December 2010 - Maile's District 21 Blog and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina i...

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REPORT

DREDGED MATERIAL EVALUATION: HAWAII KAI MARINA AND ENTRANCE CHANNEL MAINTENANCE DREDGING

Prepared for Hawaii Kai Marina Community Association

377 Keahole Street, D-1C

Honolulu, Hawaii 96825

Prepared by Anchor QEA, L.P.

26300 La Alameda, Suite 240

Mission Viejo, California 92691

December 2010

Sampling and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina i 090641-01.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Marina Dredging ........................................................................................................1

1.1.2 Entrance Channel Dredging ......................................................................................6

1.2 Historical Data Review ....................................................................................................6

2 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Sample Collection and Handling .....................................................................................7

2.1.1 Sampling Platform ......................................................................................................7

2.1.2 Navigation and Vertical Control ...............................................................................7

2.1.3 Station Locations ........................................................................................................7

2.1.4 Sample Collection Procedures ...................................................................................9

2.1.5 Sample Characterization ..........................................................................................10

2.1.6 Field Equipment Decontamination and Waste Disposal ........................................10

2.1.7 Sample Shipping .......................................................................................................10

2.1.8 Sample Processing ....................................................................................................11

2.1.9 Chain-of-Custody .....................................................................................................13

2.2 Physical and Chemical Analyses ...................................................................................13

2.2.1 Physical Analyses .....................................................................................................13

2.2.2 Chemical Analyses of Sediment ..............................................................................13

2.2.3 Chemical Analysis of Tissue Residues .....................................................................14

2.2.4 Characterization for Possible Upland Placement ...................................................15

2.2.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control .........................................................................16

2.3 Biological Testing ...........................................................................................................16


3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 18

3.1 Sample Collection and Handling ...................................................................................18

3.2 Results of Physical and Chemical Analyses of Sediment .............................................21

3.2.1 Lanikai Beach Reference Sample .............................................................................21

3.2.2 Composite Area HK-DU1 ........................................................................................21


Sampling and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina ii 090641-01.01



3.2.6 Sediment from the Entrance Channel .....................................................................27



3.3 Results of Biological Testing ..........................................................................................31

3.3.1 Solid Phase Testing ...................................................................................................31

3.3.1.1 Amphipod Mortality Bioassay ....................................................................... 31

3.3.1.2 Polychaete Mortality Bioassay ....................................................................... 32

3.3.2 Suspended Particulate Phase Testing ......................................................................33

3.3.2.1 Bivalve Larval Development Bioassay ........................................................... 33

3.3.2.2 Mysid Shrimp Bioassay .................................................................................. 34

3.3.2.3 Juvenile Fish Bioassay .................................................................................... 35

3.3.3 Bioaccumulation Potential Testing .........................................................................36

3.3.3.1 Bivalve Bioaccumulation Test ........................................................................ 36

3.3.3.2 Polychaete Bioaccumulation Test.................................................................. 37


3.4 Results of Chemical Analyses of Tissue Residues .........................................................38

3.4.1 Bivalve Tissue Residues ............................................................................................38

3.4.2 Polychaete Tissue Residues ......................................................................................39

3.4.3 Comparison of Tissue Burdens to U.S. Food and Drug Administration Action

Levels ........................................................................................................................47

3.4.4 Comparison of Proposed Dredged Material Tissue Burdens to Reference

Sediment Tissue Burdens .........................................................................................47

3.4.4.1 Bivalve Tissue Residues .................................................................................. 47

3.4.4.2 Polychaete Tissue Residues ............................................................................ 48


4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 52

4.1 Physical and Chemical Analyses of Sediments .............................................................52


4.2 Bioassay Testing .............................................................................................................53

4.3 Bioaccumulation Testing and Chemical Analysis of Tissue Residues .........................53

Sampling and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina iii 090641-01.01

5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 55

6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 56

List of Tables Table 1 Maximum Proposed Maintenance Dredging Volumes from within

the Marina .............................................................................................................. 6

Table 2 Coordinates, Mudline Elevations, and Target Core Lengths for Core Sampling

Locations ................................................................................................................. 8

Table 3 Analytical Laboratories, Points of Contact, and Shipping Information ........... 11

Table 4 Sediment Sample Processing and Testing Strategy ............................................ 12

Table 5 Biological Testing for Composite Samples .......................................................... 17

Table 6 Station Coordinates, Mudline Elevation, Estimated Penetration, and Retrieved

Core Lengths of Samples ..................................................................................... 19

Table 7 Results of Physical and Chemical Analyses of Sediment .................................. 21

Table 8 Results of Grain Size Analysis of Sediment from the Entrance Channel ......... 27

Table 9 Comparison of Sediment Concentrations from HK-DU4 to 20 Times TCLP

Regulatory Values ................................................................................................ 30

Table 10 Results of Chemical Analysis of TCLP Leachate from HK-DU4 ....................... 30

Table 11 Summary of Amphipod Bioassay Results ........................................................... 32

Table 12 Summary of Polychaete Bioassay Results ........................................................... 32

Table 13 Summary of Bivalve Larval Bioassay Results ..................................................... 33

Table 14 Summary of Mysid Shrimp Bioassay Results ...................................................... 35

Table 15 Summary of Juvenile Fish Bioassay Results ....................................................... 36

Table 16 Summary of Bivalve Bioaccumulation Results ................................................... 37

Table 17 Summary of Polychaete Bioaccumulation Results ............................................. 37

Table 18 Results of Chemical Analyses of M. nasuta Tissue Residues ............................. 40

Table 19 Results of Chemical Analyses of N. virens Tissue Residues .............................. 43

Table 20 Summary of Statistically Elevated M. nasuta Tissue Residues .......................... 50

Table 21 Summary of Statistically Elevated N. virens Tissue Residues ........................... 51

Sampling and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina iv 090641-01.01

List of Figures Figure 1 Site Map Location .................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................ 4

Figure 3 Dredge Units and Actual Sampling Locations ...................................................... 5

Figure 4 Entrance Channel Sample Locations (December 2008) .................................... 29

List of Appendices Appendix A Field Records

Appendix B Analytical Reports

Appendix C Communication with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix D Data Validation Report

Appendix E Statistical Analysis of Tissue Concentrations

Sampling and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina v 090641-01.01

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS °C degree Celsius

μg microgram

ANOVA analysis of variance

ARI Analytical Resources, Inc.

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BP bioaccumulation potential

CFR Code of Federal Regulation

COC chain-of-custody

cy cubic yard

DGPS differential global positioning system

DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources

DO dissolved oxygen

DU dredge unit

E2 Element Environmental, LLC

EC50 median effective concentration

ERED Environmental Residue-Effects Database

ERL Effects Range Low

ERM Effects Range Median

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration

HDPE high-density polyethylene

HKMCA Hawaii Kai Marina Community Association

ITM Evaluation for Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in

Waters of the U.S. – Inland Testing Manual

kg kilogram

L liter

LC50 median lethal concentration

LDPE low-density polyethylene

LPC limiting permissible concentration

MDL method detection limit

mg milligram

mL milliliter

Sampling and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina vi 090641-01.01

MLLW mean lower low water

mm millimeter

MS matrix spike

MSD matrix spike duplicate

NAD North American Datum

Newfields Newfields Northwest, LLC

OTM Evaluation for Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal –

Testing Manual

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PSEP Puget Sound Estuary Program

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

RCRA Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RIM Regional Implementation Manual

RPD relative percent difference

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

SAR Sampling and Analysis Report

SM Standard Method

SOODMDS South Oahu Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site

SOP Standard Operating Practice

SP solid phase

SPP suspended particulate phase

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TOC total organic carbon

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon

TVS total volatile solid

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Sampling and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina 1 090641-01.01

1 INTRODUCTION

The Hawaii Kai Marina Community Association (HKMCA) is proposing to conduct

maintenance dredging within the Hawaii Kai Marina and at the entrance channel to

maintain adequate navigational depths. Hawaii Kai Marina is located near Hanauma Bay and

Koko Crater on the southeast side of Oahu, Hawaii (Figure 1). This Sampling and Analysis

Report (SAR) summarizes the sediment sampling event and evaluates data results to

determine recommendations and conclusions for dredged material disposal alternatives.

1.1 Project Overview

1.1.1 Marina Dredging

Maintenance dredging is planned to restore adequate navigational depths within the Hawaii

Kai Marina to reach a maximum potential maintenance depth of -5 feet mean lower low

water (MLLW), plus up to 2 feet of allowable overdepth (1 foot paid and 1 foot unpaid). The

total maximum volume of material that would be dredged from the marina is approximately

164,400 cubic yards (cy), consisting of 52,800 cy above project depth and 111,600 cy of

allowable overdepth (see Table 1). Dredged material volume estimates are based on a

condition survey completed by Northwest Maritime Industrial in January 2009. Existing

bathymetry within the Hawaii Kai Marina is shown on Figure 2.

Table 1

Maximum Proposed Maintenance Dredging Volumes from within the Marina

DU

Required Volume to Dredge

Depth (cy)

1 Foot of Payable

Overdepth Volume (cy)

Maximum Anticipated

Payable Dredge Volume (cy)

1 Foot of Nonpayable Overdepth Volume (cy)

Maximum Anticipated Total Dredge

Volume (cy)

Dredging to Shallower Depth than ‐4 Feet MLLW

HK‐DU1 2,400 4,100 6,500 3,500 10,000

HK‐DU2 5,600 14,200 19,800 13,000 32,800

HK‐DU3 6,500 16,700 23,200 15,000 38,200

HK‐DU4 1,700 2,300 4,000 2,000 6,000

Total 16,200 37,300 53,500 33,500 87,000

Introduction


DU

Required Volume to Dredge

Depth (cy)

1 Foot of Payable

Overdepth Volume (cy)

Maximum Anticipated

Payable Dredge Volume (cy)

1 Foot of Nonpayable Overdepth Volume (cy)

Maximum Anticipated Total Dredge

Volume (cy)

Dredging to Greater Depth than ‐5 Feet MLLW

HK‐DU1 8,900 12,000 20,900 10,000 30,900

HK‐DU2 18,900 21,800 40,700 20,000 60,700

HK‐DU3 21,000 22,000 43,000 20,000 63,000

HK‐DU4 4,000 3,300 7,300 2,500 9,800

Total 52,800 59,100 111,900 52,500 164,400

The actual sediment removal volume is expected to be less than the maximum volume

previously stated, as dredging limits and extents will be modified during the design process.

Furthermore, if costs are prohibitive, the HKMCA may elect to target a shallower depth

during the planned dredging event. This investigation was designed to allow for the possible

reduction of the dredge footprint within the marina to -4 feet MLLW plus up to 2 feet of

allowable overdepth (1 foot paid and 1 foot unpaid). As part of this scenario, the total

volume of material to be dredged would be approximately 87,000 cy, consisting of 16,200 cy

above project depth and 70,800 cy of allowable overdepth (see Table 1).

The proposed area to be dredged was sectioned into four dredge units (DUs) for the purpose

of sampling and analysis activities (i.e., HK-DU1, HK-DU2, HK-DU3, and HK-DU4;

Figure 3). Table 1 summarizes the proposed maintenance dredging volumes within the

marina, including estimated volumes for each DU, to be dredged to either a permitted depth

of -5 feet MLLW or a shallower depth of -4 feet MLLW.

::t: .. ~ =:

Adjacent Beaches Proposed for Sand Nourishment

\C~k~f~

ELEVATION LEGEND:

Elevation Depth (ft) Color

-1.0 to 0.0 • -2.0 to -1.0 • -3.0 to -2.0 • -4.0 to -3.0 • -5.0 to -4.0

-6.0 to -5.0 • -7.0 to -6.0 • -s.o to -7.0 • -9.0 to -S.O • -10.0 to -9.0 • -11.0 to -10.0 • -12.0 to -11.0 • -13.0 to -12.0 • -14.0 to -13.0 • -15.0 to -14.0 • -15.5 to -15.0 • SYMBOL LEGEND:

® Outfall Location

SOURCE: Drawing prepared from GIS files from the City of Honolulu and bathymetric survey performed by Northwest Maritime Industrial in January 2009. HORIZONTAL DATUM: Hawaii State Plane 3, HARN NADS3. VERTICAL DATUM: mean lower low water (MLLW).

o o 1000

.. 1:,.,.+ Scale i ... _ ... L

Figure 2 Existing Conditions

Hawaii Kai Marina and Entrance Channel Maintenance Dredging

if

~ 6 ; iii

Ilt~1 I~ ~ I~~. r ~ .9 _ . ~ . " • :. 11

~ .l!

I m

~ Adjacent Beaches Proposed for

DEFINITION OF BATHYMETRY RANGES:

Elevation Depth (ft) Color

0.0 to -4.0

-4.lto -5.0 •

-5.1 to-15.5 •

LEGEND:

D

HK·DU1"()1 •

HK-EC-Ol * HK-DU2"()1 •

®

Composite Areas for the Determination of Suitability for Ocean Disposal

Chemistry, Grain Size, and Biological Analysis (TIer III)

Grain Size for Beach Nourishment

Sample Excluded from Composite

outfall Location

SOURCE: Drawing prepared from GIS files from the City of Honolulu and bathymetric survey performed by Northwest Maritime Industrial in January 2009. HORIZONTAL DATUM: Hawaii State Plane 3, HARN NAD83. VERTICAL DATUM: mean lower low water (MLLW).

o o 1000

Scale i,l I eeL

Sand NOl":'''---+ il Ja"u,wu""""~,,, ~ /&~7l!!ffft1 ~ II

\C~k~f~ Figure 3

Dredge Units and Actual Sampling Locations Hawaii Kai Marina and Entrance Channel Maintenance Dredging

Introduction


Dredged material from within the marina was characterized for ocean disposal or upland

placement. Testing for ocean disposal included physical, chemical, and biological analyses,

per the Regional Implementation Manual (RIM; USEPA/USACE 1997) and the Evaluation

for Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal – Testing Manual (OTM; USEPA/USACE

1991). If suitable for ocean disposal, dredged material may be placed at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency- (USEPA-) designated South Oahu Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site (SOODMDS). Dredged material from HK-DU4 was evaluated for

potential upland placement. During the evaluation, it was determined that disposing of this

material upland was more feasible. Potential upland placement sites include Rim Island 1

and/or the Yacht Club property located at the Hawaii Kai project site (Figure 2) or an upland

landfill on Oahu, depending on site availability and cost considerations.

1.1.2 Entrance Channel Dredging

The HKMCA also plans to conduct maintenance dredging at the entrance channel to the

marina. The total volume of material proposed for dredging at the entrance channel is

estimated to be up to 10,000 cy, depending on the width of channel that will be dredged.

Based on observations and near-surface grab sampling conducted in 2008, the material in the

entrance channel appears to be beach sand that was transported by ocean currents from

adjacent beach areas. Dredged material from the entrance channel was evaluated for

placement on an adjacent beach as sand nourishment.

1.2 Historical Data Review

No previous chemical, physical, and biological characterizations or suitability determinations

were previously completed for sediments within the Hawaii Kai Marina.


2 METHODS

2.1 Sample Collection and Handling

Sediment cores were collected from four DUs within Hawaii Kai Marina to evaluate

proposed dredged material for ocean disposal or upland placement. In addition, a sediment

core was collected from the entrance channel to support the evaluation of material for beach

nourishment.1 This section details the methods of sample collection and handling,

specifically addressing sampling platform, navigation and vertical control, station locations,

sample collection procedures, sample characterization, field equipment decontamination and

waste disposal, sample shipping, sample processing, and chain-of-custody (COC) procedures.

2.1.1 Sampling Platform

Sampling was performed from a barge that was provided by Element Environmental, LLC

(E2). The barge was approximately 25 feet long with a platform constructed on the front for

the Geoprobe direct-push sampler. The platform was modified to allow the deployment and

recovery of the sampler. The vessel conformed to U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) safety standards.

Operation of the barge was the responsibility of Mr. Mike Pulu of Pacific Workboats.

2.1.2 Navigation and Vertical Control

A differential global positioning system (DGPS) was used to guide the vessel to

pre-determined core sampling locations. Locations were accurate to within plus or minus

10 feet. Horizontal positions were reported in latitude and longitude (North American

Datum [NAD] 83) in degrees and minutes to three decimal places. Upon locating the

sampling position, station depth was measured using a leadline. The mudline elevation

relative to the MLLW datum was determined by adding the tidal elevation to the measured

depth.

2.1.3 Station Locations

Station locations were chosen with the objective of accurately representing the physical and

chemical characteristics of the sediment to be dredged. Sediment cores were collected at six

1 Sediment from the entrance channel (Station HK-EC-01) was collected in 2010 for potential analysis to

supplement grain size data from December 2008, if needed (see Section 3.2.6).

Methods


stations within HK-DU1, at seven stations within HK-DU2 and HK-DU3, at three stations

within HK-DU4, and at one station at the entrance channel, totaling 24 stations (Figure 3).

It should be noted that samples collected from two stations (one within each of HK-DU2 and

HK-DU3) were excluded from the composite samples, as described in detail in Section 3.1.

More than one core was required at each station to obtain sufficient volume of sediment for

analysis. Coordinates, mudline elevations, and target core lengths for each core location are

listed in Table 2.

Table 2

Coordinates, Mudline Elevations, and Target Core Lengths

for Core Sampling Locations

Station ID Latitude Longitude

Mudline Elevation

(feet MLLW)

Maximum Dredging Depth Including

Overdepth (feet MLLW)

Target Core Length (feet)

HK‐DU1‐01 N21°17.506' W157° 43.015' ‐2.3 ‐7 4.7

HK‐DU1‐02 N21°17.503' W157° 42.932' ‐2.9 ‐7 4.1

HK‐DU1‐03 N21°17.290' W157° 43.101' ‐3.3 ‐7 3.7

HK‐DU1‐04 N21°17.212' W157° 43.123' ‐3.2 ‐7 3.8

HK‐DU1‐05 N21°17.313' W157° 42.896' ‐3.3 ‐7 3.7

HK‐DU1‐06 N21°17.469' W157° 42.977' ‐3.3 ‐7 3.7

HK‐DU2‐01 N21°17.505' W157° 42.654' ‐2.4 ‐7 4.6

HK‐DU2‐02 N21°17.593' W157° 42.536' ‐3.2 ‐7 3.8

HK‐DU2‐03 N21°17.524' W157° 42.559' ‐3.1 ‐7 3.9

HK‐DU2‐04 N21°17.438' W157° 42.491' ‐4 ‐7 3.0

HK‐DU2‐05 N21°17.324' W157° 42.496' ‐3.9 ‐7 3.1

HK‐DU2‐06 N21°17.505' W157° 42.488' ‐2.8 ‐7 4.2

HK‐DU2‐07 N21°17.596' W157° 42.574' ‐1.3 ‐7 5.7

HK‐DU3‐01 N21°18.046' W157° 41.709' ‐3.5 ‐7 3.5

HK‐DU3‐02 N21°18.004' W157° 41.680' ‐3.6 ‐7 3.4

HK‐DU3‐03 N21°17.733' W157° 41.688' ‐4.1 ‐7 2.9

HK‐DU3‐04 N21°17.703' W157° 41.579' ‐3.8 ‐7 3.2

HK‐DU3‐05 N21°17.728' W157° 41.455' ‐3.5 ‐7 3.5

HK‐DU3‐06 N21°17.649' W157° 41.587' ‐3.6 ‐7 3.4

HK‐DU3‐07 N21°17.780' W157° 41.388' ‐2.8 ‐7 4.2

HK‐DU4‐01 N21°16.839' W157° 42.244' ‐3.4 ‐7 3.6

Methods


Station ID Latitude Longitude

Mudline Elevation

(feet MLLW)

Maximum Dredging Depth Including

Overdepth (feet MLLW)

Target Core Length (feet)

HK‐DU4‐02 N21°17.156' W157° 41.958' ‐2.4 ‐7 4.6

HK‐DU4‐03 N21°17.372' W157° 41.879' ‐3.3 ‐7 3.7

HK‐EC‐011 N21°16.858' W157° 42.701' ‐1.2 ‐7 5.8

Notes: 1 Sediment from the entrance channel (Station HK‐EC‐01) was collected for potential analysis to supplement grain size data from December 2008, if needed (see Section 3.2.6).

In addition to project sediment, reference sediment and site water were collected for

biological testing requirements. Reference sediment was collected from the

USEPA-approved reference site at Lanikai Beach, Oahu, Hawaii (Figure 1). Site water was

collected from Hawaii Kai Marina.

2.1.4 Sample Collection Procedures

Sediment cores were collected using a hand-operated push core. Core tubes consisted of a

butyrate liner inside a 2-inch outer diameter steel core barrel with a stainless-steel catcher to

retain the sediment. To eliminate the possibility of cross contamination, a new liner was

inserted into the core tube prior to sampling at each station. The push core was deployed

and retrieved from the side of the barge. After the core was on deck, the liner was extracted

from the core tube and cut vertically to examine the sediment. In some instances, when

penetration was less than the target sampling depth, a hydraulically powered Geoprobe

direct-push sampler was used.

Samples were collected to project depth plus overdepth, unless refusal was encountered.

Refusal was defined as less than 2 inches of penetration per minute. If refusal was

encountered, the vessel was moved, and another core was attempted.

Reference sediment was collected using a plastic scoop. Site water was collected using

low-density polyethylene (LDPE) cubitainers.

Methods


2.1.5 Sample Characterization

Sediment core samples were characterized onboard the sampling vessel. Physical

characteristics of each core were noted on the individual sediment core collection form. A

representative core from each location was photographed. Field logs are provided in

Appendix A.

After characterization, individual cores were placed into labeled clean food-grade

polyethylene bags, sealed airtight, and placed into a cooler with ice. Samples were

maintained at 4 degrees ± 2 degrees Celsius (°C) until received at the laboratory.

2.1.6 Field Equipment Decontamination and Waste Disposal

All sampling equipment was decontaminated prior to use and between stations using site

water and a phosphate-free biodegradable soap solution, as described in the Sampling and

Analysis Plan (SAP; Anchor QEA 2010). Incidental sediment remaining after sampling was

washed overboard at the collection site prior to moving to the next sampling station.

Sediment spilled on the deck of the sampling vessel was washed into the surface waters at

the collection site after sampling.

All disposable sampling materials and personnel protective equipment (such as disposable

gloves and paper towels) were placed into heavy-duty garbage bags and then placed into a

refuse container for disposal as solid waste.

2.1.7 Sample Shipping

Samples were securely packed inside coolers with ice packs and shipped by overnight courier

to Newfields Northwest, LLC’s (Newfields’) laboratory for processing (Table 3). Sample jars

were wrapped in bubble wrap to prevent breakage. The original signed COC forms and soil

shipping permit were placed in sealed plastic bags and taped to the inside lid of the cooler.

Upon completion of processing at Newfields’ laboratory, samples were shipped to Analytical

Methods


Resources, Inc.’s (ARI’s) laboratory for physical and chemical analysis (Table 3). Core

location sample archives2 were shipped directly to ARI.

Table 3

Analytical Laboratories, Points of Contact, and Shipping Information

Laboratory Volume Analyses Performed Point

of Contact Shipping Information

Analytical Resources, Inc.

250 mL and 500 mL

Sediment and Tissue Chemistry, Physical

Testing

Sue Dunnihoo(206) 695‐6200

Analytical Resources, Inc.4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100Tukwila, Washington 98168

Newfields Northwest, LLC

50 L Bioassay and

Bioaccumulation Testing

Dr. Jack Ward(360) 297‐6068

Newfields Northwest, LLC 4729 NE View Drive Port Gamble, Washington 98364

Notes: mg/L = milligrams per liter L = liter

2.1.8 Sample Processing

Sediment cores were processed at Newfields’ laboratory. Sediment from each station was

individually homogenized to a uniform consistency in a stainless-steel bowl or high-density

polyethylene (HDPE) bucket. A 500-milliliter (mL) subsample of each individual

homogenized station was archived to allow for additional chemical analyses, if necessary. A

proportionate volume of the homogenized sediment from each station was combined to form

a single composite sample for each DU. Table 4 presents the sediment sample processing and

testing strategy for this sediment investigation. After completion of compositing, sediment

was placed into labeled, pre-cleaned jars appropriate for physical and chemical analysis, and

all jars were firmly sealed. Sediment for biological testing was placed in food-grade

polyethylene bags. Samples were stored at approximately 4 ± 2°C until biological testing was

initiated or until samples were shipped to ARI’s laboratory for physical and chemical

analysis.

2 While in the field, an archive was collected from the core segment representing 0 to -6 feet MLLW (0 to -4

feet MLLW plus 1 foot of paid overdepth and 1 foot of unpaid overdepth) in the event that the dredge

footprint is reduced to -4 feet MLLW. If the dredge footprint is reduced, the project plan is to perform

chemistry on a composite sample representing the area of 0 to -4 feet MLLW plus overdepth. If sediment

chemistry results for the reduced area indicate similar results to the material already found suitable for ocean

disposal, the dredged material from the area of 0 to -4 feet MLLW will also be considered suitable for ocean

disposal.

Table 4Sediment Sample Processing and Testing Strategy

HK‐DU1‐COMP

HK‐DU1‐01

HK‐DU1‐02

HK‐DU1‐03

HK‐DU1‐04

HK‐DU1‐05

HK‐DU1‐06

Individual cores and a

composite of 0 feet to ‐4 feet

MLLW plus overdepth of the

reduced dredge footprint.

Yes

Yes (Phase I testing indicated

material was likely suitable for

ocean disposal)

Yes (Phase II testing

indicated material was

likely suitable for ocean

disposal)

No (TCLP not conducted)

HK‐DU2‐COMP

HK‐DU2‐011

HK‐DU2‐02

HK‐DU2‐03

HK‐DU2‐04

HK‐DU2‐05

HK‐DU2‐06

HK‐DU2‐07





Yes



ocean disposal)




disposal)

No (TCLP not conductedl)

HK‐DU3‐COMP

HK‐DU3‐01

HK‐DU3‐02

HK‐DU3‐03

HK‐DU3‐04

HK‐DU3‐05

HK‐DU3‐061

HK‐DU3‐07





Yes



ocean disposal)




disposal)

No (TCLP not conducted)

HK‐DU4‐COMP

HK‐DU4‐01

HK‐DU4‐02

HK‐DU4‐03





Yes

No (droppd from Phase II testing

for ocean disposal because it was

determined more feasible to

place material upland)

No

Yes (sediment chemistry was

compared to 20 times the TCLP

regulatory values and it was

determined that TCLP was

necessary for only chromium)

N/A HK‐EC‐01

Individual core for potential

analysis of grain size to

supplement data from

December 2008, if needed.

No No No No

Notes:1 Stations eliminated from testing (see Section 3.1)N/A = not applicable. No composite sample. Only individual cores.

Phase IV: Waste Characterization TCLP Testing

Composite Sample ID Core IDs Archive

Phase I: Chemistry and Amphipod Bioassay

Phase II: Additional Bioassay and Bioaccumulation Testing

Phase III: Tissue Chemistry

Sampling and Analysis Report

Hawaii Kai Marina Page 1 of 1December 2010

090641-01.01

Methods


2.1.9 Chain‐of‐Custody

COC procedures were followed for all samples throughout the collection, handling, and

analysis process. COC forms were the principal documents used to detail the possession and

transfer of samples. A COC form accompanied each cooler of samples to the analytical and

biological laboratories. Each person who had custody of the samples signed the COC form

and ensured that the samples were not left unattended unless properly secured. Completed

COC forms are presented in the laboratory analytical reports in Appendix B.

2.2 Physical and Chemical Analyses

All physical and chemical analyses in this testing program were selected to provide data on

chemicals of potential concern in Hawaii Kai Marina sediment. All analytical methods used

followed USEPA, Standard Method (SM), or American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) protocols. In addition, chemical and geotechnical measures selected for this

evaluation were consistent with those recommended for assessing dredged material in

Hawaii (USEPA/USACE 1997). Specific chemical and conventional analytes measured for

this sediment evaluation, including target reporting limits, are presented in the SAP

(Anchor QEA 2010).

2.2.1 Physical Analyses

Physical analyses of sediment included grain size, Atterberg limits, specific gravity, moisture

content, total volatile solids (TVS), and total solids. Analytical methods for each physical

parameter are presented in the SAP (Anchor QEA 2010). For some parameters, an

equivalent or updated method was used: grain size was determined using Puget Sound

Estuary Program (PSEP) methods; total solids were measured according to USEPA Method

160.3; TVS was measured according to USEPA Method 160.4; and specific gravity was

measured according to ASTM D854.

2.2.2 Chemical Analyses of Sediment

Project and reference sediments were analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC), ammonia,

sulfides, oil and grease, metals, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organotins,

Methods


polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. Analytical methods and target reporting

limits for sediment (reported in dry weight) are presented in the SAP (Anchor QEA 2010).

For some parameters, an equivalent or updated method was used: TOC was measured

according to Plumb 1981; ammonia was measured according to USEPA Method 350.1;

sulfides were measured according to USEPA Method 376.2; and oil and grease was measured

according to USEPA Method 9071B.

Results of chemical analyses of dredged material were compared to Effects Range Low (ERL)

and Effects Range Median (ERM) values developed by Long et al. (1995). The effects range

values are helpful in assessing the potential significance of elevated sediment-associated

contaminants of concern and their potential for adverse biological effects.3 While these

values are useful for identifying elevated sediment-associated contaminants, they should not

be used to infer causality because of the inherent variability and uncertainty of the approach.

For certain pesticide compounds (i.e., chlordane and dieldrin), ERL and ERM values are so

low as to make it largely impractical to detect them in typical marina sediments using

routine analytical procedures. Accordingly, having non-detect results that are greater than

the ERL values, ERM values, or method detection limits (MDLs) would not require

re-analysis.

2.2.3 Chemical Analysis of Tissue Residues

Chemical analyses of tissue residues were conducted to determine the bioaccumulation

potential (BP) of sediment contaminants. Based on the results of sediment chemistry, a

subset of chemicals was selected and approved by the USEPA Region IX for analysis

(Appendix C). Tissue samples from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and HK-DU3 were analyzed for

chromium, copper, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Composite samples from

each replicate were analyzed separately. Analytical methods and target reporting limits for

tissue (reported in wet weight) are presented in the SAP (Anchor QEA 2010).

3 Briefly, these values were developed from a large dataset where results of both benthic organism effects (e.g.,

toxicity tests, benthic assessments) and chemical concentrations were available for individual samples. To

derive these guidelines, the chemical values for paired data demonstrating benthic impairment were sorted in

ascending chemical concentration. The 10th percentile of this rank order distribution was identified as the

ERL value and the 50th percentile as the ERM value.

Methods


Bioaccumulation data were analyzed by statistically comparing chemical concentrations in

tissues of organisms exposed to project material to tissues of organisms exposed to reference

sediment. Tissue organic chemical concentrations were normalized to lipid concentrations,

and tissue organic chemical (normalized to lipid) and metals data were log-transformed prior

to analysis. Data were assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; normally

distributed data were evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Dunnett’s multiple

comparisons test; and non-normal data were assessed using the non-parametric

Kruskal-Wallis test.

No statistical analyses were performed on chemistry data if both the project area data and the

reference data were non-detects. For situations in which more than one replicate from a

project area was non-detect, estimated data values were calculated based on a symmetrical

breakdown of the data range in such a way that the mean of the estimates centered around a

value one-half of the reporting limit. This statistical manipulation of the data was required

to generate means and variances needed to perform statistical comparison of project area data

to reference data. This method is one of three recommended approaches described in

Appendix D of the ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998).

2.2.4 Characterization for Possible Upland Placement

HK-DU4 was evaluated for possible upland placement. To determine if Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was necessary for HK-DU4 material, sediment

concentrations were compared to 20 times the TCLP regulatory values presented in USEPA

Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] Part 261 (USEPA 2010). This factor was based on

the liquid-to-solid ratio of 20:1 used in TCLP. Because of the results of this comparison

(Section 3.2.7), it was determined that TCLP was necessary to evaluate the material for

upland placement.

TCLP testing was performed following SW-846 Method 1311 (USEPA 1992). Leachate

chemistry was performed in accordance with the analytical methods and reporting limits

presented in the SAP (Anchor QEA 2010). Results were compared to TCLP regulatory

values to determine suitability for upland placement.

Methods


2.2.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples included laboratory

replicates, matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples, method blanks, laboratory

control samples, and standard reference materials. Surrogates were included for all organic

methods. QC objectives and the frequency of analysis for QA/QC samples are provided in

the SAP (Anchor QEA 2010). In addition, initial and ongoing calibrations were completed.

All laboratory data were reviewed and verified by Anchor QEA, L.P., to determine whether

QC objectives had been met and that appropriate corrective actions were taken, when

necessary (Appendix D).

2.3 Biological Testing

Biological testing was conducted to determine suitability for ocean disposal at SOODMDS.

Solid phase (SP), suspended particulate phase (SPP), and BP tests were conducted to

determine whether anthropogenic contaminants of concern are present at concentrations

such that ocean disposal of dredged material would pose an unacceptable risk of toxicity or

bioaccumulation to biota. The evaluation of material for open-water disposal followed

methods described in the OTM (USEPA/USACE 1991) and RIM (USEPA/USACE 1997), with

any method updates that are included in the more recent Evaluation of Dredged Material

Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. – Inland Testing Manual (ITM; USEPA/USACE

1998). Four composite samples were tested, representing dredged material from composite

areas HK-DU1, HK-DU2, HK-DU3, and HK-DU4 of the Hawaii Kai Marina (Figure 3).

Testing was conducted in a phased approach (see Table 4). In Phase I, composite samples

were immediately submitted for SP testing using the amphipod Ampelisca abdita. Because

all DUs met limiting permissible concentration (LPC) requirements for ocean disposal, the

remaining biological tests were conducted in Phase II, with only one exception. Composite

area HK-DU4 was eliminated from further testing, as it was more feasible to dispose of the

material upland. Additional testing conducted in Phase II included one SP, three SPP, and

two BP tests (Table 5). Reference material from Lanikai Beach was tested when appropriate

(i.e., SP and BP tests). In addition, appropriate control samples were tested for each species

to evaluate test acceptability. Specific test methods, conditions, and acceptability

requirements are summarized in Newfields’ laboratory report (Appendix B).

Methods


Table 5

Biological Testing for Composite Samples

Parameter SP Tests SPP Tests BP Tests

Test Species

Amphipod A. abdita, Polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata

Bivalve Larvae Mytilus galloprovincialis,Mysid Shrimp Americamysis bahia,

Fish Menidia beryllina

Bivalve Macoma nasuta,Polychaete Nereis virens

Reference

Sediment Yes No Yes

Control Sediment Dilution Water Sediment

Reference

Toxicant Test Yes Yes No


All biological tests incorporated standard QA/QC procedures, per the OTM (USEPA/USACE

1991), ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998), and RIM (USEPA/USACE 1997), to ensure valid test

results. Standard QA/QC procedures included the use of negative controls, positive controls

(i.e., reference toxicant tests), reference sediment samples, replicates, and measurements of

water quality during testing.

The negative control was used to establish the health of the test organisms and ensure

acceptability criteria were met. Control material consisted of clean sediment (i.e., native) or

filtered seawater, where appropriate. Reference toxicant tests were used for SP and SPP

testing to establish the sensitivity of test organisms. The reference toxicant median lethal

concentration (LC50) or median effective concentrations (EC50) should fall within two

standard deviations of the historical laboratory mean indicating sensitivity is normal.

Water quality was measured during testing to ensure test conditions were maintained and

that organisms did not experience undue stress unrelated to test sediments. Laboratory

equipment was maintained, and all instruments were calibrated regularly. All laboratory

work was documented on approved data sheets, and all test methods and procedures are

detailed in laboratory Standard Operating Practices (SOPs). All laboratory personnel receive

regular documented training in all SOPs and test methods.


3 RESULTS

3.1 Sample Collection and Handling

Sediment cores were collected from June 1 to 4, 2010. The weather was warm with light

winds. Skies ranged from cloudy to sunny. Samples were collected using either hand

operated push cores or the Geoprobe direct-push sampler. For several stations, refusal was

encountered due to stone rubble or rock. In some instances, stone fragments caught in the

catcher prevented further recovery. If refusal was encountered or recovery was poor,

sampling was re-attempted or the location was moved. For sample HK-DU2-01, several

locations were attempted, and at each location, rubble prevented sufficient recovery.

HK-DU2-01 was excluded from the sediment investigation and was replaced with Station

HK-DU2-07 (Figure 3). For sample HK-DU3-06, refusal was encountered at multiple

locations using both the hand-operated push core and Geoprobe direct-push sampler. This

sample was excluded from the composite for analysis; however, archives were collected for

potential chemistry of surface sediment. Station coordinates, mudline elevation, estimated

penetration, and retrieved core lengths for each station location are summarized in Table 6.

Field logs are provided in Appendix A.

3.2 Results of Physical and Chemical Analyses of Sediment

Results of physical and chemical analyses of sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina are presented

in Table 7. All results are expressed in dry weight unless otherwise indicated. Target

reporting limits were provided in the SAP (Anchor QEA 2010). The actual reporting limits

and raw data for the analyses are provided in Appendix B.

3.2.1 Lanikai Beach Reference Sample

Grain size of the Lanikai Beach reference sample consisted of 88.5 percent sand and 10.6

percent gravel. TOC was measured at a concentration of 0.33 percent. Total solids and TVS

were measured at concentrations of 84.3 and 3.23 percent, respectively. Ammonia was

measured at a concentration of 1.1 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Sulfide was not

detected.

Results


Table 6

Station Coordinates, Mudline Elevation, Estimated Penetration, and Retrieved Core Lengths of Samples

Station ID

Latitude

Longitude

Mudline Elevation

(feet MLLW)

Estimated Penetration

(feet)

Retrieved Core Length

(feet)1

Number of Cores Collected Comments

HK‐DU1‐01 N21°17.506' W157°43.015' ‐2.3 4.5 2.2 10 Refusal.

HK‐DU1‐02 N21°17.503' W157°42.932' ‐2.9 5.0 to 6.0 2.5 10 Refusal. Some rubble.

HK‐DU1‐03 N21°17.290' W157°43.101' ‐3.3 6.0 3.0 9 Refusal. Rubble in core catcher.

HK‐DU1‐04 N21°17.212' W157°43.123' ‐3.2 4.5 3.0 10 Refusal. Moved location to end of a finger channel near Duck Island.

HK‐DU1‐05 N21°17.313' W157°42.896' ‐3.3 6.0 2.5 9 Refusal. Coral rubble in bottom of core.

HK‐DU1‐06 N21°17.469' W157°42.977' ‐3.3 4.0 2.5 10 Refusal.

HK‐DU2‐01 N21°17.505' W157°42.654' ‐2.4 to ‐3.4 3.0 to 3.6 0.0 0 Several locations attempted. At each location rubble prevented sufficient recovery. Location excluded from evaluation and replaced with Station HK‐DU2‐07.

HK‐DU2‐02 N21°17.593' W157°42.536' ‐3.2 3.5 3.5 8

HK‐DU2‐03 N21°17.524' W157°42.559' ‐3.1 4.5 3.8 8

HK‐DU2‐04 N21°17.438' W157°42.491' ‐4 3.0 3.0 8

HK‐DU2‐05 N21°17.324' W157°42.496' ‐3.9 3.1 2.0 to 3.1 8

HK‐DU2‐06 N21°17.505' W157°42.488' ‐2.8 4.2 4.2 8 Original station was too deep; therefore, moved station to the eastern side of the channel.

HK‐DU2‐07 N21°17.596' W157°42.574' ‐1.3 5.0 4.5 to 5.0 8 New sample location. Replaced Station HK‐DU2‐01.

HK‐DU3‐01 N21°18.046' W157°41.709' ‐3.5 3.5 3.5 to 4 8 Moved location due to refusal and rubble caught in catcher. Used Geoprobe sampler.

HK‐DU3‐02 N21°18.004' W157°41.680' ‐3.6 5.0 2.5 10 Station moved to find high spot. Refusal.

Results


Station ID

Latitude

Longitude

Mudline Elevation

(feet MLLW)

Estimated Penetration

(feet)

Retrieved Core Length

(feet)1

Number of Cores Collected Comments

HK‐DU3‐03 N21°17.733' W157°41.688' ‐4.1 2.5 2.0 10 Refusal due to rubble. Based on station depth, archive was not needed for the ‐4 foot dredge footprint.

HK‐DU3‐04 N21°17.703' W157°41.579' ‐3.8 2.2 1.2 1 Refusal. Rubble fragments collected (labeled sample HK‐DU3‐04b).

HK‐DU3‐05 N21°17.728' W157°41.455' ‐3.5 to ‐4.4 2.6 to 3.5 3.5 (combined length)

2 Multiple attempts throughout channel. Refusal due to stone fragment/sand layer 1 foot below surface. Used Geoprobe sampler.

HK‐DU3‐06 N21°17.649' W157°41.587' ‐2.9 to ‐3.6 2.0 to 4.1 0.8 to 2.0 0 Refusal on multiple attempts with hand operated push core and Geoprobe sampler at multiple locations. Sample excluded from composite. Only collected archives.

HK‐DU3‐07 N21°17.780' W157°41.388' ‐2.8 4.2 4.0 8 Scattered rubble throughout area. Recovery limited by stone fragments.

HK‐DU4‐01 N21°16.839' W157°42.244' ‐3.4 3.6 3.5 to 3.8 17 Station moved approximately 40 feet due to riprap at surface.

HK‐DU4‐02 N21°17.156' W157°41.958' ‐2.4 5.0 4.6 17

HK‐DU4‐03 N21°17.372' W157°41.879' ‐2.8 to ‐3.3 3.4 to 6.0 0.3 to 1.0 17 Multiple attempts. Poor recoveries due to stone rubble. Two locations attempted. Used Geoprobe sampler. Cores collected only of compacted top 2 feet.

HK‐EC‐012 N21°16.858' W157°42.701' ‐1.2 7.0 to 8.0 2.0 to 3.0 2 Used Geoprobe sampler.

Notes: 1 Sediment collected deeper than ‐7 feet MLLW (dredge depth plus overdepth) was discarded and not used for analysis. 2 Sediment from the entrance channel (Station HK‐EC‐01) was collected for potential analysis to supplement grain size data from December 2008, if needed

(see Section 3.2.6).

Table 7Results of Physical and Chemical Analyses of Sediment

Task Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment CharacterizationSample ID HK‐DU1‐COMP HK‐DU2‐COMP HK‐DU3‐COMP HK‐DU4‐COMP LANIKAI REF

Sample Date 6/9/2010 6/9/2010 6/9/2010 6/9/2010 6/9/2010Depth ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Sample Type ERL ERM N N N N N

Liquid Limit 71.4 67.6 80.9 75.8 ‐‐Moisture (water) Content 147.2 149.9 162.7 151.3 22.08 Plastic Limit 30.2 28.8 31.4 28.2 ‐‐Plasticity Index 41.2 38.8 49.5 47.6 ‐‐Specific gravity 2.82 2.86 2.85 2.81 2.8 Total organic carbon 1.62 1.81 1.55 2.04 0.332 Total Solids 40 40 39.7 41.1 84.3 Total Solids (preserved) 43.9 35 39.5 39.6 82.1 Total volatile solids 12.71 14.06 10.91 14.26 3.23

Ammonia 33.3 48.1 41.5 48.9 1.1

Sulfide 142 167 136 171 1.19 U

Atterberg Classification ‐‐ CH ‐‐ CH ‐‐ CH ‐‐ CH ‐‐ Non‐Plastic

pH 8.15 8.03 8.13 8.04 7.92

Gravel 5.3 0.7 1.9 1.9 10.6 Sand, Coarse 4 1.1 3.1 2.7 36 Sand, Very Coarse 2.9 0.7 2.1 2.4 38.9 Sand, Medium 5 1.7 4 3.5 3.2 Sand, Fine 6.3 3.2 4.5 5 5.5 Sand, Very Fine 5 3.9 4.2 3 4.9 Silt, Coarse 1.5 4.1 3.2 1.2 ‐‐Silt, Medium 9.3 9.9 8.3 8.8 ‐‐Silt, Fine 11.2 11.8 9.4 10.7 ‐‐Silt, Very Fine 8 11.4 9.4 9.9 ‐‐Clay, Coarse 6.9 10.2 9.9 8.7 ‐‐Clay, Medium 7.5 9.7 8.9 8.5 ‐‐Clay, Fine 27.2 31.7 30.9 33.9 ‐‐Fines (silt + clay) 71.5 88.7 80 81.7 1 Total Gravel 5.3 0.7 1.9 1.9 10.6 Total Sand 23.2 10.6 17.9 16.6 88.5 Total Silt 30 37.2 30.3 30.6 ‐‐Total Clay 41.6 51.6 49.7 51.1 ‐‐Total Fines (silt + clay) 71.6 88.8 80 81.7 ‐‐

Conventional Parameters (pct)

Conventional Parameters (mg‐N/kg)

Conventional Parameters (mg/kg)

Conventional Parameters (None)

Conventional Parameters (None)

Grain Size (pct)



090641-01.01





Arsenic 8.2 70 7.6 7.5 5.9 11.1 2.1 Barium 39 24 183 32 4.3 Cadmium 1.2 9.6 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.2 U

Chromium 81 370 148 143 145 110 6.3 Copper 34 270 97 97 96 75 0.6 Lead 46.7 218 21 22 21 25 3 Mercury 0.15 0.71 0.09 0.06 U 0.05 0.05 U 0.03 U

Nickel 20.9 51.6 123 104 150 90 2.2 Selenium 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.6 U

Silver 1 3.7 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.2 U

Zinc 150 410 116 110 120 100 10

Butyltin 3.9 U 3.9 U 3.8 U 4 U 3.6 U

Dibutyltin (ion) 5.6 U 5.6 U 5.4 U 5.7 U 5.1 U

Tributyltin (ion) 3.7 U 3.7 U 3.6 U 3.8 U 3.4 U

1‐Methylnaphthalene 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.7 U

2‐Methylnaphthalene 70 670 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.7 U

Acenaphthene 16 500 6.3 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.7 U

Acenaphthylene 44 640 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.7 U

Anthracene 85.3 1100 49 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.7 U

Benzo(a)anthracene 261 1600 680 17 14 20 4.7 U

Benzo(a)pyrene 430 1600 910 28 22 34 4.7 U

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 530 23 15 25 4.7 U

Benzofluoranthene (unspecified) 1300 47 41 66 4.7 U

Chrysene 384 2800 840 25 21 33 4.7 U

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 63.4 260 150 5.4 4.8 5.9 4.7 U

Fluoranthene 600 5100 1200 36 30 43 4.7 U

Fluorene 19 540 6.7 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.7 U

Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 500 19 14 23 4.7 U

Naphthalene 160 2100 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.7 U

Perylene 180 8.4 5.8 9.3 4.7 U

Phenanthrene 240 1500 300 9.4 8.6 10 4.7 U

Pyrene 665 2600 1200 40 35 46 4.7 U

Total 8 of 18 LPAH (U = 0) 552 3160 362 9.4 8.6 10 4.7 U

Total 10 of 18 HPAH (U = 0) 1700 9600 6010 193.4 155.8 229.9 4.7 U

Metals (mg/kg)

Organometallic Compounds (µg/kg)

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (µg/kg)



090641-01.01





Total 18 PAH (U = 0) 4022 44792 6372 202.8 164.4 239.9 4.7 U

2‐Chlorophenol 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

2‐Methylphenol (o‐Cresol) 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

2‐Nitrophenol 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

2,4‐Dichlorophenol 99 U 99 U 99 U 99 U 97 U

2,4‐Dimethylphenol 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

2,4‐Dinitrophenol 200 U 200 U 200 U 200 U 190 U

2,4,5‐Trichlorophenol 99 U 99 U 99 U 99 U 97 U

2,4,6‐Trichlorophenol 99 U 99 U 99 U 99 U 97 U

4‐Chloro‐3‐methylphenol 99 U 99 U 99 U 99 U 97 U

4‐Methylphenol (p‐Cresol) 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

4‐Nitrophenol 99 U 99 U 99 U 99 U 97 U

Dibenzofuran 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.8 U 4.9 U 4.7 U

Dinitro‐o‐cresol (4,6‐Dinitro‐2‐methylphenol) 200 U 200 U 200 U 200 U 190 U

Pentachlorophenol 99 U 99 U 99 U 99 U 97 U

Phenol 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

Aroclor 1016 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

Aroclor 1221 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

Aroclor 1232 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

Aroclor 1242 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

Aroclor 1248 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

Aroclor 1254 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

Aroclor 1260 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

Total PCB Aroclors (U = 0) 22.7 180 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 19 U

2,4'‐DDD (o,p'‐DDD) 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

2,4'‐DDE (o,p'‐DDE) 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

2,4'‐DDT (o,p'‐DDT) 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

4,4'‐DDD (p,p'‐DDD) 2 20 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

4,4'‐DDE (p,p'‐DDE) 2.2 27 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

4,4'‐DDT (p,p'‐DDT) 1 7 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 UTotal DDx (U = 0) 1.58 46.1 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 UAldrin 0.99 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

alpha‐Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.99 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

alpha‐Chlordane (cis‐Chlordane) 1.9 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

Pesticides (µg/kg)

Semivolatile Organics (µg/kg)

PCB Aroclors (µg/kg)



090641-01.01





beta‐Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.99 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

cis‐Nonachlor 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

delta‐Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.99 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

Dieldrin 0.02 8 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 UEndosulfan sulfate 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

Endosulfan‐alpha (I) 0.99 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

Endosulfan‐beta (II) 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

Endrin 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

Endrin aldehyde 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

Endrin ketone 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

gamma‐Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) 0.99 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

gamma‐Chlordane 2.1 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

Heptachlor 0.99 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

Heptachlor epoxide 0.99 U 0.99 U 0.98 U 0.99 U 0.94 U

Methoxychlor 9.9 U 9.9 U 9.8 U 9.9 U 9.4 U

Oxychlordane 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

Toxaphene 99 U 99 U 98 U 99 U 94 U

trans‐Nonachlor 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.9 U

Diesel Range Hydrocarbons 12 U 12 U 13 U 13 U 6.2 U

Motor Oil Range 61 38 56 40 12 U

Oil and grease 522 588 494 U 589 214 U

Notes:

Detected concentration is greater than ERL1995Long screening level

Detected concentration is greater than ERM1995Long screening level

Italic = Non‐detected concentration is above one or more identified screening levels

Bold = Detected result

U = Compound analyzed, but not detected above detection limit

Total 18 LPAH (Low PAH) are the total of 2‐Methylnapthalene, Biphenyl, Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, Acenaphthene, Fluorene, Phenanthrene, and Anthracene.

Total 18 HPAH (High PAH) are the total of Fluoranthene, Pyrene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Chrysene, Benzo(x)fluoranthenes, Benzo(a)pyrene, Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and Benzo(g,h,i)perylene.

Total DDT consists of the sum of 4,4'‐DDD; 4,4'‐DDE; 4,4'‐DDT; 2,4'‐DDD; 2,4'‐DDE; and 2,4'‐DDT if measured.

Totals are calculated as the sum of all detected results (U=0). If all results are not detected, the highest reporting limit value is reported as the sum.

Level I data validation

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)



090641-01.01

Results


Several metals were detected in reference sediment from Lanikai Beach. All metal

concentrations were less than the corresponding ERL and ERM values. No organotins,

PAHs, phenols, PCB Aroclors, pesticides, or total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) were

detected in reference sediment from Lanikai Beach.

3.2.2 Composite Area HK‐DU1

Grain size of sediment from HK-DU1 consisted of 71.6 percent fines (silt and clay), 23.2

percent sand, and 5.3 percent gravel. TOC was measured at a concentration of 1.62 percent.

Total solids and TVS were measured at concentrations of 40.0 and 12.7 percent, respectively.

The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index were 71.4, 30.2, and 41.2 percent,

respectively. Atterberg classification was CH (fat clay). Ammonia and sulfide were

measured at concentrations of 33.3 and 142 mg/kg, respectively.

Metals, PAHs, and pesticides were detected in sediment from HK-DU1. Concentrations of

chromium and copper were greater than the corresponding ERL value, while the

concentration of nickel was greater than the corresponding ERM value. Several PAHs were

detected in sediment from HK-DU1. Benzo(a)anthracene, bonzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, pyrene, and total PAHs were greater

than the corresponding ERL value. Gamma-chordane was the only pesticide detected in

sediment from HK-DU1. Motor oil range hydrocarbons and oil and grease were measured at

concentrations of 61 and 522 mg/kg, respectively. No organotins, phenols, or PCB Aroclors

were detected in sediment from HK-DU1.








Results


Metals and PAHs were detected in sediment from HK-DU2. Concentrations of chromium

and copper were greater than the corresponding ERL value, while the concentration of

nickel was greater than the corresponding ERM value. Several PAHs were detected in

sediment from HK-DU2. All PAHs were less than the corresponding ERL value. Motor oil

range hydrocarbons and oil and grease were measured at concentrations of 38 and

588 mg/kg, respectively. No organotins, phenols, PCB Aroclors, or pesticides were detected

in sediment from HK-DU2.








Metals and PAHs were detected in sediment from HK-DU3. Concentrations of chromium

and copper were greater than the corresponding ERL value, while the concentration of

nickel was greater than the corresponding ERM value. Several PAHs were detected in

sediment from HK-DU3. All PAHs were less than the corresponding ERL value. Motor oil

range hydrocarbons were measured at a concentration of 56 mg/kg. No organotins, phenols,

PCB Aroclors, or pesticides were detected in sediment from HK-DU3.








Results


Metals and PAHs were detected in sediment from HK-DU4. Concentrations of arsenic,

chromium, and copper were greater than the corresponding ERL value, while the

concentration of nickel was greater than the corresponding ERM value. Several PAHs were

detected in sediment from HK-DU4. All PAHs were less than the corresponding ERL value.

Motor oil range hydrocarbons and oil and grease were measured at concentrations of 40 and

589 mg/kg, respectively. No organotins, phenols, PCB Aroclors, or pesticides were detected

in sediment from HK-DU4.

3.2.6 Sediment from the Entrance Channel

Sediment from the entrance channel was evaluated for placement on an adjacent beach as

sand nourishment; therefore, only grain size data was assessed. Four samples were collected

from the entrance channel for grain size analysis in December 2008 (Figure 4).4 Samples

were predominantly coarse-grained materials, with percent fines (0.074 millimeter [mm];

defined by the state of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources [DLNR] guidelines

for small-scale beach nourishment projects; DLNR 2005) ranging 0 to 0.4 percent. All

samples met the DLNR guideline of no more than 6 percent fines. Also in accordance with

DLNR guidelines, all samples contained no more than 50 percent material less than 0.125

mm, ranging 0 to 4.9 percent. Grain size results for sediment samples collected from the

entrance channel are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8

Results of Grain Size Analysis of Sediment from the Entrance Channel

Sample ID

Size (mm)

>4.00 4.00‐2.00

2.00‐1.00

1.00‐0.500

0.500‐0.355

0.355‐0.250

0.250‐0.125

0.125‐0.075

0.075‐0.063 <0.063 Total

Percent Retained for Each Size Fraction

AN‐HK‐1 19.1 20.3 31.8 26.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

AN‐HK‐2 15.1 4.3 6.4 22.0 23.8 14.1 13.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 100.0

AN‐HK‐3 1.9 2.3 11.3 22.7 19.1 11.9 25.9 4.6 0.2 0.2 100.0

AN‐HK‐4 22.5 14.3 17.7 13.1 5.5 6.0 16.7 3.8 0.1 0.1 100.0

4 Additional sediment was collected from the entrance channel (Station HK-EC-01) in June 2010 for potential

analysis to supplement grain size data from December 2008, if needed.

Results



Sediment from HK-DU4 was evaluated to determine suitability for potential upland

placement. Sediment concentrations were used to determine if TCLP was necessary.

Concentrations were compared to 20 times TCLP regulatory values (USEPA 2010). Results

of this comparison are presented in Table 9. The sediment concentration of chromium

exceeded 20 times the TCLP regulatory value. Based on this result, it was determined that

TCLP was necessary to evaluate this material for upland placement. All other concentrations

were below this screening level; therefore, leachate chemistry only included the analysis of

chromium.

i w

I I , :l! ;:i

I , II:

~ Cittl1""tt", 11.

"'Ybe~

~q, ~ ~q,/

~q,

.. 'l..ANCHOR "-QEA t:t::::

8q, .;

c~ ~"'''.f

o c::,

~q, "'q,-',-

~q, ,. LEGEND:

~ q, "" ~q, AN-HK-1 • Grain Size Sampling

Location (December 2008)

.......

~

HORIZONTAL DATUM: Hawaii State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83 HAHN. VERTICAL DATUM: mean lower low water (MLLW).

NOTES: 1. Bathymetric survey perfonmed by Northwest

Maritime Industrial in January 2009. 2. Topographic survey of adjacent shoreline

perfonmed by Austin, Tsutsumi, and Associates Inc., in February 2009.

() o 100

Scale In r-eel

Figure 4 Entrance Channel Sampling Locations (December 2008)

Hawaii Kai Marina and Entrance Channel Maintenance Dredging

Results


Table 9

Comparison of Sediment Concentrations from HK‐DU4 to 20 Times

TCLP Regulatory Values

Parameter TCLP Regulatory Value (mg/L)

20 Times the TCLP Regulatory Value (mg/L)

HK‐DU4 Composite (mg/kg)

Metals

Arsenic 5 100 11.1

Barium 100 2000 32

Cadmium 1 20 0.5 U

Chromium 5 100 110

Lead 5 100 25

Mercury 0.2 4 0.05 U

Selenium 1 20 1 U

Silver 5 100 0.5 U

Notes:

Detected concentration is greater than 20 times TCLP regulatory value mg/L = milligram per liter

Results of leachate chemistry for HK-DU4 are presented in Table 10. Chromium in the

sample was found to have very low leachate potential; therefore, sediment from HK-DU4 is

not classified as a hazardous waste and appears suitable for disposal as solid waste under the

Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Table 10

Results of Chemical Analysis of TCLP Leachate from HK‐DU4

Parameter TCLP Regulatory Value

(mg/L) HK‐DU4 Comp

(mg/L)

Chromium 5 0.02U

Notes: mg/L = milligram per liter U = Compound analyzed but not detected above detection limit


A review of analytical results for sediment and TCLP leachate was conducted to evaluate the

laboratories performance in meeting QA/QC guidelines outlined in the SAP. The data

Results


validation reports conducted by Anchor QEA are presented in Appendix D. All samples

were analyzed within the appropriate holding times. Generally, QA/QC sample results were

within the project-specified and/or laboratory control limits, with the following two

exceptions:

• Silver recovered below the project-specified control limits in the MS. Consequently,

a post-digestion spike was performed, and it recovered within control limits.

Concentrations of silver in project sediments were non-detect or at the reporting

limit; therefore, the associated results may be biased low.

• The relative percent difference for barium was above the project-specified control

limits in the MS/MSD. Concentrations of barium in project sediments were

significantly greater than (greater than 5 times) the reporting limit; therefore, this

deviation is not expected to impact the associated results.

3.3 Results of Biological Testing

Results of biological testing of sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina are summarized in this

section. The laboratory report, including detailed results and raw data, is provided in

Appendix B.

3.3.1 Solid Phase Testing

3.3.1.1 Amphipod Mortality Bioassay

Test results for the 10-day amphipod SP test are presented in Table 11. Mean survival in the

control was 99 percent, which met control acceptability criteria. Mean survival in the

reference sediment was 92 percent. Mean survival in the test treatments ranged from 93 to

99 percent. Survival in test treatments was within 20 percent of the survival in the reference

sediment and not significantly different; therefore, sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina is not

acutely toxic to amphipods and meets LPC requirements for ocean disposal.

All water quality measurements were within the recommended limits. The LC50 for the

cadmium reference toxicant test was 1.05 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which was within two

standard deviations (0.0 to 1.05 mg/L) of the historical laboratory mean indicating test

organism sensitivity was normal.

Results


Table 11

Summary of Amphipod Bioassay Results

Treatment Mean Percent

Survival Standard Deviation

Significantly Less than Reference?

Control 99 2.2 —

Reference 92 5.7 —

HK‐DU1 99 2.2 No

HK‐DU2 97 4.5 No

HK‐DU3 97 2.7 No

HK‐DU4 93 2.7 No

3.3.1.2 Polychaete Mortality Bioassay

Test results for the 10-day polychaete SP test are presented in Table 12. Mean survival in the

control was 96 percent, which met control acceptability criteria. Mean survival in the

reference sediment was 100 percent. Mean survival in the test treatments ranged from 90 to

94 percent. Survival in test treatments was within 10 percent of the survival in the reference

sediment and was not significantly different; therefore, sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina is

not acutely toxic to polychaetes and meets LPC requirements for ocean disposal.


cadmium reference toxicant test was 10.4 mg/L, which was within two standard deviations

(4.2 to 12.9 mg/L) of the historical laboratory mean indicating test organism sensitivity was

normal.

Table 12

Summary of Polychaete Bioassay Results

Treatment Mean Percent


Significantly Less than Reference?

Control 96 5.5 —

Reference 100 0.0 —

HK‐DU1 94 5.5 No

HK‐DU2 90 7.1 No

HK‐DU3 94 8.9 No

Results


3.3.2 Suspended Particulate Phase Testing

3.3.2.1 Bivalve Larval Development Bioassay

Test results for the 48-hour bivalve SPP test are presented in Table 13. Mean normal

survival in the control was 96.3 percent, which met control acceptability criteria. Mean

normal survival in the site water control was 98.8 percent, which was not significantly

different than the control. The EC50 for each test treatment was estimated to be greater than

100 percent. Mean normal survival in the 100 percent concentrations of the test treatments

ranged from 91.0 to 97.7 percent and was not significantly different than the control;

therefore, sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina is not acutely toxic to bivalve larvae and meets

LPC requirements for ocean disposal.

All water quality measurements were within the recommended limits. The EC50 for the

copper reference toxicant test was 14.0 micrograms per liter (μg/L), which was within two

standard deviations (3.4 to 15.4 μg/L) of the historical laboratory mean indicating test


Table 13

Summary of Bivalve Larval Bioassay Results

Treatment Dilution Series

(%) Mean Percent

Normal Survival1 Standard Deviation

Significantly Less than Control? EC50

Control — 96.3 4.9 — —

Site Water — 98.8 1.5 No —

HK‐DU1

1 95.0 5.3 —

>100% 10 95.1 4.6 —

50 96.2 7.2 —

100 92.2 6.1 No

HK‐DU2

1 92.1 5.2 —

>100% 10 96.4 3.3 —

50 94.4 5.7 —

100 91.0 7.4 No

Results



(%) Mean Percent

Normal Survival1 Standard Deviation

Significantly Less than Control? EC50

HK‐DU3

1 95.2 3.8 —

>100% 10 97.4 3.0 —

50 98.2 2.9 —

100 97.7 3.6 No

Notes: 1 Mean percent normal survival is a combined endpoint calculated as the number of normally developed embryos divided by the mean stocking density.

3.3.2.2 Mysid Shrimp Bioassay

Test results for the 4-day mysid shrimp SPP test are presented in Table 14. Mean survival in

the control was 98 percent, which met control acceptability criteria. Mean survival in the

site water control was 90 percent, which was not significantly different than the control.

The LC50 for each test treatment was estimated to be greater than 100 percent. Mean survival

in the 100 percent concentrations of the test treatments ranged from 95 to 96 percent and

was not significantly different than the control; therefore, sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina

is not acutely toxic to mysid shrimp and meets LPC requirements for ocean disposal.

All water quality measurements were within the recommended limits, with the exception of

dissolved oxygen (DO). Prior to the renewal on day 2, DO was below the recommended

limit (4.5 mg/L) in several test treatments. Test solutions were renewed, and DO levels

remained within the recommended limits for the duration of testing. Based on the high

survival in all treatments, this deviation is not expected to affect the overall results of the

test. The LC50 for the copper reference toxicant test was 267 μg/L, which was within two

standard deviations (149 to 377 μg/L) of the historical laboratory mean indicating test


Results


Table 14

Summary of Mysid Shrimp Bioassay Results


(%) Mean Percent


Significantly Less than Control? LC50

Control — 98 4.5 — —

Site Water — 90 12.2 No —

HK‐DU1

10 96 5.5 —

>100% 50 96 5.5 —

100 96 5.5 No

HK‐DU2

10 100 0.0 —

>100% 50 94 5.5 —

100 95 5.5 No

HK‐DU3

10 100 0.0 —

>100% 50 96 5.5 —

100 96 5.5 No

3.3.2.3 Juvenile Fish Bioassay

Test results for the 4-day juvenile fish SPP test are presented in Table 15. Mean survival in

the control was 96 percent, which met control acceptability criteria. Mean survival in the

site water control was 98 percent, which was not significantly different than the control.

The LC50 for each test treatment was estimated to be greater than 100 percent. Mean survival

in the 100 percent concentrations of the test treatments ranged from 98 to 100 percent and

was not significantly different than the control; therefore, sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina

is not acutely toxic to juvenile fish and meets LPC requirements for ocean disposal.


copper reference toxicant test was 129 μg/L, which was within two standard deviations (115

to 395 μg/L) of the historical laboratory mean indicating test organism sensitivity was

normal.

Results


Table 15

Summary of Juvenile Fish Bioassay Results


(%) Mean Percent


Significantly Less than Control? LC50

Control — 96 5.5 — —

Site Water — 98 4.5 No —

HK‐DU1

10 94 8.9 —

>100% 50 96 5.5 —

100 98 4.5 No

HK‐DU2

10 98 4.5 —

>100% 50 96 5.5 —

100 98 4.5 No

HK‐DU3

10 96 8.9 —

>100% 50 98 4.5 —

100 100 0.0 No

3.3.3 Bioaccumulation Potential Testing

Test results for the 28-day BP tests using the bivalve Macoma nasuta and the polychaete

Nereis virens are presented below. Following the 28-day exposure, organisms were placed

into clean seawater for 24 hours to allow the organisms to depurate the test sediment. After

this purging process, tissues were shipped frozen to ARI for chemical analysis. Results of

chemical analysis are presented separately in Section 3.4.

3.3.3.1 Bivalve Bioaccumulation Test

Test results for the 28-day bivalve BP test are presented in Table 16. Mean survival in the

control and reference sediment was 98 and 97 percent, respectively. Mean survival in the

test treatments ranged from 94 to 99 percent. Sufficient tissue was available for chemical

analysis.


temperature and minor deviations in pH. Temperature was slightly elevated above the

recommended limit (15 ± 2°C), ranging 14.3 to 18.1°C. These temperatures were within the

tolerance range for this species, and this deviation is not expected to affect test results.

Results


Table 16

Summary of Bivalve Bioaccumulation Results

Treatment Mean Percent Survival Standard Deviation

Control 98 3.6

Reference 97 3.3

HK‐DU1 99 1.8

HK‐DU2 96 5.7

HK‐DU3 94 6.7

3.3.3.2 Polychaete Bioaccumulation Test

Test results for the 28-day polychaete BP test are presented in Table 17. Mean survival in

the control and reference sediment was 99 and 100 percent, respectively. Mean survival in

the test treatments ranged from 98 to 99 percent. Sufficient tissue was available for chemical

analysis.


temperature and minor deviations in DO and pH. Temperature was slightly elevated above

the recommended limit (15 ± 2°C), ranging 14.4 to 18.8°C. These temperatures were within

the tolerance range for this species, and this deviation is not expected to affect test results.

Table 17

Summary of Polychaete Bioaccumulation Results

Treatment Mean Percent Survival Standard Deviation

Control 99 2.2

Reference 100 0.0

HK‐DU1 99 2.2

HK‐DU2 99 2.2

HK‐DU3 98 2.7


All biological tests incorporated standard QA/QC procedures described in Section 2.3.1.

Bioassay tests included both negative and positive (i.e., reference toxicant tests) controls. All

Results


test organism responses within the negative controls met acceptability requirements. The

reference toxicant tests LC50 and/or EC50 for each test species were within two standard

deviations of the laboratory mean, indicating that sensitivity of test organisms was normal.

Reference toxicant test data for each species are provided in Appendix B.

Water quality was measured during testing. All water quality conditions were within the

appropriate limits, with the exception of minor deviations that should not affect the overall

test results. Raw water quality data are provided in Appendix B.

All sediment samples were received at 0 to 6°C and stored in the dark at 4 ± 2°C. All tests

were initiated within the 6-week holding period. Tests were performed using high-quality

natural seawater from the northern Hood Canal, Port Gamble, Washington. This seawater

source has been used successfully on similar bioassay testing programs. Extensive testing on

a variety of test species has demonstrated that there is no significant potential for toxicity or

bioaccumulation.

3.4 Results of Chemical Analyses of Tissue Residues

Sediment bioaccumulation tests were conducted using the bivalve M. nasuta and the

polychaete worm N. virens. Chemical analyses of tissue residues were conducted to

determine the BP of sediment contaminants. Based on the results of sediment chemistry, a

subset of chemicals was selected for analysis that includes chromium, copper, and PAHs.

Results of chemical analyses of M. nasuta and N. virens tissue residues are presented in

Tables 18 and 19, respectively. All results are expressed in wet weight. Target reporting

limits were provided in the SAP (Anchor QEA 2010). The actual reporting limits and raw

data for the analyses are provided in Appendix B.

3.4.1 Bivalve Tissue Residues

Results of chemical analyses of M. nasuta tissue residues are presented in Table 18.

Chromium and copper were detected in all replicates of all samples. The concentration of

chromium in the background (time-zero) sample was 0.3 mg/kg. Concentrations of

chromium in all replicates of the reference sample were less than or equal to the background

concentration. Concentrations of chromium in all replicates of the project samples were

Results


approximately 2 to 3 times greater than the background concentration. The concentration of

copper in the background sample was 4.88 mg/kg. Concentrations of copper in all samples

were less than or similar to the background concentration, with only a few exceptions.

Replicates 3 of the reference sample and HK-DU3 were approximately 2 times greater than

the background concentration.

Several PAHs were detected in tissue samples. The concentration of total PAHs in the

background sample was 14.6 μg/kg. Concentrations of total PAHs in all replicates of the

reference sample, HK-DU2, and HK-DU3 were less than the background concentration.

Concentrations of total PAHs in all replicates of HK-DU1 were approximately 2 times greater

than the background concentration.

3.4.2 Polychaete Tissue Residues

Results of chemical analyses of N. virens tissue residues are presented in Table 19.

Chromium and copper were detected in all replicates of all samples. The concentration of

chromium in the background sample was 0.2 mg/kg. Concentrations of chromium in all

replicates of all samples were less than or equal to the background concentration. The

concentration of copper in the background sample was 2.13 mg/kg. Concentrations of

copper in all samples were less than or similar to the background concentration, with one

exception. Replicate 1 of HK-DU1 was approximately 2 times greater than the background

concentration.

Several PAHs were detected in tissue samples. The concentration of total PAHs in the

background sample was 5.3 μg/kg. Concentrations of total PAHs in all replicates of all

samples were less than or similar to the background concentration.

Table 18Results of Chemical Analyses of M. nasuta Tissue Residues

Task Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment CharacterizationSample ID M.N. BACKGROUND M.N. HK‐DU1 REP 1 M.N. HK‐DU1 REP 2 M.N. HK‐DU1 REP 3 M.N. HK‐DU1 REP 4 M.N. HK‐DU1 REP 5 M.N. HK‐DU2 REP 1

Sample Date 7/2/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010

Conventional Parameters (pct)Lipids 0.498 0.431 0.397 0.447 0.41 0.462 0.413

Metals (mg/kg)Chromium 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 Copper 4.88 5.93 5.41 4.5 5.12 5.35 4.12

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (µg/kg)1‐Methylnaphthalene 1 1 1.1 1.2 1 0.9 0.82‐Methylnaphthalene 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2Acenaphthene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Acenaphthylene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Anthracene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.5 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.5 U

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 U 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.4 0.5 U

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.5 U 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.5Benzofluoranthene (unspecified) 1.4 10 10 10 11 9.5 1.6Chrysene 1.4 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.6 0.8Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Fluoranthene 3.3 4 2.9 1.9 2.5 2.4 1.4Fluorene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U

Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.5 U 1.2 1.1 0.9 1 0.9 0.5 U

Naphthalene 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4Phenanthrene 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.5 2 1.5 1.2Pyrene 2.4 4.1 2.8 2 2.7 2.3 1.5Dibenzofuran 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Total 18 PAH (U = 0) 14.6 35.8 32.1 28.5 32.1 27.6 10.4Notes:



Totals are calculated as the sum of all detected results

(U=0). If all results are not detected, the highest

reporting limit value is reported as the sum.

U = Compound analyzed, but not detected above

detection limit



090641-01.01


TaskSample ID

Sample Date

Conventional Parameters (pct)Lipids

Metals (mg/kg)Chromium

Copper

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (µg/kg)1‐Methylnaphthalene

2‐Methylnaphthalene

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzofluoranthene (unspecified)

Chrysene

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Dibenzofuran

Total 18 PAH (U = 0)

Notes:







detection limit

Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment CharacterizationM.N. HK‐DU2 REP 2 M.N. HK‐DU2 REP 3 M.N. HK‐DU2 REP 4 M.N. HK‐DU2 REP 5 M.N. HK‐DU3 REP 1 M.N. HK‐DU3 REP 2 M.N. HK‐DU3 REP 3

7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010

0.409 0.367 0.433 0.41 0.369 0.388 0.523

0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.8 4.82 4.11 3.81 3.83 4.26 3.97 8.03

1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.61.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.90.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1.8 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.4 1 1.20.8 0.9 1 0.8 1 0.7 0.70.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1.3 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.20.5 U 0.5 U 0.6 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1.9 2 2 2 1.9 1.9 11.4 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.11.4 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.10.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

11.8 12.4 14 12.9 11.6 10.2 7.8



090641-01.01


TaskSample ID

Sample Date



Copper



Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene



Chrysene


Fluoranthene

Fluorene


Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Dibenzofuran


Notes:







detection limit

Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment CharacterizationM.N. HK‐DU3 REP 4 M.N. HK‐DU3 REP 5 M.N. REFERENCE REP 1 M.N. REFERENCE REP 2 M.N. REFERENCE REP 3 M.N. REFERENCE REP 4 M.N. REFERENCE REP 5

7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010

0.609 0.591 0.424 0.41 0.36 0.385 0.489

0.9 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 6.54 5.62 4.96 3.87 8.52 4.44 4.09

0.5 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.80.8 0.8 1.7 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.20.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1.1 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 U 0.50.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.70.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.40.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.6 0.5 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1 0.9 2.1 1.6 2 2.1 1.41 0.9 1.6 1.4 2.2 1.6 1.51.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 10.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

7.5 7.5 10.6 9.2 11.8 10.2 8.5



090641-01.01

Table 19Results of Chemical Analyses of N. virens Tissue Residue

Task Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment CharacterizationSample ID N.V. BACKGROUND N.V. HK‐DU1 REP 1 N.V. HK‐DU1 REP 2 N.V. HK‐DU1 REP 3 N.V. HK‐DU1 REP 4 N.V. HK‐DU1 REP 5

Sample Date 7/12/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010

Conventional Parameters (pct)Lipids 1.56 1.31 1.3 1.42 1.52 1.3

Metals (mg/kg)Chromium 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Copper 2.13 3.93 2.35 1.94 2.13 3.07

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (µg/kg)1‐Methylnaphthalene 1.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.92‐Methylnaphthalene 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 1Acenaphthene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 0.5 U

Acenaphthylene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Anthracene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Benzofluoranthene (unspecified) 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 1Chrysene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Fluoranthene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 0.9Fluorene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Naphthalene 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.5Phenanthrene 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8Pyrene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.6 0.5 U 0.5 0.9Dibenzofuran 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

Total 18 PAH (U = 0) 5.3 3.7 4.8 4.7 5.5 7Notes:



U = Compound analyzed, but not detected above detection

limit

Totals are calculated as the sum of all detected results (U=0).

If all results are not detected, the highest reporting limit value

is reported as the sum.



090641-01.01


TaskSample ID

Sample Date



Copper



Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene



Chrysene


Fluoranthene

Fluorene


Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Dibenzofuran


Notes:




limit




Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment CharacterizationN.V. HK‐DU2 REP 1 N.V. HK‐DU2 REP 2 N.V. HK‐DU2 REP 3 N.V. HK‐DU2 REP 4 N.V. HK‐DU2 REP 5 N.V. HK‐DU3 REP 1

7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010

1.46 1.42 1.45 1.35 1.27 1.36

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.12 1.88 2.16 2.26 2.4 1.95

0.8 0.8 1 0.9 0.6 0.71 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.90.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.30.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.60.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

4.3 4.2 5.2 4.8 2.6 3.5



090641-01.01


TaskSample ID

Sample Date



Copper



Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene



Chrysene


Fluoranthene

Fluorene


Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Dibenzofuran


Notes:




limit




Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment CharacterizationN.V. HK‐DU3 REP 2 N.V. HK‐DU3 REP 3 N.V. HK‐DU3 REP 4 N.V. HK‐DU3 REP 5 N.V. REFERENCE REP 1 N.V. REFERENCE REP 2

7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010

1.47 1.51 1.16 1.27 1.36 1.51

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.77 1.63 1.88 1.69 2.28 2.36

0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.80.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 10.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.50.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.40.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.60.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

2.9 3.5 3 3.4 4.3 4.3



090641-01.01


TaskSample ID

Sample Date



Copper



Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene



Chrysene


Fluoranthene

Fluorene


Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Dibenzofuran


Notes:




limit




Sediment Characterization Sediment Characterization Sediment CharacterizationN.V. REFERENCE REP 3 N.V. REFERENCE REP 4 N.V. REFERENCE REP 5

7/30/2010 7/30/2010 7/30/2010

1.34 1.15 1.38

0.1 0.2 0.1 1.49 2.17 1.84

0.7 0.6 10.9 0.7 1.10.5 U 0.5 U 0.50.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

1.3 1.1 1.60.6 0.5 U 0.70.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U

4 2.4 4.9



090641-01.01

Results


3.4.3 Comparison of Tissue Burdens to U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Action Levels

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels for poisonous or deleterious

substances in fish and shellfish for human food have not been established for the

bioaccumulative contaminants of concern (i.e., chromium, copper, and PAHs) in Hawaii Kai

Marina; therefore, results were compared to tissue concentrations of organisms exposed to

reference sediment.

3.4.4 Comparison of Proposed Dredged Material Tissue Burdens to

Reference Sediment Tissue Burdens

Bioaccumulation data were analyzed by statistically comparing chemical concentrations in

tissues of organisms exposed to project material to tissues of organisms exposed to reference

sediment (Appendix E). Organic chemical concentrations were normalized to lipid

concentrations. Statistically elevated tissue concentrations of organisms exposed to project

material compared to organisms exposed to reference sediment were assessed based on

criteria specified in the OTM, including a comparison to residue-effects values provided in

the Environmental Residue-Effects Database (ERED; USACE/USEPA 2009).

3.4.4.1 Bivalve Tissue Residues

Chromium and several PAHs were statistically elevated in bivalve tissue samples exposed to

HK-DU1 when compared to tissue samples exposed to reference sediment (Table 20). The

mean concentration of chromium in tissues exposed to HK-DU1 was 3 times greater than

tissues exposed to reference sediment. Mean concentrations of PAHs in tissues exposed to

HK-DU1 ranged from 1.83 to 21.5 times greater than tissues exposed to reference sediment.

A comparison to residue-effects values provided in the ERED indicated chromium and PAH

concentrations in tissues exposed to HK-DU1 were below relevant effect levels.

Chromium and benzofluoranthene were statistically elevated in bivalve tissue samples

exposed to HK-DU2 when compared to tissue samples exposed to reference sediment (Table

20). The mean concentration of chromium in tissues exposed to HK-DU2 was 2.73 times

greater than tissues exposed to reference sediment. The mean concentration of

benzofluoranthene in tissues exposed to HK-DU2 was 3.62 times greater than tissues exposed

Results


to reference sediment. A comparison to residue-effects values provided in the ERED

indicated chromium and benzofluoranthene concentrations in tissues exposed to HK-DU2

were below relevant effect levels.

Chromium and benzofluoranthene were was statistically elevated in bivalve tissue samples

exposed to HK-DU3 when compared to tissue samples exposed to reference sediment (Table

20). The mean concentration of chromium in tissues exposed to HK-DU3 was 3.55 times

greater than tissues exposed to reference sediment. The mean concentration of

benzofluoranthene in tissues exposed to HK-DU3 was 2.51 times greater than tissues exposed

to reference sediment. A comparison to residue-effects values provided in the ERED

indicated chromium and benzofluoranthene concentrations in tissues exposed to HK-DU3

were below relevant effect levels.

3.4.4.2 Polychaete Tissue Residues

Copper was statistically elevated in polychaete tissue samples exposed to HK-DU1 when

compared to tissue samples exposed to reference sediment (Table 21). The mean

concentration of copper in tissues exposed to HK-DU1 was 1.33 times greater than tissues

exposed to reference sediment. A comparison to residue-effects values provided in the ERED

indicated the copper concentration in tissues exposed to HK-DU1 was below relevant effect

levels.


A review of analytical results for tissues was conducted to evaluate the laboratories

performance in meeting QA/QC guidelines outlined in the SAP (Anchor QEA 2010). The

data validation report conducted by Anchor QEA is presented in Appendix D. All samples

were analyzed within the appropriate holding times. Generally, QA/QC sample results were

within the project-specified and/or laboratory control limits, with a few exceptions:

• Naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and/or phenanthrene

were detected in the method blanks. Associated detected sample results were not

significantly greater than 5 times the levels detected in the method blanks but were at

levels below the target tissue reporting limits specified in the SAP. This deviation is

not expected to impact the overall data quality.

Results


• Up to nine PAH compounds recovered below the project-specific control limits of 50

to 150 percent in two of the laboratory control samples. The associated sample results

may be biased low.

• Naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and/or 1-methylnaphthalene recovered below

the project-specific control limits in the MS and/or MSD. These compounds were

either non-detect or were detected at levels below the target tissue reporting limits

specified in the SAP. The associated parent sample results may be biased low (i.e.,

naphthalene in sample N.V. Background Rep 1; naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene,

and 1-methylnaphthalene in sample N.V. HK-DU3 Rep 2).

Table 20Summary of Statistically Elevated M. nasuta Tissue Residue

Sample Area Analyte UnitsReporting Limits

Day 0 Tissue Concentration

Reference Mean Tissue

Concentration

Project Area Mean Tissue

Concentration1,2 p value

Project Area Mean: Reference Mean

RatioComparison to Relevant Environmental

Residue‐Effects Database Values

HK‐DU1 Chromium mg/kg 0.1 0.3 0.22 0.66 <0.001 3.00 NOED = 4.4 mg/kg for reproduction (depressed brood size) in the polychaete

worm Neanthes arenaceodentata .HK‐DU1 Benzo(a)anthracene µg/kg 0.5 0.5 0.25 1.32 <0.001 5.28 LD87 = 5,940 μg/kg for mortality of the amphipod Rhepoxynius abroniusHK‐DU1 Benzo(a)pyrene µg/kg 0.5 0.5U 0.25 3.7 <0.001 14.80 LOED = 300 μg/kg for abnormal gametogenesis in the mussel Mytilus edulis

HK‐DU1 Benzo(ghi)perylene µg/kg 0.5 0.5U 0.25 1.28 <0.001 5.12 No relevant effects in the ERED. LOED ‐ 27,500 μg/kg for biochemical effects in

the common carp Cyprinus carpioHK‐DU1 Benzofluoranthene µg/kg 0.5 1.4 0.47 10.1 <0.001 21.49 LD22 = 1,110 μg/kg for mortality in the amphipod Rhepoxynius abroniusHK‐DU1 Chrysene µg/kg 0.5 1.4 0.68 1.82 <0.001 2.68 LD87 = 1,280 μg/kg for mortality in the amphipod Rhepoxynius abroniusHK‐DU1 Fluoranthene µg/kg 0.5 3.3 1.5 2.74 0.004 1.83 LOED = 220 μg/kg for abnormal gametogenesis in the mussel Mytilus edulisHK‐DU1 Indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene µg/kg 0.5 0.5U 0.25 1.02 0.001 4.08 No data on indeno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene in the ERED

HK‐DU1 Pyrene µg/kg 0.5 2.4 1.16 2.78 0.001 2.40 No relevant effects in the ERED. NOED ‐ 890 μg/kg for mortality in juvenile

freshwater amphipods (Diporeia sp.)HK‐DU1 Total PAHs µg/kg 0.5 14.6 10.1 28.6 <0.001 2.83 ED100 = 676 μg/kg for mortality in the giant mussel Choromytilus chorusHK‐DU2 Chromium mg/kg 0.1 0.3 0.22 0.6 <0.001 2.73 NOED = 4.4 mg/kg for reproduction (depressed brood size) in the polychaete

worm Neanthes arenaceodentata .HK‐DU2 Benzofluoranthene µg/kg 0.5 1.4 0.47 1.7 <0.001 3.62 LD22 = 1,110 μg/kg for mortality in the amphipod Rhepoxynius abroniusHK‐DU3 Chromium mg/kg 0.1 0.3 0.22 0.78 <0.001 3.55 NOED = 4.4 mg/kg for reproduction (depressed brood size) in the polychaete

worm Neanthes arenaceodentata .HK‐DU3 Benzofluoranthene µg/kg 0.5 1.4 0.47 1.18 <0.001 2.51 LD22 = 1,110 μg/kg for mortality in the amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius

Notes:

1 Metals were log transformed prior to statistical analysis.

2 PAHs were normalized to percent lipids and log transformed prior to statistical analysis.


Hawaii Kai Marina Page 1 of 1

December 2010

090641-01.01

Table 21Summary of Statistically Elevated N. virens Tissue Residues

Sample Area Analyte Units

Reporting Limit

Day 0 Tissue Concentration

Reference Mean Tissue Concentration

Project Area Mean Tissue

Concentration1,2 p value

Project Area Mean: Reference

Mean RatioComparison to Environmental Residue‐Effects

Database Values

HK‐DU1 Copper mg/kg 0.04 2.13 2.02 2.68 0.048 1.33NOED = 6.42 mg/kg for mortality in the

polychaete worm Cirriformia spirabranchaNotes

1 Metals were log transformed prior to statistical analysis.

2 PAHs were normalized to percent lipids and log transformed prior to statistical analysis.



090641-01.01


4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Physical and Chemical Analyses of Sediments

Grain size of sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina consisted of 71.6 to 88.8 percent fines (silt

and clay), while grain size of the Lanikai Beach reference sediment was predominantly sand

(88.5 percent).

In all project sediments, chromium and copper concentrations were greater than the

corresponding ERL value, and nickel concentrations were greater than the corresponding

ERM value. Nickel is routinely found at concentrations greater than the ERM in Hawaii and

is not at concentrations greater than other material found suitable for ocean disposal.

Arsenic was greater than the corresponding ERL value but less than the ERM value in

sediment from HK-DU4. Several PAHs were detected in sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina.

PAH concentrations were less than the corresponding ERL value in all project sediments,

with the exception of HK-DU1. No pesticides were detected in sediment from Hawaii Kai

Marina, with the exception of gamma-chordane in sediment from HK-DU1. No organotins,

phenols, or PCB Aroclors were detected in sediment from Hawaii Kai Marina.

Sediment from the entrance channel was evaluated for placement on an adjacent beach as

sand nourishment. Samples were predominantly coarse-grained materials. All samples met

DLNR guidelines of no more than 6 percent fines and no more than 50 percent material less

than 0.125 mm.


Sediment from HK-DU4 was evaluated to determine suitability for potential disposal as solid

waste at a permitted upland landfill or other upland location on or off site. The sediment

concentration of chromium exceeded 20 times the TCLP regulatory value, indicating that

TCLP was necessary to evaluate this material for upland placement. TCLP was performed for

chromium analysis only. Chromium in the sample was found to have very low leachate

potential; therefore, sediment from HK-DU4 is not classified as a hazardous waste and

appears to be suitable for disposal as solid waste. Additional sampling of dredged material

may occur during the construction process to further document the material’s suitability for

upland placement.

Discussion


4.2 Bioassay Testing

SP testing using the amphipod A. abdita was conducted on sediment from HK-DU1,

HK-DU2, HK-DU3, and HK-DU4. Survival in project sediments was within 20 percent of

the survival in the reference sediment and not significantly different. Following this test, it

was determined that HK-DU4 was more feasible to place upland; therefore, it was eliminated

from additional Tier III biological testing for ocean disposal. SP testing using the polychaete

Neanthes arenaceodentata was performed on sediment from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and HK-

DU3. For this test, survival in project sediments was within 10 percent of the survival in the

reference sediment and was not significantly different. These results indicate that sediment

from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and HK-DU3 is not acutely toxic to benthic organisms and meets

LPC requirements for ocean disposal.

SPP testing using the bivalve larvae Mytilus galloprovincialis, the mysid shrimp A. bahia,

and the fish Menidia beryllina was conducted on sediment from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and

HK-DU3. The LC50 and/or EC50 for each project sediment were estimated to be greater than

100 percent. Organism responses in the 100 percent test treatments were not significantly

different than the control; therefore, sediment from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and HK-DU3 is not

acutely toxic to water column organisms and meets LPC requirements for ocean disposal.

4.3 Bioaccumulation Testing and Chemical Analysis of Tissue Residues

BP testing using the bivalve M. nasuta and polychaete N. virens was conducted on sediment

from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and HK-DU3. Mean survival of test organisms was greater than 90

percent in all project sediments. Sufficient tissue was available for chemical analysis.

Chemical concentrations in M. nasuta tissue samples were less than or similar to background

concentrations, with the exception of chromium in all project samples, copper in two

replicates, and total PAHs in all replicates from HK-DU1. Chemical concentrations in

N. virens tissue samples were less than or similar to background concentrations, with the

exception of copper in one replicate (HK-DU1).

FDA action levels for poisonous or deleterious substances in fish and shellfish for human

food have not been established for chromium, copper, and PAHs; therefore, results were

Discussion


compared to tissue concentrations of organisms exposed to reference sediment. Chromium

and PAHs were statistically elevated in bivalve tissue samples exposed to sediment from

Hawaii Kai Marina when compared to tissue samples exposed to reference sediment. Copper

was the only analyte statistically elevated in polychaete tissue samples exposed to sediment

from Hawaii Kai Marina when compared to tissue samples exposed to reference sediment. A

comparison to residue-effects values provided in the ERED indicated that chromium, copper,

and PAH concentrations in tissues were below concentrations shown to cause toxicity. In

addition, chromium, copper, and PAHs do not have the propensity to biomagnify.

Based on bioaccumulation testing and chemical analysis of tissues, sediment from HK-DU1,

HK-DU2, and HK-DU3 meets bioaccumulation LPC requirements for ocean disposal.


5 CONCLUSIONS

Physical, chemical, and biological analyses were conducted to evaluate suitability of

proposed dredged material from Hawaii Kai Marina for ocean disposal or upland placement.

Based on the results of analyses, the following conclusions may be drawn:

• Concentrations of contaminants in Hawaii Kai Marina were relatively low. All

concentrations were less than ERM values, with the exception of nickel in all

samples. Chromium and copper exceeded the ERL value in all samples. Arsenic

exceeded the ERL value in HK-DU4. Several PAHs exceeded the ERL value in

HK-DU1.

• Results of SP testing indicate that sediment from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and HK-DU3 is

not acutely toxic to benthic organisms and meets LPC requirements for ocean

disposal.

• Results of SPP testing indicate that sediment from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and HK-DU3

is not acutely toxic to water column organisms and meets LPC requirements for ocean

disposal.

• Results of bioaccumulation testing and chemical analysis of tissues indicate that

sediment from HK-DU1, HK-DU2, and HK-DU3 meets bioaccumulation LPC

requirements for ocean disposal.

• Based on results of chemical and biological analyses, sediment from HK-DU1, HK-

DU2, and HK-DU3 is recommended as suitable for ocean disposal.

• Grain size results of sediment from the entrance channel indicates material is likely

suitable for placement on an adjacent beach, pending compatibility with existing

beach sand.

• Concentrations of contaminants in sediment from HK-DU4 were less than 20 times

the TCLP regulatory value, with the exception of chromium. Based on TCLP

analysis, chromium was found to have very low leachate potential; therefore,

sediment from HK-DU4 is not classified as a hazardous waste and appears suitable for

upland placement.


6 REFERENCES

Anchor QEA, L.P., 2010. Sampling and Analysis Plan. Dredged Material Evaluation: Hawaii

Kai Marina and Entrance Channel Maintenance Dredging. May 2010.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder (Long et al.), 1995. Incidence of

Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and

Estuarine Sediments. Environmental Management, 19:81-97.

Plumb, R.H., Jr., 1981. Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and

Water Samples. Technical Report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/CE-81-1.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical

Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material, U.S. Army Waterways

Experimental Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

DLNR (State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources), 2005. Instructions for

General Application, Category II Small-Scale Beach Nourishment Projects (SSBN).

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1992. SW-846, Test Methods for

Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. Method 1311, Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/1_series.html.

USEPA, 2010. CFR Title 40: Protection of Environment. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/40cfr.html.

USEPA/USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material

Proposed for Ocean Disposal: Testing Manual (OTM). USEPA/USACE. USEPA

503/8-91/001. USEPA, Office of Water (4504F).

USEPA/USACE, 1997. Regional Implementation Manual (RIM). Requirements and

Procedures for Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal in the

State of Hawaii Draft.

USEPA/USACE, 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of

the U.S. – Inland Testing Manual (ITM). USEPA/USACE.

USEPA-823-B-94-002. USEPA, Office of Water (4305).

References


USEPA/USACE, 2009. Environmental Residue-Effects Database (ERED). Available from:

http://www.wes.army.mil/el/ered/index.html.

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FIELD RECORDS

APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL REPORTS

APPENDIX C COMMUNICATION WITH THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

APPENDIX D DATA VALIDATION REPORT

APPENDIX E STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS

j3ec9fkw

Sticky Note

APPENDICES ARE ON ATTACHED CD, NO HARDCOPY PRINTOUT IS ATTACHED TO THE SAMPLING ANALYSIS REPORT

December 2010 - Maile's District 21 Blog and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina i...

Documents

Transcript of December 2010 - Maile's District 21 Blog and Analysis Report December 2010 Hawaii Kai Marina i...