United States

Environmental Protection

Agency EPA

1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460 March 2012

O ce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Support Document for the 

Revised National Priorities List 

Final Rule – Sauer Dump
Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule

Sauer Dump

March 2012

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch 

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

i 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ iv

Background of the NPL ........................................................................................................................... iv

Development of the NPL .......................................................................................................................... v

Hazard Ranking System ........................................................................................................................... v

Other Mechanisms for Listing ................................................................................................................. vi

Organization of this Document............................................................................................................... vii

Glossary .................................................................................................................................................. vii

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence ........................................................................................ 1

2. Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Summary of Comments ..................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non-opposition Comments ........................................................... 6

3.2 Consideration of Action Levels .................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Source Characterization ................................................................................................................ 7

3.3.1 Source Identification ........................................................................................................................... 8

3.3.2 Extent of Source .................................................................................................................................. 9

3.3.3 Overlap of Source and Wetland ........................................................................................................11

3.4 Waste Quantity ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.5 Description of Watershed/Current Conditions ............................................................................ 15

3.5.1 Continuity of Surface Water Pathway ...............................................................................................15

3.5.2 Probable Point of Entry (PPE)...........................................................................................................17

3.6 Likelihood of Release ................................................................................................................. 19

3.6.1 Observed Release by Chemical Analysis..........................................................................................19

3.6.2 Potential to Release ...........................................................................................................................22

3.6.3 Lack of Observed Release in the Back River....................................................................................23

3.7 Human Food Chain Threat Fishery ............................................................................................. 24

3.7.1 Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery................................................................................................. 26
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

 ii

3.7.2 HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description......................................................................................28

3.7.2.1 HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery..........................................................................28

3.7.2.2 Breadth of HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery ........................................................30

3.7.2.3 HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery and Risk...........................................................31

3.7.2.4 Consistency between HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description and Maryland Law ...............33

3.7.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Presence of a Fishery Target..................................................34

3.8 Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Food Chain Individual ..................................................... 38

3.9 Human Food Chain Threat – Waste Characteristics Score ......................................................... 39

3.10 Human Food Chain Threat Score ................................................................................................ 41

3.11 Environmental Threat Targets .................................................................................................... 42

3.11.1 Definition of Wetlands......................................................................................................................42

3.11.2 HRS Guidance Manual-Suggested Evidence of Wetlands................................................................47

3.11.3 Actually Contaminated Wetlands......................................................................................................48

3.11.4 Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act.............54

3.12 Environmental Threat – Waste Characteristics Score ................................................................. 57

3.13 Environmental Threat Targets Score .......................................................................................... 59

3.14 Environmental Threat Score ....................................................................................................... 59

4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 60

Attachment 1: Chesapeake Bay Fishery Management Plans Webpage 

Attachment 2: 2011 Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories

Attachment 3: MDE Information Regarding Fish Advisory in the Back River

Attachment 4: 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

 iii

Executive Summary

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national 

priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated 

on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that the EPA update the list at least annually.

This document provides responses to public comments received on the Sauer Dump site, proposed on 

March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the 

EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in March 2012. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

iv

Introduction

This document explains the rationale for adding the Sauer Dump site in Dundalk, Maryland, to the 

National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also provides the responses to 

public comments received on this site. The EPA proposed this site on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). 

This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a 

final rule published in the Federal Register in March 2012. 

Background of the NPL 

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq. in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste 

sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 

Act (SARA), Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated 

the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, 

on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 

42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further revised by the EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) 

and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth guidelines and procedures needed to respond under 

CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On 

March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), the EPA further revised the NCP in response to SARA. 

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include 

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the 

United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take 

into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal 

action. 

Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or 

on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long-term in 

nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA 

Section 101). Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions 

financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. The EPA 

promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 

(56 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in response to SARA, and established the 

effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be 

used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the 

NCP, is the NPL.

An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an 

HRS score of 28.50 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 

400 sites, as suggested by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently 

on September 16, 2011 (76 FR 57662). The Agency also has published a number of proposed 

rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most recent proposal was on September 16, 2011 (76 FR 

57702). 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

v 

Development of the NPL 

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]). 

The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and 

the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial 

actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the 

activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any 

action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions will be 

necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate 

procedural safeguards. 

The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for 

the NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation 

to assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to 

notify the public of sites the EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the 

extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties 

that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or 

threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs 

the EPA to consider certain enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of 

policy, the EPA has the discretion not to use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where 

other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be 

appropriate. Therefore, the EPA has chosen not to place certain types of sites on the NPL even though 

CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later determines that sites not listed as a 

matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider placing them on the NPL.

Hazard Ranking System 

The HRS is the principle mechanism the EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a 

numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations -- the 

preliminary assessment and site inspection -- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to 

human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which the EPA 

funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not 

sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a 

particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's 

attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require 

stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, the EPA relies on further, more detailed 

studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical 

values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into 

three categories. Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:

• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the 

environment; 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

vi

• characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and 

• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.

Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:

• Ground Water Migration (Sgw) 

- drinking water 

• Surface Water Migration (Ssw) 

The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood 

migration and ground water to surface water.

- drinking water 

- human food chain 

- sensitive environments

• Soil Exposure (Ss) 

- resident population

- nearby population 

- sensitive environments 

• Air Migration (Sa) 

- population 

- sensitive environments

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are 

combined using the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which 

ranges from 0 to 100: 

If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even 

if only one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some 

extremely dangerous sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of 

hazardous substances can contaminate drinking water wells, but -- if the drums are buried deep enough 

and the substances not very volatile -- not surface water or air.

Other Mechanisms for Listing 

There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these 

mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to 

designate one site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP 

at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements: 

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service 

has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;

• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and

4

S + S + S + S = S

2

a

2

s

2

sw

2

gw
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

• EPA anticipates it will b e more cost-effective to use its remedial authorit y than to us e its 

emergency removal authority to respond to the site. 

Organization of this Document 

The following section contains the EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the 

proposal of the Sauer Dump site on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). The site discussion begins with a list 

of commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments and Agency responses to each 

comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site. 

Glossary 

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text: 

1987 Manual U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Alliance Environmental Alliance, Inc. 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

APU American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

BGE Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 

BPFV Bioaccumulation potential factor value 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq., also known as Superfund 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations 

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 

D.C. Cir U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, also USEPA 

EPIC Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center 

ENSAT Environmental Service and Technology Corporation 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

FOA Former Operation Area 

FR Federal Register 

FS Feasibility study 

HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP 

HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to 

100 

vii 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

viii

HWQ Hazardous waste quantity

JD Jurisdictional Determination

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. 

Part 300

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl 

PPE Probable point of entry

ppm Parts per million

RFMC Regional Fishery Management Councils

RI Remedial investigation

RI/FS Remedial investigation/feasibility study 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SI Site investigation

SVOC Semi-volatile organic compounds

TDL Target distance limit

USACE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geologic Survey 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

1 

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064-0004 Correspondence, dated May 27, 2010, from Governor 

Martin O’Malley, Maryland.

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064-0010 Comment, dated May 16, 2011, from Benjamin G. 

Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf of American 

Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU) 

Comment attachment, dated May 16, 2011, from 

Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf 

of American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU). 

Comment Letter. 

Comment attachment, dated May 16, 2011, from 

Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf 

of American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU). Hazard 

Ranking Systems (HRS) Scoring Comments for Sauer 

Dump Site. Prepared by Environmental Alliance, Inc., 

for American Premier Underwriter, Inc.

Comment attachment, dated April 22, 2010, from 

Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf 

of American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU). 

Analytical Results. Prepared by Lancaster Laboratories 

for Environmental Alliance, Inc. Group Number: 

1190143 and Project: 2054 

Comment attachment, submitted May 16, 2011, from 

Benjamin G. Stonelake, Jr., Blank Rome LLP on behalf 

of American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU). Type I 

Data Package - Prepared by Lancaster Laboratories for 

Environmental Alliance, Inc., Project Number 2054. 

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064-0011 Comment, dated May 16, 2011, from Dee Hicks

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064-0012 Comment, dated May 16, 2011, from Paula K. Palmere, 

Legal Assistant to Wm. Roger Truitt, DLA Piper LLP on 

behalf of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE)

Comment attachment, dated May 16, 2011, from Paula 

K. Palmere, Legal Assistant to Wm. Roger Truitt, DLA 

Piper LLP on behalf of Baltimore Gas and Electric 

Company (BGE). Comment Letter.

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064-0013 Comment, dated May 13, 2011, from Ashley Podolak on 

behalf of Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr., Sixth 

Legislative District, Baltimore County, Maryland
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

2 

Comment attachment, dated May 13, 2011, from Ashley 

Podolak on behalf of Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr., 

Sixth Legislative District, Baltimore County, Maryland. 

Comment Letter.

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064-0014 Comment, dated May 19, 2011, from Russell S. 

Donnelly, SECAP 

Comment attachment, submitted May 19, 2011, from 

Russell S. Donnelly, SECAP. Comment Letter. 

2. Site Description

The Sauer Dump site (the Site) as scored in the HRS documentation record at proposal includes an 

inactive, privately owned, unpermitted, former dump (identified as Source 1 in the HRS documentation 

record at proposal) and the releases from that source identified in wetlands on its borders. Sauer Dump is 

located in Dundalk, Maryland. Sauer Dump is bordered by a cove of Back River and tidal wetlands to the 

south, and non-tidal wetland areas to the southwest, northwest, and southeast. A pond is present in the 

non-tidal wetland area on the northwest portion of the Sauer Dump property (see Figure 1 of this support 

document). 

While in operation, hazardous substances were improperly stored and disposed of at the Sauer Dump 

from the 1960s to the 1980s. Sauer Dump is in an area that was originally a marshland (wetland) that was 

filled and stabilized between 1954 and 1977 with wastes containing hazardous substances. Aerial 

photographs reviewed as part of the Sauer Dump remedial investigation (RI) and as part of a 2012 EPA 

Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) review show that Sauer Dump and adjacent 

properties were created by filling marsh areas. Sauer Dump and the adjacent properties were filled during 

different time periods. The adjacent properties were filled between 1938 and 1954. Sauer Dump was 

primarily filled between 1966 and 1968 with minor fill activities occurring between 1954 and 1957. 

Frederick Sauer owned Sauer Dump when primary filling activities occurred. 

Wastes observed at Sauer Dump during site investigations include drums, storage tanks, salvage items 

(such as scrap metal), empty tanks and drums, abandoned trucks, tractor/truck trailers, open roll-off 

containers, heavy construction equipment, and junked cars. Charred areas, burned paint waste, a wood

chip mound, and sections of large-diameter circular concrete conduit have also been observed; oil spill 

areas have been observed on site and in wetland areas adjacent to the property. During operations, 

hazardous wastes were improperly stored and disposed in this area. Studies conducted at Sauer Dump 

between 1985 and 1999 indicate that concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides found in the soil and sediment exceed various riskbased screening levels. 

Sauer Dump initially began on 2.48-acre Parcel 425 -- land that, among adjoining parcels, was previously 

emergent herbaceous wetlands. However, descriptions of the dump operations indicate that dumping 

activities extended onto adjacent parcels and the contamination resulting from operations migrated 

beyond Parcel 425; analytical data from samples collected from Sauer Dump indicate that contamination 

from the dump has spread to adjacent properties via vehicle traffic or other transport mechanisms. 

Therefore, the dump area is more than 2.48 acres. 

The dump, Source 1, is located in the flood plain of the Back River and is subject to flooding and erosion 

during severe weather events (hurricanes, tropical storms, heavy rain). A wetland, including hydric soils, 

wetland hydrology and predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, surrounds Source 1 along its eastern, 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

3 

southern and western boundaries, and was identified as Wetland #2 in the HRS documentation record at 

proposal. The wetland receives surface water runoff from Source 1. Sediment samples collected in 2007 

from the wetland contain PCBs and lead at concentrations meeting the criteria for an observed release to 

surface water and actual contamination of a wetland. The wetland discharges to Back River, which in turn 

flows to the Chesapeake Bay. 

Targets evaluated include Wetland #2 on the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of Source 1; 

human food chain fisheries associated with the Back River and Chesapeake Bay; and a Resource 

Conservation Critical Area under the Critical Area Act identified by the Baltimore County Department of 

Permits and Development Management, which overlaps the Site. In responding to comments on the 

proposed listing, a new wetland delineation was performed in 2012 to verify previous delineations at the 

Site; the 2012 delineation confirmed previous descriptions of Site wetlands, with slight variations to the 

wetland boundaries that do not impact the HRS score. 

3. Summary of Comments

Three commenters submitted comments in support of placing the Sauer Dump site (the Site) on the 

National Priorities List (NPL). Among the reasons for this support were concern for ongoing unaddressed 

contamination, hope that the site will be remediated, and hope that the remediated site could become 

available for other uses.

Comments were submitted in opposition to listing by American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (hereafter 

referred to as APU) and by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (hereafter referred to as BGE). The 

APU comment document included a report prepared for APU by Environmental Alliance, Inc. (hereafter 

referred to as Alliance) attached as Appendix A to the APU comment.

In expressing general opposition to NPL listing of the Site, BGE reasserted the entirety of APU’s 

comments, and requested “that EPA not finalize the proposal to list the Sauer Dump on the NPL, that 

EPA remove the Sauer Dump from the list of proposed NPL sites, and that EPA remove the Sauer Dump 

from any further consideration for listing.” 

APU and Alliance opposed NPL listing of the Site and submitted comments on the HRS scoring of the 

site. APU and Alliance disagreed with the characterization of Source 1 in the HRS documentation record 

at proposal. APU and Alliance claimed that the EPA had only evaluated Source 1 as covering the area of 

Parcel 425, when the filling associated with Source 1 actually expanded beyond Parcel 425 into 

neighboring parcels and Wetland #2. APU and Alliance also stated that the EPA has inaccurately 

portrayed the history of filling in the Site area, and asserted that the Wetland #2 vegetation did not 

develop until after filling. APU and Alliance also asserted that the Southeast and Southwest Fingers of 

Wetland #2 are non-tidal and therefore not connected to the tidal portion of Wetland #2 or the Back 

River. 

Based on these claims, APU and Alliance argued that 

• Wetland #2 is not separate from Source 1; 

• hazardous substances have not migrated from Source 1 to Wetland #2; 

• the observed release sediment samples established by the EPA are in fact samples of source 

material instead; 

• the probable point of entry of hazardous substances from Source 1 into surface water is the 

boundary between Wetland #2 and Back River; and 
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( $+

$+

$+

$+

$+

!(!(

!(!(

Tidal Wetland

Pond

PPE 2

Back River

Back River Shoreline

DG-SD06-0.5

DG-SD07-0.5

DG-SD03-0.5

Arc 1

Arc 2

Perimeter: 1230-ft

Perimeter: 1041-ft

DG-SD05-0.5

DG-SD04-0.5

PPE 1 3

100 0 100

Feet

PGH P:\GIS\SAUER_DUMP_SITE_MD_EPA\MAPDOCS\MXD\REFERENCE34.MXD 2/16/12 KM

Legend

!(!( PPE (Probable Point of Entry)

$+ Observed Release Sample

!( Wetland Location

Delineated Wetland

Based on 2012 Delineation

Surrounding Parcels

Arc

Boundary of wetland

where surface water runoff

can enter the wetland

Parcel 425 Boundary

CONTRACT NUMBER

FIGURE NO. REV

1 0

SAUER DUMP

DUNDALK, MARYLAND

3033

DATE

AS NOTED

SCALE

CHECKED BY DATE

DRAWN BY

K. MOORE 2/13/12

A. SHULTZ 2/16/12

REVISED BY DATE

___ ___

NOTE: Perimeter of the wetlands

were measured using the

"Calculate Perimeter" function

within ArcMap.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

5 

• since no observed release samples are established in the Back River, there is no observed release 

to surface water established at the Site. 

APU claimed that the “EPA incorrectly determined that both Wetland #2 and the Back River constitute a 

‘fishery;’” Alliance made a similar statement. APU challenged the evaluation of a human food chain 

threat target fishery based on several claims as follows:

• Because the HRS has no definition of the term “fishery,” the EPA should have used the definition 

provided in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (hereafter referred 

to as the Magnuson Act), which effectively defines a fishery as a stock of fish for which a 

Regional Fishery Management Council has developed a fishery management plan. The HRS 

documentation record at proposal has not documented fishery management plans for the Back 

River; therefore the Back River cannot constitute a fishery. 

• The EPA’s draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final (HRS Guidance Manual) description of 

“fishery” is inappropriate because it is overly broad; does not consider risk, inconsistent with 

Maryland Law; and is applied as if it were rule (even though it was not subject to notice and 

comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act). 

• Various fish advisories are in effect limiting or banning fish consumption on the Back River.

APU disagreed with the identification of wetlands at the Site due to multiple issues identified in its

comments. APU asserted that the EPA has not correctly delineated the boundaries of the wetlands at the 

Site. APU claimed the 2002 wetland delineation cited in the HRS documentation record at proposal was 

insufficient because it was performed according to the 1987 U.S Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland 

Delineation Manual, which uses a different definition for wetlands than the 40 CFR 230.3 definition 

required by the HRS. APU also asserted that more current supplements to the U.S Army Corps of 

Engineers' Wetland Delineation Manual have not been considered by the EPA. Finally, APU argued that 

the 2002 delineation is too old and out of date. 

APU asserted that the EPA had not provided the evidence for the presence of a wetland suggested by the 

HRS Guidance Manual, such as U.S. Geologic Survey maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maps, and 

re-delineation by an expert. 

APU and Alliance additionally challenged the evaluation of Wetland #2 as an actually contaminated 

target based on its claim that Wetland #2 is in fact part of Source 1, and that vegetation associated with 

the wetland was established on fill materials after filling operations ceased. APU asserted that Wetland #2 

fits within the HRS definition of a “source” because Site contaminants were disposed of in the Wetland 

#2 area. In questioning the level of contamination at Wetland #2, APU also pointed to its conclusion that 

there is no observed release at the Site. 

APU disputed the HRS evaluation of a critical area under the Coastal Zone Management Act, making the 

following claims: 

• EPA has provided no support for its incorrect determination that the Maryland 

Critical Area Act designation for Source 1 constitutes a ‘sensitive environment’ 

identified in the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Plan, as required by HRS 

regulations, Table 4-23. 

• Maryland's Critical Area designation applies to all land within 1,000 feet of the 

Chesapeake Bay or its tidal tributaries and does not single out a specific area as a 

‘sensitive environment.’ 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

6 

• [T]he designation of the Site as a ‘Resource Conservation Area’ does not mean that 

there has been a specific finding that the Site is an area requiring protection 

because of ecological value. 

• [T]he Coastal Zone Management Act is not a ‘plan’ making any reference to the 

Site as an area with ecological value (as required by Table 4-23) to yield a scoring 

value of 100. Rather, it is an approval by NOAA of Maryland's coastal zone 

management ‘programs.’ 

APU claimed that the improper evaluation results in “the erroneous scoring of several elements of the 

Surface Water Pathway.” APU and Alliance concluded that if correctly evaluated, the HRS score for the 

Site would fall below the 28.50 requirement for NPL listing, and therefore APU requested “that EPA not 

finalize the proposal to list the Sauer Dump on the NPL, that EPA remove the Sauer Dump from the list 

of proposed NPL sites, and that EPA remove the Sauer Dump from any further consideration for listing.” 

This support document responds to comments submitted on the March 10, 2011, proposed listing of the 

Sauer Dump site (76 FR 13113). After consideration of comments, the HRS Site score remains 

unchanged and placing the Site on the NPL is warranted. 

3.1 Support for Listing and Other Non-opposition Comments 

Comment: Three commenters (Dee Hicks; Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr., Sixth Legislative District, 

Baltimore County, Maryland; and Russell S. Donnelly, SECAP) submitted comments in support of 

placing the Sauer Dump site on the NPL. The reasons for this support included:

• A desire for the Site to be remediated. 

• Hope that the area will eventually become available for other uses. 

• Concern that the contamination issues at the Site have remained unaddressed for many years. 

Mr. Donnelly expressed doubt that the site assessment will adequately reflect the full scope of the 

contamination and the extent to which it has migrated from the Site. 

Response: The Sauer Dump site is being added to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial 

action funding under CERCLA. The Sauer Dump site will be further investigated during the RI/FS phase 

of the Superfund process to determine what response, if any, is appropriate. Actual funding may not 

necessarily be undertaken in the precise order of HRS scores, however, and upon more detailed 

investigation may not be necessary at all in some cases. The EPA determines the need for using 

Superfund monies for remedial activities on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the NPL ranking, 

State priorities, further site investigation, other response alternatives and other factors as appropriate. 

3.2 Consideration of Action Levels 

Comment: Attachment III to the Environmental Alliance (hereafter referred to as Alliance) report, 

attached as Appendix A to the American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (hereafter referred to as APU)

comment document, includes a supplemental characterization activities report generated by Malcom 

Pirnie, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Malcom Pirnie report) which discusses soil, fill, and sediment 

samples collected at the Site in December 2007. In describing the analytical results from these samples, 

the Malcom Pirnie report sometimes uses site-specific EPA proposed cleanup goal action levels as 

reference points (100 ppm for PCBs and 1,000 ppm for lead). 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

7 

Response: If by inclusion of this information, the commenter was implying that these action levels must 

be exceeded before the hazardous substances can be associated with sources or identified as meeting 

observed release criteria, this is not the case. 

On July 16, 1982, when responding to public comments on the proposed (original) HRS (47 FR 31188), 

and again on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40665), the Agency rejected the idea that releases within 

regulatory limits should not be considered “observed releases” under the HRS. As the Agency noted in 

1982: 

[E]mission or effluent limits do not necessarily represent levels which cause no harm to 

public health or the environment. These limitations are frequently established on the 

basis of economic impacts or achievability. 

Additionally, Site-specific cleanup criteria are developed at a later stage in the Superfund process, after 

NPL listing. Consistent with CERCLA, the Agency has in place an orderly procedure for identifying sites 

where releases of substances addressed under CERCLA have occurred or may occur, placing such sites 

on the NPL, evaluating the nature and extent of the threats at such sites, responding to those threats, and 

deleting sites from the NPL. The purpose of the initial two steps is to develop the NPL, which identifies 

for the States and the public those sites that appear to warrant remedial action (56 FR 35842, July 29, 

1991). The evaluation or RI/FS phase involves onsite testing to assess the nature and extent of the public 

health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-funded remedial 

actions, if any, may be appropriate; during this process, site-specific conditions, including determination 

of exposure scenarios specific to the location, are used to develop site-specific cleanup criteria based on 

risk. After a period of public comment, the Agency responds to those threats by issuing a Record of 

Decision which selects the most appropriate alternative. The selected remedy is implemented during the 

remedial design/remedial action phase. Finally, the site may be deleted from the NPL when the Agency 

determines that no further response is appropriate. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.3 Source Characterization 

Comment: APU and Alliance claimed that the EPA incorrectly characterized Source 1, arguing that 

Source 1 extends beyond Parcel 425, that it actually overlaps the areas now classified as wetlands, and 

that Wetland #2 developed after Source 1 filling ended. APU further argued that “Wetland #2 fits within 

this definition of ‘Source’ [the HRS definition of source] because the alleged contaminants of concern at 

the Site were disposed of in the Wetland #2 area.” 

Response: The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identified and characterized Source 1; 

however, in response to these comments, the HRS documentation record at promulgation has been revised 

to estimate the HRS area value of Source 1 as approximately equivalent to the area of Parcel 425. 

The following subsections of this support document address specific assertions regarding this issue:

• 3.3.1 Source Identification 

• 3.3.2 Extent of Source 

• 3.3.3 Overlap of Source and Wetland 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

8 

3.3.1 Source Identification

Comment: APU generally asserted that the EPA mischaracterized Source 1. 

Response: The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly supported the identification of the dump, 

Source 1, as an HRS eligible source. 

In HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, the HRS defines a source as: 

[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, 

plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous 

substance. Sources do not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or 

surface water sediments that have become contaminated by migration, except: in the 

case of either a ground water plume with no identified source or contaminated surface 

water sediments with no identified source, the plume or contaminated sediments may 

be considered a source.

HRS Section 2.2.1, Identify sources, outlines the requirements when identifying sources at a site, stating 

“[f]or the three migration pathways, identify the sources at the site that contain hazardous substances. 

Identify the migration pathway(s) to which each source applies.”

HRS Section 2.2.2, Identify hazardous substances associated with a source, discusses the HRS 

requirement used to identify the hazardous substances associated with a source. It instructs the scorer 

“[f]or each of the three migration pathways, consider those hazardous substances documented in a source 

(for example, by sampling, labels, manifests, oral or written statements) to be associated with that source 

when evaluating each pathway.”

Also, HRS Section 2.2.3, Identify hazardous substances available to a pathway, states:

In evaluating each migration pathway, consider the following hazardous substances 

available to migrate from the sources at the site to the pathway . . .

• Surface water migration—overland/flood component.

–Hazardous substances that meet the criteria for an observed release to surface 

water in the watershed being evaluated.

–All hazardous substances associated with a source with a surface water 

containment factor value greater than 0 for the watershed.

Page 18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identified Source 1 as “a landfill created when 

wastes were filled into marshland (wetland) adjacent to the Back River,” and explained that:

[d]uring investigations conducted in Source 1, wood, plastic, metal, rubber, brick, sand, 

black sand/soil, concrete and concrete castings, asphalt, ash, electrical transformer parts, 

paint/paint containers, batteries, crushed drums, railroad ties, styrofoam, and a white/gray 

powdery substance were observed in the subsurface soil (Ref. 14, pp. 3, 26, 126 to 149). 

This waste material is referred to as fill in reference documentation. Test pits in Source 1 

identified fill from the surface to below the water table (Ref. 14, pp. 13, 14). Subsurface 

soil borings in Source 1 revealed the presence of wood, plastic, metal, wire, rubber, brick, 

sand, rock fragments/gravel, glass, concrete, asphalt, ceramic tile, mattress pieces, and 

paper in fill found in Source 1. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

9 

Pages 20-37 of the HRS documentation record at proposal provided results from the analysis of many 

samples collected from Source 1 over the course of several investigations, providing evidence of 

hazardous substances including lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Page 19 of the HRS documentation record at proposal stated that “Source 1 is located adjacent to Back 

River. Tidal and non-tidal wetlands are located along the eastern, southern, western, and northwestern 

boundaries of Source 1.” 

Thus, Source 1 was identified as a source—an area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, 

stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated from migration—consistent 

with the HRS. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.3.2 Extent of Source

Comment: APU and Alliance stated that the EPA incorrectly assumed Source 1 consists only of the area 

of Parcel 425, and that Wetland #2 is separate from Source 1. 

APU asserted that “[t]he areas of the Site that EPA characterize as Source 1, Wetland #1 and Wetland #2 

were originally a tidal flat as reported by USGS. The vegetation that is now associated with what EPA 

calls Wetland #2 did not exist as of 1938.” APU and Alliance stated that filling in the area began 

sometime after 1938 and before 1952 with the filling of what is now referred to as Parcels 137 and 209, 

and the filling process continued for approximately 30 years. They added that the areal extent of filling 

was completed in 1982, although filling may have continued over this area after that. APU and Alliance 

claimed this filled area encompassed the entire footprint of the Southeast Finger of Wetland #2, as well as 

a portion of the rest of Wetland #2. They stated that salvage and waste handling also took place both on 

parcels neighboring Parcel 425 (portions of Parcels 137, 464, 503 and 574), and on areas associated with 

Wetland #2. 

Citing the above statements and an Alliance review of historical aerial photographs (Attachment II of the 

Alliance comments, docket ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064-0010.2), APU and Alliance asserted that 

salvage and waste handling processes were conducted beyond Parcel 425 and that PCB-contaminated 

waste is located on both the Southeast corner of Parcel 425 and on a portion of Parcel 137 in the area that 

the EPA now refers to as the Southeast Finger portion of Wetland #2. APU and Alliance concluded that it 

is not accurate for the EPA to limit Source 1 to Parcel 425. 

Alliance stated that “[t]he contamination at the Site likely arrived via one or both of two mechanisms. 

Either the contamination was in the fill as it was delivered to the Site and/or the contaminants were 

introduced into the fill as a part of Mr. Sauer’s salvage and waste handling operations.” APU stated that 

“[t]he PCBs and other waste in Wetland # 2 were disposed there. They did not migrate to Wetland #2 

from Parcel 425.” APU stated that Source 1 “should extend into the area of known filling activities where 

Mr. Sauer conducted his operations. This ‘Former Operation Area’ (‘FOA’) includes the entirety of Parcel 

425 and portions of Parcels 137, 295, 464, and 574.” APU stated “[t]he FOA also includes the areas that 

EPA now refers to as Wetland #2 on Parcels 137, 295, 464 (i.e. the Southeast Finger) and on Parcel 574 

(i.e., the Southwest Finger). Based on the Extent of Historic Operational Area Map [included in 

Attachment II of the Alliance comments, docket ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064-0010.2], the source of 

the alleged contamination at the Site should be the entire FOA because this area is where Mr. Sauer 

conducted his salvage and waste handling operations on filled land.” 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

10 

Response: The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identified the extent of Source 1, and did 

not limit Source 1 to Parcel 425. The HRS documentation record at proposal acknowledged that the 

landfill extends beyond Parcel 425. Parcel 425 was only used as an estimated boundary for the purpose of 

identifying the general location of Source 1. Additionally, the HRS does not limit or define a source 

according to associated facility operations; the HRS identifies sources to include areas where a hazardous 

substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become contaminated 

from migration. 

The extent of Source 1 in the HRS documentation record at proposal was approximately equated to the 

area of Parcel 425, while acknowledging that the fill and contamination extended beyond those property 

lines.

There is no HRS requirement that the full extent of a source be completely and absolutely delineated at 

the time a site is listed on the NPL. And, the HRS documentation record at proposal did not limit the 

extent of Source 1 to Parcel 425. Furthermore, the HRS does not limit or define a source according to 

associated facility operations; as defined above, the HRS identifies sources to include areas where a 

hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become 

contaminated from migration. 

The HRS documentation record at proposal, on page 18, stated that “Source 1 is estimated to cover at 

least 2.49 acres, which is the area of Parcel 425 on which the fill is located (Ref. 15; Ref. 31, p. 39). The 

area of the fill has been estimated from elevations on Sauer Dump and is shown in Reference 15.” 

[emphasis added] Page 19 of the HRS documentation record at proposal noted that: 

[b]ased on figures prepared during on-site surface and subsurface investigations at Sauer 

Dump, the extent of the Source 1 (landfill) is estimated based on raised elevations

indicating that the area has been filled, as shown in Reference 15. The outline of Parcel 

425 is provided on Reference 15 showing that the landfill extends beyond the Parcel 

425. [emphasis added]

Page 10 of the HRS documentation record at proposal stated: 

Reference documentation identifies Sauer Dump as a 2.48-acre property on land Parcel 

425. However, descriptions of the dump operations indicate that dumping activities 

extended onto adjacent parcels and the contamination resulting from operations migrated 

beyond Parcel 425 (Ref. 14, pp. 9, 96; Ref. 21, p. 4; Ref. 31, pp. 8, 23, 28 to 31, 74; Ref. 

47, p. 3). Analytical data from samples collected from Sauer Dump indicate that 

contamination from the dump has spread to adjacent properties via vehicle traffic or other 

transport mechanisms (Ref. 31, pp. 23, 30). Therefore, the area of the Sauer Dump is 

more than 2.48 acres. The exact dimension of Sauer Dump cannot be determined from 

data currently available.

Also, Figure 2 of the HRS documentation record at proposal clearly shows separate boundaries for Parcel 

425 and the “[a]pproximate limit of fill material.”

Thus, the HRS documentation record at proposal made it clear that the property boundaries of Parcel 425 

were used only for the purpose of identifying the approximate area of Source 1. And, the HRS 

documentation record at proposal acknowledged that the landfill itself and associated contamination 

extend beyond the boundaries of Parcel 425. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

11 

Regarding the timing of the development of Wetland #2 vegetation, see section 3.11.3, Actually 

Contaminated Wetlands, of this support document. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.3.3 Overlap of Source and Wetland

Comment: As detailed above in section 3.3.2, Extent of Source, of this support document, APU and 

Alliance asserted that the EPA was incorrect in assuming Source 1 is separate from Wetland #2. APU and 

Alliance stated that filling activities extended well into the area now identified as Wetland #2, claiming 

that the fill was deposited prior to development of the Wetland #2. APU asserted that Wetland #2 fits 

within the HRS definition of a “source” because Site contaminants were disposed of in the Wetland #2

area. 

Response: Physical overlap of a source area and a wetland area does not preclude an area’s evaluation 

both as the location of a source and a wetland under the HRS if a wetland is exposed to hazardous 

substances at the source. 

Insomuch as these comments imply that Wetland #2 is actually part of Source 1, the HRS does not 

exclude a source area from also being a wetland. As stated, the HRS effectively defines a source as where 

a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that have become 

contaminated from migration (excluding air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that 

have become contaminated by migration). The HRS defines wetlands (in a footnote to HRS Table 4-24) 

as those areas meeting the definition at 40 CFR 230.3: 

The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or 

ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and 

similar areas.

Nothing in these HRS definitions restricts a source area from being in a wetland area.

The HRS contains no requirement that geographic areas identified as sources and those identified as 

wetlands be mutually exclusive—for HRS purposes, a given area may be evaluated both as a source and 

as a wetland. Furthermore, even if the fill material (and hazardous substances) associated with Source 1

forms the base of the wetland, it is not the whole of the wetland; that is, the wetland also includes the 

water and flora and any other sediments.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.4 Waste Quantity 

Comment: APU and Alliance questioned the area estimate of the dump (Source 1) used to assign a waste 

quantity for the dump source and the Site. They asserted that the area of Source 1 as defined by the EPA 

is not accurate. This conclusion was based on claims (detailed in section 3.3.2, Extent of Source, of this 

support document) that Source 1 should extend beyond Parcel 425 where salvage and waste handling 

operations and related PCB contamination are known to have occurred—including a portion of Parcel 137 

in the area that the EPA now refers to as the Southeast Finger portion of Wetland #2. APU argued that 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

12 

Source 1 should encompass the historical former operations area. Based on these assertions, APU and 

Alliance stated that the actual area of Source 1 should be approximately 3.08 acres, and based on their 

claims that there are no wetlands subject to Level I or Level II actual contamination and the only potential 

target of contamination from Source 1 is the Back River, the hazardous waste quantity factor value for 

both the environmental threat and human food chain threat should drop from 100 to 10. 

Response: The area of Source 1 (and the resulting source waste quantity and surface water pathway waste 

quantity) were sufficiently identified for HRS purposes to determine an estimate of waste quantity in the 

HRS documentation record at proposal. However, in response to these comments, in the HRS 

documentation record at promulgation, the Source 1 area value estimate has been revised to at least the 

area of Parcel 425 as explained below. The following discussions address these comments as they apply 

to: 

• Source waste quantity

• Surface water pathway waste quantity. 

Source Waste Quantity

HRS Section 2.4.2, Hazardous waste quantity, contains the directions used to determine waste quantity 

for the dump:

Evaluate the hazardous waste quantity factor by first assigning each source (or area of 

observed contamination) a source hazardous waste quantity value as specified below. 

Sum these values to obtain the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway 

being evaluated. 

HRS Section 2.4.2.1, Source hazardous waste quantity, states:

For each of the three migration pathways, assign a source hazardous waste quantity value 

to each source (including the unallocated source) having a containment factor value 

greater than 0 for the pathway being evaluated . . . 

For all pathways, evaluate source hazardous waste quantity using the following four 

measures in the following hierarchy:

• Hazardous constituent quantity.

• Hazardous wastestream quantity.

• Volume. 

• Area.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.4, Area, gives direction on determining the area value for a source: 

Evaluate the area measure using the area of the source (or area of the area of the observed 

contamination). Based on this area, designated as A, assign a value to the area measure as 

follows: 

• For the migration pathways, assign the source a value for area using the 

appropriate Tier D equation of Table 2-5. . . . 

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.5, Calculation of source hazardous waste quantity value, states to: 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

13 

Select the highest of the values assigned to the source (or area of observed 

contamination) for the hazardous constituent quantity, hazardous wastestream quantity, 

volume, and area measures. Assign this value as the source hazardous waste quantity 

value. Do not round to the nearest integer. 

As explained in section 3.3.2, Extent of Source, of this support document: 

• the HRS documentation record at proposal did not limit Source 1 to Parcel 425; 

• the HRS documentation record at proposal acknowledged that landfill extends beyond Parcel 

425; and 

• Parcel 425 was used in the documentation record at proposal as an estimated boundary for the 

purpose of describing the location of Source 1. 

The HRS documentation record at proposal assigned an area value for Source 1 of greater than 

zero, which was sufficient for HRS purposes since the area of the landfill is clearly greater than 

zero. However, in response to these comments, that area value has been further refined in the 

HRS documentation record at promulgation as estimated to be at least the area of Parcel 425 

(2.48 acres). 

Surface Water Pathway Waste Quantity

Regarding the assignment of a hazardous waste factor category value for the surface water pathway (i.e., 

the pathway waste quantity), HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value, 

states to:

Sum the source hazardous waste quantity values assigned to all sources (including the 

unallocated source) or areas of observed contamination for the pathway being evaluated 

and round this sum to the nearest integer, except: if the sum is greater than 0, but less 

than 1, round it to 1. Based on this value, select a hazardous waste quantity factor value 

for the pathway from table 2–6. 

Therefore the summed and rounded hazardous waste quantity value for the Site at proposal was 1. 

HRS Table 2-6 specifies a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 1 for a hazardous waste quantity 

value of 1 to 100. However, footnote b to HRS Table 2-6 specifies that “if hazardous constituent quantity 

is not adequately determined, assign a value as specified in text; do not assign the value of 1.” 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

14 

Table 2–6—Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Values

Hazardous waste quantity value Assigned value

0 0 

1ato 100 1b

Greater than 100 to 10,000 100 

Greater than 10,000 to 1,000,000 10,000 

Greater than 1,000,000 1,000,000 a

If the hazardous waste quantity value is greater than 0, but less than 

1, round it to 1 as specified in text. 

b

For the pathway, if hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately 

determined, assign a value as specified in the text; do not assign the 

value of 1.

HRS Section 2.4.2.1.1, Hazardous constituent quantity, explains that the term “adequately determined” in 

the context of determining the hazardous constituent quantity means that “the total mass of all CERCLA 

hazardous substances in the source and releases from the source [or in the area of observed 

contamination] is known or is estimated with reasonable confidence” 

HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value, continues stating:

For a migration pathway, if the hazardous constituent quantity is adequately determined 

(see section 2.4.2.1.1) for all sources (or all portions of sources and releases remaining 

after a removal action), assign the value from table 2–6 as the hazardous waste quantity 

factor value for the pathway. If the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately 

determined for one or more sources (or one or more portions of sources or releases 

remaining after a removal action) assign a factor value as follows: 

• If any target for that migration pathway is subject to Level I or Level II 

concentrations (see section 2.5), assign either the value from table 2–6 or a value 

of 100, whichever is greater, as the hazardous waste quantity factor value for that 

pathway. . . . 

Pages 38, 56, and 63 of the HRS documentation record at proposal present the rationale of assigning the 

source and surface water pathway waste quantity values for the Site. Page 38 of the HRS documentation 

record at proposal, section 2.4.2.1.1, Hazardous Constituent Quantity, noted that “[t]he information 

available is not sufficient to adequately support the evaluation of the hazardous constituent quantity for 

Source No. 1.” 

As explained in sections 3.11.3 and 3.11.4 (Actually Contaminated Wetlands and Environmental Threat 

Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act, respectively) of this support 

document, Wetland #2 and the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area were correctly evaluated at proposal as 

subject to actual contamination. 

Page 56 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, section 4.1.3.2.2, Hazardous Waste Quantity, for 

the human food chain threat stated: 

Because the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined and because 

targets in this pathway are subject to actual contamination, a hazardous waste quantity 

factor value of 100 is assigned. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

15 

As indicated on page 63 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, a hazardous waste quantity factor 

value of 100 was assigned for the environmental threat for the same reason. 

For the HRS documentation record at promulgation, based on the revised Source 1 area value of 2.48 and 

the same HRS requirements described above:

• the summed and rounded hazardous waste quantity value for the Site at proposal is 2; 

• information available is not sufficient to adequately support the evaluation of the hazardous 

constituent quantity for Source No. 1; 

• therefore, a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 was assigned.

Therefore, a Source 1 area of 2.48 and a hazardous waste quantity of 2 are correctly assigned in the HRS 

documentation record at promulgation; and an appropriate resulting hazardous waste quantity factor value 

of 100 for the human food chain threat and the environmental threat of the surface water migration 

pathway are correctly assigned in the HRS documentation record at promulgation (unchanged from that 

assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal). 

Even if the scored area of Source 1 were expanded from a value of 2.48 to 3.08 acres (acreage suggested 

by the commenter), the waste quantity factor values would not change because 3.08 acres (and the 

corresponding hazardous waste quantity value of 3) would yield an HRS Table 2-6 hazardous waste 

quantity factor value of 1. Therefore, the minimum hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 would 

still apply for both the human food chain threat and environmental threats because the hazardous 

constituent quantity is not adequately determined and targets within the pathway are subject to Level II 

concentrations. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.5 Description of Watershed/Current Conditions

Comment: APU and Alliance made challenges to the description of the watershed at the Site, disputing 

the connection between wetland areas and the location of the probable point of entry of hazardous 

substances into the surface water body.

Response: The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly characterized the watershed at the Site. 

The following subsections of this support document address specific assertions regarding this issue:

• 3.5.1 Continuity of Surface Water Pathway 

• 3.5.2 Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

3.5.1 Continuity of Surface Water Pathway

Comment: APU and Alliance commented that the Southeast and Southwest fingers are non-tidal 

wetlands, and therefore are not connected with the tidal portions of the Back River. The commenters cited 

to statements in the HRS documentation record at proposal identifying tidal and non-tidal wetlands 

present at the Site as support for this assertion. 

Response: The various portions of Wetland #2 including the two fingers are continuous and hydraulically 

interconnected as identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal. In addition, Wetland #2 is 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

16 

connected to the Back River. Thus, all three portions of Wetland #2 and the Back River are part of the 

watershed evaluated in the HRS scoring. (See Figure 1 of this support document.)

HRS Section 4 and its subsections direct how to establish the watershed for a site. HRS Section 4.0.2, 

Surface water categories, states in relevant part: 

For HRS purposes, classify surface water into four categories: rivers, lakes, oceans, and 

coastal tidal waters.

Rivers include:

• Perennially flowing waters from point of origin to the ocean or to coastal tidal 

waters, whichever comes first, and wetlands contiguous to these flowing 

waters. [emphasis added] . . . 

HRS Section 4.1.1.1, Definition of hazardous substance migration path for overland/flood migration 

component, gives direction on when to separate water bodies into different watersheds: 

Consider a site to be in two or more watersheds for this component if two or more 

hazardous substance migration paths from the sources at the site do not reach a common 

point within the target distance limit. If the site is in more than one watershed, define a 

separate hazardous substance migration path for each watershed. 

HRS Section 4.1.1.3, Evaluation of overland/flood migration component, states to: 

[e]valuate the drinking water threat, human food chain threat, and environmental threat 

for each watershed . . . 

If the site is in more than one watershed:

• Calculate a separate overland/flood migration component score for each 

watershed, using likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and targets 

applicable to each watershed.

• Select the highest overland/flood migration component score from the 

watersheds evaluated and assign it as the overland/flood migration component 

score for the site.

Pages 40 and 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal describe the watersheds at the Site; page 

40 states: 

The 2002 delineation documented the presence of two unconnected parcels of wetlands. . 

. . Wetland #1 is a small isolated non-tidal wetland covering 0.7 acre. Wetland #1 

surrounds a pond that is north of Source 1. Wetland #2 is a larger wetland area covering 

1.39 acres. Reference documentation divides Wetland #2 into three areas: the Southwest 

Finger, the Back River Shoreline Area, and the Southeast Finger. Wetland #2 is 

comprised of a tidal wetland area along the shoreline (below the high water mark) and 

non-tidal wetland areas in the Southwest Finger and the Southeast Finger (above the high 

water mark) [emphasis added]

Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states: 

The two wetlands are unconnected (Ref. 14, p. 151) and therefore are within two 

different watersheds for HRS scoring purposes (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.1.1). The watershed 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

17 

associated with Wetland #2 is evaluated as part of this HRS documentation record 

because the target value for this watershed is higher. . . .

That is, the “migration pathways” from the two wetlands “do not reach a common point within 

the target distance limit.” Therefore, as instructed by HRS Section 4.1.1.1. (quoted above), the 

HRS evaluation at proposal considered them to be in different watersheds.

Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal further states: 

Wetlands that are contiguous to a river (such as Wetland #2) are considered to be surface 

water.

The HRS documentation record at proposal identifies Wetland #2 as contiguous to the Back River and 

therefore part of surface water and the same watershed as the Back River, consistent with the HRS. The 

HRS documentation record at proposal also noted that Wetland #2 is composed of a tidal area (the Back 

River Shoreline Area) and non-tidal areas (the Southwest Finger and Southeast Finger). However, these 

non-tidal areas of Wetland #2 are part of the same continuous wetland, not isolated water bodies—that is, 

water from the non-tidal areas is still free to flow to the tidal areas. That one area of Wetland #2 is tidal 

and other areas of Wetland #2 are non-tidal does not mean that these areas are hydraulically disconnected. 

(See also Figure 1 of this support document and Reference 34 of the HRS documentation record at 

promulgation, showing general wetland areas, based on a 2012 re-delineation of the wetlands associated 

with the Site.) Therefore, while all the wetland areas may not be tidal, contamination could migrate from 

one area to the other during some circumstances such as major rain and flood events resulting from 

hurricanes. Thus, all three areas of Wetland #2—the Southwest and Southeast Fingers and the Back River 

Shoreline Area—are part of the same surface water body as the Back River for HRS purposes.

Regarding the age of the wetland delineation used to score the Site at proposal (see also section 3.11.2, 

HRS Guidance Manual-Suggested Evidence of Wetlands, of this support document), a new wetland 

delineation performed at the Site area in 2012 was generally consistent with and confirmed the results of 

the 2002 delineation described in the HRS documentation record at proposal, with slight adjustments to 

the boundaries of the wetlands. The 2012 wetland delineator also inspected a fringe of the Wetland #1 

wetlands adjacent to the pond to the northwest, identifying that the pond is actually hydrologically 

connected to the southwest finger of Wetland #2 by a jurisdictional depression/channel (see also pages 9 

and 24 of Reference 62 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation). Therefore, these two 

wetlands are contiguous and hydraulically connected to some extent. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.5.2 Probable Point of Entry (PPE)

Comment: Based on its claim that Source 1 includes Wetland #2, APU asserted that “[t]he target 

watershed of Source 1 is the Back River itself,” and stated that the HRS documentation record “does not 

document a release to, or actual contamination of the Back River.” APU concluded that the probable point 

of entry (PPE) of hazardous substances from Source 1 into surface water is the contact of Source 1 with 

the Back River. 

Response: The PPE was correctly identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal as the border 

between Wetland #2 and Source 1 (see Figure 1 of this support document). 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

18 

HRS Section 4.1, Overland/flood migration component, establishes how to identify a probable point of 

entry for a source. It states to “[u]se the overland/flood migration component to evaluate surface water 

threats that result from overland migration of hazardous substances from a source at the site to surface 

water.”

HRS Section 4.1.1.1, Definition of hazardous substance migration path for overland/flood migration 

component, states:

The hazardous substance migration path includes both the overland segment and the inwater segment that hazardous substances would take as they migrate away from sources 

at the site:

• Begin the overland segment at a source and proceed downgradient to the 

probable point of entry to surface water. 

• Begin the in-water segment at this probable point of entry.

–For rivers, continue the in-water segment in the direction of flow (including 

any tidal flows) for the distance established by the target distance limit (see 

section 4.1.1.2)

Page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal presents the location of the PPE for Source 1. It 

states:

The probable point of entry (PPE) of the hazardous substances from Source 1 into surface 

waters is Wetland #2, adjacent to the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of Source 

1 (Ref. 5, p. 4-5; Ref. 14, p. 96, 99, and Appendix E, p. 150; Ref. 33; Ref. 34). Surface 

water runoff from Source 1 follows the contours of the land and flows to Wetland #2. 

Maps showing the land contours are provided in Reference 14, pages 96 to 99, and 102 to 

106 and Reference 15. Wetlands that are contiguous to a river (such as Wetland #2) are 

considered to be surface water (Ref. 1, Section 4.0.2). Runoff from Source 1 can enter 

Wetland #2 at any location. Because Wetland #2 surrounds the eastern, southern, and 

western boundaries of Source 1, the PPE is the entire boundary of Wetland #2 adjacent to 

Source 1. 

Thus, the HRS describes the PPE as the point at which hazardous substances migrating overland via 

runoff would enter the surface water. Although Wetland #2 may partially overlay Source 1, as discussed 

in section 3.5.1, Continuity of Surface Water Pathway, of this support document, Wetland #2 is part of 

the surface water, is contiguous to the Back River, and is part of the same watershed. Because Wetland #2 

is part of the surface water, the HRS documentation record was correct in identifying the PPE as the 

boundary between Source 1 and Wetland #2. As there is no containment feature along this interface 

preventing migration, hazardous substances can enter surface water from Source 1 along this line. 

In responding to comments, a new delineation was performed in 2012 for the wetlands associated with the 

Site. Based on the data from that study, the wetland boundaries and PPEs have shifted slightly but not 

significantly (compare Reference 34 in the HRS documentation record at proposal to the revised 

Reference 34 in the HRS documentation record at promulgation, which show the wetlands and PPEs on a 

map of the Site area). The HRS documentation record at promulgation has been revised to reflect this new 

information and the resulting minor changes in wetland perimeter subject to actual Level II 

contamination. (Note that as shown in Figure 1 of this support document, the most upstream points of the 

PPE boundary line in each finger of the wetland were used as center points for an arc radiating from the 

most downstream observed release sample in each finger, only for the purpose of identifying the portion 

of the wetlands subject to actual contamination.) 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

19 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.6 Likelihood of Release 

Comment: APU challenged the establishment of an observed release at the Site and asserted that a 

potential to release factor value should have been used instead. 

Response: The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly established an observed release in 

Wetland #2 consistent with the HRS.

The following subsections of this support document address specific assertions regarding the observed 

release at the Site:

• 3.6.1 Observed Release by Chemical Analysis 

• 3.6.2 Potential to Release 

• 3.6.3 Lack of Observed Release in the Back River

3.6.1 Observed Release by Chemical Analysis

Comment: APU challenged the establishment of an observed release at the Site. APU stated the “EPA 

concluded that the Site should receive the maximum score of 550 for an Observed Release. . . . based on 

the incorrect assumption that Source 1 is limited to Parcel 425, that Source 1 has an observed release to 

Wetland #2, and that Wetland #2 is a part of the Back River.” APU and Alliance claimed that Source 1 

should be the entire former operation area (FOA), and APU also argued that filling and salvage and waste 

handling activities occurred in the Southeast Finger portion of Wetland #2 prior to development of the 

current vegetation. APU therefore concluded that the “EPA incorrectly treats the Level II concentrations 

observed in Wetland #2 as evidence of migration of waste to a wetland when, in fact, those Level II 

concentrations resulted from waste disposal activities that occurred in that location before any ‘wetlands’ 

existed there.” APU stated, “The PCBs and other waste in Wetland # 2 were disposed there. They did not 

migrate to Wetland #2 from Parcel 425.” APU stated that the “EPA cannot use the data for the area now 

referred to as Wetland #2 to demonstrate a release from Source 1 because Wetland #2 is a part of Source 

1.” APU and Alliance asserted that the target watershed of Source 1 is the Back River itself and noted that 

the HRS documentation record does not document a release to or actual contamination of the Back River. 

Response: The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identifies an observed release to surface 

water at the Site based on contaminated sediment samples in Wetland #2 having a significant increase in 

contaminant levels attributable to the Site.

HRS Section 2.3, Likelihood of Release, contains general instruction on establishing an observed release, 

and states in relevant part:

Establish an observed release either by direct observation of the release of a hazardous 

substance into the media being evaluated (for example, surface water) or by chemical 

analysis of samples appropriate to the pathway being evaluated (see sections 3, 4, and 6). 

The minimum standard to establish an observed release by chemical analysis is analytical 

evidence of a hazardous substance in the media significantly above the background level. 

Further, some portion of the release must be attributable to the site. Use the criteria in 

table 2–3 as the standard for determining analytical significance.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

20 

HRS Table 2-3 provides specific criteria for establishing an observed release by chemical analysis:

• If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection 

limit), an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or 

exceeds the sample quantitation limit.

• If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an 

observed release is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more 

above the background concentration. 

HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release, details establishment of an observed release for the 

overland/flood migration component of the surface water migration pathway as follows:

Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the 

site has released a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. Base this 

demonstration on either: 

• Direct observation:

–A material that contains one or more hazardous substances has been seen 

entering surface water through migration or is known to have entered surface 

water through direct deposition, or 

–A source area has been flooded at a time that hazardous substances were 

present, and one or more hazardous substances were in contact with the flood 

waters, or

–When evidence supports the inference of a release of a material that contains 

one or more hazardous substances by the site to surface water, demonstrated 

adverse effects associated with that release may also be used to establish an 

observed release.

• Chemical analysis:

–Analysis of surface water, benthic, or sediment samples indicates that the 

concentration of hazardous substance(s) has increased significantly above the 

background concentration for the site for that type of sample (see section 2.3). 

–Limit comparisons to similar types of samples and background 

concentrations—for example, compare surface water samples to surface water 

background concentrations. . . . 

–Some portion of the significant increase must be attributable to the site to 

establish the observed release, except: when the site itself consists of 

contaminated sediments with no identified source, no separate attribution is 

required. 

If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release 

factor value of 550 to that watershed, enter this value in table 4–1, and proceed to section 

4.1.2.1.3[thereby skipping the evaluation of a potential to release factor]. If no observed 

release can be established for the watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 0 

to that watershed, enter this value in table 4–1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.2 [Potential 

to release].

HRS Sections 4.1.3.1, Human food chain threat-likelihood of release, and 4.1.4.1, Environmental threatlikelihood of release, both state to assign the same likelihood of release factor category value for the 

watershed as would be assigned in section 4.1.2.1.3, Calculation of drinking water threat-likelihood of 

release factor category value, for the drinking water threat, which instructs “[i]f an observed release is 

established for the watershed, assign the observed release factor value of 550 as the likelihood of release 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

21 

factor category value for that watershed. Otherwise, assign the potential to release factor value for that 

watershed as the likelihood of release factor category value for that watershed.”

The HRS documentation record at proposal on pages 43-47, in section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed Release, lists 

several background samples and observed release samples used to demonstrate that the criteria for 

observed release by chemical analysis listed in HRS Table 2-3 were met (this was not challenged by the 

commenter). Five observed release samples listed were collected from Wetland #2, which borders Source 

1 (see Figure 1 of this support document for their locations). Page 43 of the documentation record notes 

that these samples were: 

sediment samples from wetlands surrounding Source 1 and the Back River. . . . Samples 

were collected within the top 6 inches of sediment . . . Sediment samples were collected 

from beneath organic build-up or detritus material. Any decomposed organic material 

present at the sampling locations at time of sampling was included in the sample to 

accurately represent the potential for this interval to be impacted by deposition and 

adsorption. 

The HRS documentation record at proposal on pages 45 and 47 shows the analytical results for 

background sample DG-SD01-0.05 and observed release samples DG-SD03-0.05, DG-SD04-0.05, DGSD05-0.05, DG-SD06-0.05, and DG-SD07-0.05, providing evidence for observed releases of Aroclor1254 and Aroclor-1260 (PCBs) and lead.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on pages 52-54 explains why at least some portion of the 

significant increase in PCBs and lead found in observed release samples is attributable to the Site (also 

not challenged by the commenter), including noting that: 

lead and PCBs detected in Wetland #2 are attributable to Source 1 because (1) Source 1 

contains the same hazardous substances as Wetland #2, (2) Source 1 is not contained, (3) 

surface water runoff from Source 1 flows to Wetland #2, and (4) no other sources of lead 

and PCB drain to the wetland. 

As established in section 3.5.1, Continuity of Surface Water Pathway, of this support document, the areas 

that make up Wetland #2 are contiguous to each other and part of the surface water pathway, and Wetland 

#2 is contiguous to the Back River and part of the Back River for HRS purposes. Also, as established in 

section 3.5.2, Probable Point of Entry, of this support document, the PPE to surface water was correctly 

identified as the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of Source 1, where hazardous substances 

migrating from Source 1 via overland flow can enter the surface water.

As detailed in section 3.3.1, Source Identification, of this support document, the HRS defines a source as 

an area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus those soils that 

have become contaminated from migration, but excludes surface water sediments that have become 

contaminated by migration. Thus, the contaminated sediment samples from within Wetland #2 meeting 

observed release criteria are appropriately considered evidence of an observed release to the surface water 

at the Site (and are not samples of Source 1 source material).

However, even if the observed release sediment samples from Wetland #2 were considered samples of 

source material rather than surface water sediments contaminated by migration as the commenter argues 

(a point that the EPA does not concede), the samples would then establish an observed release by direct 

observation as described by HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1: 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

22 

Establish an observed release to surface water for a watershed by demonstrating that the 

site has released a hazardous substance to the surface water in the watershed. Base this 

demonstration on either: 

• Direct observation:

–A material that contains one or more hazardous substances has been seen 

entering surface water through migration or is known to have entered surface 

water through direct deposition, or 

–A source area has been flooded at a time that hazardous substances were 

present, and one or more hazardous substances were in contact with the flood 

waters, or

–When evidence supports the inference of a release of a material that contains 

one or more hazardous substances by the site to surface water, demonstrated 

adverse effects associated with that release may also be used to establish an 

observed release. . . .

That is, an observed release by chemical analysis was established in the HRS documentation record at 

proposal (as demonstrated by sediment samples DG-SD03-0.05, DG-SD04-0.05, DG-SD05-0.05, DGSD06-0.05, and DG-SD07-0.05); and an observed release by direct observation was not identified. But if 

any of these Wetland #2 sediment samples were considered source material instead of surface water 

sediments, they would document hazardous substances in contact with the surface water and constitute a

material that contains one or more hazardous substances that has been seen entering surface water through 

migration or that is known to have entered surface water through direct deposition. 

In either case, an observed release would be established in the watershed yielding the same likelihood of 

release factor category value of 550 assigned at proposal (and unchanged at promulgation). As quoted 

above, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release, instructs the scorer to assign a 550 for likelihood of 

release if there is an observed release, regardless of whether the observed release was established by 

chemical analysis or by direct observation. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.6.2 Potential to Release

Comment: Based on their assertion that there is no observed release established at the Site (as detailed in 

3.6.1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis, of this support document), APU and Alliance concluded 

that the likelihood of release should be based on potential to release, assigning a likelihood of release 

factor category value of 500 (based on calculation of a potential to release by overland flow value of 260 

and a potential to release by flood value of 250). 

Response: The assertion that a potential to release factor value should have been assigned is incorrect. As 

explained in section 3.6.1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis, of this support document, the 

Wetland #2 sediment samples were appropriately used to establish an observed release by chemical 

analysis; and even if APU’s and Alliance’s assumption that Wetland #2 samples are actually source 

samples were true, an observed release by direct observation would be established. If there is an observed 

release, HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1, Observed release, indicates that the potential to release factor value is not 

evaluated (the scorer is instructed to skip the HRS section describing potential to release, HRS Section 

4.1.2.1.2). HRS Section 4.1.2.1.1 states: 

If an observed release can be established for a watershed, assign an observed release 

factor value of 550 to that watershed, enter this value in table 4–1, and proceed to section 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

23 

4.1.2.1.3 [thereby skipping the evaluation of a potential to release factor]. If no observed 

release can be established for the watershed, assign an observed release factor value of 0 

to that watershed, enter this value in table 4–1, and proceed to section 4.1.2.1.2 [Potential 

to release].

There would thus be no need to evaluate the potential to release factor value.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.6.3 Lack of Observed Release in the Back River

Comment: Alliance stated that the “EPA relies on the lack of an observed impact to the sediments in the 

Back River to support its conclusion that Wetlands #2 has been impacted from Source 1,” referring to an 

HRS documentation record statement on page 44 that “[t]he 2007 sediment data from the Back River do 

not document a release to the Back River or actual contamination in the Back River.” 

In discussing the human food chain population, Alliance also stated the “EPA agrees that the Back River 

is not subjected to Level I of [sic] Level II concentrations of contamination and contamination has not 

been documented in the within the [sic] zone of contamination.” 

Response: The HRS documentation record text referenced by the commenter is not used to support the 

observed release, but is rather a separate statement that no observed release was identified in the nonwetland portion of the Back River. That statement does not apply to Wetland #2, a portion of which is 

subject to Level II actual contamination. 

The cited HRS documentation record at proposal text on page 44 stated that “[t]he 2007 sediment data 

from the Back River do not document a release to the Back River or actual contamination in the Back 

River.” This statement followed a description of samples taken at the Site and preceded detail of the 

samples used to establish an observed release in Wetland #2. The statement’s only purpose was to 

indicate that an observed release by chemical analysis was not found in the non-wetland section of the 

Back River. And, as discussed in section 3.6.1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis, of this support 

document, an observed release was indeed established in Wetland #2, which is part of the surface water 

for HRS purposes. 

The Alliance assertion that the “EPA agrees that the Back River is not subjected to Level I of [sic] Level 

II concentrations of contamination and contamination has not been documented in the within the [sic]

zone of contamination” is misleading. Contamination has been documented within the zone of 

contamination. (The “zone of contamination” is a phrase used in the HRS documentation record at 

proposal to describe the area between the PPE and the furthest downstream observed release points.)

Alliance may have been referring to the statement on page 58 of the HRS documentation record at 

proposal, section 4.1.3.3.2, Population, which states that “[n]o fisheries subject to Level I or Level II 

concentrations have been documented because fishing has not been documented within the zone of 

contamination.” This text clarifies that although there is contamination within the zone of contamination, 

there are no fisheries subject to actual contamination within the zone of contamination. 

 

As further explained in sections 3.11.3, Actually Contaminated Wetlands, and 3.7, Human Food Chain 

Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS treats a target (or portion of a target) in the surface 

water pathway as subject to actual contamination if the target (or a portion of the target) falls between the 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

24 

PPE and the furthest downstream sample establishing an observed release. As previously mentioned, the 

“zone of contamination” is a phrase in the HRS documentation record at proposal that refers to the area 

between the PPE and the furthest downstream observed release samples in Wetland #2; thus, the zone of 

contamination is by definition an area where hazardous substances have been established.

Additionally, a length of the Back River is still within the target distance limit (TDL) for the Site (the 

TDL is the maximum distance over which targets for the site are evaluated—in the surface water 

pathway, this is fifteen miles from the probable point of entry, or until the farthest observed release 

sample location, whichever is greater, as described in HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit). See 

section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, which explains that a fishery in 

the Back River is appropriately evaluated as subject to potential contamination within the TDL. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.7 Human Food Chain Threat Fishery 

Comment: APU challenged the scoring of a human food chain fishery associated with the Site. APU 

claimed that neither Wetland #2 nor the Back River meet the legal definition of a fishery, stating that the 

“EPA incorrectly characterized the Back River as a ‘fishery’ for purposes of scoring the Human Food 

Chain Threat for the Site.” APU based this conclusion on its assertion that the EPA did not use the 

appropriate fishery definition; APU stated that the EPA should use the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (hereafter referred to as the Magnuson Act) definition, and not the 

description of a fishery supplied in the HRS Guidance Manual, which it claimed is overly broad, does not 

consider risk, and was not subject to notice and comment requirements. 

Response: The HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identifies human food chain fisheries 

within the Back River and Chesapeake Bay, consistent with the HRS. No human food chain fishery was 

identified specifically in Wetland #2.

HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat-targets, explains how to identify a human food chain 

threat target fishery and determine whether it is subject to actual or potential contamination: 

Evaluate two target factors for each watershed: food chain individual and population. 

For both factors, determine whether the target fisheries are subject to actual or potential 

human food chain contamination. 

Consider a fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit of the 

watershed to be subject to actual human food chain contamination if any of the 

following apply: 

• A hazardous substance having a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 

or greater is present either in an observed release by direct observation to the 

watershed or in a surface water or sediment sample from the watershed at a 

level that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the 

site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the 

observed release (that is, it is located either at the point of direct observation or 

at or between the probable point of entry and the most distant sampling point 

establishing the observed release).

• The fishery is closed, and a hazardous substance for which the fishery has been 

closed has been documented in an observed release to the watershed from the 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

25 

site, and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the 

observed release.

• A hazardous substance is present in a tissue sample from an essentially sessile, 

benthic, human food chain organism from the watershed at a level that meets 

the criteria for an observed release to the watershed from the site, and at least a 

portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release. 

For a fishery that meets any of these three criteria, but that is not wholly within the 

boundaries of the observed release, consider only the portion of the fishery that is 

within the boundaries of the observed release to be subject to actual human food chain 

contamination. Consider the remainder of the fishery within the target distance limit to 

be subject to potential food chain contamination. 

In addition, consider all other fisheries that are partially or wholly within the target 

distance limit for the watershed, including fisheries partially or wholly within the 

boundaries of an observed release for the watershed that do not meet any of the three 

criteria listed above, to be subject to potential human food chain contamination. If only 

a portion of the fishery is within the target distance limit for the watershed, include 

only that portion in evaluating the targets factor category. 

Page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal presents the rationale for identifying a human food 

chain fishery associated with the Site. It states:

Actual contamination of a human food chain has not been documented. 

Back River is a fishery adjacent to wetlands surrounding Source 1 (Ref. 9, pp. 32, 65, 

66, 73, 77, 258, 274, 302, 304, and 324). Back River is designated by Maryland Water 

Quality Standards for surface water (Code of Maryland Regulations [COMAR] 

26.08.02.07) for the tidal waters as Use I – water-contact recreation, fishing, and 

protection of aquatic life and wildlife (Ref. 9, p. 274). Back River is also designated as 

Use II area – support of estuarine and marine aquatic life and shellfish harvesting – 

subcategories 1, 2, and 3, according to Maryland Water Quality Standards. As a 

subcategory 1 Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Migratory Area, Back River is a 

habitat for fish including striped bass, perch, shad, herring, and Shortnose Sturgeon 

during the late winter/spring spawning and nursery season. 

. . . 

The Chesapeake Bay is located within the 15-mile TDL and is a major recreational and 

commercial fishery (Ref. 13; Ref. 44; Ref. 45; Ref. 46). 

Further, page 60 of the HRS documentation record at proposal notes that the “Back River and Chesapeake 

Bay are both designated fisheries located within the 15-mile downstream TDL,” and therefore assigns a 

potential human food chain contamination factor value to the fisheries as subject to potential 

contamination. 

Thus, the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies fisheries in the Back River and the 

Chesapeake Bay subject to potential contamination, consistent with the HRS; these human food chain 

fisheries downstream of the Site may constitute a threat to people consuming contaminated fish. 

The following subsections of this support document address specific assertions regarding the presence of 

those fisheries and their eligibility for scoring as targets under the HRS: 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

26 

• 3.7.1 Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery 

• 3.7.2 HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description

• 3.7.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Presence of a Fishery Target

3.7.1 Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery

Comment: APU noted that CERCLA does not define the term fishery, and concluded that the definition in 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act), as the principle law 

designed to protect fishery resources, should have been used by the EPA. APU asserted that the fishery 

evaluated in the HRS documentation record at proposal is not consistent with the Magnuson Act. 

APU stated that its reasoning for this conclusion is based on the following:

• Congress relied upon the Magnuson Act when defining the scope and authority of 

CERCLA. 

• EPA relied upon the Magnuson Act when defining the scope and authority of the 

NCP regulations. 

• CERCLA defines ‘environment’ to include ‘the navigable waters, the waters of the 

contiguous zone, and the ocean waters of which the natural resources are under the 

exclusive management authority of the United States under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act.’ 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (8) 

• EPA's NCP regulations apply to discharges of oil that may affect ‘natural resources,’ 

40 C.F.R. § 300.3(a)(l), which include ‘the resources of the exclusive economic zone 

defined by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.’ 

APU stated that the Magnuson Act defines a fishery in terms of a stock of fish and that a stock of fish is 

defined as a species, subspecies, geographical grouping, or other category of fish capable of management 

as a unit. APU noted that under the Magnuson Act, the authority to manage a ‘stock of fish’ is given to 

Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs), which use Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) to carry 

out this process. APU asserted that “[i]n effect, a ‘fishery’ under the Magnuson Act is a designated ‘stock 

of fish’ for which a RFMC has developed an FMP.” APU argued, therefore, that because the HRS 

documentation record has not documented FMPs for the Back River, the Back River cannot constitute a 

fishery under the Magnuson Act. 

Response: The identification of human food chain fisheries in the Back River and Chesapeake Bay as 

described in the HRS documentation record at proposal is consistent with the HRS. The HRS is not 

limited to fisheries as defined and managed under the Magnuson Act. While a fishery managed under the 

Magnuson Act may certainly qualify as a fishery eligible for HRS evaluation, the HRS is not restricted to 

fisheries as defined by the Magnuson Act. Unlike the HRS, the purpose of the Magnuson Act is to protect 

and manage fisheries, and it is not meant to address the threat to human health posed by the human 

consumption of fish. The Magnuson Act definition of the term “fishery” is specific to that act; it serves a 

different function than the term “fishery” as used in the HRS and is thus not applicable to HRS 

evaluations. The HRS evaluates any threat to the human food chain posed by any fishery subject to actual 

or potential contamination from the Site.

While there is no definition of “human food chain fishery” in the HRS, given that the threat under which 

fisheries are evaluated is the “human food chain threat,” the emphasis of this threat is on the transfer of 

contamination to humans by the consumption of aquatic organisms, e.g., a fishery, resulting in humans 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

27 

being exposed to released hazardous substances that have been accumulated in aquatic food chain 

organisms and posing a threat to human health. 

The Preamble to the HRS, Section III.M, Surface Water Migration Pathway, explains the intent of this 

part of the HRS evaluation. It states:

SARA requires that EPA consider ‘the damage to natural resources which may affect 

the human food chain * * *’ Accordingly, the surface water migration pathway of the 

proposed rule included evaluation of threats to human health via the aquatic food chain.

[emphasis added]

HRS Section 4.1, Overland/flood migration component, states:

Use the overland/flood migration component to evaluate surface water threats that result 

from overland migration of hazardous substances from a source at the site to surface 

water. Evaluate three types of threats for this component: drinking water threat, human 

food chain threat, and environmental threat. 

HRS Section 4.1.3, Human food chain threat, instructs the scorer to “[e]valuate the human food chain 

threat for each watershed based on three factor categories: likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and 

targets.” HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat-targets, states to “[e]valuate two target factors 

for each watershed: food chain individual and population. For both factors, determine whether the target 

fisheries are subject to actual or potential human food chain contamination.” Thus, the focus of evaluating 

the human food chain threat under which fisheries are evaluated in the HRS (as SARA required), is on the 

possible negative effects to humans caused by hazardous substances released from the site, and delivered 

to humans via fish potentially in contact with those hazardous substances. 

The focus on threat to humans is further illustrated in the parameters used to score waste quantity within 

the human food chain threat. HRS Section 4.1.3.2, Human food chain threat-waste characteristics, 

instructs the scorer to “[e]valuate the waste characteristics factor category for each watershed based on 

two factors: toxicity/persistence/bioaccumulation and hazardous waste quantity.” In discussing the 

bioaccumulation potentials used in HRS scoring, the Preamble to the HRS states that the EPA “considers 

the bioaccumulation potentials of hazardous substances to be among the most important factors 

determining the degree of human health threat posed by substances via the human food chain.” The 

toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation values used in determining the waste characteristics factor 

category value are centered on how dangerous the site hazardous substances are to humans, and how 

likely the hazardous substances are to build up and remain in fish and increase the risk of human 

exposure. 

HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat-targets, gives general instructions on identifying a target 

fishery and determining whether the fishery is subject to actual or potential contamination. This text 

simply uses the term “fishery” and at no point in this section, or any other section of the HRS or in 

CERCLA, are fisheries to be scored as targets under the HRS human food chain threat limited to fisheries 

as defined by the Magnuson Act. 

As explained in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS 

documentation record at proposal identified fisheries in the Back River and the Chesapeake Bay, 

consistent with the HRS meaning of “fishery.” 

Additionally, the Chesapeake Bay (a portion of which is within the TDL for the Site, as stated on page 58 

of the HRS documentation record at proposal and shown in the TDL map contained in Reference 13 of 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

28 

the HRS documentation record at proposal) does indeed contain stocks of fish managed under the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) 1992 ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management 

Plan1 (FMP) (see Attachment 1, Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans, of this support document, 

or http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/commercial/fmp.html). Therefore, even if the fisheries scored 

under the HRS were to be limited to the Magnuson Act definition of “fishery,” these Chesapeake Bay 

fisheries would be used to score the human food chain threat, and there would be no change to the targets 

factor category value or the Site score.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.7.2 HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description

3.7.2.1 HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery

Comment: APU took issue with the use of the EPA’s HRS Guidance manual2 description of a fishery. 

APU asserted that this description is, in effect, applied as rule even though it was not subject to notice and 

comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

APU stated that the HRS Guidance Manual was intended “for EPA employees engaged in the scoring of 

NPL sites for which little to no data existed.” APU therefore argued that “[i]t is inappropriate to use the 

HRS Guidance Manual's arbitrary and broad definition of ‘fishery’ to score a site for which a plethora of 

data exists that permits an accurate and precise characterization,” claiming this was used to inflate the Site 

score. 

APU further asserted that the EPA uses the HRS Guidance Manual “not as guidance but as binding 

constraint on the agency's discretion,” and that “[t]he HRS Guidance Manual's definition of ‘fishery’ has 

the effect of law which ‘affects the rights of those over whom the agency exercises authority.’” APU 

concluded that this fishery description was applied as a rule that has not appropriately gone through the 

notice and comment process required by the APA. 

 

1 The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 confer the authority for management of coastal, interjursidictional 

fisheries to the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC) and the regional fisheries management 

Councils. The purpose of these acts is to provide for the preparation and implementation, in accordance with 

standards contained in the respective Acts, of FMPs that will achieve and maintain the availability of coastal fishery 

resources on a long-term basis (sustainable harvest). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act 2006 maintains the establishment of Regional Fishery Management Councils (e.g., South 

Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Councils) to “exercise sound judgment in the stewardship of fishery resources through the 

preparation, monitoring, and revision of Fishery Management Plans which will enable the States, the fishing 

industry, consumer and environmental organizations, and other interested persons to participate in, and advise on, 

the establishment and administration of such plans and which take into account the social and economic needs of the 

States” (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2005/).

In January 1994, ASMFC became responsible for implementing fishery management requirements for all Atlantic 

coast interjurisdictional fisheries under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Act. The species regulated under this program 

are: American eel, American lobster, American shad and river herring, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic herring, Atlantic 

menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, bluefish, northern shrimp, red drum, scup and black sea bass, Spanish mackerel, spot, 

spotted seatrout, striped bass, summer flounder, tautog, weakfish, and winter flounder (References 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/State-Federal-WEB/acfcmafs.htm and 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/docs/acfcma.pdf). 2 The Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

29 

APU asserted the Magnuson Act definition should have been used, and “[i]f EPA has any discretion to 

adopt a different definition, a point that APU does not concede, EPA should be required to define such an 

important term in the NCP regulations, in formal rulemaking after public notice and comment, with 

opportunity for interested parties to seek judicial review.” APU stated that “[a]n agency's establishment of 

substantive requirements to fill in the gaps left by a statutory or regulatory framework must be 

promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking.” 

APU concluded “[c]lassifying the entire Back River as a "fishery" is an invalid application of a rule 

which should not be given effect until the HRS Guidance Manual's definition of ‘fishery’ is subject to 

APA notice and comment requirements.” 

Response: The human food chain fisheries used in the HRS evaluation of the Sauer Dump site are 

consistent with the HRS. The draft HRS Guidance Manual, Interim Final, November 1992 (HRS 

Guidance Manual) imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA, was not subjected to APA notice and 

comment requirements, and is used on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts presented by each 

individual site, to guide the application of the HRS. Its suggestions are meant to guide an HRS evaluator, 

but it is not mandatory at any site. 

As explained in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS 

documentation record at proposal identified fisheries in the Back River and the Chesapeake Bay, 

consistent with the HRS. These fisheries are identified in accordance with the HRS meaning of “fishery.” 

The HRS Guidance Manual states that: 

[t]he procedures set forth in this document are intended as guidance to employees of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), States, and other government agencies. 

EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this directive, or to act at 

variance with it, based on analysis of specific site circumstances . . . These guidelines do 

not constitute EPA rulemaking and cannot be relied upon to create rights enforceable by 

any party In [sic] litigation with the United States.

In evaluating whether a site merits NPL listing, the EPA complies with the HRS and uses the HRS 

Guidance Manual as just that—guidance to determine how best to perform the HRS evaluation based on 

the facts or circumstances presented at each site. The HRS Guidance Manual is consistent with the HRS 

(this was not challenged by APU) and simply provides suggested methods to carry out an HRS 

evaluation; and, as shown in the other sections of this support document, the EPA has followed the HRS 

in scoring the Site and given appropriate weight to the HRS Guidance Manual based on the facts 

presented by this site. 

Thus, the HRS Guidance Manual was not subject to the rulemaking process and APA-required notice and 

comment, and is not mandatory or considered a rule to mandatorily be followed. 

Regarding the argument that the HRS Guidance Manual was intended for EPA employees scoring NPL 

sites “for which little to no data existed,” and that it is somehow inappropriate for use at sites where 

ample data is available, this is incorrect. While there is typically less comprehensive investigation data 

available for a site at the HRS evaluation/NPL listing phase compared to later stages of the Superfund 

process, the HRS Guidance Manual is intended to assist in the HRS evaluation of any site the EPA is 

considering for NPL listing.

Regarding the statement that the “EPA should be required to define such an important term in the NCP 

regulations, in formal rulemaking,” that is not the subject of this rulemaking. Furthermore, while there is 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

30 

no definition of “human food chain fishery” in the HRS, given that the threat under which fisheries are 

evaluated is the “human food chain threat,” the emphasis of this threat is on the transfer of contamination 

to humans by the consumption of aquatic organisms, as explained in section 3.7.1, Magnuson Act 

Definition of Fishery, of this support document. 

Additionally, insomuch as the commenter is implying that the EPA should change the HRS to include a 

definition, that goes to the HRS itself, not this listing, and is therefore outside the scope of this 

rulemaking.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.7.2.2 Breadth of HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery

Comment: APU asserted that the HRS Guidance Manual description of a fishery is overly broad, claiming 

“it includes more surface water bodies than it excludes. A farm fishing pond could be categorized as a 

‘fishery’ under this definition.” 

APU stated that “CERCLA requires EPA to assess ‘the damage to natural resources which may affect the 

human food chain,’ when determining whether to list a site on the NPL. 42 U.S.C. § 9505(a)(8)(A).” APU 

argued, though, that the HRS Guidance Manual description of a fishery is “so expansive that a surface 

water body may qualify as a ‘fishery’ for the sole reason that it contains human food chain organisms 

with no consideration as to whether these organisms are, or even can be, actually consumed.” APU 

concluded that, through the HRS Guidance Manual description, the “EPA has given itself the unfettered 

ability to determine that virtually any surface water body is a ‘fishery’ for the purpose of scoring a site on 

the NPL.” 

Response: The HRS Guidance Manual description of a fishery is consistent with the HRS and how this 

site was evaluated. As explained above, the threat posed by human exposure to contaminants via 

ingestion of potentially contaminated fish was evaluated consistent with the HRS. Additionally, 

regardless of the size of the surface water body, a threat to human health exists if consumption of fish 

from the water body results in exposure of the human to contamination. 

As explained in section 3.7.2.1, HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery, of this support 

document, the HRS Guidance Manual imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA. The HRS 

Guidance Manual simply provides suggested methods to establish such a fishery for HRS evaluation 

purposes. 

As explained in section 3.7.1, Magnuson Act Definition of Fishery, of this support document, while there 

is no definition of “human food chain fishery” in the HRS, the focus of the HRS threat under which 

fisheries are evaluated, the human food chain threat, is on the human consumption of aquatic organisms—

e.g., a fishery—as a migration route resulting in humans being exposed via ingestion to released 

hazardous substances that have been accumulated in aquatic food chain organisms. The HRS Guidance 

Manual describes a fishery as: 

[a]ny area of a surface water body from which human food chain organisms are taken or 

could be taken for human consumption on a commercial, recreational, or subsistence 

basis. Food chain organisms include fish, shellfish, crustaceans, amphibians, and 

amphibious reptiles. Fisheries are delineated by changes in dilution weights, level of 

contamination, or annual production. To establish a fishery, document that human food 

chain organisms are present and that people fish in the surface water body.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

31 

Thus, the HRS Guidance Manual description is consistent with the HRS emphasis on the threat to humans 

via ingested fish contaminated with hazardous substances. 

Also, as shown in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS 

documentation record has followed the HRS in establishing human food chain threat fisheries in the Back 

River and Chesapeake Bay. 

Regarding the specific comment that a farm fishing pond could be categorized as a fishery, this may be 

accurate in some site-specific situations, and it would be appropriately evaluated under the HRS as a 

human food chain fishery and a threat to human health if the fishery were subject to actual or potential 

contamination and the fish were consumed by humans. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.7.2.3 HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery and Risk

Comment: APU claimed that the HRS Guidance Manual fishery description is arbitrary because it does 

not consider risk. APU stated that this description “does not allow EPA to evaluate the risk posed by 

different sources that are along the same ‘fishery,’” letting the EPA “violate both CERCLA and the 

directive in Mead by permitting EPA to designate a surface water body as a ‘fishery’ without any 

consideration of risk.” 

Specifically, APU asserted that the EPA’s designation of the boundary of Wetland #2 as the beginning of 

the TDL “in effect incorporates Wetland #2 into the scope of the alleged Back River ‘fishery.’” APU 

further stated that “[e]ven if Wetland #2 was a part of the alleged ‘fishery’ as characterized by EPA, 

which APU strongly denies, Wetland #2 presents little to no relative risk to public health or welfare or the 

environment and does not support an HRS score value above zero . . . In fact, there has been little to no 

threat to the Back River in general or to a human food chain in particular throughout the history of the 

Site.” 

APU asserted that the HRS Guidance Manual fishery description “actually constrains EPA's discretion 

because the definition fails to consider risk by eliminating any consideration of whether human 

consumption is occurring or is even possible,” and that “[a]nswering the question of whether or not a 

water body contains catchable organisms requires no discretion.” APU claimed that if a water body does 

contain catchable organisms, then it is mechanically classified as a fishery regardless of whether those 

organisms are consumed by humans. APU stated that various fish advisories have been in effect since the 

1980's limiting or banning fish consumption on the Back River. 

APU commented that “the effect of EPA's classification of the entire Back River, including Wetland #2, 

as a ‘fishery’ should result in the automatic listing on the NPL for every site that may have contributed a 

contaminant found in the Back River, regardless of whether the site actually poses a risk to public health 

or the environment.” APU asserted that the “EPA could aggregate the Sauer Dump with any number of 

other sites along the Back River that may have contributed the same constituents to the Back River as 

were found in sediment samples collected in Wetland #2, without considering actual risk;” APU 

concluded that “[t]his result is neither equitable nor logical, and is a complete violation of both CERCLA 

and the mandate in Mead which require EPA to independently consider the actual risk posed by 

individual sources.” 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

32 

Response: As previously explained in sections 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, and 3.7.2.1, HRS 

Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery, of this support document, the HRS Guidance Manual imposes 

no mandatory requirements on the EPA. The HRS Guidance Manual only contains general guidelines for 

performing an HRS evaluation. For this rulemaking, the HRS requirements were met in establishing the 

presence of a fishery subject to potential contamination associated with this site and thus posing a risk to 

human health. 

Further, the HRS is not a site-specific risk assessment. The HRS is a numerically based screening tool 

that the Agency uses to assess the relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by a 

site compared to other sites subject to review. The HRS score is used to determine whether a site is 

eligible for placement on the NPL. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which 

sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks 

associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. See 76 FR 13113 

(Proposed Rule, Sauer Dump Site, March 10, 2011); see also 55 FR 51532 (Final Rule, Hazard Ranking 

System, December 14, 1990). 

CERCLA § 105(a)(8)(a) requires the EPA to determine NPL priorities based on the “relative risk or 

danger to public health or welfare, or the environment.” The criteria the EPA applies to determine this 

relative risk or danger is codified in the HRS, and is the Agency’s primary tool for deriving a site score 

based on the factors identified in CERCLA. In this case, the HRS evaluation and score above 28.50 

represents the EPA’s determination that the site may pose a relative risk or danger to human health and 

the environment and warrants further investigation under CERCLA. 

In the preamble to the HRS, the EPA stated: 

The Agency stresses that the limited data generated at the SI stage are designed to 

support site screening, and are not intended to provide support for a quantitative risk 

assessment (55 FR 51541, December 14, 1990). 

The EPA performs a comprehensive risk assessment for the site as part of further investigations that 

typically follow listing. The results of risk assessment activities will be considered during the evaluation 

of the need for remedial actions at the site. Neither CERCLA nor the Mead decision requires the EPA to 

determine actual risk as part of the HRS evaluation of a prospective NPL site.

Regarding actual risk, although actual risk is not quantified for the HRS evaluation of this site, there is 

reason to consider that the Site poses a potential risk to human health with contamination in a fishery 

area. It is not at Wetland #2 where this risk may occur; rather, it is the hazardous substances in Source 1 

that have been released to the watershed in which fishing takes place (in the Back River and the 

Chesapeake Bay) that pose the potential risk via the human food chain threat. As explained in 3.7, Human 

Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the HRS documentation record at proposal 

identifies fisheries in the Back River and the Chesapeake Bay subject to potential contamination, 

consistent with the HRS; these human food chain fisheries downstream of the Site may constitute a threat 

to people consuming contaminated fish. 

Regarding APU’s assertions involving the Mead decision: 

• As further explained in section 3.7.3, Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Presence of a Fishery

Target, of this support document, the EPA has not classified Wetland #2 itself as a human food 

chain fishery. Page 41 of the HRS documentation record stated “the Wetland #2 watershed

includes sensitive environments (wetlands) and a human food chain fishery.” [emphasis added] 

The watershed at the site includes Wetland #2, the Back River, and the Chesapeake Bay. The 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

33 

HRS documentation record at proposal on page 41 stated that Wetland #2 is contiguous to the 

Back River and part of the surface water (and thus part of the same watershed); page 58 of the 

HRS documentation record at proposal noted that a human food chain fishery has been 

established to exist in the Back River.

• The EPA did not classify the “entire Back River” as a human food chain fishery; this designation 

was made by the State of Maryland in its Maryland Water Quality Standards for surface water. 

Page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states: 

Back River is designated by Maryland Water Quality Standards for surface water 

(Code of Maryland Regulations [COMAR] 26.08.02.07) for the tidal waters as 

Use I – water-contact recreation, fishing, and protection of aquatic life and 

wildlife (Ref. 9, p. 274). Back River is also designated as Use II area – support of 

estuarine and marine aquatic life and shellfish harvesting – subcategories 1, 2, 

and 3, according to Maryland Water Quality Standards. As a subcategory 1 

Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Migratory Area, Back River is a habitat 

for fish including striped bass, perch, shad, herring, and Shortnose Sturgeon 

during the late winter/spring spawning and nursery season. 

• The establishment of a human food chain fishery for HRS evaluations only involves documenting 

a fishery within the TDL; as explained above in this section, there is no requirement of further 

determination of actual risk associated with that fishery.

The Mead decision and the policy at issue in that case do not apply to this NPL listing decision. Mead 

was an unusual case where the Agency listed three areas as a single site based on the issuance of a health 

advisory by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and not through the HRS. 

Mead addressed the aggregation of noncontiguous sites into a single site without consideration of the risk 

posed by the sites. The present NPL rulemaking involves one contiguous site consisting of a source (the 

estimated area of the landfill). Contrary to APU’s assertions, the EPA is not in violation of CERCLA or 

the Mead decision in listing the Sauer Dump site. The Mead decision does not address aggregation of 

sources within a single site and does not require determination of risk to identify targets. 

The HRS directions on scoring a human food chain fishery do not allow inappropriate aggregation of 

sites. HRS directions on scoring of targets has no bearing on determining the extent of site—the site for 

HRS purposes is where contamination has come to be located, not the location of targets. (HRS Section 

1.1, Definitions, defines site as“[a]rea(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, 

disposed, or placed, or has otherwise come to be located. Such areas may include multiple sources and 

may include the area between sources.”) Sites have not been aggregated in the HRS evaluation of Sauer 

Dump, and the commenter has provided no evidence that separate sites were aggregated in the HRS 

evaluation; therefore, the Mead decision is not applicable to this rulemaking.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.7.2.4 Consistency between HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description and Maryland Law

Comment: APU asserted that the HRS Guidance Manual fishery description is inconsistent with 

Maryland law and therefore should not be used in evaluating a site. As with the Magnuson Act, APU 

argued that Maryland fishery law requires FMPs to determine the presence of a fishery, and that the HRS 

documentation record at proposal provides no evidence of an FMP or that a stock of fish consistent with 

Maryland law is impacted by the Site. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

34 

Response: The determination of the presence of fisheries associated with the Site is established consistent 

with the HRS; and Maryland law is not relevant to construing the HRS. As previously explained in 

sections 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, and 3.7.2.1, HRS Guidance Manual Description of a 

Fishery, of this support document, the HRS Guidance Manual imposes no mandatory requirements on the 

EPA. The HRS Guidance Manual guidelines are only suggested methods to carry out the identification of 

a human food chain fishery. 

The presence of a fishery subject to potential contamination was established consistent with the HRS. 

HRS Section 4.1.3.3, Human food chain threat-targets, gives general instructions on identifying a target 

fishery and determining whether the fishery is subject to actual or potential contamination based on the 

location of a fishery in a zone of contamination and the bioaccumulation factor value for the released 

contaminants, or if the fishery is closed for human consumption. This text simply uses the term “fishery” 

and at no point in this section, or any other section of the HRS or in CERCLA, are fisheries scored as 

targets under the HRS human food chain threat limited to fisheries as defined by the Maryland law.

Furthermore, as explained in section 3.7.3, Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Presence of a Fishery 

Target, of this support document, APU has pointed out that the State of Maryland has issued fish 

consumption advisories affecting the Back River and Chesapeake Bay (see Attachment 2, 2011 Maryland 

Fish Consumption Advisories, to this support document). Several of the advisories in the Back River and 

Chesapeake Bay are issued for PCBs contamination, one of the hazardous substances associated with the 

Sauer Dump site. Thus, the State does consider there to be risk to human health resulting from 

consumption of fish in these fisheries.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.7.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Presence of a Fishery Target

Comment: APU and Alliance challenged the presence of a fishery target at the Site. 

APU stated that the EPA has classified the entire Back River as a fishery, and asserted that the “EPA 

incorrectly characterized the Back River as a ‘fishery’ for purposes of scoring the Human Food Chain 

Threat for the Site.” APU further claimed that neither Wetland #2 nor the Back River meet the legal 

definition of a fishery. 

APU stated that the “EPA improperly characterizes the boundary of Wetland #2 as the beginning of the 

target distance limit (‘TDL’), which in effect incorporates Wetland #2 into the scope of the alleged Back 

River ‘fishery.’ It is difficult to understand how EPA can make such a characterization [pointing to its 

assertion that Wetland #2 is part of the source].” 

APU further stated that “[a] simple visual inspection of the Site demonstrates that Wetland #2 does not 

support fish for human consumption. In fact, EPA provides no evidence that fishing was ever attempted at 

the Site.” In its argument that there is no risk to the human food chain, APU also noted that “various fish 

advisories have been in effect since the 1980's that limit or banning [sic] fish consumption on the Back 

River.”

Alliance argued that the EPA acknowledges that fishing was not documented within the zone of 

contamination. Alliance noted the HRS Guidance Manual states that to evaluate a surface water body as a 

fishery, human food chain organisms must be present in the surface water body and some attempt has 

been made to catch those human food chain organisms. Alliance asserted that the “EPA considers the 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

35 

Back River to be a fishery, but without actual contamination. Thus, to the extent EPA wishes to consider 

Wetlands #2 to be impacted with actual contamination (even though it is part of Source 1), Wetlands #2 

cannot be considered a fishery.” Alliance also stated that the Southeast and Southwest Fingers are nontidal wetland, and therefore not connected with the tidal portions of the Back River. Alliance therefore 

concludes “it is not reasonable for EPA to assign a score of 20 to Wetlands #2, which clearly isn’t a 

fishery.” 

Response: As explained in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat Fishery, of this support document, the 

HRS documentation record at proposal correctly identified human food chain threat fisheries targets 

subject to potential contamination at the Site in the open water portions of the Back River and in the 

Chesapeake Bay within the target distance limit; it did not identify Wetland #2 as a fishery. Additionally, 

as documented below, even if there were no fishery in the Back River, the food chain individual score and 

site score would remain unchanged based on the fishery documented in the Chesapeake Bay within the 

TDL. 

The interpretation of the HRS is not governed by the Magnuson Act definition or Maryland law. Also, the 

HRS Guidance Manual description of a fishery was not used as rule (see sections 3.7.1, Magnuson Act 

Definition of Fishery; 3.7.2.4, Consistency between HRS Guidance Manual Fishery Description and 

Maryland Law; and 3.7.2.1, HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery, of this support document). 

The subsequent parts of this response address the following issues:

• Portion of the Back River Fishery Scored

• Absence of a Fishery in Wetland #2 

• Existing Fish Advisories

Portion of the Back River Fishery Scored

Regarding the comment that the EPA has classified the “entire Back River” as a fishery, this designation 

was made based on the following information from the State of Maryland as presented in its Maryland 

Water Quality Standards for surface water. Page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states: 

Back River is designated by Maryland Water Quality Standards for surface water (Code 

of Maryland Regulations [COMAR] 26.08.02.07) for the tidal waters as Use I – watercontact recreation, fishing, and protection of aquatic life and wildlife (Ref. 9, p. 274). 

Back River is also designated as Use II area – support of estuarine and marine aquatic life 

and shellfish harvesting – subcategories 1, 2, and 3, according to Maryland Water Quality 

Standards. As a subcategory 1 Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Migratory Area, 

Back River is a habitat for fish including striped bass, perch, shad, herring, and Shortnose 

Sturgeon during the late winter/spring spawning and nursery season.

Also, in response to these comments, a fisheries ecologist with the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources was contacted, and confirmed that recreational fishing occurs on the Back River (see 

Reference 63, MDNR Email Regarding Back River Fishing, of the HRS documentation record at 

promulgation).

Furthermore, only the portion of the Back River fishery within the TDL is scored in the HRS evaluation. 

HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target distance limit, specifies identification of a TDL (the portion of the watershed 

in which targets are evaluated):
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

36 

The target distance limit defines the maximum distance over which targets are considered 

in evaluating the site. Determine a separate target distance limit for each watershed as 

follows: 

. . . 

• If there is an observed release from the site to the surface water in the watershed 

that is based on sampling, begin measuring the target distance limit for the 

watershed at the probable point of entry; extend the target distance limit either 

for 15 miles along the surface water or to the most distant sample point that 

meets the criteria for an observed release to that watershed, whichever is greater.

In evaluating the site, include only surface water targets (for example, intakes, fisheries,

sensitive environments) that are within or contiguous to the hazardous substance 

migration path and located, partially or wholly, at or between the probable point of entry 

and the target distance limit applicable to the watershed: [emphasis added]

• If flow within the hazardous substance migration path is reversed by tides, 

evaluate upstream targets only if there is documentation that the tidal run could 

carry substances from the site as far as those upstream targets.

• Determine whether targets within or contiguous to the hazardous substance 

migration path are subject to actual or potential contamination as follows: 

–If a target is located, partially or wholly, either at or between the probable point 

of entry and any sampling point that meets the criteria for an observed release to 

the watershed or at a point that meets the criteria for an observed release by 

direct observation, evaluate that target as subject to actual contamination, except 

as otherwise specified for fisheries in section 4.1.3.3 and for wetlands in section 

4.1.4.3.1.1. If the actual contamination is based on direct observation, assign 

Level II to the actual contamination. However, if the actual contamination is 

based on samples, determine whether the actual contamination is at Level I or 

Level II concentrations as specified in sections 4.1.2.3, 4.1.3.3, and 4.1.4.3.1. 

–If a target is located, partially or wholly, within the target distance limit for the 

watershed, but not at or between the probable point of entry and any sampling 

point that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed, nor at a 

point that meets the criteria for an observed release by direct observation, 

evaluate it as subject to potential contamination.

As established in section 3.5, Description of Watershed/Current Conditions, of this support document, the 

PPE (and beginning of the TDL) was correctly established at the boundary of Source 1 and Wetland #2. 

Regarding the TDL, page 41 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states: 

The target distance limit (TDL) defines the maximum distance over which targets are 

evaluated. The 15-mile TDL starts at the PPE of hazardous substances to surface water 

and includes areas 15 miles downstream from the most downstream PPE to surface water, 

and the distance between the most upstream and downstream PPE (Ref. 1, Section 

4.1.1.2). The in-water segment of the surface water pathway TDL starts at the most 

upstream PPE from Source 1 to Wetland #2. As stated earlier, surface water runoff from 

Source 1 can enter Wetland #2 anywhere along the boundary of Source 1 and the 

wetland; Source 1 and the Wetland #2 are located adjacent to each other. There are two 

upstream PPEs into Wetland #2: one into the Southwest Finger of Wetland #2, labeled as 

PPE-1 in Reference 34, and one into the Southeast Finger of Wetland #2, labeled as PPE2 in Reference 34. The distance from both PPE-1 and PPE-2 to the Back River is 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

37 

approximately 350 feet. From Wetland #2, the Back River flows about 4.0 miles to the 

southeast and empties into the Chesapeake Bay. The remaining portion of the 15-mile 

surface water migration pathway (11 miles) is in the Chesapeake Bay (Ref. 13). The end 

of Back River is defined by the end the Tidal Back River watershed as shown in 

Reference 9, page 12, and is shown as [sic] line drawn between two land masses on 

Reference 13. 

The Back River and Chesapeake Bay are tidally influenced within the TDL (Ref. 9, pp. 

12, 32, 302, 324). When defining the TDL of a water body, tides are considered (Ref. 1, 

Section 4.1.1.2). Data do not exist to document the potential tidal carry of hazardous 

substances in the Back River; therefore, only targets identified within the downstream 

portion of the TDL have been scored. 

Page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states that “[n]o fisheries subject to Level I 

or Level II concentrations have been documented because fishing has not been documented 

within the zone of contamination.” Therefore, the EPA acknowledged that fishing is not 

documented within the zone of actual contamination, and appropriately scored the fishery as a 

target subject to potential contamination. Page 60 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, 

in scoring potential human food chain contamination, states “Back River and Chesapeake Bay are 

both designated fisheries located within the 15-mile downstream TDL.” Thus, only the part of the 

Back River fishery within the TDL and subject to potential contamination is scored in the HRS 

evaluation, consistent with the HRS.

Additionally, even if there were no fishery in the Back River, a fishery was also identified and 

documented in the Chesapeake Bay within the TDL—which the commenter has not challenged. If the 

human food chain threat were scored based on that fishery alone, neither the human food chain threat 

score nor the Site score would change. (That is, the food chain individual factor value of 20 assigned in 

the HRS documentation record at proposal would not change because it is assigned for any fishery within 

the TDL if there has been a release of a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation factor value of 500 

or greater, as further explained in section 3.8, Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Food Chain 

Individual, of this support document. And, the potential human food chain contamination factor value of 

0.00000033 would also remain the same, as it was based on a production value for the Back River and 

Chesapeake Bay of >0, which would not change if the Back River fishery were not scored.)

Absence of a Fishery in Wetland #2

Regarding comments on the existence and scoring of a fishery in Wetland #2, such as that the “EPA 

improperly characterizes the boundary of Wetland #2 as the beginning of the target distance limit 

(‘TDL’), which in effect incorporates Wetland #2 into the scope of the alleged Back River ‘fishery,’” the 

EPA has not identified or scored a fishery in Wetland #2.

 

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 41 states “the Wetland #2 watershed includes 

sensitive environments (wetlands) and a human food chain fishery.” [emphasis added] The watershed at 

the site includes Wetland #2, Back River, and Chesapeake Bay. Page 41 of the HRS documentation 

record at proposal states that Wetland #2 is contiguous to Back River and part of the surface water (and 

thus part of the same watershed), and page 58 of the HRS documentation record at proposal notes that a 

human food chain fishery has been established to exist in the Back River, stating “Back River is a fishery 

adjacent to wetlands surrounding Source 1.” [emphasis added] 

Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal clearly did not identify or score a fishery within 

Wetland #2 itself. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

38 

Existing Fish Advisories

Regarding state fish advisories in place for the Back River, some fish consumption advisories are in place 

for the Back River (and the Chesapeake Bay). However, as shown in Attachment 2, 2011 Maryland Fish 

Consumption Advisories, of this support document, many of these advisories for fish within the Back 

River and Chesapeake Bay are limits specifying the maximum number of meals per month that the State 

recommends include a given species of fish. Additionally, a few species are classified as “avoid” in the 

Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories. However, the term “avoid” is only an advisory statement, and 

does not constitute a closed fishery; the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) generated the 

consumption advisories, but does not have the authority to close a fishery—that power is reserved for the 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (see Attachment 3, MDE Information Regarding Fish 

Advisory in the Back River). In these cases, the human population is still potentially exposed to some 

level of contaminants in the fish by human consumption, and it is therefore consistent with the HRS to 

evaluate the fisheries as targets under the HRS. There is no HRS provision prohibiting scoring a fishery if 

consumption advisories are in place. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.8 Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Food Chain Individual 

Comment: APU challenged the food chain individual factor value of 20 assigned by the EPA based on the 

assertions of a lack of an observed release and lack of a fishery in the Back River. 

Based on their assertions that Source 1 includes Wetland #2, APU and Alliance reasoned that the receptor 

associated with Source 1 is the Back River, and stated that the EPA agrees that sediment data from the 

Back River does not document a release to or actual contamination in the Back River. APU and Alliance 

also claimed that the PPE for Source 1 is therefore where Source 1 meets the Back River. 

APU and Alliance in their comments concluded that, at most, the food chain individual factor value 

should be 1 (based on a fishery in the Back River, the absence of an observed release, and the dilution 

weight for the Back River); APU and Alliance further claimed that neither Wetland #2 nor the Back River 

meet the legal definition of a fishery and, in this case, the food chain individual factor value should be 

zero. Alliance generated a third option of 20 for the factor value “[b]ased upon actual contamination of 

Wetlands #2 and Wetlands #2 is a fishery. This is the manner in which EPA scored the Site.” Alliance 

noted the “EPA acknowledges that fishing has not been documented ‘within the zone of contamination.’” 

APU and Alliance also claimed that a food chain individual factor value of 20 is not reasonable because 

Wetland #2 “clearly” is not a fishery; both stated that the EPA considers the Back River a fishery with no 

actual contamination. 

APU and Alliance further stated that the Southeast and Southwest Finger portions of Wetland #2 are nontidal wetlands that are not in contact with the tidal portions of the Back River; and APU added “[a] simple 

visual inspection of the Site demonstrates that Wetland #2 does not support fish for human consumption. 

In fact, EPA provides no evidence that fishing was ever attempted at the Site.” 

Response: The food chain individual factor value of 20 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation 

record at proposal based on the presence of a human food chain fishery within the TDL and an observed 

release of a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

39 

HRS Section 4.1.3.3.1, Food chain individual, states to: 

[e]valuate the food chain individual factor based on the fisheries (or portions of fisheries) 

within the target distance limit for the watershed. Assign this factor a value as follows:

• If any fishery (or portion of a fishery) is subject to Level I concentrations, assign 

a value of 50. 

• If not, but if any fishery (or portion of a fishery) is subject to Level II 

concentrations, assign a value of 45. 

• If not, but if there is an observed release of a hazardous substance having a 

bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater to surface water in the 

watershed and there is a fishery (or portion of a fishery) present anywhere within 

the target distance limit, assign a value of 20.

Page 58 of the HRS documentation record, section 4.1.3.3.1, Food Chain Individual, states: 

As noted in Section 4.1.2.1.1 of this HRS documentation record, an observed release of 

hazardous substances having a bioaccumulation factor value of 500 or greater is 

documented in wetlands of the Back River and a human food chain fishery is present 

within the TDL (Ref. 9, pp. 32, 65, 66, 73, 77, 258, 274, 302, 304, 324). The food chain 

individual factor is assigned a value of 20 (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.3.1). 

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 58 noted that “[a]ctual contamination of a human 

food chain has not been documented.” However, as explained in section 3.7, Human Food Chain Threat 

Fishery, of this support document, a fishery subject to potential contamination has been correctly 

established within the TDL at the Site. As explained in section 3.6, Observed Release by Chemical 

Analysis, of this support document, the contaminated sediment samples from within Wetland #2 meeting 

observed release criteria are appropriately considered evidence of an observed release to the surface water 

at the Site. The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 57 showed that PCBs (Aroclor 1254 and 

Aroclor 1260) and lead were present in those observed release sediment samples at observed release 

levels (not challenged by APU or Alliance); and, page 55 of the HRS documentation record at proposal 

identified the bioaccumulation values for Aroclor 1254, Aroclor 1260, and lead were 50,000, 50,000, and 

5,000, respectively (all above 500, and not challenged by APU or Alliance). 

Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal was correct in assigning a food chain individual 

factor value of 20 based on the presence of a human food chain fishery within the TDL and an observed 

release of a hazardous substance with a bioaccumulation potential factor value of 500 or greater, 

consistent with the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.9 Human Food Chain Threat – Waste Characteristics Score

Comment: APU disagreed with the EPA’s assignment of a human food chain threat waste characteristics 

category factor value of 320, stating that “[t]his score is based on the inaccurate assumption that a target 

has been subject to actual contamination. The target here is the Back River since Wetland #2 is part of 

Source 1. EPA admits that the Back River is only subject to potential contamination. Therefore, the 

correct value for Waste Characteristics is 180.” Alliance calculated the same alternative value. Both 

commenters determined the value of 180 based on a claimed incorrect waste quantity factor value of 100, 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

40 

which they claimed should have been 10 because of their assertion that no target was subject to actual 

contamination at the Site. 

Response: The human food chain threat waste characteristics category factor value of 320 was correctly 

assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal based on the identification of a portion of Wetland 

#2 being subject to actual contamination. 

Both commenters’ challenge to this value is based on their conclusion that there were no targets subject to 

actual contamination. However, as explained in section 3.11.3, Actually Contaminated Wetlands, of this 

support document, Wetland #2 was correctly evaluated as a surface water target and subject to actual 

contamination. Additionally, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area sensitive environment was also 

documented as a target subject to actual contamination (see section 3.11.4, Environmental Threat Targets: 

Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act, of this support document). 

Further, as explained in section 3.4, Waste Quantity, of this support document, the appropriate resulting 

hazardous waste quantity factor value is 100 for the human food chain threat and the environmental threat 

of the surface water migration pathway.

HRS Section 4.1.3.2.3, Calculation of human food chain threat-waste characteristics factor category 

value, states: 

For the hazardous substance selected for the watershed in section 4.1.3.2.1.4, use its 

toxicity/persistence factor value and bioaccumulation potential factor value as follows to 

assign a value to the waste characteristics factor category. First, multiply the 

toxicity/persistence factor value and the hazardous waste quantity factor value for the 

watershed, subject to a maximum product of 1×108

. Then multiply this product by the 

bioaccumulation potential factor value for this hazardous substance, subject to a 

maximum product of 1×1012. Based on this second product, assign a value from Table 2–

7 (section 2.4.3.1) to the human food chain threat-waste characteristics factor category 

for the watershed.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 57 states: 

The waste characteristics factor value for the human food chain threat is calculated 

below, as specified in the HRS Final Rule (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.3.2.3): 

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value = 10,000 

HWQ Factor Value = 100 

Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value (BPFV) = 5x104

 

Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value (10,000) × HWQ Value (100) = 1×106

 

1×106

 × BPFV (5x104) = Waste Characteristics Product (5x1010) (subject to maximum 

value of 1×1010) 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value (Ref. 1, Table 2-7) = 320 

Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal correctly assigned 320 as the human food chain 

threat waste characteristics factor category value, consistent with the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

41 

3.10 Human Food Chain Threat Score 

Comment: Based on its claims that the likelihood of release factor category value should be 500, the 

human food chain threat waste characteristics factor category value should be 180, and assertion that the 

food chain individual factor value should be 1.09 or 0, APU asserted that this factor category value should 

either be at most 1.09 or 0. Alliance generated similar numbers, offering a third possible value of 21.82, 

assuming the food chain individual factor value was 20. 

Response: The human food chain threat score of 42.66 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation 

record at proposal. 

HRS Section 4.1.3.3.3, Calculation of human food chain threat-targets factor category value, states to: 

[s]um the food chain individual and population factor values for the watershed. Do not 

round this sum to the nearest integer. Assign it as the human food chain threat-targets 

factor category value for the watershed. Enter this value in table 4–1. 

HRS Section 4.1.3.4, Calculation of human food chain threat score for a watershed, states to: 

[m]ultiply the human food chain threat factor category values for likelihood of release, 

waste characteristics, and targets for the watershed, and round the product to the nearest 

integer. Then divide by 82,500. Assign the resulting value, subject to a maximum of 100, 

as the human food chain threat score for the watershed. Enter this score in table 4–1. 

As explained in section 3.9, Human Food Chain Threat – Waste Characteristics Score, of this support 

document, the human food chain threat waste characteristics factor category value of 320 was correctly 

assigned consistent with the HRS.

As explained in section 3.8, Human Food Chain Threat Targets – Food Chain Individual, of this support 

document, the food chain individual factor value of 20 was correctly assigned consistent with the HRS.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 59 assigned a value of 0 for Level I and II human 

food chain population values. The potential human food chain contamination factor value assigned on 

page 60 of the HRS documentation record is 0.00000033. 

 

Therefore, the sum of the target values is 20 + 0 + 0.00000033, which equals 20.00000033. The human 

food chain threat score for the Back River watershed is then 550 x 320 x 20.00000033, which equals 

3,520,000 (rounded to the nearest integer). This number divided by 82,500 yields 42.66, as correctly 

assigned on line 21 of the scoresheet on page 3 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, consistent 

with the HRS. (Note that the potential human food chain contamination factor value, HRS surface water 

scoresheet line 19.c [previously left blank], has been corrected on page 3 of the HRS documentation 

record at promulgation to reflect the scored value of 0.0000003 assigned on page 60 of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal.) 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

42 

3.11 Environmental Threat Targets 

Comment: APU submitted several comments challenging the HRS evaluation of environmental targets on 

the following topics:

• The definition of wetlands used in the delineation of the Site wetlands 

• The evidence supporting the wetland delineation 

• The presence of actually contaminated wetlands

• The documentation of a critical area under the Coastal Zone Management Act

Response: The identification and scoring of environmental targets at the time of proposal was consistent 

with the HRS. The following subsections document this conclusion. 

• 3.11.1 Definition of Wetlands 

• 3.11.2 HRS Guidance Manual-Suggested Evidence of Wetlands

• 3.11.3 Actually Contaminated Wetlands

• 3.11.4 Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act

3.11.1 Definition of Wetlands

Comment: APU challenged the presence of wetlands eligible to be scored as a target under the HRS, 

arguing that the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual used to 

identify wetlands at the Site relies on a definition of wetlands inconsistent with that required by the HRS. 

APU also asserted that manual is out of date.

APU stated that Wetland #2 must satisfy the HRS-required definition found in 40 CFR Part 230.3(t). 

APU asserted that the EPA cannot use other definitions, including that in the 1987 USACE Wetland 

Delineation Manual or the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, unless 

the characterization derived from those sources also satisfies the 40 CFR Part 230.3(t) definition. APU 

claimed that the EPA “not only fails to provide evidence that Wetland #2 satisfies the 40 C.F.R. Part 

230.3(t) definition of ‘wetland,’ EPA fails to even make this assertion.” 

APU also claimed that the January 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual used in the 2002 wetland 

delineation is out of date because several supplements to that document were published since 2002; APU 

stated the “EPA has designated the Southwest and Southeast Fingers as wetlands based on a 2002 study 

that fails to take into account the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regional Supplement to the Corps of 

Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region originally published in 

2008 and revised in November 2010.” APU continued to assert that the “EPA's failure to conduct a 

current wetlands delineation of the Sauer Dump which considers the, ‘[r]egional differences in climate, 

geology, soils, hydrology, plant and animal communities, and other factors [that] are important to the 

identification and functioning of wetlands,’ [addressed by the supplements referred to above by APU] 

invalidates EPA's wetlands perimeter determination, including the characterization of the Southwest and 

Southeast Fingers as wetlands. Assigning an HRS score to the Sauer Dump based on such a determination 

is inaccurate and improper.” 

Response: Wetland #2 was correctly identified in the HRS documentation record at proposal as an HRSeligible wetland consistent with the HRS definition of wetlands based on the information available at the 

time of proposal. Furthermore, the delineation has been updated and the HRS score remains sufficient to 

qualify the Site for the NPL. Neither of these two delineations relied solely on the 1987 USACE 

Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

43 

First, the 2002 delineation was not relied upon in isolation to determine if the wetlands met the HRS 

definition of wetlands. The information used to perform the delineation, the results of the delineation, and 

the methodology used to perform the evaluation were considered in determining the extent of the HRS 

eligible wetlands; but only those wetlands that were considered eligible after this evaluation were 

included in the HRS wetland evaluation. 

The definition of wetlands in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual used to perform the 2002 

delineation was examined prior to the HRS evaluation and was determined to be consistent with that 

listed at 40 CFR 230.3 as required by the HRS. Furthermore, the supplements to the 1987 USACE 

Wetlands Delineation Manual enacted after 2002 were reviewed and found to have no significant affect 

on the 2002 wetlands delineation or the determination of which delineated wetlands were considered HRS 

eligible. Finally, in responding to these comments, a new wetland delineation was performed in 2012. The

findings of this re-delineation result in only slight changes to the wetland perimeter as scored in the HRS 

documentation record at proposal. The wetland perimeter subject to actual Level II contamination is 2,271 

feet in the HRS documentation record at promulgation, as compared to 1,613.80 feet in the HRS 

documentation record at proposal, resulting in no change to HRS scores. 

HRS Evaluation of Wetlands

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, directs how wetland frontage scored as subject to Level 

II actual contamination is measured for the HRS evaluation. It states: 

For those sensitive environments that are wetlands, assign an additional value from Table 

4-24. . . . 

Estimate the total length of wetlands along the hazardous substance migration path (that 

is, wetland frontage) in the area of Level II concentrations and assign a value from table 

4-24 based on this total length. Estimate this length as specified in section 4.1.4.3.1.1, 

except: for an isolated wetland or for a wetland where the probable point of entry to the 

surface water is in the wetland, use the perimeter of that portion of the wetland subject to 

Level II (not Level I) concentrations as the length. 

 

HRS Table 4-24 identifies not only the rating values, but also cites in a footnote to the definition of 

wetland to be used for HRS purposes. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

44 

Table 4–24—Wetlands Rating Values for Surface Water Migration Pathway

Total length of wetlandsa (miles) Assigned value

Less than 0.1 0 

0.1 to 1 25 

Greater than 1 to 2 50 

Greater than 2 to 3 75 

Greater than 3 to 4 100 

Greater than 4 to 8 150 

Greater than 8 to 12 250 

Greater than 12 to 16 350 

Greater than 16 to 20 450 

Greater than 20 500 a Wetlands as defined in 40 CFR section 230.3. [emphasis added]

As cited in the footnote to Table 4-24, 40 CFR 230.33 provides the following definition:

The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground 

water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in

saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar 

areas.

Thus, wetlands meeting this definition are eligible wetlands for HRS purposes. 

Scoring of Wetlands in the HRS Documentation Record at Proposal 

The HRS documentation record at proposal discussed the identification of wetlands and notes the use of 

the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual for this purpose.

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 65 describes the wetlands at the Site:

The 2002 wetland delineation identified two wetlands, Wetland #1 and #2. Wetland #2 

includes the 1992 Wetland Units 3 through 6. The 2002 wetland delineation identified 

hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and predominance of hydrophytic vegetation in Wetland 

#2, including the 1992 Wetland Unit 6 (Ref. 14, pp. 151, 152). The locations of the 

wetlands are shown in Reference 5, Figure 4-1, page 78 and Reference 14, Figure 5, page 

99 and page 167. 

On page 40, the HRS documentation record at proposal describes both the wetlands at the Site and the 

method used to identify them:

The 2002 delineation documented the presence of two unconnected parcels of wetlands. 

Figure 5, page 99, of Reference 14 shows the two distinct wetland areas, the 25-foot 

buffer zone surrounding the non-tidal wetland areas, and the high water marks associated 

 

3 Note that the HRS cites 40 CFR “230.3” and APU cites “230.3(t).” The “(t)” in this case refers to the specific 

paragraph with the definition of “wetland.”
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

45 

with the pond northwest of Source 1 and Back River located south of Source 1. Wetland 

#1 is a small isolated non-tidal wetland covering 0.7 acre. Wetland #1 surrounds a pond 

that is north of Source 1. Wetland #2 is a larger wetland area covering 1.39 acres. 

Reference documentation divides Wetland #2 into three areas: the Southwest Finger, the 

Back River Shoreline Area, and the Southeast Finger. Wetland #2 is comprised of a tidal 

wetland area along the shoreline (below the high water mark) and non-tidal wetland areas 

in the Southwest Finger and the Southeast Finger (above the high water mark) (Ref. 14, 

p. 16 and Appendix E, p. 150). 

The 2002 wetland delineation was completed using the methodology contained in the 

revised 1987 USACE’s Wetland Delineation Manual (subsequently referred to as 1987 

Manual), and other related guidance documents (Ref. 14, p. 151). 

The 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, included as Attachment 4 to this support document, 

used to delineate the wetlands at the Site defines “wetlands” on page A14: 

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

This definition of wetlands used by USACE is effectively identical to that listed at 40 CFR 230.3 quoted 

above. Therefore, the wetlands identified at the Site using the USACE definition are consistent with the 

40 CFR 230.3 definition and eligible for HRS scoring. 

USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual Supplements

Regarding the comment that the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual is out of date because 

several supplements to that document were published since 2002, none of the changes to the wetland 

delineation methodology specified by post-2002 supplements would change the results of the 2002 

wetlands delineation or the evaluation of this delineation regarding the HRS eligibility of wetlands.

Regional Supplements to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 

Manual) were developed as part of a nationwide effort to address regional wetland characteristics, as 

regional differences in climate, soils, plant communities, and other factors are important to the 

identification and delineation of wetlands. The Regional Supplements are designed for use with the 1987 

Manual and subsequent amendments. Where differences between the two documents occur, the Regional 

Supplement takes precedence over the 1987 Manual. Replacement guidance includes, but is not inclusive 

of, adjustments to hydrophytic vegetation indicators, hydric soils indicators, wetland hydrology 

indicators, and highly disturbed or problem area wetland situations.

Upon review of the 2002 Wetland Report, prepared on 14 May 2002 by Versar Inc., it is highly unlikely 

that significant changes, if any, would occur related to the institution of Regional Supplement to the 

Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0).

Methodologies used by Versar Inc., are based on the three-parameter approach promulgated in the 1987 

Manual to delineate the wetland boundary. This methodology includes the use of the 50/20 rule to 

determine the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation; soil test pits to record soil matrix; soil redox 

concentrations and depletions (soil mottles); and observations of indicators of wetland hydrology. 

Differences in vegetation sampling between the 1987 Manual and Regional Supplement include the 

Regional Supplement’s recommended use of five stratum sampling design in contrast to the 1987 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

46 

Manual’s four-stratum approach, although the four-stratum sampling may still be acceptable upon 

coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Review of Wetland Determination Data Forms 

within the 2002 Wetland Delineation Report indicates that use of the five-stratum approach would not be 

expected to result in any changes in results, as no dominant species that were identified as saplings were 

recorded. The Regional Supplement also integrates an additional methodology for sampling vegetation, 

the Prevalence Index, which is not included in the 1987 Manual. However, this difference would not be 

applicable, as this method is typically only utilized when the 50/20 dominance test is not met and hydric 

soils and wetland hydrology are present. Therefore, methodology for vegetation sampling used during the 

2002 delineation, as well as results listed in the Versar Inc. Wetland Delineation Report, are consistent 

between the 1987 Manual and the Regional Supplement. 

Differences between the 1987 Manual and Regional Supplement include amendments to hydric soils 

indicators. Indicators present in the Regional Supplement are a subset of the National Technical 

Committee for Hydric Soils Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States that are commonly found 

in the coastal region. Soil documentation listed in the 2002 Wetland Delineation Report would meet 

hydric soils indicators within the Regional Supplement; therefore, no change in results would be expected 

to occur based on the Regional Supplement. 

Observed indicators of wetland hydrology listed in the 2002Wetland Report include a number of primary 

and secondary indicators under the 1987 Manual. Some amendments have occurred with the institution of 

the Regional Supplement, which includes additional indicators and shifts between primary and secondary 

indicators. With the numerous primary indicators documented in the report, no change in results would be 

expected to occur based on the Regional Supplement. 

Often wetland boundaries are reevaluated after a period of time. For example, when the USACE issues a 

Jurisdictional Determination (JD), the JD is typically valid for a period of 5 years. This expiration is often 

due to a variety of factors, which include changes to the site, changes within the surrounding watershed 

(e.g. increases in impervious surfaces that may affect drainage), and changes in weather/climate. 

Wetlands Re-delineation

A new wetland delineation was completed in 2012 to verify the 2002 wetlands delineation (see pages 8-

10 and 17 of Reference 62, 2012 Wetlands Delineation Report, of the HRS documentation record at 

promulgation) and the results have been reviewed to establish the eligibility of the wetlands for HRS 

purposes. The main difference between the 2012 delineation and the 2002 delineation is the jurisdictional 

hydrologic connection between the pond and the Southwest Finger, which is documented in the 2012 

wetlands delineation report (Reference 62 of the HRS documentation record at promulgation). The results 

from the 2012 wetlands delineation are shown in Figure 5 of the wetlands delineation report. The entire 

pond was not delineated as it was not scored as a Level I or II wetland. The eastern boundary of the pond 

was delineated. The eastern boundary of the Southeast Finger was not delineated because of property 

access issues; however, an approximate boundary based on field observations and topography was 

included in the delineation, as shown in Figure 5 of the 2012 wetlands delineation. Based on this new 

delineation, the wetland perimeter scored for HRS purposes does not significantly change (it increases 

from 1,613.8 feet in the HRS documentation record at proposal to 2,271 feet in the HRS documentation 

record at promulgation, remaining in the same category of 0.1-1 mile from HRS Table 4-24); and, the 

resulting sensitive environment value assigned for Wetland #2 does not change. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

47 

3.11.2 HRS Guidance Manual-Suggested Evidence of Wetlands

Comment: APU and Alliance claimed that the 2002 Versar study used to delineate wetlands at the Site 

was insufficient evidence for the wetlands due to several asserted inadequacies.

APU and Alliance claimed that it was inappropriate to evaluate Wetland #2 because it is not mapped as 

wetlands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

APU also argued: 

According to the HRS Guidance Manual, EPA may use U.S.G.S. topographical maps or 

other specialized maps to determine whether an area satisfies the 40 C.F.R. Part 230.3(t) 

definition. Absent the availability of such maps, EPA must have the area delineated by a 

recognized wetlands expert. In addition, if the target score for the wetlands area is critical 

for the NPL listing, delineation by a recognized wetlands expert is required. 

APU stated that the EPA has not provided a USGS map. APU further asserted that, because the wetland 

characterization is critical to the Site score, the EPA should have used a recognized expert to perform the 

wetland delineation instead of relying on the 2002 Versar study. APU additionally claimed the 2002 

Versar study itself was not appropriate because it is out of date since it is more than 5 years old. 

Response: The eligibility of Wetland #2 was documented consistent with the HRS. The suggestions in the 

guidance manual on how to establish the presence of eligible wetlands were not used because another 

method consistent with the HRS to identify the presence of HRS-eligible wetlands was used. 

Additionally, the information gathered in a new 2012 wetland delineation (see pages 8-10 and 17 of 

Reference 62, 2012 Wetlands Delineation Report, of the HRS documentation record at promulgation) 

confirmed the presence of these HRS-eligible wetlands. Furthermore, as explained below, even if the 

wetland were not present or not included in the HRS evaluation, the Site score based solely on the human 

food chain fishery and critical area targets would not change. 

First, as previously explained in section 3.7.2.1, HRS Guidance Manual Description of a Fishery, of this 

support document, the HRS Guidance Manual imposes no mandatory requirements on the EPA and 

simply provides suggested methods to carry out an HRS evaluation depending on the site-specific 

circumstances.

Regarding the claim that Wetland #2 is not eligible for HRS scoring because it is not mapped as wetlands 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or because the EPA has provided no USGS map as 

evidence, wetlands need not be mapped by the USFWS or USGS to document their eligibility for HRS 

scoring purposes. The HRS requirement is that the wetlands meet the 40 CFR 230.3 definition, which 

Wetland #2 does, as explained in section 3.11.1, Definition of Wetlands, of this support document. On 

page 65, the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies that the Wetland #2 areas are sufficiently 

wet often enough to have hydric soil and under normal circumstances support hydrophytic wetland 

species.

Regarding APU’s assertion that wetlands critical to a site score must be delineated by a wetlands expert 

pursuant to the HRS Guidance Manual, this is inaccurate. The relevant portion of the HRS Guidance 

Manual states:

When wetlands may significantly impact the site score (i.e., result in a site score greater 

than 28.50), further documentation may be needed to show that the wetlands meet the 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

48 

definition in 40 CFR 230.3 (documentation may include contacting a wetlands expert to 

delineate the wetlands). [emphasis added]

The contribution of Wetland #2 is not critical to the Site score because, even if the wetland were not 

present, the Site score based solely on the human food chain fishery and critical area targets would not 

change4 (and the critical area target would remain as a qualifying actually contaminated target). Also, the 

HRS Guidance Manual text above makes it clear that the recommendation of an expert delineation is 

optional. 

Concerning the age of the wetlands delineation, although the 2002 wetlands delineation is greater than 5 

years old, there is no HRS requirement that wetland delineations be 5 years old or younger. There is no 

evidence that the boundaries of the wetland have significantly changed (in terms of HRS scoring) since 

the 2002 study; and, the commenter has not asserted that wetland boundaries have changed or provided 

any evidence to that effect. As explained in section 3.11.1, Definition of Wetlands, of this support 

document, the new 2012 wetland delineation performed at the Site confirmed the presence of the 

wetlands, and the resulting shifts in wetland boundaries have insignificant effect on the HRS score based 

on this new data (see also pages 8-10 and 17 of Reference 62 of the HRS documentation record at 

proposal, containing the 2012 wetlands delineation report; see also Reference 34 of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal, a map, revised at promulgation to reflect the minor changes in 

boundary delineation). 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.11.3 Actually Contaminated Wetlands

Comment: APU challenged the HRS scoring of Wetland #2 as actually contaminated, based on its claim 

that Wetland #2 is part of Source 1 and that vegetation associated with the wetland was established after 

filling operations. 

APU asserted that Wetland #2 fits within the HRS definition of a “source” because Site contaminants 

were disposed of in the Wetland #2 area. 

APU stated that the EPA “incorrectly assumes in the DR [HRS documentation record] that all of the 

alleged potentially Sensitive Environments contain Level II contamination, including both Wetland #2 

and the Back River.” Alliance added that the “EPA assumed all of the potentially Sensitive Environments 

contained Level II contamination, including both Wetlands #2 and the Back River. However, EPA 

acknowledges elsewhere in the DR [HRS documentation record] that there is no data that demonstrates 

that the Back River is subjected to actual contamination (for instance, EPA did not score the Population 

threat as part of the Human Food Chain threat analysis for the Back River).” APU claimed the “EPA 

incorrectly treats the Level II concentrations observed in Wetland #2 as evidence of migration of waste to 

a wetland when, in fact, those Level II concentrations resulted from waste disposal activities that occurred 

in that location before any "wetlands" existed there.” APU concluded by asserting that Wetland #2 is not 

a target or receptor of contamination from Source 1, but rather is a part of Source 1. 

 

4 If Wetland #2 were not scored as a target, the only sensitive environment value of 100 for the critical area target 

would remain, lowering the Environmental Threat Targets (HRS scoresheet line 26d) to 100. However, the 

environmental threat score (HRS scoresheet line 28) would remain the same at its maximum value of 60, resulting in 

no effect on the Site score.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

49 

APU and Alliance both made several comments on the timing of wetland development at the Site. APU 

asserted that “[t]he areas of the Site that EPA characterize as Source 1, Wetland #1 and Wetland #2 were 

originally a tidal flat as reported by USGS. The vegetation that is now associated with what EPA calls 

Wetland #2 did not exist as of 1938.” APU further claimed that “[t]he vegetation associated with what is 

now referred to as Wetland #2 did not develop until the 1990s, after Mr. Sauer ceased the salvage and 

waste handling operations, including in the areas now described as Wetland #2.” Alliance added that 

“[a]fter Mr. Sauer ceased his operations, vegetation established at the Site, including the areas now 

described as Wetlands #2.” 

APU claimed that because Source 1 includes Wetlands #2, “[t]he only potential target of the alleged 

contamination from Source 1 is the Back River. EPA agrees that actual contamination of the Back River 

has not been documented.” APU also stated “There are no Level 1 or Level 2 contaminants in the nonsource portion of Wetland #2.” APU reasoned that because there is no target subject to actual 

contamination, the environmental threat hazardous waste quantity factor value should drop to 10, and the 

resulting environmental threat waste characteristics factor category value should drop to 180. 

Response: Parts of Wetland #2 were correctly evaluated as subject to level II actual contamination in the 

HRS documentation record at proposal. As explained below, parts of this wetland are exposed to 

contamination resulting from the release being evaluated, the dumping of materials containing hazardous 

substances into surface water. Meeting this requirement establishes the part of wetland exposed to 

hazardous substances as actually contaminated for HRS purposes; the timing of the establishment of the 

wetlands vs. the filling of the source does not affect this designation or that wetlands today are exposed to 

contamination due to the release at the Site. 

The subsequent parts of this response address the following issues:

• Evaluation of a Wetland Subject to Actual Contamination

• Timing of Wetlands Development

Evaluation of a Wetland Subject to Actual Contamination

The wetland is an eligible target for purposes of the HRS evaluation. As previously explained in section 

3.3.3, Overlap of Source and Wetland, of this support document, Wetland #2 is an eligible HRS target 

whether or not it is underlain by source material. The HRS does not exclude an area from being evaluated 

as a target even if it has been designated a source. And, the evaluation of Wetland #2 as a sensitive 

environment target subject to actual contamination is consistent with the HRS, as it has been established 

that contamination exists within the wetland. Furthermore, even if the fill material forms the base of the 

wetland it is not the whole of the wetland; that is, the wetland also includes the water, the sediments, and 

the fauna and flora which can be impacted by the contamination. 

Section 3.5, Description of Watershed/Current Conditions, of this support document explains that 

Wetland #2 is contiguous to the Back River and part of the surface water, and the border between Source 

1 and Wetland #2 was correctly established as the PPE to the surface water pathway.

As established in section 3.6.1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis, of this support document, the 

contaminated sediment samples from within Wetland #2 meeting observed release criteria are 

appropriately considered evidence of an observed release to the surface water at the Site. Even if the 

observed release sediment samples from Wetland #2 were considered samples of source material rather 

than surface water sediments contaminated by hazardous substance migration, as the commenter argues (a 

point that the EPA does not concede), the samples of source material would then establish an observed 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

50 

release by direct observation as described by HRS and the Site score would still be sufficient to qualify 

the Site for the NPL.

HRS Section 4.1.1.1, Definition of hazardous substance migration path for overland/flood migration 

component, states:

The hazardous substance migration path includes both the overland segment and the inwater segment that hazardous substances would take as they migrate away from the 

sources at the site: . . . Begin the in-water segment at this probably point of entry. For 

rivers, continue the in-water segment in the direction of flow (including any tidal flows) 

for the distance established by the target distance limit (see section 4.1.1.2) 

HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit, states:

If a target is located, partially or wholly, either at or between the probable point of entry 

and any sampling point that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed or 

at a point that meets the criteria for an observed release by direct observation, evaluate 

that target as subject to actual contamination . . . 

As directed in HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, Level II contamination is established in 

HRS Section 2.5, Targets, which instructs that if the hazardous substance does not exceed the 

environmental benchmark, then consider the location to be subject to Level II concentrations for that 

pathway. 

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 65 noted that “[n]o Level I concentrations of 

sensitive environments have been documented within the 15-mile downstream TDL” and established that 

Wetland #2 is subject to Level II actual contamination, stating:

Actual environmental contamination has been documented in the wetlands of Back River, 

as discussed in Section 4.1.1.1 of this HRS documentation record. As presented in Table 

17 of this HRS documentation record, sediment samples collected from Wetland #2 

contained lead and PCBs at concentrations documenting an observed release to the 

wetland (surface water). The wetland area subject to actual contamination is shown in 

Reference 34.

Therefore, Wetland #2 was appropriately evaluated as a target subject to actual contamination, consistent 

with the HRS.

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, directs how wetland frontage scored as subject to Level 

II actual contamination is to be measured for HRS purposes. It states: 

For those sensitive environments that are wetlands, assign an additional value from Table 

4-24. In assigning a value from table 4–24, include only those portions of wetlands 

located along the hazardous substance migration path in the area of Level II 

concentrations, as specified in section 4.1.4.3.1.1. 

Estimate the total length of wetlands along the hazardous substance migration path (that 

is, wetland frontage) in the area of Level II concentrations and assign a value from table 

4-24 based on this total length. Estimate this length as specified in section 4.1.4.3.1.1, 

except: for an isolated wetland or for a wetland where the probable point of entry to the 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

51 

surface water is in the wetland, use the perimeter of that portion of the wetland subject to 

Level II (not Level I) concentrations as the length. 

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.1, Level I concentrations, referred to by HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2 above, states: 

Assign value(s) from table 4–23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level I 

concentrations. 

For those sensitive environments that are wetlands, assign an additional value from table 

4–24. In assigning a value from table 4–24, include only those portions of wetlands 

located along the hazardous substance migration path in the area of Level I 

concentrations. If a wetland is located partially along the area of Level I concentrations 

and partially along the area of Level II concentrations and/or potential contamination, 

then solely for purposes of table 4–24, count the portion(s) along the areas of Level II 

concentrations or potential contamination under the Level II concentrations factor 

(section 4.1.4.3.1.2) or potential contamination factor (section 4.1.4.3.1.3), as 

appropriate. 

Estimate the total length of wetlands along the hazardous substance migration path (that 

is, wetland frontage) in the area of Level I concentrations and assign a value from table 

4–24 based on this total length. Estimate this length as follows: 

• For an isolated wetland or for a wetland where the probable point of entry to 

surface water is in the wetland, use the perimeter of that portion of the wetland 

subject to Level I concentrations as the length. 

• For rivers, use the length of the wetlands contiguous to the in-water segment of 

the hazardous substance migration path (that is, wetland frontage). 

• For lakes, oceans, coastal tidal waters, and Great Lakes, use the length of the 

wetlands along the shoreline within the target distance limit (that is, wetland 

frontage along the shoreline). 

HRS Table 4-24 states:

Table 4–24—Wetlands Rating Values for Surface Water Migration Pathway 

Total length of wetlandsa (miles) Assigned value 

Less than 0.1 0 

0.1 to 1 25 

Greater than 1 to 2 50 

Greater than 2 to 3 75 

Greater than 3 to 4 100 

Greater than 4 to 8 150 

Greater than 8 to 12 250 

Greater than 12 to 16 350 

Greater than 16 to 20 450 

Greater than 20 500 

a Wetlands as defined in 40 CFR section 230.3.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

52 

On page 67, the HRS documentation record at proposal describes the portion of Wetland #2 within the 

zone of actual contamination, the wetlands perimeter subject to Level II contamination, and the resulting 

wetlands assigned value:

Wetlands surround Source 1 (Ref. 15; Ref. 33; Ref. 34). When the PPE to surface water 

is into a wetland, the wetland perimeter is used to determine the length of the wetland 

subject to Level II concentrations (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.3.1.2). There are two PPEs from 

Source 1 into Wetland #2, the Level II wetland. PPE-1 is into the Southwest Finger of 

Wetland #2 at the north end, as shown in Reference 34. PPE-2 is into the Southeast 

Finger of Wetland #2 at the north end, as shown is Reference 34. To determine the 

perimeter of the Level II wetland in the Southwest and Southeast Fingers of Wetland #2, 

an arc is drawn from each PPE to the furthest downstream sediment sampling location 

documenting an observed release to the wetland. The arc drawn in the Southwest Finger 

is labeled Arc 1 on Reference 34. The arc is drawn from PPE-1 to sediment sampling 

location DG-SD03-0.5. The arc drawn in the southeast finger is labeled Arc 2 on 

Reference 34. The Arc 2 is drawn from PPE-2 to sediment sampling location DG-SD07-

0.5. The perimeter of the Level II Southwest Finger is estimated to be 643.75 feet and the 

perimeter of the Level II Southeast Finger is estimated to be 970.05 feet. The sum of the 

two Level II wetlands is 1,613.80 feet. A wetland assigned value of 25 is obtained from 

Reference 1, Table 4-24. Table 27 summarizes Level II sensitive environments in Back 

River Wetland #2. 

Therefore, the portion of Wetland #2 within the zone of actual contamination documented by observed 

release samples was evaluated as subject to actual contamination, with an associated perimeter of 

1,613.80 feet, and the wetlands rating value of 25 assigned (for a wetland length of 0-0.1 miles per HRS 

Table 4-24) in the HRS documentation record at proposal was appropriate. A new 2012 wetlands 

delineation performed at the Site confirmed the presence of the wetlands, and shifts in boundaries were 

insignificant based on this new data (see pages 8-10 and 17 of Reference 62 of the HRS documentation 

record at proposal, containing the 2012 wetlands delineation report; see also Reference 34 of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal, a map, revised to reflect the new delineation). Based on this new 

delineation, the wetland perimeter scored for HRS purposes does not significantly change (it increases 

from 1,613.8 feet in the HRS documentation record at proposal to 2,271 feet in the HRS documentation 

record at promulgation, remaining in the same category of 0.1-1 mile from HRS Table 4-24); and, the 

resulting sensitive environment value assigned for Wetland #2 does not change. (See areas of Level II 

wetland as illustrated in Figure 1 of this support document). 

Regarding the claim that the EPA “incorrectly assumes in the DR [HRS documentation record] that all of 

the alleged potentially Sensitive Environments contain Level II contamination, including both Wetland #2 

and the Back River,” this is inaccurate. As explained above and illustrated in the map in Reference 34 of 

the HRS documentation record at proposal, the HRS documentation record only identifies portions of 

Wetland #2 that lie within the zone of actual contamination as subject to Level II concentrations. 

Similarly, the HRS documentation record at proposal on page 66 noted that “[a]ccording to the Baltimore 

County Department of Permits and Development Management, Sauer Dump is zoned as a Resource 

Conservation Critical Area under the Critical Area Act.” On page 67, the HRS documentation record at 

proposal assigns a Level II sensitive environments score to this area as an “Area identified under Coastal 

Zone Management Act.” However, as specified by HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit, quoted 

above, this Level II score is only assigned for the portion of the target located partially at or between the 

probable point of entry (PPE) and observed release samples.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

53 

The HRS specifies assignment of a Level II concentration value for only the portion of a sensitive 

environment within the zone of actual contamination (established between the PPE and observed release 

samples); this does not mean the entirety of each sensitive environment is subject to actual contamination.

The HRS documentation record at proposal did not state that any portion of a sensitive environment 

outside the zone of actual contamination is subject to Level II actual contamination. 

Timing of Wetlands Development 

The timing of the establishment of the wetlands is irrelevant to the HRS evaluation of the Site. That is, an 

observed release of hazardous substances to the surface water pathway has still occurred, and Wetland #2 

is an eligible target currently present at the site and subject to actual contamination released by the Site.

The HRS does not require that a sensitive environments target be present in an area prior to hazardous 

substance deposition/migration to that area5

 for the wetland to be considered eligible for consideration or 

actually contaminated. 

Furthermore, APU’s claim that wetlands developed at the Site after fill was deposited is incorrect. Page 

18 of the HRS documentation record at proposal notes the following:

The oldest evidence supporting the use of Source 1 as a landfill is photographs and an 

inspection report dated 1954. The 1954 inspection report stated that the land being filled 

consisted of marshland (wetland) fronting the Back River (Ref. 3, p. 1). An aerial 

photograph from 1957 shows Sauer Dump as marshland (wetland) that is being filled. 

The unfilled marshland (wetland) is shown in a 1938 aerial photograph (Ref. 14, p. 121). 

The fill area was expanded in 1968. By 1977, the entire Sauer Dump, formerly a 

marshland (wetland), had been filled (Ref. 14, pp. 122, 123). 

This statement is supported by an aerial photography review included in the HRS documentation record at 

proposal Reference 14, an Environmental Service and Technology Corporation (ENSAT) Remedial 

Investigation report, and is supported by a 1954 Baltimore County Health Department report included in 

HRS documentation record at proposal (see page 1 of Reference 3, a June 1985 Maryland Waste 

Management Administration Preliminary Assessment of Sauer Dump, in the HRS documentation record 

at proposal). 

In addition, the EPA Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) has performed a new 

analysis of historical aerial photographs and confirmed that the general area where Source 1 is located 

was indeed the location of HRS-eligible wetlands prior to fill (see pages 10-11 of Reference 61, 2011 

EPA EPIC Historical Aerial Photograph Review, of the HRS documentation record at promulgation). 

Concerning the comment that Wetland #1 and Wetland #2 were originally tidal flats according to the 

USGS, this assertion appears to be derived from a USGS topographic map submitted as Figure 1 to 

Alliance’s comments. However, although that USGS map does show tidal flat bordering the coastline in 

the area of the Site, the actual location of Source 1 and Wetlands #2 fall on portions of the map marked 

with the USGS symbol for “marsh or swamp,” which is not inconsistent with the EPA’s characterization 

of Wetland #2. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

 

5 For example, HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, on determining the length of wetlands subject to 

Level II contamination, states to “use the perimeter of that portion of the wetland subject to Level II . . .” There is no 

requirement to use the perimeter specifically at the time of hazardous substance release.
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

54 

3.11.4 Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act

Comment: APU disputed the HRS evaluation of a critical area under the Coastal Zone Management Act, 

making the following claims: 

• EPA has provided no support for its incorrect determination that the Maryland 

Critical Area Act designation for Source 1 constitutes a ‘sensitive environment’ 

identified in the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Plan, as required by HRS 

regulations, Table 4-23. 

• Maryland's Critical Area designation applies to all land within 1,000 feet of the 

Chesapeake Bay or its tidal tributaries and does not single out a specific area as a 

‘sensitive environment.’ 

• [T]he designation of the Site as a ‘Resource Conservation Area’ does not mean that 

there has been a specific finding that the Site is an area requiring protection 

because of ecological value. 

• [T]he Coastal Zone Management Act is not a ‘plan’ making any reference to the 

Site as an area with ecological value (as required by Table 4-23) to yield a scoring 

value of 100. Rather, it is an approval by NOAA of Maryland's coastal zone 

management ‘programs.’ 

Response: The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area qualifies as an area identified in State Coastal Zone 

Management plans as requiring protection because of ecological value; is clearly within the watershed 

being evaluated for the site; and is therefore an eligible sensitive environment target under the HRS. 

The subsequent parts of this response address the following issues:

• Establishment of an Area identified under Coastal Zone Management Act

• Determination of the Sensitive Environment Value

Establishment of an Area identified under Coastal Zone Management Act

The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area is an eligible environmental target as it is an “area identified under 

Coastal Zone Management Act.” That the Coastal Zone Management Act is not titled a “plan” does not 

mean that a location included in a plan approved of by the act does not qualify as an eligible target. 

In identifying sensitive environment targets, HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, directs 

“[a]ssign value(s) from table 4–23 to each sensitive environment subject to Level II concentrations.” HRS 

Table 4–23, Sensitive Environments Rating Values, contains a list of several sensitive environments to be 

considered as targets when scoring the surface water migration pathway; the fifth sensitive environment 

listed in Table 4-23 is identified as “Areas identified under Coastal Zone Management Actb

.” Footnote b 

to Table 4-23 further clarifies that these are “[a]reas identified in State Coastal Zone Management plans 

as requiring protection because of ecological value.” HRS Table 4-23 lists a value of 100 for this sensitive 

environment. 

The HRS documentation record at proposal (see page 66) established that the Chesapeake Bay Critical 

Area falls under the Maryland Coastal Management Program approved by NOAA under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act: 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

55 

According to the Baltimore County Department of Permits and Development 

Management, Sauer Dump is zoned as a Resource Conservation Critical Area (Ref. 26, 

pp. 1, 2; Ref. 41) under the Critical Area Act. In 1984, the Maryland General Assembly 

resolved to reverse the deterioration of the Chesapeake Bay’s environment by enacting 

the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. In 2002, the Act was amended to include the Atlantic 

Coastal Bays. The Act required the 16 counties, Baltimore City, and 44 municipalities 

surrounding the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays to implement a land use and 

resource management program designed to mitigate the damaging impact of water 

pollution and loss of natural habitat, while also accommodating the jurisdiction’s future 

growth. The Critical Area Act recognizes that the land immediately surrounding the Bays 

and their tributaries has the greatest potential to affect water quality and wildlife habitat 

and thus designated all lands within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or adjacent tidal wetlands 

as the “Critical Area” (Ref. 41, p.1; Ref. 54, pp. 17, 18). 

Reference 26, Baltimore County Zoning Map, of the HRS documentation record at proposal (cited above) 

shows that the area where Source 1 is located is clearly within the “Resource Conservation, Critical 

Area.”

Reference 41, Maryland Critical Area Frequently Asked Questions, from the Critical Area Commission 

for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays, of the HRS documentation record at proposal confirms the 

Maryland definition of “Critical Area” described in the above quote from the HRS documentation record 

at proposal. 

Reference 54, Approval of Maryland Coastal Management Program, from NOAA, of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal contains the findings for the coastal nonpoint pollution control program 

submitted by the State of Maryland pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). Page 17 of Reference 54 states in part: 

FINDING: Maryland's program provides for implementation and continuing revision of 

additional management measures applicable to critical coastal areas and cases where (g) 

measures are fully implemented but water quality threats or impairments persist.

RATIONALE: Maryland has identified the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Criteria as 

additional management measures to be applied to land uses within the Chesapeake Bay 

Critical Area - 1,000 feet of upland bordering the Bay and its tidal tributaries and 

wetlands. Maryland has also identified a process to select additional measures, if needed. 

The process is tied to the Chesapeake Bay tributary strategy implementation; if a 1997 

evaluation finds that the strategies are not meeting their goals, additional measures will 

be initiated.

Therefore, the 1,000-foot zone (of which the Source 1 area overlaps a portion) is the specific area that has 

been singled out as a sensitive environment with affects on water quality and wildlife habitat; and the 

1,000-foot zone is clearly subject to added management measures for this reason.

The HRS documentation record at proposal continued on page 66 to explain that: 

The Critical Area Act falls within the Maryland Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and EPA approved 

the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program submitted by the State of Maryland 

pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

56 

1990 (Ref. 54, p. 1; Ref. 56). The Maryland Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 

is part of Maryland Water Pollution Control Laws within the Maryland Coastal 

Management Program, which has been approved by NOAA under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (Ref. 55, pp. 3, 6; Ref. 56, p. 1). Maryland’s Critical Area’s program is 

the principal mechanism used by Maryland’s Coastal Program to designate areas for 

preservation and restoration. Areas of special significance within the coastal zone are 

identified and designated State Critical Areas. Three types of coastal areas are designated. 

Sauer Dumps falls within the resource protection area (Ref. 55, p. 22; Ref. 26, pp. 1, 2). 

Resource protection areas consist of vegetated wetlands, upland natural areas, prime 

recreation areas, productive agricultural land, areas of historical and archeological 

importance, and aquatic resource areas (Ref. 55, p. 22).

Reference 56 (Electronic Mail from Joseph Abe, Coastal Policy and Project Review Specialist, Maryland 

Chesapeake and Coastal Program, Department of Natural Resources) of the HRS documentation record at 

proposal cited in the above quote from page 66 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, clarifies 

that the Critical Area Act—under which the Site area is designated as a Resource Conservation Critical 

Area—was incorporated into the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program as an Amendment to the 

Program.” Reference 56 also specifically confirms that the Resource Conservation Critical Area in 

question indeed does require protection because of ecological value.

On pages 66 and 67, the HRS documentation record at proposal further explains that:

Source 1 lies within the area designated as the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area under 

Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Act. The purpose of Maryland's 

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Act is to protect the unique Chesapeake Bay 

ecosystem and its fisheries and other resources. Specifically, the portion of Source 1 

located adjacent to Lynhurst Road is within a limited development area and the 

remainder of Source 1 is within a resource conservation area (the most protective and 

restrictive classification) (Ref. 26; Ref. 32). The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection 

Program established, preserves, and maintains a 100-foot, naturally vegetated, forested 

buffer from the mean high water line of tidal waters or from the edge of tidal wetlands 

and tributary streams. This includes non-tidal wetlands (Ref. 32). 

Ample evidence has been presented in this support document to support that the area including Source 1 

is an area identified in Maryland’s State Coastal Zone Management plan under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act; is reasonably considered to be protected due to ecological value; and qualifies as an 

HRS Table 4-23 sensitive environment “Areas identified under Coastal Zone Management Act.” 

Furthermore, as stated in the HRS documentation record (pages 66-67 quote above), the Site is considered 

a Resource Conservation Critical Area under the Critical Area Act, which falls within the Maryland 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; the Maryland Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 

is part of Maryland Water Pollution Control Laws within the Maryland Coastal Management Program; 

and the Maryland Coastal Management Program is approved under the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

That the Coastal Zone Management Act is not titled a “plan” does not mean that a location included in the 

plan approved of by the act does not qualify as an eligible target. The purpose of this designation is to 

protect the unique Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and its fisheries and other resources. This site clearly 

qualifies as an area “identified in State Coastal Zone Management plans as requiring protection because 

of ecological value,” consistent with the HRS. That the primary legal vehicle through which this 

protection is carried out is titled a “program” and not a “plan” does not negate this qualification. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

57 

Determination of the Sensitive Environment Value

HRS Section 4.1.1.2, Target Distance Limit, explains how to determine whether a target is subject to 

actual contamination:

If a target is located, partially or wholly, either at or between the probable point of entry 

and any sampling point that meets the criteria for an observed release to the watershed or 

at a point that meets the criteria for an observed release by direct observation, evaluate 

that target as subject to actual contamination . . . 

HRS Section 4.1.4.3, Environmental threat-targets, states to “[e]valuate the environmental threat-targets 

factor category for a watershed using one factor: sensitive environments.” HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1, 

Sensitive environments, discusses determination of level of contamination for a sensitive environment:

Evaluate sensitive environments along the hazardous substance migration path for the 

watershed based on three factors: Level I concentrations, Level II concentrations, and 

potential contamination. 

Determine which factor applies to each sensitive environment as specified in section 

4.1.2.3, except: use ecological-based benchmarks (Table 4–22) rather than health-based 

benchmarks (Table 3–10) in determining the level of contamination from samples. In 

determining the level of actual contamination, use a point of direct observation anywhere 

within the sensitive environment or samples (that is, surface water, benthic, or sediment 

samples) taken anywhere within or beyond the sensitive environment (or anywhere 

adjacent to or beyond the sensitive environment if it is contiguous to the migration path). 

HRS Section 4.1.2.3, Drinking water threat-targets, referred to above, cites to HRS Sections 2.5.1, 

Determination of level of actual contamination at a sampling location, which states that if a target subject 

to actual contamination does not meet the criteria for Level I contamination, it is to be considered subject 

to Level II contamination. 

On page 65, the HRS documentation record at proposal states that “[n]o Level I concentrations of 

sensitive environments have been documented within the 15-mile downstream TDL.” The area under the 

Coastal Zone Management Act present at the Site where observed release samples were identified is

therefore considered subject to Level II actual contamination. 

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.2, Level II concentrations, states to “[a]ssign value(s) from table 4–23 to each 

sensitive environment subject to Level II concentrations.”

Therefore, as specified in HRS Table 4-23, the sensitive environment value of 100 was correctly assigned

at proposal. The Chesapeake Bay Critical area is an eligible sensitive environment and it includes the 

portions of Wetland #2 documented to be actually contaminated. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.12 Environmental Threat – Waste Characteristics Score

Comment: Based on its claim that the correct environmental threat hazardous waste quantity factor value 

is 10, APU and Alliance commented that the environmental threat waste characteristics factor category 

value should be 180. 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

58 

Response: The environmental threat waste characteristics category factor value of 320 was correctly 

assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal based on the identification of an actually 

contaminated target for the surface water pathway. 

Both commenters’ challenge to this value is based on their conclusion that there were no targets subject to 

actual contamination. However, as explained in section 3.11.3, Environmental Threat Targets: Wetlands, 

of this support document, Wetland #2 was correctly evaluated as a target and subject to actual 

contamination. Additionally, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area sensitive environment was also correctly 

documented as a target subject to actual contamination (see section 3.11.4, Environmental Threat Targets: 

Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act, of this support document). 

Further, as explained in section 3.4, Waste Quantity, of this support document, the appropriate resulting 

hazardous waste quantity factor value is 100 for the human food chain threat and the environmental threat 

of the surface water migration pathway (because the hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately 

determined and because targets in this pathway are subject to actual contamination, a hazardous waste 

quantity factor value of 100 is assigned in accordance with HRS Table 2-6 and HRS Section 2.4.2.2, 

Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value). 

HRS Section 4.1.4.2.3, Calculation of environmental threat-waste characteristics factor category value, 

explains how to determine the environmental threat waste characteristics factor category value. It states: 

For the hazardous substance selected for the watershed in section 4.1.4.2.1.4, use its 

ecosystem toxicity/persistence factor value and ecosystem bioaccumulation potential 

factor value as follows to assign a value to the waste characteristics factor category. First, 

multiply the ecosystem toxicity/persistence factor value and the hazardous waste quantity 

factor value for the watershed, subject to a maximum product of 1×108

. Then multiply 

this product by the ecosystem bioaccumulation potential factor value for this hazardous 

substance, subject to a maximum product of 1×1012. Based on this second product, assign 

a value from Table 2–7 (section 2.4.3.1) to the environmental threat-waste characteristics 

factor category for the watershed.

On page 64, the HRS documentation record at proposal explains calculation of the waste characteristics 

category value for this site. It states: 

The waste characteristics factor category value is determined by taking the product of the 

highest ecosystem toxicity/persistence factor value (10,000) and the HWQ value (100), 

and multiplying the product by the highest ecosystem bioaccumulation factor value 

(50,000) (Ref. 1, Section 4.1.4.2.3). 

10,000 × 100 = 1 × 106

 

Ecosystem toxicity/persistence factor value × hazardous waste quantity factor value: 1 × 

106

 

1 × 106

 × 50,000 = 5 × 1010 

(Ecosystem toxicity/persistence × hazardous waste quantity) × ecosystem 

bioaccumulation potential factor value: 5 × 1010 (subject to maximum value of 1×1010) 

Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 (Ref. 1, Table 2-7) 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

59 

The value of 320 corresponds to a waste characteristics product from 1×1010 to less than 1×1011. 

Therefore, the HRS documentation record at proposal correctly assigned 320 as the environmental threat

waste characteristics factor category value, consistent with the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.13 Environmental Threat Targets Score 

Comment: In their comments, APU and Alliance calculated alternative environmental threat scores, 

providing two possible scenarios. The first scenario generated an environmental threat targets factor 

category value of 0.0001 based on an endangered species subject to potential contamination in the Back 

River, and assuming their assertion that there are no wetlands or other sensitive environments subject to 

actual contamination (because of their claim that Wetland #2 is not mapped by the USFWS and is not a 

receptor for contamination from Source 1 but rather a part of Source 1, and their claim there is no HRSeligible critical area). The commenters’ second scenario generated a score of 25.0001 based on the same 

endangered species subject to potential contamination and assuming Wetland #2 is subject to actual 

contamination. Both scenarios assume that the critical area under the Coastal Zone Management Act is 

not eligible for HRS evaluation. 

Response: The environmental threat targets score of 125 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation 

record at proposal. 

HRS Section 4.1.4.3.1.4, Calculation of environmental threat-targets factor category value, states: 

Sum the values for the Level I concentrations, Level II concentrations, and potential 

contamination factors for the watershed. Do not round this sum to the nearest integer. 

Assign this sum as the environmental threat-targets factor category value for the 

watershed.

As explained in section 3.11.3, Actually Contaminated Wetlands, of this support document, Wetland #2 

was appropriately evaluated as a target subject to actual contamination. The wetlands rating value of 25 

assigned in the HRS documentation record at proposal was thus appropriate. 

As discussed in section 3.8.3, Environmental Threat Targets: Areas Identified under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act, of this support document, the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area qualifies as an area 

identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the sensitive environment value of 100 was 

therefore correctly assigned.

The sum of these values is 125, as was correctly assigned as the environmental threat-targets factor 

category value in the scoresheet on page 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.14 Environmental Threat Score 

Comment: APU and Alliance challenged the environmental threat score of 60 assigned by the EPA. 

Based on assertions that the likelihood of release factor category value should be 500, the environmental 
Sauer Dump NPL Listing Support Document March 2012 

60 

threat waste characteristics factor category score should be 180, and the environmental threat-targets 

factor category value should be either 0.001 or 25.001, Alliance claimed that the environmental threat 

score should be 0.0011 or 27.27. 

Response: The environmental threat score of 60.00 was correctly assigned in the HRS documentation 

record at proposal. 

HRS Section 4.1.4.4, Calculation of environmental threat score for a watershed, states:

Multiply the environmental threat factor category values for likelihood of release, waste 

characteristics, and targets for the watershed, and round the product to the nearest integer. 

Then divide by 82,500. Assign the resulting value, subject to a maximum of 60, as the 

environmental threat score for the watershed. 

As detailed in section 3.6.1, Observed Release by Chemical Analysis, of this support document, 550 was 

correctly assigned as the likelihood of release factor category value for the Site. As explained in section 

3.12, Environmental Threat—Waste Characteristics Score, of this support document, the HRS 

documentation record at proposal correctly assigned 320 as the environmental threat waste characteristics 

factor category value, consistent with the HRS. As explained in section 3.13, Environmental Threat 

Targets Score, of this support document, the environmental threat-targets factor category value of 125 

was correctly assigned.

The environmental threat score for the watershed is then 550 x 320 x 125, which equals 22,000,000. This 

value divided by 82,500 yields 266.66, subject to a maximum of 60.00, as correctly assigned in the 

scoresheet on page 4 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, consistent with the HRS. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

4. Conclusion

The original HRS score for this site was 50.00. Based on the above responses to public comments, the 

Site score remains unchanged. The final scores for the Sauer Dump site are:

Ground Water: NS

Surface Water: 100.00 

Soil Exposure: NS

Air Pathway: NS

HRS Score: 50.00 
Attachment 1 

Chesapeake Bay Fishery Management Plans Webpage 
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans Page 1 

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS 

Copies of the Plans may be obtained through the Chesapeake Bay Program (US Environmental Protection Agency) - http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ 

Atlantic Menhaden Management Plan

The Atlantic menhaden stock is currently managed on a coastwide basis under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) 

1992 ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan (FMP). In April 2001, an amendment was adopted to improve management. The 

amendment contains a new overfishing definition for the Atlantic stock using a fishing target and threshold and a stock size target and 

threshold. The amendment also restructured the management board and technical committee to reflect the structure of other species 

management boards and technical committees. Before the amendment, the management board was composed of state, federal and industry 

representatives. The new board no longer allows industry representatives. (Link to ASMFC page for a copy of the amendment). 

The status of the menhaden stock is important to the Chesapeake Bay because of its ecological role in the food web and its filter-feeding 

capacity. Although the ASMFC amendment recognizes the important role menhaden plays in the ecosystem, specific management actions to 

address ecosystem concerns have not been developed. Currently, there are several research modeling efforts to help define how multispecies 

interactions affect population dynamics. These studies should provide the basis for developing appropriate management recommendations. The 

Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions under the auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Program will be developing a Chesapeake Bay fishery management 

plan for menhaden with the completion of a draft plan by 2002. 

Chesapeake Bay Alosid (Shad and Herring) Management Plan

Historically, shad and River herring supported some of the most valuable commercial fisheries in Chesapeake Bay. Today, shad and River 

herring are at low abundance. The 1989 Alosid Management Plan was developed to protect, restore and enhance baywide shad and herring 

stocks. Strategies include a moratorium on American shad and hickory shad fishing in Chesapeake Bay. Stock assessment surveys and 

tagging programs will be continued . Because the loss of spawning habitat has contributed to population declines, Chesapeake Bay partners 

are working to remove blockages on streams and rivers that prevent fish from migrating to spawning grounds. Other habitat factors, such as 

dissolved oxygen and physical habitat are addressed. 

Chesapeake Bay American Eel Management Plan

American eels are a catadromous species, meaning they spend most of their lives in freshwater rivers and lakes, then migrate to the ocean to 

spawn. Historically, commercial and recreational fishing for eels was extensive. Currently, the reported eel harvest in the Bay has been 

variable and the amount of eels harvested for crab bait can only be estimated. The goal of the 1991 American Eel Fishery Management Plan is 

to manage the stock so that harvest does not exceed the natural capacity of the population to maintain itself. Management recommendations 

promote protecting small eels; implement monitoring programs; and provide fair allocation of harvest, that are consistent with traditional uses. 

Chesapeake Bay Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management Plan

Atlantic croaker and spot are part of an important inshore bottom fishery along the Atlantic coast. Chesapeake Bay supports both recreational 

and commercial fisheries for croaker and spot. Commercial landings for croaker from Chesapeake Bay have dramatically declined during the 

1950's and 1960's. Spot are a favorite recreational species in both Maryland and Virginia. The 1991 Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management 

Plan aims to protect these species, while providing the greatest long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits. The plan directs Bay 

partners promote increases in fish size, improve research and monitoring; promote the use of trawl efficiency devices and bycatch reduction 

devices; and identify habitat requirements for spot and croaker. 

Chesapeake Bay Black Drum Management Plan

Black drum support a directed spring commercial fishery and recreational fishery off the Delmarva peninsula. Although black drum stocks do 

not appear to be overharvested, many unknowns surround the stock and its exploitation. The 1993 Black Drum Management Plan strives to 

protect the stock in Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic coast, while allowing commercial and recreational harvest. Strategies include stabilizing 

the commercial harvest, decreasing the harvest of small fish, monitoring and research; resolution of gear conflicts between users; the 

establishment of water quality goals and habitat protection. 

1996 Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

In the mid-Atlantic region, black sea bass are overfished and populations are currently at low abundance. This new fishery management plan 

(FMP) for the Chesapeake's black sea bass (BSB) populations will reduce fishing rates and improve protection of the spawning stock in the 

Bay and along the Atlantic Coast. The new BSB FMP contains an enhanced habitat section, including recommendations to protect important 

nursery habitat in Chesapeake Bay. Other management actions include coordinating management actions with coastal recommendations, a 

minimum size limit; gear restrictions; and promotion of better black sea bass research. 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/commercial/fmp.html 2/23/2012 9:02:01 AM 
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans Page 2 

1997 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan

The blue crab is a dominant bottom-dwelling predator in Chesapeake Bay. It is economically important to the Bay, consistently outranking 

harvests of other shellfish and finfish species in the Bay by both weight and dollar value. The 1989 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery 

Management Plan recognized the importance of the blue crab resource, identified areas of concern, and recommended strategies to stabilize 

fishing effort. The 1997 Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan has the same overall goal of managing blue crabs to conserve the baywide 

stock, protect its ecological value, and optimize long-term use of the resource. In addition to recommendations to maintain regulations enacted 

by the states, limit access to the fishery, prevent exploitation, and improve research and monitoring, the 1997 Blue Crab FMP incorporates an 

enhanced habitat section recommending protection and restoration of Bay grasses and water quality. 

Chesapeake Bay Bluefish Management Plan

Bluefish are one of the top recreational fish caught along the Atlantic coast. Bluefish are also an important recreational species in Chesapeake 

Bay. The 1990 Bluefish Management Plan commits Bay partners to protection and monitoring of the bluefish stocks in Chesapeake Bay, its 

tributaries, and state coastal waters. The plan recommends cooperation with regional coastal fish management commissions to solve 

interjurisdictional problems with managing this highly migratory species. Bay strategies include monitoring the status of the stock; 

implementing additional restrictions if necessary; reduction of wasteful harvest practices; improved catch and effort data collection; 

population biology studies; and identification of habitat requirements for bluefish. 

Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Horseshoe Crab Fishery Management Plan

Horseshoe crabs play an important role in Chesapeake Bay's foodweb, especially for migrating shorebirds and juvenile Atlantic loggerhead 

turtles. Horseshoe crabs are commercially harvested in both Maryland and Virginia. The 1994 Horseshoe Crab Management Plan aims to 

protect the ecological role horseshoe crabs by protecting spawning areas and monitoring harvest. Recommendations include limiting harvest 

during the spawning season, encouraging research, mandatory reporting for the commercial fishery, and consideration of a special permit, 

implementing a Maryland spawning survey, and working with the Bay Program to improve water quality and habitat. 

Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan

Oysters have been one of the most important commercial resources in Chesapeake Bay, but in recent years Baywide oyster harvest have 

dramatically decline. The oyster population has fallen prey to diseases, pollution, harvesting techniques, and habitat destruction. The 1989 

Oyster Management Plan was revised in 1994. It recommended the development of to initiate short and long-term management actions to help 

stabilize harvest to maintain spawning stock; promote conservation goals; develop young oyster seed sources; further research; and increase 

the market for Chesapeake Bay oysters. Overharvesting, low levels of reproduction, the oyster diseases MSX and Dermo and market issues 

are address in this plan. 

Chesapeake Bay Red Drum Management Plan

There is a modest red drum recreational fishery along the Atlantic coast and in the Bay region, but the species is not an important commercial 

species in Chesapeake Bay. However, Chesapeake Bay provides habitat for juvenile red drum. The 1993 Red Drum Management Plan 

protects red drum stock in Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast, while allowing long-term commercial and recreational harvest. 

Strategies for stock protection include size limits and gear modifications; management coordination among the costal states, support for 

biological and fishery data; and commitments to water quality improvements in Chesapeake Bay. 

Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic King and Spanish Mackerel Fishery Management Plan

King and Spanish mackerel support important commercial and recreational fisheries along the Atlantic coast and throughout the Gulf of 

Mexico. Recent stock assessments indicate that management measures in the South Atlantic have been successful at rebuilding the stock. 

However, they are still in need of protection. The 1994 King and Spanish Mackerel Management Plan recommends size and catch limits; 

measures to prevent waste due to bycatch and catch and release mortality; and continued commitment to water quality improvements in 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan

Striped bass are a fish management success story on Chesapeake Bay. This fishery was recently reopened in Maryland after a Bay-wide fiveyear moratorium. The Bay supported a popular striped bass commercial and recreational fishery, until 1970s and early 1980s, when heavy 

fishing pressure drastically reduced catches. This fishing pressure eliminated many of the larger reproductive fish. The goal of the 1989 

Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass Management Plan was to enhance and perpetuate the striped bass stock in Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries 

and throughout the Atlantic Coast range. Management measures are considered to generate optimum long-term ecological, social and 

economic benefits. Management recommendations include size limits, gear restrictions, and establishment of fishing seasons and creel limits. 

Stock assessment through biological studies and monitoring are also recommended. Bay jurisdictions are encouraged to take measures to 

meet habitat requirements for striped bass, including the reduction of nutrients and toxics in the Bay. As a result of cooperative management 

actions by the coastal states from Maine to North Carolina, the striped bass stock has been restored to historic levels. As the specifics of the 

Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass Management Plan changed with improvements in the stock, the Plan has been updated through progress reports 

(1991, 1992, 1993, 19994). A draft amendment to the Plan is being developed to replace the 1989 management recommendations. 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/commercial/fmp.html 2/23/2012 9:02:01 AM 
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans Page 3 

Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder Management Plan

Summer flounder supports valuable commercial and recreational fisheries in Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic Coast. Commercially, the 

flounder fishery generates a higher dollar value than any other finfish. They are a prized recreational catch and their distribution makes them 

available to a wide variety of fishing methods. Stock assessments indicated that summer flounder stocks are severely overfished. The 1991 

Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder Management Plan recommends size and gear limits; participation in coastal management deliberations, 

improved collection of biological and fisheries data; identification of flounder habitat requirements; and continued commitment by Bay 

program signatories to water quality improvements. The 1991 Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder FMP has been updated to reflect the current 

status of the stock and the current problems associated with managing a coastwide quota system. This Minor Amendment #1 was adopted in 

1997 and addresses overfishing of summer flounder with recommendations to implement quotas, recreational seasons, creel limits, minimum 

size limits, and a special landings permit. 

Chesapeake Bay Weakfish and Spotted Seatrout Management Plan

Weakfish and spotted seatrout are highly sought after by commercial and recreational fishermen from the mid-Atlantic to the south Atlantic. 

Both species are very popular in Chesapeake Bay, especially its Virginia waters. The lower Bay, including Virginia seaside estuaries are 

important nursery sites for larval and juvenile weakfish. Spotted seatrout are seasonal migrants to Chesapeake Bay, with seatrout spawning in 

the Bay during the summer. Historically, the commercial harvest of weakfish has ranked in the top five species, but has declined in recent 

years. Recreational surveys suggest weakfish and currently spotted seatrout sport catch are significant and often exceed commercial catch. 

The 1990 Weakfish and Spotted Seatrout Management Plan addresses overfishing by implementing minimum size limits to reduce the harvest 

of small fish, participating in coastwide management deliberations, continued stock assessments and catch/effort analyses, plus monitoring of 

bycatch. The plan also recommends identification of habitat requirements for both species and continued support for the Chesapeake Bay 

Program's water quality commitments. 

Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

In the mid-Atlantic region, black sea bass are overfished and populations are currently at low abundance. This new fishery management plan 

(FMP) for the Chesapeake's black sea bass (BSB) populations, recently adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council, will reduce fishing 

rates and improve protection of the spawning stock in the Bay and along the Atlantic Coast. The new BSB FMP contains an enhanced habitat 

section, including recommendations to protect important nursery habitat in Chesapeake Bay. Other management actions include a minimum 

size limit; gear restrictions; and promotion of better black sea bass research. 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/commercial/fmp.html 2/23/2012 9:02:01 AM 
Attachment 2 

2011 Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories 

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

1 Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: * Mercury Δ PCBs + Pesticides 

Species 

Atlantic Croaker 

American Eel 

Black Crappie 

Continued 

Waterbody 

Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries∆

Anacostia River Δ

Δ Back River 

Bush River Δ

Middle River Δ

Northeast River Δ

Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Δ

Patuxent River Δ

Potomac River (tidal)- 301 Bridge to DC LineΔ

Rock Creek (Montgomery County) Δ

Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam Δ

South River Δ

Cash Lake * 

Lake Artemesia * 

Lake Needwood * 

Lake Roland Δ

Liberty Reservoir * 

Loch Raven Reservoir * 

Millington Wildlife Management. Area * 

Tuckahoe Lake * 

Potomac River (non-tidal): 

DC Line to Dam #3 Δ

Dam #4 to Dam #5 Δ * 

Recommended Meals/Month 

General 

Women 1 Children 2 

Population 

4 4 4 

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other 

month month month 

Avoid Avoid Avoid 

4 4 4 

1 every other 

month 

1 every other 

month 

1 1 1 every other 

month 

Avoid 

Avoid Avoid Avoid 

3 3 3 

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other 

month month month 

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other 

month month month 

2 2 1 

Avoid Avoid Avoid 

4 3 

6 5 

6 5 

3 3 

8 7 

No Restrictions No Restrictions 

4 4 

No Restrictions 8 

2 2 

3 3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

6 

2 

4 

2 

3 

1 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories 

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

1 Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: * Mercury Δ PCBs + Pesticides 

Recommended Meals/Month 

Species Waterbody General 

Women 1 Children 2 

Population 

301 Bridge to DC Line 3 3 3 Δ

Blue Catfish 

Crab meat 

Back, Middle, or Patapsco Rivers including: 6 6 5 

Baltimore Harbor Δ

Other Areas of the Bay No Restrictions No Restrictions No Restrictions Δ

Blue Crab 

Crab "mustard" 

1 meal equals 9 crabs for 

general population & women (4 Mid Bay: Middle River to Patapsco River and crabs for children) Do Not Eat Crab “Mustard” Baltimore Harbor area Δ

Other Areas of the Bay Δ Eat Sparingly 

Anacostia River 5 5 4 Δ

Back River 2 2 2 Δ

Chester River 8 8 7 Δ

Elk River 2 2 2 Δ

Magothy 6 6 5 

Brown Bullhead 1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Middle River Δ

month month month 

Northeast River 1 1 1 Δ

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Δ

month month month 

South River 6 6 5 Δ

Wicomico River 7 7 6 Δ

Chain Pickerel Deep Creek Lake * 6 5 3

Anacostia River Avoid Avoid Avoid Δ

Back River Avoid Avoid Avoid Δ

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Channel Catfish Bohemia River Δ

month month month 

2 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011 
Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

 1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

 2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

 ♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides 

Recommended Meals/Month 

Species Waterbody General 1 2 Women Children Population 

Δ 1 every other Bush River 1 1 month 

Δ Chester River and Tributaries 5 5 4 

Δ Choptank River 2 2 2 

Conococheague * No Restrictions 8 5 

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Elk River (incl. C&D Canal) Δ

month month month 

Δ 1 every other 1 every other Gunpowder River Avoid month month 

Δ Jennings Randolph Reservoir 4 4 4 

Δ Middle River Avoid Avoid Avoid 

Δ Monocacy River * 1 1 1 

Δ Nanticoke River 4 4 3 

Δ 1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Northeast River month month month 

Δ Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Avoid Avoid Avoid 

Δ Patuxent River 3 3 3 Channel Catfish 

Continued Δ * Pocomoke River 3 3 3 

Potomac River (non-tidal): 

Δ DC Line to Dam #3 * 1 1 1 

Δ Dam #3 to Dam #4 <18" No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Δ Dam #4 to Dam #5 * 2 2 2 

Potomac River (tidal): 

Δ 1 every other 1 every other 301 Bridge to DC Line <18" Avoid month month 

Δ 301 Bridge to DC Line >18" Avoid Avoid Avoid 

Rewastico CreekΔ 4 4 3 

Rocky Gorge Reservoir * 6 5 3 

3 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011 
Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

 1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

 2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

 ♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides 

Recommended M

Species Waterbody General 

Women Population 

Δ Sassafras River 2 2 

eals/Month 

1 Children 

1 

2 

Susquehanna River: 

above Conowingo Dam Δ 1 1 1 

below Conowingo Dam Channel Catfish 

Continued Δ Wicomico River 

Δ Back River 

Δ 1 every other 

month 

2 

Avoid 

1 every other 

month 

2 

Avoid 

1 every other 

month 

1 

Avoid 

 +Lake Roland Δ

Potomac River (tidal): 

Common Carp Δ 301 Bridge to DC Line 

2 

Avoid 

2 

Avoid 

2 

Avoid 

Apply Potomac River advisory for carp to Bohemia, Bush, Elk (C&D Canal), Gunpowder, Northeast, 

Patapsco, and Potomac Rivers since elevated PCB levels in these locations may be anticipated. 

Antietam Creek Δ 2 2 1 

Conococheague Creek * ∆ No Restrictions No Restrictions 7 

Savage River Reservoir * Rock Bass ♥

Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries 

2 

∆ 5 

2 

5 

1 every other 

month 

4 

Spot ♥

∆ Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries 

Greater than 28 inches 1 1 1 every other 

month 

Less than 28 inches Striped Bass ♥

Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Waters 

Sunfish Statewide: allpublicly accessible la

impoundments except those listed b 

3 

∆ 1 

kes and No Restrictions elow* 

3 

1 

No Restrictions 

2 

1 every other 

month 

No Restrictions 

Δ Anacostia River * 7 7 5 

Δ (incl.Bluegill) Antietam River * 2 

4 of 9 

2 2 

Last updated: September 20, 2011 
Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

 1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

 2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

 ♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides 

Recommended Meals/Month 

Species Waterbody General 1 Women Children Population 

Bush River * ∆ No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

2 

Cash Lake * 8 7 4 

Centennial Lake * 6 6 3 

Lake Artemesia * No Restrictions No Restrictions 7 

Lake Lariat * 4 3 2 

Lake Needwood * No Restrictions No Restrictions 6 

Lake Roland Δ No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Liberty Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Little Seneca Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Millington Ponds* No Restrictions No Restrictions 5 

Sunfish (incl. Piney Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Bluegill) Continued Potomac River (tidal): 

Δ 301 Bridge to DC Line 2 2 2 

DC Line to Dam #3 ∆ * 5 5 4 

Dam #4 to Dam#5 * No Restrictions No Restrictions 5 

Rock Creek (Montgomery County) ∆ 3 3 3 

Rocky Gorge Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions 7 

Susquehanna River above Conowingo Dam Δ 6 6 5 

Triadelphia Reservoir * No Restrictions No Restrictions 6 

Wilde Lake * 

Δ Anacostia River 

6 

1 

5 

1 

3 

1 

Big Pool * 3 3 2 

Blair Valley Lake * 6 5 3 

Broadford Lake * Small and 3 3 2 

Largemouth Bass ♥ * Δ Bush River 5 

5 of 9 

4 3 

Last updated: September 20, 2011 
Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

 1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

 2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

 ♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides 

Recommended Meals/Month 

Species Waterbody General 1 2 Women Children Population 

Cash Lake * 3 2 1 

Centennial Lake * 8 7 4 

Clopper Lake * 5 5 3 

Conococheague Creek * 8 7 4 

Cunningham Falls Lake * 5 5 3 

Deep Creek Lake * 4 3 2 

Greenbelt Lake * No Restrictions 8 5 

Jennings Randolph Reservoir * 6 5 3 

Johnson’s Pond * 7 6 4 

Lake Artemesia * 5 4 2 

Lake Bernard Frank * 2 2 1 

Lake Habeeb * 7 6 3 

Lake Kittamaqundi Δ No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Small and 1 every other Lake Lariat * 1 1 

Largemouth Bass ♥ month 

Lake Linganore * 7 6 3 

Continued Lake Needwood * 3 3 2 

Lake Roland * 5 4 3 

Liberty Reservoir * 6 5 3 

Little Seneca Lake * 5 4 3 

Loch Raven Reservoir * 3 3 2 

Millington Wildlife Management. Area * 3 3 2 

Monocacy River * 8 7 4 

Myrtle Grove Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

1 every other Piney (Frostburg) Reservoir * 2 2 month 

Piney Run Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 6 

6 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011 
Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

 1 Women= of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

 2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

 ♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: *Mercury Δ PCBs +Pesticides 

Recommended Meals/Month
 

Species Waterbody General
 1 2 Women Children Population 

1 every other Potomac River @ Spring Gap * 1 1 month 

Δ Potomac River: 301 Bridge to DC Line * 2 2 2 

Potomac River: DC to Dam #3 * 3 3 2 

Potomac River: Dam #4 to Dam #5 * 5 5 3 

Prettyboy Reservoir * 6 5 3 

Rocky Gorge Reservoir * 3 3 1 

1 every other Savage Reservoir * 2 2 month 

Smithville Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 5 

1 every other St. Mary's Lake * 2 1 Small and
 month 

Largemouth Bass ♥ Stemmers Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Continued Susquehanna River above Conowingo Dam * No Restrictions No Restrictions 6 

Triadelphia Reservoir * 5 5 3 

Tuckahoe Lake * 3 3 2 

Unicorn Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 5 

Urieville Community Lake No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Wilde Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Wye Mills Community Lake * No Restrictions No Restrictions 8 

Youghiogheny River Lake * 6 5 2 

Put-and-Take Trout Fishing Areas No Restrictions No Restrictions No Restrictions 

Antietam Creek: 

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other Funkstown Bridge to Mouth Δ

month month month 

∆ North Branch Patapsco 5 5 4 Trout ♥

Δ Jones Falls 6 6 5 

7 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories 

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

1 Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: * Mercury Δ PCBs + Pesticides 

Species 

Walleye 

White Catfish 

Yellow Perch 

7 6 4 

7 6 3 

2 1 1 every other 

month 

No Restrictions No Restrictions 7 

No Restrictions No Restrictions 7 

Yellow Bullhead
 

Catfish
 

White Perch 

Waterbody General 

Population Women 1 Children 2 

Savage River * 7 6 4 

Jennings Randolph Reservoir * 4 4 2 

Potomac: Dam #4 to Dam #5 * 4 4 2 

Savage River Reservoir * 1 every other 

month 

1 every other 

month 

Youghiogheny River Lake * 2 2 1 

Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Δ

Potomac River: 301 Bridge to DC Line Δ

Bush River Δ

Elk River Δ

Deep Creek Lake * 

Gunpowder River Δ

Middle River Δ

Piney Run Lake * 

Susquehanna River below Dam Δ

Youghiogheny River Lake * 

Lake Bernard Frank * 

Liberty Reservoir * 

Savage River Reservoir * 

Wilde Lake * 

Youghiogheny River Lake * 

Δ Back River 

Bohemia River Δ

Δ Bush River 

Chester River and Tributaries Δ

Recommended Meals/Month 

Avoid 

Avoid Avoid Avoid 

Avoid Avoid Avoid 

Avoid Avoid Avoid 

No Restrictions No Restrictions 6 

2 2 2 

6 6 3 

2 2 1 

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other 

month month month 

8 7 4 

1 1 1 

1 every other 1 every other 1 every other 

month month month 

2 2 1 

3 3 2 

4 4 4 

8 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland Fish Consumption Advisories 

Statewide Fresh Water, Estuarine and Marine Waters 

Recommended Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population and Women; 3 oz Children 

NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels 

1 Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) 

2 Children = all young children up to age 6 

♥ = Fish contains more than 1g beneficial fatty acids in a fillet the size of 2 decks of cards 

Contaminant present in fish: * Mercury Δ PCBs + Pesticides 

Recommended Meals/Month 

Species 

White Perch 

Continued 

Waterbody 

Choptank River Δ

Eastern Bay: Miles & Wye River Δ

Elk River (including C&D Canal) Δ

Gunpowder River Δ

Herring Bay Δ

Liberty Reservoir * 

Magothy River Δ

Middle River Δ

Mid Chesapeake Bay: 

Pooles Island to Bodkin Point Δ

Nanticoke River Δ

Northeast River Δ

Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Δ

Patuxent River Δ

Pocomoke River Δ * 

Potomac River (tidal): 

Mouth to 301 Bridge Δ

301 Bridge to DC Line Δ

Rhode & West Rivers Δ

Sassafras River Δ

Severn River Δ

South River Δ

Triadelphia Reservoir * 

No Restrictions No Restrictions 

General
 

Population
 

6 

1 

5 

1 

3 

4 

1 every other 

month 

1 every other 

month 

8 

2 

1 every other 

month 

8 

5 

6 6 6 

4 4 4 

1 1 1 

2 2 2 

2 2 1 

2 2 2 

6 5 3 

Women 1 Children 2 

6 5 

8 

1 1 every other 

month 

5 5 

1 1 

2 1 

4 3 

1 every other 

month 

1 every other 

month 

8 7 

2 1 

1 every other 1 every other 

month month 

8 7 

5 5 

Avoid 

Avoid 

9 of 9 Last updated: September 20, 2011 
Attachment 3 

MDE Information Regarding Fish Advisory in the Back River 
     

     

                   

      

           

           

       

   

       

         

           

       

      

                           

  

            

                                  

                                   

                                    

                              

                              

                                    

                                     

                       

RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

Date: January 26, 2012

SUBJECT: Fish Advisory in the Back River (see attached pdf file)

FROM: Alicia Shultz

Hazard Ranking System Specialist 

Tetra Tech EM Inc. 

(518) 356‐3793

Alicia.Shultz@tetratech.com

TO: John Hill

Natural Resource Planner

Maryland Department of the Environment

(410) 537‐3000

Jhill@mde.state.mde.com

Ms. Shultz contacted Mr. Hill about the attached Maryland Fishing Consumption Advisory and available

at:

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Marylander/CitizensInfoCenterHome/Documents/www.mde.st

ate.md.us/assets/document/Maryland%20Fish%20Advisories%202011.pdf. Mr. Hill indicated that the

advisory was an advisory and did not keep people from fishing and consuming fish within Back River.

The advisory was not posted on the Back River and was prepared because of the concentration of PCBs

and other contaminants in the fish species. The red avoid statement in the advisory is only for advisory

purposes. Only the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has the authority to close a

fishery. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) which posted the advisory only has the

authority to advise and not to close a fishery. Also, the advisory only limits the consumption of white

perch in Back River. Therefore, the advisory does not advise not eating any fish from the Back River.

Mr. Hill is responsible for preparing the fishing advisories for MDE.
Attachment 4 

1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 

[excerpt] 
US Army Corps 

of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment 

Station 

Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition) 

Corps of Engineers 

Wetlands Delineation Manual 

by Environmental Laboratory 

January 1987 - Final Report 

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited 
The following two letters used as part of the number designating technical reports of research published 

under the Wetlands Research Program identify the area under which the report was prepared: 

Task Task 

CP Critical Processes RE Restoration & Establishment 

DE Delineation & Evaluation SM Stewardship & Management 

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, 

publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names 

does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use 

of such commercial products. 
Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 

January 1987 

Corps of Engineers 

Wetlands Delineation Manual 

by Environmental Laboratory 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
 

Waterways Experiment Station
 

3909 Halls Ferry Road
 

Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
 

Final report 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 

Prepared for	 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Washington, DC 20314-1000 
Contents 

Preface to the On-Line Edition ........................................... v 

Preface to the Original Edition .......................................... vii 

Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement ..................... ix 

Part I: Introduction .................................................... 1 

Background ........................................................ 1 

Purpose and Objectives .............................................. 1 

Scope ............................................................. 2 

Organization ....................................................... 3 

Use ............................................................... 5 

Part II: Technical Guidelines ............................................ 9 

Wetlands .......................................................... 9 

Deepwater Aquatic Habitats .......................................... 10 

Nonwetlands ...................................................... 11 

Part III: Characteristics and Indicators of Hydrophytic Vegetation, Hydric 

 Soils, and Wetland Hydrology ...................................... 12 

Hydrophytic Vegetation ............................................. 12 

Hydric Soils ....................................................... 20 

Wetland Hydrology ................................................ 28 

Part IV: Methods ..................................................... 35 

Section A. Introduction ............................................. 35 

Section B. Preliminary Data Gathering and Synthesis .................... 36 

Section C. Selection of Method ...................................... 44 

Section D. Routine Determinations ................................... 45 

Subsection 1 - Onsite Inspection Unnecessary ........................ 45 

Subsection 2 - Onsite Inspection Necessary .......................... 49 

Areas Equal To or Less Than 5 Acres in Size ...................... 52 

Areas Greater Than 5 Acres in Size ............................... 55 

Subsection 3 - Combination of Levels 1 and 2 ....................... 60 

Section E. Comprehensive Determinations ............................. 61 

Section F. Atypical Situations ....................................... 73 

Subsection 1 - Vegetation ........................................ 74 

ii 
Subsection 2 - Soils ............................................. 77 

Appendix A: Glossary ................................................ A1 

Appendix B: Blank and Example Data Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1 

Appendix C: Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C1 

Appendix D: Hydric Soils ............................................ D1 

Subsection 3 - Hydrology ........................................ 80 

Subsection 4 - Man-Induced Wetlands .............................. 82 

Section G. Problem Areas ........................................... 84 

References ........................................................... 87 

Bibliography ......................................................... 90 

SF 298 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. General schematic diagram of activities leading to a wetland/ 

nonwetland determination .................................... 7 

Figure 2. Generalized soil profile ..................................... 23 

Figure 3. Organic soil .............................................. 24 

Figure 4. Gleyed soil ............................................... 26 

Figure 5. Soil showing matrix (brown) and mottles (reddish-brown) ........ 26 

Figure 6. Iron and manganese concretions .............................. 27 

Figure 7. Watermark on trees ........................................ 32 

Figure 8. Absence of leaf litter ....................................... 33 

Figure 9. Sediment deposit on plants .................................. 33 

Figure 10. Encrusted detritus ......................................... 33 

Figure 11. Drainage pattern ........................................... 34 

Figure 12. Debris deposited in stream channel ........................... 34 

Figure 13. Flowchart of steps involved in making a wetland determination when an onsite inspection is unnecessary .................. 47 

Figure 14. Flowchart of steps involved in making a routine wetland 

determination when an onsite visit is necessary ................. 50 

Figure 15. General orientation of baseline and transects (dotted 

lines) in a hypothetical project area. Alpha characters 

represent different plant communities. All transects 

start at the midpoint of a baseline segment except the 

first, which was repositioned to include community type A ....... 56 

iii 
Figure 16.	 Flowchart of steps involved in making a comprehensive 

wetland determination (Section E) ............................ 63 

Figure 17.	 General orientation of baseline and transects in a hypothetical project area. Alpha characters represent different plant 

communities. Transect positions were determined using a 

random numbers table ...................................... 66 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Plant Indicator Status Categories ............................. 14 

Table 2. List of CE Preliminary Wetland Guides ....................... 15 

Table 3. List of Ecological Profiles Produced by the FWS Biological 

Services Program .......................................... 16 

Table 4. List of Some Useful Taxonomic References .................... 19 

Table 5. Hydrologic Zones - Nontidal Areas ........................... 30 

iv 
Appendix A 

Glossary 

Active water table. A condition in which the zone of soil saturation fluctuates, 

resulting in periodic anaerobic soil conditions. Soils with an active water 

table often contain bright mottles and matrix chromas of 2 or less. 

Adaptation. A modification of a species that makes it more fit for existence 

under the conditions of its environment. These modifications are the result 

of genetic selection processes. 

Adventitious roots. Roots found on plant stems in positions where they normally do not occur. 

Aerenchymous tissue. A type of plant tissue in which cells are unusually large 

and arranged in a manner that results in air spaces in the plant organ. Such 

tissues are often referred to as spongy and usually provide increased 

buoyancy. 

Aerobic. A situation in which molecular oxygen is a part of the environment. 

Anaerobic. A situation in which molecular oxygen is absent (or effectively so) 

from the environment. 

Aquatic roots. Roots that develop on stems above the normal position occupied 

by roots in response to prolonged inundation. 

Aquic moisture regime. A mostly reducing soil moisture regime nearly free of 

dissolved oxygen due to saturation by ground water or its capillary fringe and 

occurring at periods when the soil temperature at 19.7 in. is greater than 

5 

Arched roots. Roots produced on plant stems in a position above the normal 

position of roots, which serve to brace the plant during and following periods 

of prolonged inundation. 

Appendix A Glossary A1 

°C. 
Very poorly drained. Soils that are wet to the surface most of the time. These 

soils are wet enough to prevent the growth of important crops (except rice) 

unless artificially drained. 

Watermark. A line on a tree or other upright structure that represents the maximum static water level reached during an inundation event. 

Water table. The upper surface of ground water or that level below which the 

soil is saturated with water. It is at least 6 in. thick and persists in the soil 

for more than a few weeks. 

Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground 

water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for 

life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, 

marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 

Wetland boundary. The point on the ground at which a shift from wetlands to 

nonwetlands or aquatic habitats occurs. These boundaries usually follow 

contours. 

Wetland determination. The process or procedure by which an area is adjudged 

a wetland or nonwetland. 

Wetland hydrology. The sum total of wetness characteristics in areas that are 

inundated or have saturated soils for a sufficient duration to support hydrophytic vegetation. 

Wetland plant association. Any grouping of plant species that recurs wherever 

certain wetland conditions occur. 

Wetland soil. A soil that has characteristics developed in a reducing atmosphere, which exists when periods of prolonged soil saturation result in anaerobic conditions. Hydric soils that are sufficiently wet to support hydrophytic 

vegetation are wetland soils. 

Wetland vegetation. The sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas 

where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce 

permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a 

controlling influence on the plant species present. As used herein, hydrophytic vegetation occurring in areas that also have hydric soils and wetland 

hydrology may be properly referred to as wetland vegetation. 

Woody vine. See liana. 

Xerophytic. A plant species that is typically adapted for life in conditions where 

a lack of water is a limiting factor for growth and/or reproduction. These 

species are capable of growth in extremely dry conditions as a result of morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptations. 

A14 Appendix A Glossary