January Submitted by: 2200 Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI Ph: Fax:

Transcription

1 BOARDMAN RIVER FEASIBILITY STUDY A Report on Boardman River Existing Sediment Chemistry Data January 2009 Submitted by: 2200 Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI Ph: Fax:

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge the Boardman River Dams Committee for funding this important work. Finally, the project team would like to thank the following organizations for their assistance and for providing critical data that was used in the preparation of this report: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (GTB) Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fish Division (MDNR) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau (MDEQ) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) ECT Project Team: Dr. Mark D. Mikesell, Ph.D., Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. Dr. Donald Tilton, Ph.D. - Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. Mr. Scott Parker, P.E. - Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. Mr. Chip Thomas - Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Purpose... 1 Introduction... 2 Sediment... 3 Existing Sediment Sampling & Quality... 3 Sediment Chemical Analysis... 4 Sediment Grain Size Analysis... 4 Recommendations... 5 Appendix A - Sampling Notes & Soil Boring Logs Tables Page Table 1 Sediment Analytical Summary Table (Boardman Pond)... 7 Table 2 Sediment Analytical Summary Table (Sabin Pond)... 8 Table 3 Sediment Analytical Summary Table (Brown Bridge Pond)... 9 Figures Page Figure 1: Boardman Pond Sediment Sampling Point June Figure 2: Sabin Pond Sediment Sampling Point June Figure 3: Brown Bridge Pond Sediment Sampling Point June

4 PURPOSE The Boardman River Dams Committee (BDC) has authorized Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT) to summarize the sediment analysis undertaken in 2005 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. This report is a summary of the data collected by the agencies and recommends further testing where necessary. 1

5 INTRODUCTION The Boardman River is located in the northwestern portion of Michigan s Lower Peninsula and originates in central Kalkaska County, flows southwest into Grand Traverse County where it turns north and flows into West Grand Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan in Traverse City, Michigan. The Boardman River watershed drains a surface area of approximately 291 square miles and includes 179 lineal stream miles and 12 natural lakes. The Boardman River is designated a Natural River and is considered one of the top ten best trout streams in Michigan, containing nearly 36 lineal miles of Blue Ribbon Trout Stream. The project area is a 20-mile plus section of the Boardman River s main stem, located in Grand Traverse County, and contains four dams: Union Street Dam, Sabin Dam, Boardman Dam, and Brown Bridge Dam. The upper three dams were constructed and operated for hydropower generation; however Traverse City Light and Power has relinquished its licenses to generate hydroelectric power at the Sabin, Boardman, and Brown Bridge dams. The owners of the dams, the City of Traverse City and Grand Traverse County are now fully responsible for the operation and maintenance of these facilities. They are committed to involving the public to help determine the fate of these dams. The Boardman River Dams Committee has been formed for this purpose and has retained the services of Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc. (ECT) to conduct an engineering feasibility study of the Boardman River for the long term disposition of the four existing dams: Brown Bridge Dam, Boardman Dam, Sabin Dam and Union Street Dam on the basis of environmental, engineering, economic, and societal impacts. Also, at the request of the City and County, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is conducting a Feasibility Study on the Boardman River Dams under the Great Lakes Fisheries and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER) Program. The GLFER program enables the Corps to utilize its planning, design, and construction expertise for projects to restore the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. 2

6 SEDIMENT EXISTING SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND QUALITY Sediment samples were collected from Boardman, Sabin, and Brown Bridge ponds in June 2005 (See Appendix A for details). Core sampling was performed at six locations in Boardman and Brown Bridge ponds and at four locations in Sabin Pond (See Figures 1-3). The samples were analyzed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Environmental Laboratory to determine the concentrations of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 10 trace metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc). While the methods used and the Reporting Levels were appropriate, the samples were analyzed outside the USEPA maximum allowable holding time for pesticides and PCBs, PAHs, and mercury. All the reported results for these parameters are therefore flagged as estimates. Sediment samples were also analyzed for grain size distribution. The ultimate disposition of dredged sediment depends on the results of chemical analysis of sediment samples collected in a manner that complies with guidance provided by the Land and Water Management Division of the MDEQ. A summary of the disposal options and associated analytical requirements outlined by the MDEQ is as follows: On-site (an upland location adjacent to the waterbody), with clean cover and a deed restriction testing is not required Off site, not in a Type II landfill or confined disposal facility testing required pursuant to 1994 PA 451, Part 115 In a Type II landfill testing requirements are determined by the landfill owner Sediment evaluation criteria have been established by the MDEQ for spoils disposal evaluation in dredging projects. Part 115 of P.A. 451 requires that sediments be tested for the following parameters when testing is required. Six samples are required for the first 10,000 cubic yards of sediment. An additional sample is required for every 10,000 cubic yards in excess of 10,000 cubic yards. Twelve metals, including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc, Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In addition to the evaluation for potential spoils disposal, we compared the sediment analytical data to ecological screening criteria established for sediments by the USEPA. This comparison reveals whether sediment contaminants may have an effect on aquatic habitats. Sediment analytical results are typically compared to a variety of sediment quality criteria to determine whether the sediment should be considered contaminated. The sediment quality criteria used for evaluation of the Boardman, Sabin, and Brown Bridge sediment data were the following: 3

7 1. USEPA Region V Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs) are conservative screening criteria. If concentrations of constituents in sediments exceed these values, further evaluation may be necessary. If concentrations are below these values, then the sediment is presumed to not present an ecological risk. 2. In instances where no ESL is available, an Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) value was used to provide a point of comparison. The AET values were prepared specifically for sediments of Puget Sound, Washington, but are still useful for screening purposes in other areas of the United States. 3. Dredging review criteria have been provided by the MDEQ to assist in evaluation of sediments that may be involved in dredging projects. Thus, these criteria are most often used to evaluate sediment disposal scenarios, rather than sediment remaining in place. The criteria allow an evaluation of both human-health risks (due to potential drinking water impacts and direct contact with sediments) and ecological risks (due to substances leaching from sediment and impacting the groundwater-surface water interface). For trace elements, statewide background concentrations are also evaluated, since in some instances risk-based criteria are lower than naturally occurring background concentrations. SEDIMENT CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Sediment analytical results are summarized in the attached tables. Since pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs were provided as estimates in the report, these parameters are not included in the tables. Boardman Pond Arsenic, barium, and selenium were present at concentrations exceeding the USEPA Ecological Screening Levels in some or all of the six core samples. Arsenic also exceeded the statewide default background level and MDEQ Residential Direct Contact Criterion in all six samples. Sabin Pond Barium exceeded the USEPA Ecological Screening Level in one sample and selenium exceeded the Apparent Effects Threshold in another sample. Brown Bridge Pond Arsenic, barium, lead, selenium, and zinc exceeded the USEPA Ecological Screening Levels in some or all of the core samples. These results show some similarities among the three ponds: in all three ponds, arsenic, selenium, and/or barium are present at concentrations that often exceeded one or more of the criteria used for evaluation. SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Sediment grain size distribution will influence sediment management efforts because it largely determines the extent of sediment transport as well as engineering aspects of dredge spoil handling. Boardman Pond At four of the six locations, silt/clay material predominates in surface samples with significant medium and coarse sand fractions in the deeper intervals. 4

8 Sabin Pond Medium and coarse sand material predominates at all locations. Brown Bridge Pond At three of the six locations, silt/clay material predominates in surface samples with significant medium and coarse sand fractions in the deeper intervals. At the other three locations medium and coarse material predominates throughout the sampled sediment interval. RECOMMENDATIONS As was mentioned above, the sediment analytical data set provides estimates for certain chemicals. All of the organic data and the mercury data have been flagged because the samples were received and analyzed in excess of the maximum allowable holding time (14 days for organics, 28 days for mercury). We recommend that new samples be collected on Brown Bridge Pond, Sabin Pond and Boardman Pond. We recommend that six samples be collected in six different locations in each impoundment. The samples should be analyzed for total nickel, total manganese, total mercury, pesticides, PCBs and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). 5

9 TABLES 6

10 Table 1. Sediment Analytical Summary Table Boardman Ponds Samples collected on 6/20/2005 Page 1 of 1 Sample Identification Dredging Review Criteria Total Metals, ug/kg Chemical 20X Abstract Drinking Statewide (Element - Method) Service # Reporting Ecological Water 20X GSI Direct Default Limit (BP1) (BP2) (BP3) (BP4) (BP5) (BP6) Screening Level Protection Protection Contact Background Arsenic ,200 7,700 11,900 14,400 9,400 11,600 9, ,800 Barium / , , ,000 95, ,000 99, ,000 48,000 48,000 12,600 18,000,000 75,000 Cadmium / ,000 nd nd nd nd nd nd {D} 130,000 1,200 Chromium 6010/ ,000 23,000 22,000 16,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 43,400 2, ,200,000 18,000 Copper / ,000 23,000 22,000 17,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 31,600 20, ,800,000 1,000 Lead / ,000 30,000 29,000 17,000 20,000 23,000 24,000 35, ,000 21,000 Mercury nd nd nd nd nd nd , Selenium ,800 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,600 1, ,300, Silver nd nd nd nd nd nd ,200,000 1,000 Zinc / , , ,000 71,000 85,000 92,000 93, ,000 46,000 1,600 86,000,000 47,000 The Ecological screening levels were taken from USEPA Region V RCRA Guidance (2003); for barium and selenium the value given is the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET), Background can be substituted if higher than the listed review criteria 7

11 Table 2. Sediment Analytical Summary Table Sabin Ponds Samples collected on 6/21/2005 Page 1 of 1 Sample Identification Dredging Review Criteria Total Metals, ug/kg Chemical Ecological Statewide Abstract Reporting B 6447 Screening 20X Drinking 20X GSI Direct Default (Element - Method) Service # Limit Level Water Protection Protection Contact Background Arsenic ,100 1,400 1,500 4,500 5,500 9, ,800 Barium / ,000 91,000 8,300 16,000 38,000 41,000 48,000 48,000 12,600 18,000,000 75,000 Cadmium / ,000 nd nd nd nd nd {D} 130,000 1,200 Chromium 6010/ ,000 9,000 3,700 2,400 7,100 8,400 43,400 2, ,200,000 18,000 Copper / ,000 8,100 2,600 nd 6,200 7,800 31,600 20, ,800,000 1,000 Lead / ,000 9,900 nd nd 9,400 9,000 35, ,000 21,000 Mercury varies <200 <50 <50 <50 < , Selenium nd nd nd nd 1,300 1, ,300, Silver nd nd nd nd nd ,200,000 1,000 Zinc / ,000 44,000 12,000 10,000 36,000 33, ,000 46,000 1,600 86,000,000 47,000 The Ecological screening levels were taken from USEPA Region V RCRA Guidance (2003); for barium and selenium the value given is the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET), Background can be substituted if higher than the listed review criteria 8

12 Table 3. Sediment Analytical Summary Table Brown Bridge Pond Samples collected on 6/22/2005 Page 1 of 1 Sample Identification Dredging Review Criteria Chemical Total Metals, ug/kg Abstract 20X Ecological Drinking Statewide (Element - Method) Service # Reporting Screening Water 20X GSI Direct Default Limit Level Protection Protection Contact Background Arsenic ,100 9,000 6,100 17,900 9,700 12,100 9, ,800 Barium / ,000 66,000 99,000 66, , ,000 66,000 48,000 48,000 12,600 18,000,000 75,000 Cadmium / ,000 nd nd nd nd nd nd {D} 130,000 1,200 Chromium 6010/ ,000 20,000 28,000 14,000 22,000 31,000 21,000 43,400 2, ,200,000 18,000 Copper / ,000 15,000 21,000 10,000 16,000 21,000 13,000 31,600 20, ,800,000 1,000 Lead / ,000 14,000 25,000 12,000 29,000 38,000 37,000 35, ,000 21,000 Mercury varies <200 <500 <250 <400 <400 < , Selenium ,400 2, ,500 1,900 2,700 1, ,300, Silver nd nd nd nd nd ,200,000 1,000 Zinc / ,000 66, ,000 52,000 94, ,000 99, ,000 46,000 1,600 86,000,000 47,000 The Ecological screening levels were taken from USEPA Region V RCRA Guidance (2003); for barium and selenium the value given is the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET), Background can be substituted if higher than the listed review criteria 9

13 FIGURES 9

14 Figure 1: Boardman Pond Sediment Sampling Point June

15 Figure 2: Sabin Pond Sediment Sampling Point June

16 Figure 3: Brown Bridge Pond Sediment Sampling Point June

17 APPENDIX A - Sampling Notes & Soil Boring Logs Sediments were collected with the EPA R/V Mudpuppy within Boardman (06/20), Sabin (06/21), and Brown Bridge Ponds (06/22), in Grand Traverse County, MI. The Mudpuppy crew consisted of Joe and Polly Bonham (Boat Captain and Field Technician, 1678 Marquette Ave. Bay City, MI 48706), Dave Wethington (EPA Site Safety Officer, 111 North Canal St., Suite 600, Chicago, Il, 60606, ), Jim Stricko (Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) Technician; assisted on 06/20 only), and Todd Kalish (DNR Fisheries Biologist). The sampling protocol (sample locations, chain of custody, storage, labeling, etc.) for this project was devised by Joe Rathbun (DEQ, Gaylord), Dennis McCauley (Great Lakes Environmental Center), and Todd Kalish (DNR Fisheries), and coordinated by Dennis McCauley (GLEC) and Todd Kalish. The GLEC provided all the sampling materials and storage space. Jim Stricko accompanied the Mudpuppy crew on 06/20 to assure proper collection and handling of the sediment samples. There were six sampling locations in Boardman and Brown Bridge Ponds, and four locations in Sabin Pond. At each sampling location, sediment was collected with a ponar dredge and a ten foot vibra-core tube. The ponar collections were placed into one gallon buckets for toxicity analysis, and into two separate 250 ml glass amber jars for organic and metal analysis. The amber jars were placed on ice and stored in a freezer at 0ºC. The one gallon buckets were stored at room temperature. The sediment cores were divided into 24 in. subsections (or less) and mixed. The mixed subsections were placed into 500 ml Nalogene bottles, labeled, and stored at room temperature. Pictures were taken of every core in its entirety, the mixed subsections, and the ponar samples. Subsamples were also collected for organic and metal analysis from the cores. Subsamples were obtained from visibly distinct sediment layers. The core subsections were labeled with a site number followed by a letter (A, B, C, or D) which delineates where the sample was obtained within the core. The diagram below illustrates the core labeling scheme. Therefore, BBP5B is a sample of sediment obtained from Brown Bridge Pond Site 5, and is the second layer down from the top. Top A B Core tube C Bottom 13

18 Boardman Pond Sediment Sampling 06/20/2005 Site: BP1 Boardman Pond Site :30 AM N W Core length: 33 Core subsections: 2 Subsection length: 16 ½ Notes: Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Boardman Pond Sediment Sampling 06/20/2005 Site: BP2 Boardman Pond Site N 11:00AM W Core length: 36 Core subsections: 2 Subsection length: 18 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Notes: BP2A consisted of mainly organic material and BP2B consisted of mainly sand and gravel material. Boardman Pond Sediment Sampling 06/20/2005 Site: BP3 Boardman Pond Site N 12:00 PM W Core length: 59 Core subsections: 3 Subsection length: 19 1/3 Notes: Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. 14

19 Boardman Pond Sediment Sampling 06/20/2005 Site: BP5 Boardman Pond Site N 15: W Core length: 46 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Core subsections: 2 Subsection length: 23 Notes: BP5A composed mainly of silt and BP5B composed mainly of sand. Boardman Pond Sediment Sampling 06/20/2005 Site: BP6 Boardman Pond Site N 15: W Core length: 54 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Core subsections: 3 Subsection length: 18 Notes: An extra sample was obtained from BP6C for organic and metal analysis. Sabin Pond Sediment Sampling 06/21/2005 Site: SP1 Sabin Pond Site :30 AM N W Core length: 80 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Core subsections: 4 Subsection length: 20 Notes: SB1A consisted of mainly organic material and SB1B, C, and D consisted of mainly sand. 15

20 Sabin Pond Sediment Sampling 06/21/2005 Site: SP2 Sabin Pond Site :30 AM N W Core length: 17 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Core subsections: 1 Subsection length: 17 Notes: Obtained two core samples at this site. The grain size analysis sample was obtained from the first core (17 ). Samples for toxicity, organic, and metal analysis were obtained from the combination of the first and second cores. The second core was 15 in length. We were unable to obtain an adequate sample size from the ponar dredge due to excessive vegetation at this site. Sabin Pond Sediment Sampling 06/21/2005 Site: SP3 Sabin Pond Site :15 PM N W Core length: 64 Core subsections: 3 Subsection length: 21 1/3 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Notes: An extra sample was obtained from SB3B for organic and metal analysis due to visibly distinct layer. Sabin Pond Sediment Sampling 06/21/2005 Site: SP4 Sabin Pond Site :45 PM N W Core length: 26 Core subsections: 2 Subsection length: 13 Notes: Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. 16

21 Brown Bridge Pond Sediment Sampling 06/22/2005 Site: BBP1 Brown Bridge Pond 12 7 Site 1 9:45 AM N W Core length: 22 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Core subsections: 1 Subsection length: 22 Notes: Short core due to clay substrate. Brown Bridge Pond Sediment Sampling 06/22/2005 Site: BBP2 Brown Bridge Pond 19 Site 2 10:15 AM N W Core length: 13 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Core subsections: 1 Subsection length: 13 Notes: Short core due to gravel substrate in the bottom portion of the core. This sample was obtained from the old river channel. Brown Bridge Pond Sediment Sampling 06/22/2005 Site: BBP3 Brown Bridge Pond 7 9 Site 3 10:45 AM N W Core length: 15 Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Core subsections: 1 Subsection length: 15 Notes: Short core due to clay and gravel substrate. 17

22 Brown Bridge Pond Sediment Sampling 06/22/2005 Site: BBP4 Brown Bridge Pond 15 7 Site 4 Core length: 27 Core subsections: 2 Subsection length: 13 ½ 11:20 AM N W Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Notes: BBP4A consisted of mainly silt and BBP4B consisted of mainly clay and gravel substrate. Brown Bridge Pond Sediment Sampling 06/22/2005 Site: BBP5 Brown Bridge Pond 28 7 Site 5 12:00 PM N W Core length: 35 Core subsections: 2 Subsection length: 17 ½ Notes: Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Brown Bridge Pond Sediment Sampling 06/22/2005 Site: BBP6 Brown Bridge Pond Site 6 Core length: 73 Core subsections: 4 Subsection length: 18 ¼ 12:30 PM N W Analysis required: Toxicity, metals, organics, and grain size. Notes: Obtained an extra organic and metal sample from BBP6C. 18