June 7-8, 2001 (WSU - Vancouver, Student Services Center) Meeting Summary Meeting Discussions Meeting Minutes Meeting Agenda Presentations Attendees Meeting Summary SEI Science Panel Sediments and Sediment Quality, June 7-8, 2001 Main Points The vast majority of material that would be dredged is sand, which is continuously moving in sand waves. The sand waves move at approximately 18 feet per day, and they are relatively clean. The sand has a low surface to volume ratio, is constantly abrading, and not much contamination stays on it. Although it has limitations, the conceptual model is a useful tool for discussion, especially with regard to adaptive management. The pathways for fish contamination and food chain contamination are not well understood. The panel generally felt that due to the estuary's relatively clean sediments, channel deepening would not stir up a large contaminant reservoir in the channel. Issues that could benefit from further research/analysis (these are not necessarily issues that are directly related to channel deepening): total organic carbon biomagnification food-chain dynamics effects of wave action from boat traffic on re-suspending fines along the shores connecting biological consequences to physical effects potential contaminant pathways (e.g., washload, off-channel areas, point sources). differences, if any, between side slopes and those of the main channel More shallow-water sampling ("90-some samples in the center of the channel don't really give an accurate picture of the cross section of the river."). a way to verify whether there is a relationship of concern between changes in flow cycle and dredging and re-filling. discrepancies over dredge disposal estimate. pros and cons of in-river dredge disposal (is too much sand being removed?). risks and uncertainties mitigation opportunities, especially for restoring upland areas. In general, the panel did not see "a clear and present danger" with regard to the impacts of sediment and sediment quality on fish. Risk and uncertainty are inevitable; the question to resolve is deciding how much risk and uncertainty society can live with. The panel in general felt there is no reason to believe that the project would increase suspended load, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter since the sediment is relatively clean. Even if suspended on fine sediments, total organic carbon is generally below detection levels in the estuary, and therefore, the panel felt that it was essentially a non-issue, especially with regard to channel deepening where the sediments are known to be relatively clean. Monitoring and adaptive management are essential, but they need to be flexible, relevant, and of an appropriate scale to the project. Meeting Goals Provide background information on sediment and sediment quality in the Corps' FEIS reports. Present the concerns raised in the December 1999 NMFS BiOp and Science Center review comments. Present proposed responses to NMFS and FWS concerns. Assess proposed responses. Determine if additional information or studies are required; if so, discuss the potential scope of such studies. Goal Attainment Karl Eriksen presented the overview of the Corps' river sediments analysis and Mark Shipload presented the overview of the Corps' sediment quality analysis. Tracy Collier of NMFS provided a summary presentation of NMFS white papers and updates. Jeremy Buck of FWS provided a summary presentation of the agency's concern over the transfer of contaminants through the food chain. There were no formal responses presented to rebut these concerns, but group discussion established the general adequacy of existing information to deal with concerns over sediment quality. The Science Panel generally felt that there is little basis for concern regarding the potential impacts of the project on sediment and sediment quality. The panel articulated a strong sentiment for the development of a monitoring and adaptive management program that addressed issues of uncertainty. Highlights of the June Proceedings DAY 1 Overview of River Sediments Analysis Eriksen (Corps) provided an overview of Corps sediment processes and analyses for channel dredging effects, including sediment budgets, erosion issues, and increased suspended sediments and turbidity. The presentation focused on issues of concern (Document 2) and described dredging activities in relation to issues of concern. From this presentation, the panel understood that the vast majority of material that would be dredged is sand, which is continuously moving in sand waves. The sand waves move at approximately 18 feet per day, and they are relatively clean. The sand itself has a low surface to volume ratio, is constantly abrading, and not much contamination stays on it. Dunne wished that the presentation had given more treatment to the disposal process itself. "I'm still a little unsure about the degree to which the Corps has thought about the consequences." Sediment Processes within the Conceptual Model Thom (Battelle) summarized the role of sediments and sediment processes in the overall conceptual model of functions and relationships within the Lower Columbia River. Boesch and Quinn expressed frustration with the conceptual model's complexity and limitations, and wondered how all the various pieces of information could be put usefully in a common framework. Courtney reminded the panel that the model is conceptual, helping people to think about processes in a systematic way. "It's not predictive in the sense we can plug numbers into it and see where it's going to go." Dunne agreed with Courtney and suggested removing the things that clearly aren't important in an effort to simplify the model. "Even if resolution is lacking, it's a wonderful tool for discussion, especially with regard to adaptive management." EPA Sediment Quality Evaluation Malek (EPA) provided an overview of national and regional guidance for sediment quality standards for dredging and disposal in the Northwest. Also, an understanding of how EPA is using screening criteria. No questions of significance arose. Overview of Corps Sediment Quality Analysis Siipola (Corps) discussed sediment quality sampling, data, and analysis for addressing channel dredging effects in the Lower Columbia. Boesch praised the Corps analysis for effectively addressing benthic concerns. However, he stated that the concentrations in bulk sediments are unimportant because dredging will simply move sediments from one area to another in the same reach. So it's really not a question of introducing contaminants. There are not a lot of contaminants in the fine sediments, yet for reasons we don't fully understand, some fish contain high concentrations of contaminants. Boesch postulated that the sources of contamination are upstream and they're coming down the river with fine particulate matter. "The real question is what are the dynamics of those contaminants as they're moving through the system in association with mostly suspended particles, and whether disturbance of bottom sediments through dredging is going to increase the exposure risk to fish." He urged the group to think more broadly in terms of spatial and temporal scale. "We're not talking about fish that are hanging out; we're talking about fish that are basically moving through. Their body burdens are affected by a lot of things." Curtis was anxious to get to the pathway. Both he and Cody felt it unlikely that the project would affect the pathway. "Are we stirring up a large contaminant reservoir in the channel? From the data we do have, it looks like no." Curtis admonished, however, that even though total organic carbon is below detection level, we do not know for certain that it's not significant, and therefore, it should be examined more. Goldman stated that a high level of uncertainty remains as to how contaminants are getting into the food chain. He felt that biomagnification is a missing piece in the information. Discussion between Project Managers and Science Panel Project Managers drew up the following list of questions to discuss with the panel: Are we using the process well? Are there other ways they can be of help? Does the panel have suggestions based on their extensive experience in terms of how to handle adaptive management and monitoring relative to project uncertainties and impacts? Does the panel have any feedback for us on the conceptual model Dr. Ron Thom has been developing for this analysis? Does the panel have suggestions in terms of how we might use a risk assessment approach to assist in our consultation? Has the panel identified data gaps in the information they've had presented? Are there short-term studies that could be conducted to fill those gaps? Does the panel have comments on our proposed evaluation methods for the biological assessment and opinion? Does the panel have comments on the analysis methods used by the Corps of Engineers? Is the analysis adequate? Based on panelists' experience, are there other ways to analyze physical change and the relationship to biological effects that we may not have considered? As we look at completing the SEI process, does the panel have suggestions on bring the process to closure? What remains to be done? Looking at Document 2 (the list of issues that the parties agreed were of concern), are there any additions or deletions the panel would make? Are there any issues that the panel would prioritize as of greater concern than others? Perry expressed frustration over not achieving closure or receiving adequate guidance around scoping for the BA. "Instead it seems that often new questions get raised. I'm concerned they're beyond the scope and capability, financial and otherwise, of what we can do." Boesch (and the other panelists in general) responded that it was not the charge of the panel to achieve closure. "We've been trying to help you by asking the right questions. We have not drawn conclusions for you. So what's the process by which you draw conclusions?" Boesch opined that all on the panel have a strong conservation bent, but felt that each panelist was probably having "difficulty seeing the basis of the continuing concerns NMFS has been raising." Further, "...I don't see 'a clear and present danger' with respect to the stocks that are involved. It would be helpful if we could talk about that resolution, in terms of what kinds of studies and what kinds of monitoring would be most appropriate as opposed to things we wish we could do." Panelists did not want to get ahead of the next day's presentations on toxics, but both Curtis and Boesch expressed skepticism over the data. Curtis: "I think unless we get some surprises tomorrow, at least in terms of moving sediment around, I think we might weed that one out. Not that toxics aren't an issue for salmon. I'll try not to get ahead of myself here, but from the data I saw, it's hard for me to conceptualize an increase in mass transit of toxics from moving that river sediment out into the flats." Goldman commented on the morning's proceedings: "One of the things I was impressed with today was to learn that the sand that's being dredged is extremely clean. What probably make the biological difference are the fines that are automatically removed as they move down the channel. I would guess that the major effect would be boat traffic re-suspending fines along the shores from wave action. Wave action has been going on for years. I don't know that three feet deeper is going to make that much of a difference." Quinn felt the link between physical and biological consequences is weak. "It seems to me that there's considerable understanding as to what those physical effects will be. The next vital step is understanding the biological consequences. If you can't connect those consequences to the physical effects, assuming the physical effects are well known and the activity is well defined, then that's when I started thinking that I can't put my finger on what chain of connections will lead to something bad." Bartell mentioned the ease with which issues make it to the table, but expressed frustration over how difficult it is to get them off the table. "There's a fundamental premise here that the quality and quantity of habitat in the estuary contributes to the growth and survival of the salmonids, but we've never seen any evidence that that information has been quantified, or is quantifiable. There's a follow-on assumption that if we're going to reduce habitat quantity and quality along with these various dimensions, we ought to get some sort of corresponding change, recognizing that there's uncertainty. Perhaps we'll never be able to get there given the current state of the data. I don't know how you ever arrive at a rational decision -- by rational I mean if you brought in another panel and gave them the same information, would they make the same conclusions? I haven't been beating this dead horse enough in the meetings: That is, how well this relationship has to be characterized, or how much of a risk are you willing to live with. We can say we're using the best science to make a decision, but that really doesn't say much. And I'm perfectly willing to recognize that the decision may ultimately be made for reasons that have nothing to do with science. That's fine. Not having a target to try and help focus the discussion toward resolution, all I can do is to try to bring up what I think are the important scientific issues associated with these many different topics. But it doesn't help you get to resolution." Cody noted a dichotomy between the information being presented to the panel in terms of the project and some views on its potential impacts. "Listening to the presentations and having the issues clarified doesn't directly address the ultimate issue which is endangerment to the salmon. There's sort of a discontinuity. We still don't know what to do about saving the salmon. I think it's a good idea to separate the two. What will the project do, as clearly as we can tell, and what is necessary to save the salmon?" Perry returned to her concern with the scope. "Expanding and expanding it is going to go beyond our financial capacity, or anything else, to deal with it. I'm going back to my original question of how can you help us wrap this thing up. We're going to have worked our way through all the issues, we're going to have heard the different scientific viewpoints. What's your vision of how you can best help us to reach closure?" Boesch echoed Bartell's call to take issues off the table that are shown to be irrelevant. "I think you can narrow down the number of issues. I think what we've heard today, and what I expect we'll hear tomorrow (although I don't want to get ahead of myself) will allow us to draw conclusions and identify uncertainties. It then will help you to determine if we go down this path, what kinds of precautions we ought to be taking to deal with the unpredicted consequences." He went on the urge the Project Managers to put the risks of dredging in the context of all the other things that are going on in the estuary that affect the success of fish. DAY 2 Trophic Transfer of Contaminants in the Lower Columbia River Buck (USFWS) discussed the transfer of organochlorine contaminants through the food chain in the lower Columbia River, and implications for salmonid exposure. Boesch asked Buck the degree to which the project will affect suspended sediment and distribution of carbon. Buck said he didn't know; that more data are required. Dunne felt there was no reason to believe that the dredging project would increase suspended load, and even if it did, what would it matter since the sediment is relatively clean. "I'm trying to figure out if we can get any of these issues of the table." Cody queried Buck's assertion that the effect of in-water disposal would be an increase in total organic carbon, which would in turn decrease bio-availability. Buck clarified that carbon in the system "is probably contaminated" and is moving through the system. Boesch: "You can't have it both ways. You're saying it's a low-carbon system and then you're saying well these fine sediments have a lot of contaminants in them. Well, if that's the case, you have to look at the carbon content of those fine sediments, not the total carbon content of all sediments. I also think there's a real trap here of thinking all carbon is a threat. There's a lot of labile carbon in sediment which has very different properties from other carbon. Mischief in the details..." Goldman wondered how the contaminants are getting into the food chain, pointing out that estuaries are a nutrient trap. Buck acknowledged this as a concern. "What is the possibility that there's carbon still associated with coarser materials and the small amounts of fine being re-distributed and trapped in that area? ....We don't know what's important in this system for contaminant pathways.... I want to make sure this is on the table for discussion. I don't think this is a futile exercise." Dunne reiterated: "Wherever the carbon is coming from, the material the Corps is proposing to dredge is the cleanest.... Do we have that consensus? That even given the occasional clay band, the area to be dredged is not a conceivable source of this carbon." Some concern was raised about the cleanliness of side channels, particularly areas around the ports. Malek pointed out that the ports are going through separate permitting actions. Degans said the ports had sampled at all of the grain elevators that would require deepening. "Sample results showed that some of the facilities did exceed screening levels. The assumption is that that material would need to be handled appropriately following the guidebook." Eriksen added that the volumes dredged from around the ports "would be measured in tens of thousands of yards, not millions of yards, so relatively small levels would come out of port facilities." Buck countered that "small levels may be important." Discussion ensued about the elevated levels of PCB's in eagles. Hicks pointed out that the data are old (1994-95). Mishaga wondered "how can we make assumptions about the effects of the project when fish and other wildlife can be contaminated in any number of places above the estuary?" Buck indicated there is documented evidence of contamination below Bonneville. Mishaga countered, "Nobody's questioning that contaminants are in the estuary. But the connection to the project is weak." Establishing Effect Thresholds and Dose Response Relationships Collier (NMFS) presented a summary of NMFS' white papers (2000) and updates (2001) addressing sediment quality thresholds for PAHs and DDT to protect estuarine fish and tissue, and sediment-based thresholds for PCBs to protect juvenile salmonids. Boesch expressed frustration about the seeming insignificance of NMFS' concerns. "We're not talking about a Superfund toxic substance. We're talking about fine-grained sediment, which is abundant and moving through the system in large quantities. It's nothing that's exotic or especially contaminated." Collier agreed but said that the question is the degree to which we can have certainty that something is not a problem. Boesch: "You can't expect reasonable people, their organizations, to pursue every point of uncertainty about every issue ...You have to make some judgments about which of those you feel pretty confident about, which of those are critical. And then, you have to focus on those." Collier expressed concern about the edges of the channel, asking if there remains a potential for depositional sediments to be disturbed. "I can't say... What value do you put on the concern?" Boesch: "I think you're missing my point. The point is that the material you're so concerned about being re-mobilized and introduced to the system, is the very material for which there is ample reason to suspect that it's not qualitatively different than the suspended sediment that's already fluxing through the system." Collier agreed, but qualified that "whatever is in suspended sediment right now presumably contributes to body burdens we see. If there's additional, incremental exposure, the question is does that ratchet up concern?" Discussion ensued about differences, if any, between side slopes and those of the main channel. Eriksen said there is essentially no difference. Cody: "I think then that we need some data to back this up. That the constitution of the materials and the silts and organic carbons is uniform, and that that uniformity will not be disturbed by dredging the channel..." Cody also said he believed that "90-some samples in the center of the channel don't really give an accurate picture of the cross section of the river. We have reason to believe that the shallow areas are important." Quinn agreed that Collier had raised some interesting issues that required further investigation. Goldman said he'd like to see "equal emphasis on the washload and bedload, especially as the washload (suspended sediment) comes into the estuary. There must be upstream sources of contamination, and it would be valuable to determine those." Larson pointed out that the variable of hatchery fish would have to be removed before one could conclude that these [wild] fish [in the estuary] are contaminated. Collier agreed. Courtney praised Collier's presentation for tying monitoring and management procedures to the proposed action. Boesch said that monitoring needs to be relevant ("We can't follow every wisp of a concern.") and needs to be a process by which information is rapidly interpreted and fed to policymakers. Analysis of Potential Contaminant Risks to Estuary Salmonids Based on Existing Sediment Quality Data Cardwell (Parametrix) presented information on available sediment contaminant data and contaminant distribution in the Lower Columbia and the risks posed by PAHs and PCBs to listed salmonids. Goldman said that Cardwell's presentation only confirmed his view that "the channel is pretty clean and that the concentration of the biology ought to be directed toward the washload, rather than the bedload. Cardwell agreed. Cody also felt that the presentation confirmed his concern with near shore and side channel areas. David Jay, Oregon Graduate Institute Jay (OGI) argued that the change in flow and in depth resulting from a deepened the navigation channel would tend to increase spring salinity intrusion. Most of the rest of the year, the deeper navigation channel and increased flows would have opposite effects. Tortorici asked if Jay agreed with the generally stated notion that with channel deepening, 30 percent of the suspended sediment would be retained in the estuary and 70 percent would flush right through. Jay replied that the figures are an average and "are the best we have." Larson pointed out that the Corps dredges continuously. "Every year, the mouth fills in by six to seven feet and we dredge that out. Does this impact continuously?" Jay: "I think it does. If we look carefully, we ought to see the changes." For Jay, two things are happening at once: Flow cycle is changing and the dredging and refilling cycle are happening at once. "It could be hard to sort those things out. That's why the modeling is important -- distinguishing flow cycle changes from annual bed movement cycle." Larson: "So it establishes some other base condition..." Jay: "We're talking about changing the channel depth on the average of about three feet. I think the changes will be concentrated at certain flow levels. The problem is we don't know right now, what they are." Jay thinks the Corps estimates on the amount of dredge disposal (6.3 million tons per year) are low. Eriksen stood by his numbers and questioned some of Jay's assumptions. Tortorici wanted to know if the discrepancy would affect construction duration. Eriksen said no. Boesch though that of all the disagreements that had come before the panel this one was relatively straightforward to resolve. Jay expressed concern that dredging could take too much sand out of the system. With dredging, he felt that sand would move in from peripheral areas, and therefore, affect peripheral habitat. "...You may start to erode habitats more rapidly than you're replacing them." He acknowledged, though, that sand removal effects might not manifest themselves for a long time and that it would be difficult to develop appropriate models. Boesch commented on the irony of the concern over toxic-laden sediment that could kill all the salmon, and concern over removing too much sediment that could kill all the salmon. "One way or the other, we're going to kill them." Jay objected to this and Boesch acknowledged that he was being facetious. However, "in the long run, there need to be some questions asked about whether the management regime, which is driven toward less in-river disposal, is really the right way." Tortorici agreed. Hicks said it argued for the urgency to define habitat. Eriksen acknowledged that sand transport has been changed over time, "but there's no evidence that dredging will affect it." He pointed to differences in his and Jay's approaches/methods. "David is looking statistically at sediment transport and dredging volume; I'm looking at changes in the river bottom, management practices for material disposal. I've looked in the past at sediment transport and discounted it. So we are worlds apart in our methodologies, and it's not easy to meld the two together. It's an interesting theory that I'd like to look into...." Bartell said the debate only made a strong case for monitoring and adaptive management. Panel Concluding Discussion Courtney summarized that thus far in the panel process everything was distilling down to two issues of some substance: The issue of habitat alteration in peripheral areas, and the issue of toxics and the sensitivity of the system to toxics. However, "What we heard today is that there's no large concern about toxics issues..." In essence, though, he felt that there is a missing piece. "Moving forward with any projects would be appropriate only if that uncertainty is addressed through a monitoring and adaptive management strategy." Bartell urged the Project Managers to define a finite set of factors to evaluate the relationship of the proposed project. Cody praised the usefulness of the presentations. "Earlier on, we were wondering how the contaminants got to the estuary. The estuary is basically where the contaminants are underrepresented in the sediments, so presumably they're being taken down there by the salmon themselves. So that sort of pathway is something we didn't know about before. And now we've identified these near shore fines as a source for what shows up in the estuary. I think that's a real step forward. And it certainly would direct a monitoring effort to keep tabs on that. I think that's clear. Goldman: " If this project does nothing more than direct attention toward understanding food chain dynamics, I think it will do a lot. There's some real unanswered questions about the carbon supply, the food chain dynamics in the system, and how this will interact particularly with the fine sediments. The fine particles could be the key to how contaminants are getting into the food chain." Curtis was left with several questions: 1) Was the sampling adequate to answer the question of what's there, 2) How homogeneous an environment is the channel? 3) What is the likelihood that deepening the channel is going to deepen the scouring to a horizon lower than what has been exposed in the past? He encouraged the group to look at other pathways -- the washload, off-channel areas, and point sources. Dunne gave little credence to the concern over scouring, but did support a strong monitoring program. "I think that the sooner you decide to design a monitoring scheme the better." Courtney: "I should point out that the panel felt strongly during the lunch session that monitoring is an integral part of the program and should be discussed now, not later. Another issue was what should be the appropriate scale for monitoring? Monitoring should be appropriate to the project and address issues and assumptions associated with the project. But, nevertheless, the panel suggested the effort should be informed by a regional application." Whitney: expressed concern with adaptive management and lack of follow-through. He urged the group to look for opportunities for mitigation and to create disturbance in the system that might return some of the upland functions that interact with the environment. Courtney summarized that "there's a sense among panel that the conceptual model, although it still needs refining, is beginning to become useful. On toxics and toxic sediments and the uncertainties associated with that, "it doesn't all add up.... We're not hearing substantive levels of concern at this point about re-distribution of toxins from the channel." He concluded by saying that the uncertainties might be an appropriate focus of exploration, possibly in an adaptive management context.