Web Date: April 1998
updated: July 21, 2000
The Interagency Field Verification of Testing and Predictive Methodologies for Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives, referred to as the Field Verification Program (FVP), investigated methods for predictive evaluation of dredge material disposal alternatives. Under the program, research focused on comprehensive evaluation and comparison of environmental effects of highly contaminated dredged material placed in upland, wetland, and aquatic environments. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency jointly supported and conducted the FVP over a 6-year period,
Samples of sediment for use in laboratory studies were collected from the industrialized from Black Rock Harbor Channel in Bridgeport, CT, prior to dredging. The channel was then dredged, and portions of the material were
Pre-disposal predictive studies were conducted in the laboratory. Results were compared with the results of the same techniques applied in the field after disposal. These studies provided a basis for determing (a) the reproducibility of the test using dredged material in the laboratory, (b) the ability of the laboratory test methods to predict effects in the field, and (c) the comparative effects of the same contaminated dredged material in upland, wetland, and aquatic environments. The test methods evaluated had been developed by the CE, the EPA, and the European Economic Commission under other programs. In many cases, however, the test methods had not been applied to dredged material and had not been evaluated for predictive accuracy.
Results showed that laboratory methods for predicting effluent and surface water quality and plant toxicity in upland disposal sites compared well with field data. The techniques for predicting effluent and surface water quality were shown to have good utility for predisposal evaluations of dredged material proposed for upland disposal.
Methods for testing toxicity and bioaccumulation in plants in the wetland environment showed good predictive ability. However, optimum utility for predictive evaluations for the animal bioassays awaits further confirmation of the reproducibility.
Techniques showed to have good utility for predisposal evaluation of dredged material proposed for aquatic disposal includies toxicity, bioaccumulation, intrinsic rate of population increase, and scope of growth.
More methods for testing chronic, sublethal effects were evaluated in the aquatic environment than in the upland or wetland environments. Methods for predicting aquatic impacts were shown to have good utility for predisposal evaluations. In general, the effects of aquatic disposal predicted in the laboratory and observed in the field were less persistent than in the other two environments. Wetland creation showed greater effects than aquatic disposal. Upland disposal produced the greatest and most persistent impacts. This is compatible with expectations based on the physicochemical behavior of contaminated dredged material in the three environments. The same ranking of effects in the upland, wetland, and aquatic environments can be expected in similar situations although the relative magnitude of effects may be different.
Web Date: April 1998
updated: July 21, 2000