can be manipulated before, during and after tests without inappropriately affecting test results. C Establish appropriate physical test conditions, feeding regimes, test duration, and test initiation or termination procedures. C Develop a better understanding of how geophysical properties of sediment affect test results. C Complete additional work to understand the sensitivity of test species to major classes of contaminants. This information can aid in species selection and test interpretation. C Conduct additional verification and validation studies of toxicity test methods. Validation studies could be conducted by evaluating bioassay response to sediments collected along a natural pollution gradient and comparing results to benthic community studies and in situ test results. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 47 C Identify and standardize formulated sediment and sediment spiking techniques; C Develop tests with amphibians and reptiles. C Develop and standardize higher level tests (e. g., microcosms and mesocosms). C Develop better understanding of exposure time relationships in chronic whole sediment toxicity tests. C Develop field based methods to assess biological effects of contaminated sediments.

3.5.4 Ecological Significance and Population Models In an ecological risk assessment, it is important to clearly define and describe ecological significance and to determine what levels of population and community effects are generally acceptable; e. g., will a twenty percent reduction in a specific endpoint still sust ain a functioning, healthy ecosystem? How does U. S. EPA determine that: 1) the observed or predicted adverse effects on a structural or functional component of the site's ecosystem is of sufficient type, magnitude, areal extent, and duration that irreversible effects have occurred or are likely to occur, and 2) these effects appear to exceed the normal changes in the structural or functional components typical of similar unimpacted ecosystems?

Science Needs ° Develop predictive models for determining the potential population level effects; e. g., how much sediment toxicity is needed before one can predict that there will be significant effects on the population of concern. How many bass or mink or kingfishers can be affected before there will be an impact on the ability of the population of biota to sustain itself at a healthy level in the area impacted by the site? ° Develop a method for estimating depth of bioturbation for benthic macro invertebrates. Certain benthic macro invertebrates that colonize on caps build or live in burrows or tunnels in the sand/ sediment cap environment. In order to evaluate the potential impact on these aquatic food chain organisms, we need to identify the depth and extent of benthic bioturbation impacts in a cap. ° Potential benthic macro invertebrate cap attraction. Caps often are of a non indigenous fill material or sand or are anchored with stone. Will use of different materials reduce colonization times? Will it attract other, less desirable organisms and non native communities?

3.5.5 Key Recommendations for Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment D. 1 Develop sediment guidelines to protect wildlife from food chain effects. (ORD, OERR, OW, U. S. EPA Regions) D. 2 Develop additional tools for characterizing ecological risks. (ORD, U. S. EPA Regions, OW) Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 48 D. 3 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ caged studies); and how to interpret the significance of the results in relation to site populations and communities. (OW, ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) D. 4 Acquire data and develop criteria to use in balancing the long term benefits from dredging vs. the shorter term adverse effects on ecological receptors and their habitats. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) D. 5 Conduct field and laboratory studies to further validate and improve chemical specific sediment quality guidelines. (OW, ORD) D. 6 Continue developing and refining sediment toxicity testing methods. (ORD, OW, U. S. EPA Regions) D. 7 Develop whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation procedures for a wide range of chemicals. (ORD, OW)

3.6 Sediment Remediation A sediment remedial alternative is a technology or combination of technologies used to reduce the impact of contaminated sediments on human health and the environment. Alternatives can span a wide range of complexity and technological ingenuity. The simplest alternatives might employ only a single component (i. e., in situ capping). However, more complex alternatives may involve several different technologies and various project components (U. S. EPA, 1994). For the more complex alternatives, it is important to match complementary components in order to obtain an efficient remedial design (e. g., hydraulic dredging may not be the best choice for sediments that will be disposed of in a landfill due to the "no water in landfills" rule).

Due to all the confounding factors involved in sediment remediation, it is difficult to capture all the complexities of the state of the science in sediment remediation in only a few short pages. However, the subsections below provide a summary of the current state of sediment remediation technology, identification of problems, and a discussion of key research gaps.

3.6.1 Natural Recovery/ Bioremediation Natural recovery involves leaving contaminated sediments in place and allowing ongoing chemical, physical, and biological aquatic processes to contain, destroy, or otherwise reduce the bioavailablility of contaminants. No actions are required to initiate or continue the natural recovery process (NRC, 1997). Although natural recovery has been the strategy of choice at only a few contaminated sediments sites, the absence of timely remedial activities at many sites has made natural recovery the de facto remediation of choice at these sites. Case studies are identified in the National Research Council (1997) document. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 49 There are a plethora of resources available that provide more information on the natural recovery and bioremediation of contaminated sediments. However, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the viability of using natural processes or engineered biological processes to remediate contaminated sediments, especially those contaminated with heavy metals and chlorinated organics: "Using bioremediation to treat in place [contaminated] sediments, although theoretically possible, requires further research and development because it raises a number of significant microbial, geochemical, and hydrological issues [including transport by large scale storm events] that have yet to be resolved" (NRC, 1997).

Additionally, while the "natural capping" and resulting sequestration of sediment contaminants from natural deposition may occur at a faster "average" rate than the ongoing biological breakdown, large scale storm events may result in the unfortunate circumstance, as seen at the Saginaw River, Michigan, of hot spot contamination being dispersed over a large area where it would be difficult to remove or remediate.

The NRC (1997) document offers the following science needs for further research.

Science Needs ° Develop scientific principles to describe the process of natural recovery. ° Perform a literature survey to determine the level of effectiveness at natural recovery sites. ° Develop accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from bed sediments into the overlying water column. ° Develop protocols for assessing the relative contribution of the five or more mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (including mass transport of sediments and contaminants by large scale storm events). ° Determine the mechanisms for measuring the bioavailability of sorbed contaminants and the effect of sediment aging. ° Determine the rate and/ or presence of anaerobic degradation processes in near shore, mostly anoxic sediments. ° Conduct additional laboratory, pilot scale, and field scale demonstrations of the effectiveness of biological treatments. ° Explore the possibility of combining in situ bioremediation with in situ capping.

3.6.2 In situ Capping "In situ capping is the controlled, accurate placement of a clean, isolating material cover, or cap, over contaminated sediments without relocating the sediments or causing a major disruption of the original bed" (NRC, 1997). U. S. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office and U. S. EPA Region 5 have coordinated with U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and U. S. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 50 Geological Survey in the production of two guidance documents on in situ capping (U. S. EPA, 1998d, and in prep.). Capping attempts to limit the adverse impacts of sediment contamination by providing a barrier to prevent contact between aquatic organisms and the contaminated sediments. Capping may also prevent downstream transport of sediments and their associated contaminants.

The design and installation of conventional sediment caps is fairly straight forward and well understood, including the numerous cap placement technologies (tremie tube, submerged diffuses, and others) described by U. S. EPA (1998d). However, the long term effectiveness of this alternative has not been well researched, although the National Research Council (NRC, 2001a) documents in situ capping case studies that have been completed in Hamilton Harbor, Canada and the St. Paul Waterway in Tacoma, Washington. Reports documenting results of these operations can be found in Zeman and Patterson (1997) and Parametrix (1999), respectively. Additionally, many entities are now beginning to discuss more complex sediment cap designs, including the use of zero valent iron or biological treatment mechanisms in the cap design.

Science Needs ° Analyze data from historical and ongoing field applications to determine capping effectiveness (NRC, 1997). ° Research and/ or develop technologies to control contaminant releases during cap placement (NRC, 1997). ° Testing to simulate and evaluate the consequences of episodic mixing (e. g., anchor penetration and major flood/ storm events) (NRC, 1997). ° Determine the impacts of advective transport (i. e., groundwater flow) on the transport of contaminants through the cap. ° Develop and evaluate the use of innovative cap designs that incorporate chemical and/ or biological treatment technologies. ° Assess the uncertainties associated with cap performance predictions.

3.6.3 In situ Treatment In situ treatment involves the active manipulation of in place sediments to enhance the breakdown or prevent the transport (e. g., immobilization) of contaminants. Potential technologies include: in situ immobilization, in situ chemical treatment, in situ freezing, in situ geo oxidation, and in situ vitrification (NRC, 1997).

Immobilization technologies are likely to be based on the concepts of solidification and immobilization. The applicability of these processes to fine grained sediments with high water content has yet to be demonstrated. Potential problems include: inaccuracies of in situ Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 51 placement, erosion, temperature increases during curing, and increases in sediment volume (NRC, 1997).

Researchers at the Canadian National Water Research Institute have developed and demonstrated equipment capable of injecting chemical solutions into sediments at a controlled rate (U. S. EPA, 1994). However, the applicability of in situ chemical treatment appears to be limited because of interference between various classes of contaminants and the possibility of mobilizing metals in the process of oxidizing organics (NRC, 1997). The National Research Council (NRC, 2001) states that "no effective in situ delivery system has yet been developed for [delivering required nutrients, substrates, or reagents to] contaminated sediments."

The use of in situ freezing and in situ vitrification can be quickly dismissed based on high cost and limited effectiveness. Freezing by injection of molten sulfur has the same limitation as in situ solidification. In situ vitrification has been demonstrated on soils, but the high water content of sediments would require local site dewatering and the construction of a vapor recovery system (NRC, 1997). The NRC (2001a) documents the difficulties encountered on an in situ treatment project in Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin. There are many difficulties associated with the application of in situ technologies to contaminated sediment deposits. Many of these problems are based upon the application of known processes to the high volumes of lowconcentration sediment generally found in the field. In addition, many sediment deposits are both heterogeneous and fine grained, making the uniform application of treatment amendments difficult.

The use of ElectroChemical Geoxidation (ECGOx) is being considered for a pilot scale demonstration in Puget Sound, Washington. Two additional ex situ pilot scale sediment treatment projects using ECGOx are also in the planning stages. The ECGOx process uses lowvoltage low amperage, alternating current/ direct current to sustain a reduction oxidation reaction between two electrodes placed in the sediments. This redox reaction results in the mineralization of organic compounds. Target compounds for this treatment include PAHs, PCBs, and other organics (CDM, 1986). Additionally, by making adjustments to the current applied to the system, ECGOx can mobilize inorganic contaminants and plate them to the cathode and anode ends of the electrodes. Unconfirmed data provided by the vendor indicate the success of ECGOx in addressing PAHs, PCBs, and mercury contamination in soils.

Science Needs ° Additional extensive research of most in situ treatment would be required and is probably not justified based on the limited applicability and effectiveness of current technologies (NRC, 1997). ° U. S. EPA should oversee and critically evaluate the three in situ and ex situ ECGOx pilot scale demonstrations planned for the U. S. in 2001 and 2002 to determine if Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 52 additional studies are justified (The Great Lakes National Program Office, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, several private companies, U. S. EPA's Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation Program, U. S. EPA Region 2, and U. S. EPA Region 10 are involved in the evaluation and demonstrations currently being discussed). ° Continue an open dialogue with international agencies and technology vendors and perform literature reviews to keep abreast of any advances in in situ treatment technologies.

3.6.4 Dredging/ Removal "Efficient hydraulic and mechanical methods are [readily] available for the removal and transport of sediments for ex situ remediation or confinement" (NRC, 1997). Additionally, promising technologies for precision control include electronically positioned dredge heads and bottom crawling hydraulic dredges. The latter may offer the capability of dredging in depths beyond the standard maximum operating capacity of conventional dredges (NRC, 1997). Finally, many innovative mechanical (e. g., environmental clamshell) and hydraulic pumps (e. g., Eddy pump, PNEUMA pump) are available that advertise reduced sediment resuspension, increased solids content of dredged material, and/ or other performance enhancements. Adequate research and data are not available to evaluate all of these claims. Hayes (1989) noted that the operation of the dredge and experience of the dredge operator have a profound effect on the rate of sediment re suspension. Furthermore, recent monitoring at dredging sites has focused on the short term impacts and contaminant losses associated with dredging operations. U. S. EPA (1996a) presents a good general framework for estimating contaminant losses from all components of the dredging and disposal process. Additionally, the USGS (Steuer, 2000) presents a case study for monitoring short term impacts for a dredging project on the Fox River, Wisconsin.

Science Needs ° Performance evaluation for innovative dredging equipment. ° Evaluate the performance of low re suspension dredges capable of removing sediments at near in situ densities (NRC, 1997). ° Enhanced capabilities for precision removal of sediments (NRC, 1997). ° Increased monitoring before, during, and after dredging to determine short term impacts and long term improvements due to dredging projects.

3.6.5 Ex situ Treatment Technologies Numerous ex situ treatment technologies have undergone bench and pilot scale demonstrations. The results of these studies are documented in numerous reports including U. S. EPA's Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program reports Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 53 (http:// www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ arcs/), International Navigation Association (PIANC) proceedings, Superfund's Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) programs (http:// www. epa. gov/ ORD/ SITE/), and other documents. Ex situ treatment is generally more promising than using the same technology in situ, because conditions can be more tightly controlled in contained facilities. Chemical separation, thermal desorption, and immobilization technologies have been employed successfully but are expensive, complicated, and limited to treating certain types of sediments and/ or contaminants. Because of the high unit costs, thermal and chemical destruction techniques do not appear to be cost effective, near term approaches for remediating large volumes of contaminated dredged material (NRC, 1997).

Following up on the work conducted under the ARCS Program, U. S. EPA Region 2 coordinated a five year study on sediment treatment technologies, the goal of which was to examine alternative methods to address and manage contaminated sediments in New York/ New Jersey Harbor. A particular focus of U. S. EPA Region 2 work was to evaluate treatment technologies that both decontaminate sediments and produce a marketable final product. This study has resulted in a completed pilot scale demonstration: a sediment washing process whereby a manufactured topsoil and bricks are produced as marketable end products. Two additional thermal treatment demonstrations are planned for 2002/ 2003: a process that produces a blended cement product; and a process that produces a lightweight aggregate product (Stern et al., 1998; Jones et al., 2001).

Utilizing the information generated by U. S. EPA Region 2 in its New York/ New Jersey Harbor decontamination program and in an effort to identify treatment technologies with a unit cost (dollars per cubic yard) of less than one hundred dollars ($ 100), the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) has teamed with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for bench scale testing and evaluation of sediment treatment technologies with beneficial end products (SEG, 1999). MDEQ and GLNPO selected the most promising of these technologies, the thermal destruction Cement Lock technology, for a pilot scale demonstration scheduled for 2002. Additionally, GLNPO, U. S. EPA SITE, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Minergy Corporation are coordinating the pilot scale demonstration and evaluation of Minergy's technology which destroys organic contaminants and encapsulates inorganic contaminants while producing a glass aggregate by product that can be used for construction fill. Additional demonstrations are planned.

Science Needs ° Research and development of ex situ treatment technologies to search for reasonable possibilities for cost effective treatment of large volumes of sediments (NRC, 1997). ° Additional full scale demonstrations of promising treatment options to determine effectiveness of technology on a larger scale and to identify the pathways for contaminant losses and risk associated with contaminant losses during treatment. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 54 ° Significant coordination between U. S. EPA, Army Corps of Engineers (U. S. ACE), and technology vendors to identify cost effective treatment options and potential end uses of treatment products to offset the cost of treatment.

3.6.6 Beneficial Use Technologies "Dredged sediments traditionally have been viewed as waste [material]. However, dredged material is often used for beneficial purposes [such as], fill for urban development (such as the construction of National Airport in Washington, DC), beach nourishment, the creation of wetlands and wildlife habitat, for improving farmland [as a soil amendment], as fill for general construction, and for establishing coastal islands where many species of birds nest" (NRC, 1997). The statutory underpinning for the beneficial use of dredged material is provided by the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1992 (P. L. 102 580), which contains provisions for using dredged material for such things as the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic habitat (NRC, 1997). In addition, both the MPRSA and CWA dredged material disposal regulatory programs help foster beneficial uses by requiring consideration of alternatives (such as beneficial use) to dredged material disposal.

Most beneficial use projects completed to date have used "clean" dredged material, but the National Research Council (1997) contains an extensive list of completed beneficial use projects that used both "clean" and "contaminated" dredged materials. The NRC document also contains references to numerous scientific studies to assess the effectiveness of these beneficial use projects and to determine if there were any environmental impacts from the contaminants associated with the dredged sediments. U. S. ACE, GLNPO, and associated state and local organizations have coordinated on several beneficial use pilot projects within the Great Lakes watershed (mined land reclamation and construction fill projects in Duluth, Minnesota, top soil creation at Toledo, Ohio, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Green Bay, Wisconsin). Additionally, the Michigan DEQ realized significant cost saving on a sediment remediation project for Newburgh Lake when the dredged sediments were used as daily cover at a nearby landfill (GLNPO, 2000).

Although there is significant information on research studies and pilot and full scale demonstrations of beneficial use, most of the reuse projects are isolated, one time studies and are not consistently incorporated into long term management strategies on dredge material management. This is unfortunate since increases in beneficial use could conserve valuable disposal space at Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) and landfills.

Science Needs ° Development of technical guidelines for the beneficial use of dredged material, similar to the guidelines for the use of biosolids. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 55 ° Literature review and analysis of beneficial use projects and studies to determine the associated environmental impacts.

3.6.7 Disposal Options The National Research Council (1997) contains an excellent discussion of disposal options for contaminated sediments and a figure for visualizing each alternative. The three major options for contaminated sediment disposal include:

C Landfilling  the placement of sediments into a licensed solid waste facilit y. C Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs)  placement of sediments into a diked in water, nearshore or land based facility specifically designed for containing sediments. C Contained Aquatic Disposal (CAD)  controlled, open water placement of contaminated material followed by covering (capping) with clean material. (NRC, 1997).

Both CDFs and landfills have a long history of use, and the state of research and study of these facilities is fairly well advanced. In contrast, fewer actual case studies exist for CAD projects, and therefore, there exists only a limited amount of research on this disposal option. Sumeri (1984) and Truitt (1986) document the results of a CAD project in the Duwamish Waterway in Seattle, Washington (NRC, 1997). In 1992, U. S. EPA and U. S. ACE published a document describing techniques for evaluating releases resulting for various disposal options (U. S. EPA/ U. S. ACE, 1992).

Science Needs ° Improved methods for evaluation of potential release pathways for each disposal option. ° Literature review and evaluation of releases for current disposal facilities, particularly CDFs. ° Improved design criteria for designing and building CADs. ° Investigation of long term effectiveness and releases for each disposal alternative. ° Better models to predict loss of contaminants via volatilization.

3.6.8 Key Recommendations for Sediment Remediation E. 1 Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e. g., advection, bioturbation, diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm events; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with natural recovery; and Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 56 development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from sediments. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) E. 2 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods and conduct post cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to monitor ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e. g., Boston Harbor, Eagle Harbor, Grasse River). (ORD, U. S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) E. 3 Encourage and promote the development and demonstration of in situ technologies. (ORD, GLNPO) E. 4 Using the data provided in recommendation E. 1, develop a white paper evaluating the short term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human activities (e. g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action and anchor drag). (OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) E. 5 Support the demonstration of cost effective ex situ treatment technologies and identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products. (ORD, GLNPO, U. S. EPA Regions)

3.7 Baseline, Remediation, and Post Remediation Monitoring A sediment monitoring program is required for all types of sediment remedies, both during remedy implementation and over the long term to ensure that all sediment risk and exposure pathways at a site have been adequately managed by the remedy. Long term monitoring should continue until all remedial action objectives have been met. In some instances, this may take many decades. A sediment monitoring program encompasses baseline monitoring, monitoring during remedial action implementation, and post remediation, or longterm monitoring.

Baseline monitoring encompasses the monitoring of those indicators of environmental change (i. e., fish or other biota, sediment chemistry, pore water chemistry, toxicity testing, and benthic community structure) which is conducted prior to the initiati on of the remedial action. It is typically conducted during the remedial investigation or site characterization stage. Baseline monitoring should be consistent with the planned long term or post remediation monitoring, and to provide a baseline for comparison with the post remediation monitoring data in order to detect and evaluate environmental trends.

In contrast, post remediation, or long term, monitoring is initiated once the remedial action is completed. It involves multiple measurements made over time to assess the success of the remedy in meeting remedial performance goals. The data are used to evaluate the long term effectiveness of the selected remedial action in protecting human health and the environment, engineering/ construction performance and structural integrity of any containment or stabilization structures, the recovery of areas impacted by the remedial action, and the success of mitigation projects built to offset environmental impacts caused by the remedial action; the data can also be Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 57 used to evaluate restoration of the ecosystem. Post remediation monitoring typically consists of the monitoring of fish or other biota, toxicity testing, and benthic community structure evaluations.

Monitoring during implementation of the remedial action is used to evaluate the shortterm effects of the conductance of the remedial action, whether the remedial action project meets design requirements, whether clean up levels are met, and whether other remedial action objectives are met. In some cases where the implementation of the remedial action spans a significant length of time, the length of time of monitoring during implementation may span several years, if not decades. Natural recovery sites and large dredging projects encompassing millions of cubic yards of sediment are examples of sites where such monitoring may run for decades. Monitoring during remedial action implementation may contain some of the same indicators, but will likely include monitoring of others such as turbidity, dissolved oxygen, sediment chemistry, water chemistry, and air monitoring.

Monitoring is a standard component at a contaminated sediment project, beginning prior to the site investigation when project managers are trying to determine whether there is a problem, and running through post remediation monitoring. These various types of monitoring programs are being implemented at a number of contaminated sediment sites, and plans are in place to initiate monitoring at others. A few examples of sites where post remediation monitoring is underway or planned to be initiated are:

1. Cannelton Industries Superfund site on the St. Mary's River, Michigan. 2. Black River, Ohio. 3. River Raisin (Ford Outfalls Superfund removal action site), Michigan. 4. Manistique River and Harbor, Michigan (Superfund removal action site). 5. LCP Superfund site in Brunswick, Georgia.

Monitoring during remedy implementation is underway on the Pine River, Michigan (Velsicol Superfund site). The Sediment Inventory may be referred to for additional information.

Figure 3 2.

Examples of Other Science Activities Related to Monitoring ° FIELDS software tools have been developed to support the monitoring of remedy implementation and remediation effectiveness (U. S. EPA Region 5 Superfund). ° A Contaminated Sediments Monitoring Workshop will be held. ° Development of monitoring guidance and fact sheets (OSWER and regions), targeted for completion over 2002/ 2004. ° Development of tools to be used in monitoring (ORD/ OW ). Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 58 Questions arise regarding the short term impacts and long term effectiveness of dredging, capping and other in situ remedies. A look at sediment sites across the nation shows inconsistencies in the kinds of monitoring performed. Impediments to the implementation of monitoring may be due to limited knowledge on how to develop and implement monitoring plans.

There is an ongoing debate regarding the short term impacts and long term effectiveness of dredging and capping remedies, with some claiming that dredging (and possibly capping) cause greater harm through destruction of habitat and release of contaminants. Others argue that while there are short term impacts, they can be minimized through technology and operational and other controls, and that these remedies will prove to be more protective over the long term because of the permanent removal of the contaminants or through limitations on bioavailability. Other questions include: Will dredging or capping result in newly created or increased direct toxicity to biota from increases in dissolved or suspended contaminant concentrations in the water column? Will they result in an increase in the bioavailability of contaminants and increased tissue concentrations in fish and other biota? How long does it take for the habitat of a dredged or capped area to become suitable for aquatic life and for re colonization to take place? Will caps provide attractive habitat for desirable biota, or will they attract less desirable organisms and non native communities? Information from the monitoring of both remedy implementation and post remediation is necessary in order to address and resolve these issues.

Science Needs The NRC Report (2001a) recommends that "[ l] ong term monitoring and evaluation of [...] contaminated sediment sites should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the management approach and to ensure adequate, continuous protection of humans and the environment." This is consistent with the issues discussed above  more and better monitoring data are needed. To ensure that such data are collected, guidance and information with regard to available protocols and tests are needed for the remediation project manager's reference. In addition, to ensure that such monitoring is implemented, a cross program policy may also be needed. Such a policy may direct the programs and offices to ensure that monitoring is included as a component of remedial alternatives in the Feasibility Study and Record of Decision, and included in settlements with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). For cleanups funded with Federal dollars, sufficient funds would need to be included to cover the cost of the monitoring, or agreements made with state or Federal partners to conduct such monitoring.

Some specific areas that need to be addressed include: an evaluation of the existing protocols and tests performed to identify those which are appropriate for monitoring and any additional needs. For example, U. S. EPA's Office of Water has published protocols for sampling and analysis of fish and shellfish in order to determine human health risks associated with tissue contaminants (U. S. EPA, 2000c). U. S. EPA has also published guidance on collection, storage, Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 59 and manipulation of sediments (U. S. EPA, 2001b), and existing Agency protocols are available for dredged material testing and assessment (U. S. EPA, 1998c and 1991a). These protocols are available for use in monitoring contaminated sediment sites. However, monitoring guidance needs to be developed to provide remediation project managers with a consistent approach to developing monitoring plans and implementing such monitoring. Monitoring guidance should also address how monitoring plans are developed, what protocols and tests are available for use with recommendations for the use for each, how to develop indicators and measures, how to evaluate monitoring data, minimum Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/ QC) protocols, and specifics regarding which biota and which media should be used for specific situations (i. e., number of, species, and age of fish for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern).

Monitoring data should also be made available to provide information for decisionmaking at other sediment sites. Please refer to Section 3.9 for additional details with regard to monitoring data management and exchange.

3.7.1 Key Recommendations for Baseline, Remediation, and Post Remediation Monitoring F. 1 Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post remediation monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions, OW) F. 2 Conduct training and hold workshops for project managers regarding monitoring of contaminated sediment sites. (OERR, ORD, U. S. EPA Regions)

3.8 Risk Communication and Community Involvement The National Research Council's report, A Risk Management Strategy for PCBContaminated Sediments (NRC, 2001a) highlighted the many benefits of involving communities in the cleanup process. "Participation makes the process more democratic, lends legitimacy to the process, educates and empowers the affected communities, and generally leads to decisions that are more accepted by the community (Fiorino, 1990; Folk, 1991; NRC, 1996). The affected community members can contribute essential community based knowledge, information, and insight that is often lacking in expert driven risk processes (Ashford and Rest, 1999). Community involvement can also assist in dealing with perceptions of risk and helping community members to understand the differences between types and degrees of risk." Although the benefits of early, active, and continuous community involvement have been widely recognized by U. S. EPA and others, the NRC found that there still remains much progress that needs to be made to more effectively involve communities.

U. S. EPA's two major programs with responsibilities for protecting and cleaning up contaminated sediments, Superfund and the Office of Water, have both expanded efforts to more Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 60 greatly involve communities in their programs. For example, the Superfund program published a report identifying useful lessons that were learned on how to provide communities greater involvement (U. S. EPA, 1999b). Superfund has developed a number of general guidance documents and tools for use at Superfund sites. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume 1  Human Health Evaluation Manual. Supplement to Part A: Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments (U. S. EPA, 1999c) explains how Superfund staff and community members can work together especially during the risk assessment. A video, Superfund Risk Assessment  What It's All About and How You Can Help, describes (in lay terms) the Superfund risk assessment process and how communities can help (U. S. EPA, 1999d). Other fact sheets and Community Advisory Group Toolkits have been developed (U. S. EPA, 1998a, 1995b, 1999b, and 1996b). Additionally, the Office of Water's National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program is developing an updated (second) edition of its Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume IV: Risk Communication (U. S. EPA, 1995a). This new edition, expected to be completed in Spring 2003, will provide greater emphasis on ensuring that risk communication is culturally appropriate for diverse communities and that all communities should be involved early and throughout the program.

Risk communication provides the means for communities to have a greater role in the evaluation and decision making process. Risk communication research develops the methods, models, and tools for U. S. EPA to more effectively reach out to communities, earn their trust, and build an effective working partnership. This partnership will allow communities to become more fully engaged in the entire cleanup process – not just as passive listeners, but as important decision makers. The NRC (2001b) report recognized that U. S. EPA's community involvement program has been advocating greater involvement of affected communities into the cleanup process.

An important component of risk communication and community involvement is ensuring that all the technical information provided to the communities is understandable. Too often communities are either inundated with too much extraneous information that cannot be understood, or they are presented with summaries that contain too little data. Research is needed on both how to effectively extract the appropriate amount of information and determine the best vehicles (e. g., formal presentations, newsletters, informal meetings, videos, infomercials, web sites) for presenting the data to communities. In addition to developing more effective tools for the sender of messages, research is needed to develop better listening skills for all the receivers of messages.

Communities have first hand knowledge of the site and their own activities (such as catching and consuming fish) that would be very helpful to U. S. EPA's evaluation of the site and its possible impacts on nearby communities. The development of site specific exposure factors Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 61 based on the measurements of the habits of the local community could reduce reliance on the use of national default assumptions that may not reflect local habits or conditions.

Communities at contaminated sediment sites are diverse and often have conflicting interests that are hard to articulate and quantify. Measurement methods that might be suitable include public opinion survey instruments, randomly selected focus groups, and computer based methods such as "virtual" town meetings. This is particularly important for sediment sites because they can cover large geographic areas.

Because the effectiveness of risk communication and community involvement are rarely measured in application, there is considerable disagreement about the effectiveness of current public participation activities. Measuring the performance of existing tools and newly developed tools would focus improvements in necessary areas.

Science Needs ° Develop better methods and tools to measure the preferences of individuals, subpopulations and communities throughout the entire sediment cleanup process. ° Develop more effective methods and tools to describe, summarize, and present complex technical data to communities. ° Develop better methods and tools to extract and utilize community based knowledge. ° Develop ways to determine how various societal and cultural values and practices are impacted by contaminated sediments or cleanup activities. For example, the inability of native tribes to harvest fish and then barter them for other valuables is a cultural impact that is not often considered. ° Develop community outreach methods and tools that can be applied to large geographic sites with multiple diverse communities. Because some contaminated sediment sites, especially river sites, can span tens or even hundreds of miles, they present difficult challenges to community involvement staff. ° Develop and apply methods and tools that measure the effectiveness of environmental public participation programs.

3.8.1 Key Recommendations for Risk Communication and Community Involvement G. 1 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement focusing on developing better methods, models, and tools. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 62 3.9 Information Management and Exchange Activities Information, or data, management is a key component of the characterization, assessment, and monitoring activities conducted at contaminated sediment sites. A data management system provides one point of access for all data and simplifies assessment, QA/ QC evaluation, modeling, mapping, querying, trends analysis and other activities that may be conducted using the data. Information communication and exchange are critical components of a contaminated sediment project and would be simplified by the establishment of a quality data management system. Outreach and information sharing with the public is key to not only their understanding of the ecological and health risks associated with a site, but also of the possible solutions to address those risks. An informed public would be better able to contribute to the decision making process in a knowledgeable manner.

Some examples of the types of information/ data management activities that are underway are shown in Figure 3 3.

Figure 3 3.

Types of Information/ Data Management Activities Currently Underway ° GLNPO's sediment database. ° OW's Sediment Inventory. ° OERR's Superfund sediment sites database. ° U. S. EPA Region 5/ GLNPO Sediment Information Management System Other information communication and exchange activities are identified in Figure 3 4.

Figure 3 4.

Information Communication and Exchange Activities ° Sediment Network (OW). ° Superfund Sediment Forum (OERR). ° Participation on external fora such as the National Sediment Dialogue and Great Lakes and other regional Dred ging Teams. ° Great Lakes sediment web page (GLNPO). ° Public Outreach Tools: Sediment pamphlet and poster (OW ) and a dredging video (OERR). ° U. S. EPA Region 5/ GLNPO Sediment Information Management System (SIMS). ° U. S. EPA Region 5 Superfund's Fully Integrated Environmental Locational Decision Support (FIELDS) system. ° U. S. EPA Region 5's sediment web page. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 63 Science Needs Environmental data need to be appropriately housed in data management systems. Such data management systems should be consistent and able to link across the regions and offices. Environmental information regarding these sites needs to be placed onto regional contaminated sediment web sites which are updated on a regular basis. They should link across the regions so that information on sites in other regions is available to the viewer. Networks should be formed so that information about contaminated sediment sites and issues can be exchanged and discussed. Workshops and other fora should be held periodically for a range of audiences as additional means of communicating and exchanging information, and increasing the science knowledge of stakeholders and others.

There is a need for more timely information exchange, improved access to environmental information and data, both internally across the Agency and with external stakeholders and other interested parties. One of the recommendations in the National Research Council Report (2001b) is that there be "early, active, and continuous involvement of all affected parties and communities as partners." One of the many keys to the success of such involvement is the availability of, and access to, environmental i nformation and data about the site( s) of concern. In addition, stakeholders may also need some basic science knowledge (or someone to explain it) so as to be able to comprehend what the data and information means and be better able to contribute to the decision making process in an informative manner.

3.9.1 Key Recommendations for Information Management and Exchange Activities H. 1 Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory. (U. S. EPA Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO) H. 2 Standardize the sediment site data collection/ reporting format. Establish minimum protocols for quality assurance/ quality control (QA/ QC). (OEI, OW OSWER, U. S. EPA Regions) H. 3 Develop national and regional contaminated sediment sites web sites for sharing information. (U. S. EPA Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO) H. 4 Re establish and expand the Office of Water sponsored Sediment Network by including more regional representation. (OERR, OW, U. S. EPA Regions) H. 5 Promote communication and coordination of science and research among Federal agencies. (ORD, OSWER, OW, U. S. EPA Regions, NOAA, U. S. Navy, U. S. ACE, USGS, U. S. FWS) H. 6 Promote the exchange of scientific information via scientific fora (i. e., workshops, journals, and meetings). (CSMC, OW, OSWER, U. S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 64 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 65 4. LONG RANGE SCIENCE STRATEGY 4.1 Introduction There are many scientific uncertainties associated with assessing and managing contaminated sediments. Multiple offices and regions have overlapping science needs; some have individual, program specific requirements. Realistically, it will take a long term program to develop, implement, and verify the science. Planning across all U. S. EPA organizations, with recognition of important work being conducted by other organizations, is essential to advancing the science and managing risks from contaminated sediments in the most cost effective ways.

4.2 Key Recommendations In the presentation of each major topic in Chapter Three, the authors discussed the state of the science and science needs. Science needs were developed to provide guidance on what scientific tasks are needed to address the topics' key scientific question. These needs address a wide array of data gaps, method development, guidance requirements, and communication issues.

The Contaminated Sediments Science Plan science needs for the major topics were focused through the generation of key recommendations. In the development of key recommendations for the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan, the Workgroup members reviewed Chapter Three science needs for each major topic. As each major topic was discussed, science needs were evaluated for their high priority, critical nature to address data gaps in the topic, ability to reduce uncertainty, and identification of state of the science guidance or tools. Key recommendations for each major topic were agreed to by the Workgroup members using the evaluation criteria, professional judgement, comment or input from Agency review, and a group consensus process. The Workgroup did not constrain the recommendations to fit within available resources. Instead, the recommendations are a comprehensive list that U. S. EPA organizations can consider when balancing resource allocations across competing high priority needs.

The thirty three (33) key recommendations described in this section address the contaminated sediment issues and data gaps, as well as areas for better coordination of contaminated sediment science activities, including research, across the Agency that are identified as highest priority by the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Workgroup and have undergone cross Agency review. The recommendations are listed by science area and include: sediment site characterization; exposure assessment research; health effects research; ecological Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 66 effects research; sediment remediation; baseline, remediation, and post remediation monitoring; risk communication and community involvement; and information management and exchange activities.

4.2.1 Sediment Site Characterization Accurate sediment site characterization is of great importance to scientists, risk managers, and others involved in the decision making process. Because of the complexity of chemical fate and transport processes in sediment, water, and biota, many factors can affect the kinds and magnitude of impacts that contaminated sediment has on the environment. These factors include hydrology, the physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment, the types of contaminants present and their associated human health or ecological effects, and synergistic or antagonistic effects of contaminants. Better tools and methods for analysis of physical and chemical parameters, biological testing, evaluation of ecological effects, and sediment sampling will result in sound science to support decision making.

Physical Parameters A. 1 Conduct a workshop to develop a consistent approach to collecting sediment physical property data for use in evaluating sediment stability.

A workshop is needed to identify research necessary to develop better, faster, and more cost effective methods for high resolution determination of physical sediment parameters. Such methods are needed for evaluating remedial options (e. g., natural attenuation, capping, or dredging). When evaluating remedial options, risk managers must obtain information on key physical sediment parameters including the erosional and depositional properties of sites to be remediated. High resolution spatial data are needed to characterize freshwater sites where sediment is often heterogeneous. Improved spatial resolution of field survey data will enable more accurate determination of the volume or mass of contaminated sediment. It is recommended that U. S. EPA consult with U. S. Geological Survey, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U. S. Navy on their progress in developing these techniques. An improved understanding of the relationships between geomorphological and physical sediment parameters and contaminant transport, fate, and effects will enable decision makers to more effectively evaluate site management alternatives. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 67 Chemical Parameters A. 2 Develop more sensitive, low cost laboratory methods for detecting sediment contaminants, and real time or near real time chemical sensors for use in the field.

Interferences encountered as part of the sediment matrix, particularly in samples from heavily contaminated areas, may limit the ability of available methods to detect or quantify some analytes. More sensitive, low cost methods are needed to detect sediment contaminants and the chemical parameters that control bioavailability of contaminants such as PCBs, dioxin, PAHs, metals, and pesticides. Real time or near real time sensors are also needed to provide both point measurements and long term, time series observations of sediment contaminants of concern. Real time chemical sensors will enable better, faster, and more cost effective site assessment and the immediate targeting of hot spots for potential remediation.

A. 3 Develop U. S. EPA approved methods with lower detection limits for analysis of bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue.

Many chemical contaminants can persist for relatively long periods of time in sediments where bottom dwelling animals can accumulate and pass them up the food chain to fish and wildlife. Therefore, improved methods are needed for analysis of chemical contaminants such as PCBs, dioxin, metals and pesticides in fish tissue. U. S. EPA has published interim procedures for sampling and analysis of priority pollutants in fish tissue (U. S. EPA, 1981). However, official U. S. EPA approved methods are available only for the analysis of low parts per billion concentrations of some metals in fish and shellfish tissues (U. S. EPA, 1991b). Although U. S. EPA approved methods for many analytes have not been published, states and regions have developed specific analytical methods for various target analytes (U. S. EPA, 2000d).

A. 4 Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites.

Present methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disrupting chemicals are inadequate. Methods for analyzing endocrine disruptors, including APEs and their metabolites, should be developed to support regulatory decision making.

4.2.2 Exposure Assessment B. 1 Develop a tiered framework for assessing food web exposures.

The National Research Council (2001a) recommended a tiered approach to risk assessment for PCB contaminated sediment sites that would work well for any sediment contaminated by bioaccumulative compounds. The screening tier would apply conservative Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 68 assumptions and rely on existing data in the literature to easily distinguish sediments that do not pose an unacceptable risk from those that may. The middle tier would use a combination of some site specific data and interpretive tools to produce a more refined assessment of the level of risk. At many sites, this approach would be sufficient to determine whether or not remediation was warranted and would provide some insight into the potential benefits of alternative remedies. The highest tier of exposure assessment would rely heavily on site specific data and would include model tailoring and model calibration to site conditions. This most sophisticated assessment would be applied only at selected sites where the combination of site complexity, resource values, affected party interests, and potential costs warrant a detailed investigation of existing and potential future exposures.

ORD's research and program applications are presently focused at the middle tier; funding is being sought to expand the research to the lower and higher tiers. This recommendation is to provide program guidance for implementing the screening tier and to conduct research and model validation for the highest tier.

B. 2 Develop guidance and identify pilots for improving coordination between TMDL and remedial programs in waterways with contaminated sediments.

In many of the country's water bodies, there are multiple legal authorities to address both existing contaminated sediments and continued contaminant loading. Pilot projects need to be developed to identify the most effective ways to integrate environmental management to control sources and achieve water quality goals. Integrated management models need to be improved and communicated within U. S. EPA and to partners in state programs. Results of the TMDL pilot projects in waterways with contaminated sediments should be made available to the states as potential models for the development of complex TMDLs involving multiple toxic pollutants and media (i. e., water, sediment, and fish tissue).

B. 3 Develop and advise on the use of the most valid contaminant fate and transport models that allow prediction of exposures in the future.

Numerous models exist for contaminant fate and transport, including both public domain and proprietary codes. Some models have not been peer reviewed in the open literature and there are very few long term data sets that can be used to judge predictive capability. The existing public domain and commercial models need to be evaluated to determine their mechanistic and mathematical foundations and robustness, and to determine the extent to which they are accepted by the scientific community. One or more models need to be further developed to improve any weaknesses determined from the evaluation; the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has begun this work. The models need to be validated with high quality data sets, which will be developed via other recommendations in this plan. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 69 The fate and transport models also need to link with models that predict direct and food web exposures for the purpose of assessing risks and comparing remediation alternatives. The bioavailability of the contaminants within portions of the system has to be considered to provide input from the transport models to the exposure/ effects models.

B. 4 Develop a consistent approach to applying sediment stability data in transport modeling.

Current approaches to evaluating sediment stability in transport modeling vary across the Agency and the larger stakeholder community. While a single model is probably not appropriate for all sites, a consistent approach is needed to ensure that important factors are being considered. Data sets developed by the regions and other organizations can help identify the key factors that the transport models need to include for realistic predictions. In addition, a workshop was held in January 2002 to conduct a comparative evaluation of the models for hydrogeological conditions in terms of the reliability of predictions.

4.2.3 Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment C. 1 Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis.

Improved methods are needed to assess the risks associated with exposure to aged PCBs in sediment. For example, although it is recognized that measurement of PCB Aroclors in sediment can underestimate exposure to PCBs, this method of chemical analysis continues to be used in risk assessments because a toxicity equivalence approach for evaluating PCB congeners has not been fully developed.

C. 2 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective of human health via the fish ingestion pathway.

Contaminant specific sediment guidelines to protect recreational and subsistence anglers should be developed. This will conserve resources by efficiently eliminating sites or parts of sites and chemicals from further study, and will help focus site investigations on the most important areas. Fish tissue contaminant guidelines have been developed for a range of chemicals (U. S. EPA, 2000a), but corresponding levels of contaminants in sediments must be developed. Guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants such as DDT and metabolites, PCBs, methyl mercury, dieldrin, and high molecular weight PAHs should be developed.

C. 3 Refine methods for estimating dermal exposures and risk.

Although the greatest human health risk is generally from ingestion of contaminated fish, there is a need to develop better methods, models, and exposure factors that will enable risk Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 70 assessors to estimate the exposure from direct skin contact with contaminated sediments. Research is needed to determine the amount of sediment that might come into contact with the skin from various activities. Research is also needed to develop a model that accurately predicts how much of the sediment borne contaminants actually crosses the dermal barrier and is available to cause a toxicological effect. Current dermal absorption models are either water or soil based and it is not clear which might be more applicable for sediments.

C. 4 Evaluate the toxicity and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants, such as alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and other endocrine disruptors and their metabolites on human health.

Additional long term toxicity data are needed on APEs and other similar chemicals to further understand their long term effects on reproductive and other systems.

4.2.4 Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment D. 1 Develop sediment guidelines to protect wildlife from food chain effects.

Sediment quality guidelines are needed to protect piscivorous birds and wildlife from food chain effects. The contaminants should be bioaccumulative chemicals such as PCB, DDT, and methyl mercury. This effort would include a consistent method for estimating the sitespecific bioavailability of contaminants.

D. 2 Develop additional tools for characterizing ecological risks.

Benthic community studies and single species sediment toxicity tests are often used to evaluate the baseline risks to ecological receptors and the risks after remediation. Additional methods to assess long term risks, especially for persistent bioaccumulating compounds, should be developed and validated. This includes the use of smaller, short lived fish to predict the longterm food chain effects on game fish, and the use of molecular or genetic indicators to predict endocrine disruptor impacts.

D. 3 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ caged studies); and how to interpret the significance of the results in relation to site populations and communities.

A more consistent process is needed to allow risk managers to determine: 1) if the observed or predicted adverse effects on a structural or functional component of the site's ecosystem is of sufficient type, magnitude, areal extent, and duration that irreversible effects have occurred or are likely to occur; and 2) if these effects appear to exceed the normal changes in the structural or functional components typical of unimpacted ecosystems. Interpretive Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 71 guidance for ecological sediment toxicity studies, and the significance of the results to site populations and communities needs to be developed to better evaluate the need to protect an ecological resource. For bioassay endpoints such as survival, growth, and reproduction, population models should be developed to provide further insight into interpretation of test results.

D. 4 Acquire data and develop criteria to use in balancing the long term benefits from remedial dredging vs. the shorter term adverse effects on ecological receptors and their habitats.

The process of remedial dredging can result in a short term increase in the water column level of suspended or dissolved contaminants as well as the removal of existing biota and a severe disruption of their habitats. Quantitative or qualitative criteria are needed that can be used to determine when there is more benefit to the existing ecosystem from leaving the contamination in place and preserving the impacted biota and habitat versus a destructive remedy that removes the contamination but causes short term impacts. This analysis would also include predicting recovery times for all scenarios considered.

It is recommended that U. S. EPA collaborate with appropriate Federal agencies to study the short and long term impacts from environmental dredging. At least two locations should be monitored thoroughly to quantitatively determine all contaminant losses during remedial dredging. At these projects, all currently accepted management practices (e. g., silt curtains, covered clamshell buckets, state of the art cutter heads for hydraulic dredging) will be employed to ensure minimal resuspension. All losses quantified as part of the remedial dredging operation would then have to be measured against overall benefits to the site by evaluating ecological benefits for at least a ten year horizon. Such a study could go far towards resolving the argument that short term negative impacts from remedial dredging outweigh long term ecological benefits.

Biological Testing (bioassays and bioaccumulation tests)

D. 5 Conduct field and laboratory studies to further validate and improve chemicalspecific sediment quality guidelines.

Chemical specific sediment quality guidelines have been developed by U. S. EPA for use in contaminated sediment assessment, prevention, and remediation programs. Field validation studies have been conducted on some of these guidelines for these uses. However, additional field validation studies and laboratory tests using a range of species should be conducted to further validate the guidelines and understand contaminant exposure routes. Work is also needed to develop mixtures guidelines for sediment contaminants. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 72 D. 6 Continue developing and refining sediment toxicity testing methods.

Although a number of sediment toxicity test methods have been standardized, protocols using new freshwater, marine, and estuarine test species must be developed to provide sensitive tests representing a greater range of species and habitat types. The currently available Leptocheirus plumulosus chronic test protocol uses an Atlantic Coast species, which may not adequately represent the sensitivity of species from Pacific Ocean systems. Chronic, sublethal test protocols are needed for marine species present in the Pacific, such as the amphipod Grandidierella japonica. Additional freshwater test protocols are needed for burrowing species. Field based test methods (e. g., in situ test methods) are needed to assess the biological effects of contaminated sediments. Some of the currently available test protocols are expensive and difficult to run. Test protocols should be simplified to reduce costs, and interpretive guidance for sublethal test methods should be developed. A number of marine and estuarine test protocols for amphipod species have been developed. Consideration should be given to developing additional methods for species other than amphipods.

D. 7 Develop whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation procedures for a wide range of chemicals.

Sediment contaminants often occur in mixtures. Whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation methods are needed in order to determine which contaminants cause observed toxicity. Currently available toxicity identification evaluation methods are capable of characterizing the toxicity of a sediment only by identifying classes of toxic contaminants (e. g., metals or organic toxicants). Additional work is needed to improve the method so that individual chemical contaminants can be identified. In addition, work is needed to conduct field validation studies supporting the method.

4.2.5 Sediment Remediation Natural Recovery/ Bioremediation E. 1 Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e. g., advection, bioturbation, diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm events; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with natural recovery; and development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from sediments. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 73 When selecting a remedial option for a particular site, it is critical to determine the methods by which contaminants are lost or transported, and which mechanisms play significant roles. In many situations large storm events will be the largest mechanism to move contaminants from a particular hot spot. In other more quiescent settings, such processes as advection, diffusion and bioturbation may predominate. In many systems, the predominant method of contaminant loss will vary over the season, with resuspension by storm events predominating in spring and other mechanisms dominant over the rest of the year. Knowing the relative contributions of these mechanisms is critical in determining whether natural recovery or capping are the most appropriate remedial options for a site.

It is thus recommended that research be continued and increased for examining the relative contributions of the various mechanisms for contaminant release from sediments.

In Situ Capping E. 2 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods and conduct post cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to monitor ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e. g., Boston Harbor, Eagle Harbor, Grasse River).

The design and installation of conventional sediment caps is well understood; however, the long term effectiveness of this remedial alternative has not been well researched. In addition, many entities are now beginning to discuss more complex cap designs, including the use of biological treatment.

With capping becoming a management option being recommended at more sites, it is critical that evaluations be conducted to document its effectiveness. Capping demonstration projects should be promoted and long term monitoring be implemented to document cap performance. All mechanisms of loss must be quantified during such a study including diffusion, advection, bioturbation, and storm events.

In Situ Treatment E. 3 Encourage and promote the development and demonstration of in situ technologies.

In situ technologies, if proven effective, would be the most efficient means for remediating contaminated sediment sites. Such a technology would avoid the problems and arguments of whether or not removing sediments via dredging does more harm than good. It would also navigate around all the difficulties associated with finding a disposal site. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 74 U. S. EPA should actively identify and work with any vendors who have a viable technology for treating contaminants in situ. Demonstration projects examining in situ technologies should be conducted and evaluated to determine their efficacy. The testing of one such technology, electrogeochemical oxidation, is currently being applied at a number of sites around the country. As part of these projects, the process will be extensively monitored to evaluate its performance in treating sediments.

Dredging/ Removal E. 4 Using the data provided in recommendation E. 1, develop a white paper evaluating the short term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human activities (e. g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action and anchor drag).

Large storm events are known to move large volumes of sediment and their associated contaminants. Any study examining the impacts from dredging must also be examined in relation to all mechanisms of contaminant loss ongoing at a particular site. All contaminant losses that would naturally occur at a site including resuspension from storm events, advection, diffusion, and bioturbation, must be taken into account when evaluating dredging impacts. Only when the net losses from these processes are known can the impacts associated with dredging be adequately evaluated.

Ex Situ Treatment Technologies E. 5 Support the demonstration of cost effective ex situ treatment technologies and identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products.

Much work on ex situ treatment has been conducted by both U. S. EPA Region 2 and The Great Lakes National Program Office. A number of demonstrations have been successfully completed to date, and others are planned. We are now confident that tools do exist to decontaminate sediments. It is apparent, however, that to make treatment a viable, cost effective option, a marketable end use product must be developed, particularly at sites that have large volumes of contaminated sediments.

Partnerships need to be developed with industry to conduct joint demonstrations and examine all options for making treatment cost effective and a viable alternative to landfilling.

4.2.6 Baseline, Remediation, and Post remediation Monitoring There is an ongoing national debate regarding the short term impacts and long term effectiveness of dredging and capping remedies, with some claiming that dredging and capping Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 75 cause greater harm through destruction of habitat and release of contaminants. Others argue that while there are short term impacts, they can be minimized through technology and operational and other controls, and that these remedies will prove to be more protective over the long term because of the permanent removal of the contaminants or through limitations on bioavailability. A review of sediment sites across the nation show a lack of or limited monitoring data with which to answer these questions and resolve the debate. In addition, monitoring data needs to be made available to inform decision making at contaminated sediment sites.

The NRC Report (2001a) recommends that "[ l] ong term monitoring and evaluation of [...] contaminated sediment sites should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the management approach and to ensure adequate, continuous protection of humans and the environment." This is consistent with the issues discussed above; more and better monitoring data are needed of both remedy implementation and post remediation in order to address and resolve these issues.

The impediments to monitoring include limited knowledge on how to develop monitoring plans, including the types of measurements to be performed, how often monitoring should occur and over how long a period of time, and how they should be implemented.

The following key recommendations are made to address these issues.

F. 1 Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and postremediation monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation.

To ensure that monitoring data will be collected, guidance and a compendium of available protocols and tests are needed for the project manager's reference. Some specific areas that need to be addressed, including an evaluation of the existing protocols and tests, should be performed in order to identify those which are appropriate for monitoring and what additional needs there may be. Monitoring guidance needs to be developed to provide project managers with a consistent approach to developing monitoring plans and implementing such monitoring. Such guidance should also address how monitoring plans are developed, what protocols and tests are available for use with recommendations for the use for each, how to develop indicators and measures, how to evaluate monitoring data, minimum Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/ QC) protocols, and specifics regarding which biota and which media should be used for specific situations should be used (i. e., number of, species, and age of fish for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern).

To meet this need, the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan recommends that the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), with support from the other program offices and regions, initiate the development of monitoring guidance fact sheets in FY02/ 03 with a goal of Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 76 finalizing them by the end of FY03. It is suggested that a workgroup be established with representation from across the program offices and regions to take on this task.

In addition, a review/ evaluation should be conducted of the available protocols and tests in order to identify those most appropriate for specific types of monitoring and to identify any gaps which may need to be filled. This information would be compiled into a compendium and be available as a reference document for the guidance and fact sheets.

F. 2 Conduct training and hold workshops for project managers regarding monitoring of contaminated sediment sites.

Training is needed to teach project managers how to develop and implement monitoring plans, and evaluate the resulting data with regard to remedy implementation and performance. Workshops or other fora are needed to share monitoring information and remedy performance.

To begin to meet these needs, a two day Monitoring Workshop should be held under the suggested lead( s) of ORD and OERR. The target audience would be U. S. EPA scientists and project managers of contaminated sediment sites. An advisory group should be formed with participation from the various program and regional offices to plan the workshop.

The CSSP also recommends that additional sessions be held periodically (whether they be training workshops or brown bags for the purpose of teaching how to conduct monitoring or prepare monitoring plans, or fora for the purpose of sharing experiences and results), and at various levels (i. e., regional, national, U. S. EPA only, or U. S. EPA plus external parties). The leads for planning such sessions may be at the national or regional level. Use of existing fora is encouraged, such as the annual National Association of Remedial Project Managers (NARPM) meeting, or the National Superfund Site Assessment Conference. At the regional level, a program office may take the lead to sponsor a brown bag on monitoring. The timing of such regional sessions will be left to the discretion of the regions. It is also recommended that a national workshop be held in conjunction with the completion of the draft monitoring guidance, under the sponsorship of OERR, ORD, and OW.

4.2.7 Risk Communication and Community Involvement Advances in the science of risk communication would result in much more meaningful community involvement in the contaminated sediments cleanup process. The methods, models, and tools produced by this research would allow U. S. EPA to more effectively reach out to communities, earn their trust, and build effective working partnerships – partnerships that empower communities to become more fully engaged in the entire cleanup decision making process. To accomplish this, the following recommendation is made: Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 77 G. 1 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement focusing on developing better methods, models, and tools.

There are many potential benefits to be gained by conducting research in this area. The Office of Research and Development should take the lead in developing a solicitation package to conduct research in one or more of these project areas.

4.2.8 Information Management and Exchange Activities Information, or data, management is a key component of the characterization, assessment, and monitoring activities conducted at contaminated sediment sites. A data management system provides one point of access for all data and simplifies assessment, QA/ QC evaluation, modeling, mapping, querying, trends analysis and other activities that may be conducted using the data. Information communication and exchange are critical components of a contaminated sediment project and would be simplified by the establishment of a quality data management system. Outreach and information sharing with the public is key to their understanding of the ecological and health risks associated with a site and of the possible solutions to address them.

There is a need for more timely information exchange and improved access to environmental information and data, both internally across the Agency and with external stakeholders and other interested parties. A recommendation in the National Research Council Report (2001b) is that there be "early, active, and continuous involvement of all affected parties and communities as partners." One of the many keys to the success of such involvement is the availability of, and access to, environmental i nformation and data about the site( s) of concern. In addition, stakeholders may also need some basic science knowledge (or someone to explain it) so as to be able to comprehend what the data and information mean and be better able to contribute to the decision making process in an informative manner.

To meet these needs, the following recommendations are made.

H. 1 Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory.

There is a need for more timely information exchange regarding contaminated sediment sites, and improved access to environmental information and data. This will allow for improved decision making in addition to being able to learn from the experiences of others. The two key impediments or issues, in addition to the lack of sediment data management systems in general, are the lack of consistent formats among such systems, and a lack of accessibility between regional systems and the national program offices. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 78 To address these issues, it is recommended that the regional information management programs should take the lead for ensuring regional sediment data management systems are established, and to provide the technical support that may be needed. The regional program offices will need to work together to establish roles and responsibilities on how the data management systems will be set up and maintained. The Office of Environmental Information (OEI) would also have a key role in this activity. The existing data management systems such as U. S. EPA's STORage and RETrieval database (STORET) should be evaluated to see if any are able to meet the needs identified here. It is suggested that a workshop be held for the regions and program offices to share information on existing data management systems and how this recommendation might best be implemented. This work should be initiated in FY02.

H. 2 Standardize the sediment site data collection/ reporting format. Establish minimum protocols for quality assurance/ quality control (QA/ QC).

Because data are collected both by various U. S. EPA programs and offices and by other agencies, collection and reporting formats and QA/ QC protocols vary. This leads to difficulties in sharing information across programs/ offices and between U. S. EPA and other agencies.

To address these issues, it is recommended that U. S. EPA's Environmental Information Office, with OW and OSWER, take the lead in developing standardized formats and identifying minimum QA/ QC protocols. The regions, state environmental agencies, and other Federal agencies, as appropriate, should be involved. It is recommended that a workshop be held in the near future to address these issues, with the protocols being developed from the workshop.

H. 3 Develop national and regional contaminated sediment sites web sites for sharing information.

To also meet the need for more timely information exchange regarding contaminated sediment sites, the CSSP recommends that a national sediment web site be established. The proposed sediment web site under consideration in OW should be considered for use as a centralized web site t o meet this need. OW is suggested to take the lead, with support from OEI, OERR, and other offices and regions as appropriate. Web sites developed by the regions and programs should link with the national sediment web site. GLNPO, OW, OERR, and some of the regions are developing or have developed contaminated sediment web sites containing information on sediment sites, and also provide links to guidance and other information regarding the contaminated sediment problem. Where they do not exist, and are found to be needed, it is recommended that regional remedial and water programs, working with their regional information management programs, jointly develop contaminated sediment sites web sites. It is recommended that these web sites be in place in 2003. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 79 H. 4 Re establish and expand the Office of Water sponsored Sediment Network by including more regional representation.

The CSSP recommends that the Sediment Network be re established in 2002 under the co lead of OW and OERR. Key representatives from appropriate national and regional program offices should be the targeted participants. The suggested purpose of the Network would be to resolve issues and to share information (each representative would then share the information through their own organizations). Regular teleconferences should be scheduled. It is also suggested that an OW/ OSWER memorandum be prepared and sent to the program offices and regional offices announcing the Sediment Network and inviting their participation.

A sediment list server is also recommended as an additional means of sharing information and resolving issues for a larger audience. Responsibility for maintenance of such a list server should be jointly shared between OW and OSWER.

H. 5 Promote communication and coordination of science and research among Federal agencies.

Many other Federal agencies and departments also sponsor research on many of the same sediment research topics. The CSSP recommends that coordination and communication of science and research among Federal agencies be promoted in order to avoid duplication of efforts, encourage partnering between researchers working on similar projects, and facilitate the timely sharing of interim and final results. Agencies that might participate include U. S. EPA, NOAA, U. S. Navy, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Geological Survey, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

H. 6 Promote the exchange of scientific information via scientific fora (i. e., workshops, journals, and meetings).

The CSSP recommends that national and regional program offices encourage their managers and staff to share scientific information via workshops, conferences, publication in journals, and presentations. Other options for sharing scientific information should be explored at the regional level.

4.3 Recommended Approaches to Implement Strategy In order to achieve the goals of the Contaminated Sediments Science Plan (CSSP), its implementation should result in the development of tools and scientific methods, enhancement of agency communication and coordination, and development of effective scientific information that will support risk management decisions on contaminated sediments problems. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 80 The CSSP recommends that the Contaminated Sediment Management Committee (CSMC), comprised of Office and Division directors, has the responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the key recommendations in the CSSP through their role as a forum for crossagency coordination and collaboration on science activities in contaminated sediments. It is recommended that the CSMC include all U. S. EPA offices and regions that play a key role in contaminated sediment issues and implementation of the recommendations of the CSSP.

It is recommended that the CSMC do this by holding an annual meeting of U. S. EPA offices and regions. This meeting should serve to identify the status of science activities on the key recommendations, to communicate recent results, and to plan future activities. To accomplish this, the following tasks should be completed at the annual meeting:

° Reviewing science activities The lead U. S. EPA offices and regions should present to the CSMC the current science activities they are conducting pertaining to research topics and key recommendations identified in the CSSP. In addition, they should identify those additional science activities, based on the key recommendations in the CSSP, that they would implement should sufficient resources become available. This information sharing will serve to initiate closer coordination of science activities related to contaminated sediments across U. S. EPA.

° Implementing science activities Lead U. S. EPA offices and regions who agree to carry out the recommended science activities should ensure that these activities are considered within their annual planning, budgeting, and accountability process, and are implemented when resources are committed. It is recommended that for each recommendation, a brief one page description be developed (or updated) which includes the following information: title, key partners, actions underway, actions planned over next two years, products expected by (date), and primary contact( s). Please refer to Appendix B for an example. The onepage recommendation descriptions and a report out on the status of the implementation of the science activities would be provided at the annual meetings. The CSMC would then determine whether progress toward the goals is being made and, if necessary, recommend adjustments to science activities to meet the key recommendations.

° Identifying areas where science partnerships are needed The CSMC should recommend to U. S. EPA offices and regions where scientific collaboration within the Agency, as well as with other Federal agencies, would be beneficial. These partnerships will hopefully speed the accomplishment of key recommendations. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 81 ° Coordinating with U. S. EPA offices and regions The CSMC should contact the lead U. S. EPA office or region identified as a suggested critical partner from Table 4 1 for each key recommendation to understand how they intend to implement science activities for the recommendations.

° Identifying unfunded activities Resource needs for unfunded or underfunded tasks should be identified. The CSMC should discuss unfunded science areas and communicate these to the appropriate science planning staff within U. S. EPA offices and regions in order to identify the appropriate resources to address them.

° Updating the CSSP Periodic reviews of the state of the science on contaminated sediments, a gaps analysis, and updating of the CSSP are recommended every five years.

Table 4 1 lists the key recommendations by topic area, the time frame for implementation, and suggested critical partners. Although recommendations are roughly divided into two time frames, immediate and longer term, some of the recommendations could be viewed as continuing needs.

Table 4 1. Summary of Key Recommendations, Time Frame for Implementation, and Suggested Critical Partners Recommendations A. Sediment Site Characterization Immediate Time Frame A. 1 Conduct a workshop to develop a consistent approach to collecting sediment physical property data for use in evaluating sediment stability. (OERR, ORD, U. S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame A. 2 Develop more sensitive, low cost laboratory methods for detecting sediment contaminants, and real time or near real time chemical sensors for use in the field. (ORD, OERR, GLNPO) A. 3 Develop U. S. EPA approved methods with lower detection limits for analysis of bioaccumulative contaminants of concern in fish tissue. (ORD, OERR, OW, U. S. EPA Regions) A. 4 Develop methods for analyzing emerging endocrine disruptors, including alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and their metabolites. (ORD) Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 82 B. Exposure Assessment Immediate Time Frame B. 1 Develop a tiered framework for assessing direct and food web exposures. (ORD, OW, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) B. 2 Develop guidance and identify pilots for improving coordination between TMDL and remedial programs in waterways with contaminated sediments. (OW, OSWER, U. S. EPA Regions) B. 3 Develop and advise on the use of the most valid contaminant fate and transport models that allow prediction of site specific exposures in the future. (ORD, OERR, OW, U. S. EPA Regions) B. 4 Develop a consistent approach to applying sediment stability data in transport modeling. (ORD, OERR, OW, U. S. EPA Regions)

C. Human Health Effects and Risk Assessment Immediate Time Frame C. 1 Develop guidance for characterizing human health risks on a PCB congener basis. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) C. 2 Develop sediment guidelines for bioaccumulative contaminants that are protective of human health via the fish ingestion pathway. (ORD, OERR, OW, U. S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame C. 3 Refine methods for estimating dermal exposures and risk. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) C. 4 Evaluate the toxicity and reproductive effects of newly recognized contaminants, such as alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) and other endocrine disruptors and their metabolites on human health. (ORD)

D. Ecological Effects and Risk Assessment Immediate Time Frame D. 1 Develop sediment guidelines to protect wildlife from food chain effects. (ORD, OERR, OW, U. S. EPA Regions) D. 3 Develop guidance on how to interpret ecological sediment toxicity studies (lab or in situ caged studies) and how to interpret the significance of the results to site populations and communities. (OW, ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) D. 4 Acquire data and develop criteria to use in balancing the long term benefits from dredging vs. the shorter term effects on ecological receptors and their habitats. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions) Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 83 D. 6 Continue developing and refining sediment toxicity testing methods. (ORD, OW, U. S. EPA Regions) D. 7 Develop whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation procedures for a wide range of chemicals. (ORD, OW)

Longer Time Frame D. 2 Develop additional tools for characterizing ecological risks. (ORD, U. S. EPA Regions, OW) D. 5 Conduct field and laboratory studies to further validate and improve chemical specific sediment quality guidelines. (OW, ORD)

E. Sediment Remediation Immediate Time Frame E. 1 Collect the necessary data and develop guidance for determining the conditions under which natural recovery can be considered a suitable remedial option. Such guidance would include: measurement protocols to assess the relative contribution of the various mechanisms for chemical releases from bed sediments (e. g., advection, bioturbation, diffusion, and resuspension), including mass transport of contaminants by large storm events; methodologies to quantify the uncertainties associated with natural recovery; and development of accepted measuring protocols to determine in situ chemical fluxes from sediments. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) E. 2 Develop performance evaluations of various cap designs and cap placement methods and conduct post cap monitoring to document performance. Continue to monitor ongoing capping projects to monitor performance (e. g., Boston Harbor, Eagle Harbor, Grasse River). (ORD, U. S. EPA Regions, GLNPO) E. 4 Using the data provided in recommendation E. 1, develop a white paper evaluating the short term impacts from dredging relative to natural processes and human activities (e. g., resuspension from storm events, boat scour, wave action, and anchor drag). (OERR, U. S. EPA Regions)

Longer Time Frame E. 3 Encourage and promote the development and demonstration of in situ technologies. (ORD, GLNPO) E. 5 Support the demonstration of cost effective ex situ treatment technologies and identification of potential beneficial uses of treatment products. (ORD, GLNPO, U. S. EPA Regions) Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 84 F. Baseline, Remediation, and Post remediation Monitoring Immediate Time Frame F. 1 Develop monitoring guidance fact sheets for baseline, remediation, and post remediation monitoring, and monitoring during remedy implementation. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions, OW) F. 2 Conduct training and hold workshops for project managers regarding monitoring of contaminated sediment sites. (OERR, ORD, U. S. EPA Regions)

G. Risk Communication and Community Involvement Immediate Time Frame G. 1 Establish a research program on risk communication and community involvement focusing on developing better methods, models, and tools. (ORD, OERR, U. S. EPA Regions)

H. Information Management and Exchange Activities Immediate Time Frame H. 1 Establish regional sediment data management systems which can link the regions and program offices with each other and with the National Sediment Inventory. (U. S. EPA Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO) H. 3 Develop national and regional contaminated sediment sites web sites for sharing information. (U. S. EPA Regions, OW, OSWER, GLNPO) H. 4 Re establish and expand the Office of Water sponsored Sediment Network by including more regional representation. (OERR, OW, U. S. EPA Regions) H. 5 Promote communication and coordination of science and research among Federal agencies. (ORD, OSWER, OW, U. S. EPA Regions, NOAA, U. S. Navy, U. S. ACE, USGS, U. S. FWS) H. 6 Promote the exchange of scientific information via scientific fora (i. e., workshops, journals, and meetings). (CSMC, OW, OSWER, U. S. EPA Regions, GLNPO)

Longer Time Frame H. 2 Standardize the sediment site data collection/ reporting format. Establish minimum protocols for quality assurance/ quality control (QA/ QC). (OEI, OW OSWER, U. S. EPA Regions) Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 85 REFERENCES Abramowicz, D. A. and D. R. Olsen. 1995. Accelerated biodegradation of PCBs. CHEMTECH 24: 36 41.

Ashford, N. A. and K. M. Rest. 1999. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. Rep. No. U60/ CCU/ 100929 02. Prepared by the Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

Bedard, D. L. and R. J. May. 1996. Characterization of the PCBs in Sediments of Woods Pond: Evidence for Microbial Dechlorination of Aroclors 1260 In Situ. Environmental Science Technology 30: 237 245.

Blake, G. R. and K. H. Hartge. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.

Brown, J. F. Jr., R. E. Wagner, H. Feng, D. L. Bedard, M. J. Brennan, J. C. Carnaham, and R. J. May. 1987. Environmental Dechlorination of PCBs. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 6: 579 593.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1995. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Prepared by the CCME Task Group on Water Quality Guidelines, Ottawa, ON.

CDM. 1986. Weiss Associates ElectroChemical GeoOxidation Pilot Scale Study Work Plan: Draft Report. Prepared by Camp, Dresser, & McKee for Alcoa, Inc.

Cerniglia, C. E. 1992. Biodegradation of PAHs. Biodegradation 3: 351 368.

Chapman, P. M. 1989. Current Approaches to Developing Sediment Quality Criteria. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8: 589 599.

Chapman, P. M., E. A. Power, and G. A. Burton, Jr. 1982. "Integrative Assessments in Aquatic Ecosystems." pp. 313 340. In: Sediment Toxicity Assessment. G. A. Burton, Jr. (ed). Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

Day, P. R. 1965. "Particle Fractionation and Particle Size Analysis." pp. 562 566. In: Hydrometer method of Particle Size Analysis 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 86 Duncan, G. A., and G. G. Lattaie. 1979. Size Analysis Procedures Used in Sedimentology Laboratory, NWRI Manual. National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Canada.

Field, L. J., D. M. Macdonald, S. B. Norton, C. G. Severn, and C. G. Ingersoll. 1999. Evaluating Sediment Chemistry and Toxicity Data using Logistic Regression Modeling. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18( 6): 1311 1322.

Fiorino, D. J. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk  a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15( 2): 226 243.

Folk, R. L. 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Co., Austin, TX.

Folk, E. 1991. Public participation in the Superfund cleanup process. Ecology Law Quarterly 18( 1): 173 221.

GLNPO. 2000. Realizing Remediation II: An Updated Summary of Contaminated Sediment Remediation Activities at Great Lakes Areas of Concern. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.

Guy, Harold P. 1969. "Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of the U. S. G. S." p. 58. In: Laboratory Theory and Methods for Sediment Analysis; Book 5. U. S. Geological Survey, Arlington, VA.

Hayes, D. F. 1989. Guide to selecting a dredge for minimizing resuspension of sediment, environmental effects of dredging. Technical Note EEDP 09 1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Hoss, S. M., Haitzer, W. Traunspurger, and C. E. W. Steinberg. 1999. Growth and Fertility of Caenorhabditis elegans (Nematoda) in Unpolluted Freshwater Sediments: Response to Particle Size Distribution and Organic Content. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18( 12): 2921 2925.

Ingersoll, C. G., P. S. Haverland, E. L. Brunson, T. J. Canfield, F. J. Dwyer, C. E. Henke, and N. E. Kemble. 1996. Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22: 602 623.

Jones, K. W., Feng, H., Stern, E. A., Lodge, J., and N. L. Clesceri. 2001. Dredged Material Decontamination Demonstration for the Port of New York/ New Jersey. Journal of Hazardous Materials 85: 127 143. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 87 Lee, H. II, B. L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D. T. Sprecht, and R. C. Randall. 1989. Guidance Manual Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. EPA 600/ X 89/ 302. ERL, Narragansett, RI.

Long, E. R. 1992. Ranges in chemical concentrations in sediments associated with adverse biological effect. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24( 1): 38 45.

Long, E. R., and L. G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.

MacDonald, D. D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality of Florida 1991 Coastal Waters. Volume 1  Development and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines. Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL.

MacDonald, D. D., R. S. Carr, F. D. Calder, E. R. Long, and C. G. Ingersoll. 1996. Development and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Guidelines for Florida Coastal Waters. Ecotoxicology 5: 253 278.

McDonald, D. D., Ingersoll, C. G., and Berger, T. A. 2000. Development and Evaluation of Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39: 20 31.

Mudroch, A., and S. D. MacKnight. 1994. CRC Handbook of Techniques for Aquatic Sediment Sampling. Second Edition. CRD Press, Boca Raton, FL.

National Research Council. 1997. Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

National Research Council. 2001a. A Risk Management Strategy for PCB Contaminated Sediments. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

National Research Council. 2001b. Understanding Risk, Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. P. C. and H. V. Stineberg (eds). National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

Parametrix. 1999. St. Paul Waterway Area Remedial Action and Habitat Restoration Project: 1998 Monitoring Report. Unpublished report to Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co., Tacoma, WA, and Champion International, Stanford, CT, for the Washington State Department of Ecology and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 88 Patrick, W. H., Jr. 1958. "Modification of Method Particle Size Analyses." In: Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of America 4: 366 367.

Peck, J., Hulsey, B., and Savagian, A. 1994. Clean Lakes, Clean Jobs A Case for Cleaning Up Contaminated Sediments. Sierra Club Great Lakes Ecoregion Program, Madison, WI.

Plumb, R. H. 1981. Procedure for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples. Tech. Rep. EPA/ CE 81 1. Prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY for Environmental Protection Agency and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. Published by U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1986. Recommended Guidelines for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA, and Puget Sound Water Qualit y Authority, Olympia, WA.

Rukavina, N. A., and G. A. Duncan. 1970. "F. A. S. T.  Fast Analysis of Sediment Texture." pp. 274 281. In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Great Lakes Research.

Sanford, R. B., and D. J. P. Swift. 1971. Comparisons of Sieving and Settling Techniques for Size Analysis, Using a Benthos Rapid Sediment Analyzer. Sedimentology 17: 257 264.

Seech, A., B. O'Neil, and L. A. Comacchio. 1993. "Bioremediation of Sediments Contaminated with PAHs." In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Removal and Treatment of Contaminated Sediments. Environment Canada's Great Lakes Cleanup Fund. Wastewater Technology Center, Burlington, Ontario.

SEG. 1999. Trenton Channel Marketability Study, Detroit, Michigan. MERA #820012. Snell Environmental Group, Lansing, MI.

Shuttleworth, K. L. and C. E. Cerniglia. 1995. Environmental Aspects of PAH Biodegradation. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 54: 291 302.

Singer, J. K., J. B. Anderson, M. T. Ledbetter, I. N. McCave, K. P. N. Jones, and R. Wright. 1988. An Assessment of Analytical Techniques for the Size Analysis of Fine Grained Sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 58: 534 543. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate, or copy June 13, 2002 Page 89 Smith, S. L., D. D. MacDonald, K. A. Kennleyside, G. G. Ingersoll, and J. Field. 1996. A Preliminary Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Values for Freshwater Ecosystems. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22: 624 638.

Steuer, Jeffrey J. 2000. A Mass Balance Approach for Assessing PCB Movement During Remediation of a PCB Contaminated Deposit on the Fox River, Wisconsin. USGS Report 00 4245. U. S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI.

Stern, E. A., K. R. Donato, N. L. Clesceri, and K. W. Jones. 1998. "Integrated Sediment Decontamination for the New York/ New Jersey Harbor." pp. 71 81. In: Proceedings, National Conference on Management and Treatment of Contaminated Sediments. EPA/ 625/ R 98/ 001.

Sumeri, A. 1984. "Capped in water disposal of contaminated dredged material." pp. 644 653. In: Dredging `84: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Dredging and Material Disposal. R. L. Montgomery and J. W. Leach (eds). American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.

Truitt, C. L. 1986. Engineering Considerations for Capping Subaqueous Dredged Material Deposits  Design Concepts and Placement Techniques. Environmental Effects of Dredging. EEDP 01 4. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

U. S. EPA. 1979. Chemistry Laboratory Manual for Bottom Sediments and Elutriate Testing. EPA 905 4 79 014 (NTIS PB 294596). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, IL.

U. S. EPA. 1981. Interim Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Priority Pollutants in Sediment and Fish Tissue. EPA 600/ 4 81 055. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

U. S. EPA. 1991a. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal  testing manual. EPA 503 8 91 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1991b. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. EPA600 4 91 010. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

U. S. EPA. 1992a. Proceedings of EPA's contaminated sediment management forums. EPA 823. Chicago, IL, 21 22 April, and Washington, D. C., 27 28 May and 16 June. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate or copy June 13, 2002 Page 90 U. S. EPA. 1992b. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium. EPA 823 R 92 006. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1994. ARCS Program  Remediation Guidance Document. EPA 905 R 94 003. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.

U. S. EPA. 1995a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume IV: Risk Communication. EPA/ 823/ R 95/ 001 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1995b. QA/ QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations. Phase I  Chemical Evaluations. EPA 823 B95 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1996a. ARCS Program  Estimating Contaminant Losses from Components of Remediation Alternatives for Contaminated Sediments. EPA 905 R96 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.

U. S. EPA. 1996b. Ecotox Thresholds: Eco Update. EPA 540 F 95 038. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1997a. Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States. EPA 823 R 96 006. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1997b. EPA's Strategic Plan. EPA/ 190 R 97 002. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1998a. A Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants. Prepared by: U. S. EPA Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants (PBT) Plenary Group and U. S. EPA Office Directors Multimedia and Pollution Prevention Forum. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1998b. EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. EPA 823 R 98 001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1998c. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U. S. –– Testing Manual. EPA 823 B 98 004. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate or copy June 13, 2002 Page 91 U. S. EPA. 1998d. Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments. EPA 905 B96 004. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1999a. EPA Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters. EPA/ 600/ R 98/ 079. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1999b. Lessons Learned about Superfund Community Involvement, Features Partnerships at Waste Inc, Superfund Site. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Michigan City, IN.

U. S. EPA. 1999c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplement to Part A: Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments. EPA 540 R 98 042. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 1999d. Superfund Risk Assessment and How You Can Help (Videotape). EPA 540 V 99 002 OSWER 9285.7 29A. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 2000a. Draft Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Metal Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 2000b. Draft Technical Basis for the Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 2000c. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Third Edition. EPA 823 B 00 007. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 2000d. Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of SedimentAssociated Contaminants With Freshwater Invertebrates. Second Edition. EPA/ 600 R99 064. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 2000e. Strategic Framework for EPA Science. Office of Science Policy. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. Contaminated Sediments Science Plan Draft Document  Do not cite, circulate or copy June 13, 2002 Page 92 U. S. EPA. 2001a. Methods for Assessing the Chronic Toxicity of Marine and Estuarine Sediment Associated Contaminants with the Amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus. First Edition. EPA 823 F 01 008. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 2001b. Methods for Collection, Storage, and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analysis. In press. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. 2001c. PBT National Action Plan for Mercury. Final Draft. Prepared by: U. S. EPA Mercury Task Force, Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants (PBT) Mercury Work Group. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

U. S. EPA. In prep. Appendix to the Capping Guidance Document: Impacts of Advective Transport of Contaminants through In Situ Caps (working title). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office and Region 5.

U. S. EPA/ U. S. ACE. 1992. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives  A Technical Framework. EPA 842 B 92 008. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.