Regulatory decisions on remediation should consider affected communities’ needs and values, and how these might be impacted by remedial options; this process requires that diverse stakeholders are able to engage in a transparent consideration of value trade‐offs and of the distribution of risks and benefits associated with remedial actions and outcomes. The Stakeholder Values Assessment (SVA) tool was developed to evaluate remedial impacts on environmental quality, economic viability, and social equity in the context of stakeholder values and priorities. Stakeholder values were linked to the pillars of sustainability and also to a range of metrics to evaluate how sediment remediation affects these values. Sediment remedial alternatives proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site were scored for each metric, based upon data provided in published feasibility study (FS) documents. Metric scores were aggregated to generate scores for each value; these were then aggregated to generate scores for each pillar of sustainability. In parallel, the inferred priorities (in terms of regional remediation, restoration, planning, and development) of diverse stakeholder groups (SGs) were used to evaluate the sensitivity and robustness of the values‐based sustainability assessment to diverse SG priorities. This approach, which addresses social indicators of impact and then integrates them with indicators of environmental and economic impacts, goes well beyond the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act's (CERCLA) 9 criteria for evaluating remedial alternatives because it evaluates how remedial alternatives might be ranked in terms of the diverse values and priorities of stakeholders. This approach identified trade‐offs and points of potential contention, providing a systematic, semiquantitative, transparent valuation tool that can be used in community engagement. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:43–62. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

This article introduces the Portland Harbor Superfund Site Sustainability Project (PHSP) special series in this issue. The Portland Harbor Superfund Site is one of the “mega‐sediment sites” in the United States, comprising about 10 miles of the Lower Willamette River, running through the heart of Portland, Oregon. The primary aim of the PHSP was to conduct a comprehensive sustainability assessment, integrating environmental, economic, and social considerations of a selection of the remedial alternatives laid out by the US Environmental Protection Agency. A range of tools were developed for this project to quantitatively address environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits based upon diverse stakeholder values. In parallel, a probabilistic risk assessment was carried out to evaluate the risk assumptions at the core of the remedial investigation and feasibility study process. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:17–21. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 “pillars” of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA‐based cost–benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives’ environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The cost–benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores—because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction—compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long‐term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)‐linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values–based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA‐based cost–benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values–based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22–31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

All active remediation results in both desirable and undesirable environmental, economic, and social impacts. Balancing such impacts through sustainability assessment poses normative questions-not just objective and science-based, but those rooted in societal values, requiring engagement and a careful consideration of diverse stakeholders' priorities. Regardless of the site complexity, these priorities should be integrated into assessment approaches, a necessary evolution of sustainability for sediment remediation projects. We explore how analyses of environmental, social, and economic sustainability can be tailored for different tiers of assessment for sediment remediation projects, ranging from simple to complex. Tiers (1, 2, and 3) can be used to categorize evaluations of sediment projects across a range of complexity. Site size and complexity, availability of data, time, resources, expertise, and the level of engagement of various stakeholder groups may dictate the appropriate complexity, tools, and metrics to be used in a Remediation. 2020;31:29-44. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rem | 29 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.