SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK FOR DREDGE AND FILL PROJECTS Prepared for Port of Long Beach 925 Harbor Plaza Long Beach, California 90802
Prepared by Anchor QEA, L.P. 26300 La Alameda, Suite 240 Mission Viejo, California 92691 and Thomas Johnson, Ph.D. Thomas Johnson Consultant LLC
December 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1
Purpose .............................................................................................................................1
1.2
Background .......................................................................................................................1
1.3
Water Resources Action Plan ..........................................................................................2
1.3.1
Control Measure S-1: Operations Sediment Management Plan/Capital and Maintenance Programs ..............................................................................................2
1.3.2
Control Measure S-2: Legacy and Hot Spot Contaminated Sediment Management Plan/Remedial and TMDL Program .........................................................................3
1.3.2.1
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Toxics TMDL.................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2.2 1.4
Contaminated Sediment Management Plan ................................................... 4
Regional Sediment Management Principals and the Contaminated Sediment Management Task Force ..................................................................................................5
1.5
Green Port Policy and Sustainable Practices ..................................................................6
1.6
Organization of the Sediment Management Handbook ................................................7
2 OPERATIONS SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................... 8 2.1
Dredge Committee ...........................................................................................................8
2.2
Implementation of Dredging and Fill Projects ...............................................................9
3 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS .................................. 14 3.1
Contaminated Sediments Task Force and Port of Long Beach Sediment Management Strategies .........................................................................................................................14
3.2
Evaluation of Sediment Reuse and Disposal Alternatives ...........................................15
3.3
Sediment Management Alternatives for Clean Sediment ............................................18
3.3.1
Beneficial Reuse in a Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility) ................18
3.3.2
Beneficial Reuse for Shallow Water Habitat Creation ...........................................18
3.3.3
Temporary Upland Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse ..........................................22
3.3.4
Temporary Aquatic Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse .........................................22
3.3.5
Beneficial Reuse for Beach Nourishment................................................................22
3.3.6
Clean Cap/Cover for Confined Aquatic Disposal or Capping Projects ..................22
3.3.7
Ocean Disposal .........................................................................................................23
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
i
December 2011 100343-02
Table of Contents
3.4
Sediment Management Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment..............................23
3.4.1
Beneficial Reuse in a Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility) ................23
3.4.2
Temporary Upland Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse ..........................................23
3.4.3
Suitable Treatment Option and Reuse Opportunity ..............................................31
3.4.3.1
Cement Stabilization ...................................................................................... 31
3.4.3.2
Thermal Desorption/Destruction .................................................................. 31
3.4.3.3
Sand Separation .............................................................................................. 32
3.4.4
Upland Placement ....................................................................................................32
3.4.4.1
Landfill Daily Cover ....................................................................................... 32
3.4.4.2
Upland Confined Disposal Facility ................................................................ 33
3.4.4.3
Upland Class III Landfill ................................................................................ 33
3.4.4.4
Upland Class I Landfill ................................................................................... 33
3.4.5
Submerged Confined Aquatic Disposal Site ............................................................34
4 FILL SITE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 36 4.1
Potential Sources of Fill Material ..................................................................................36
4.2
Prioritization of Fill Material ........................................................................................36
4.2.1
Third-Party Material ................................................................................................37
4.2.2
Excavated Materials..................................................................................................38
4.2.3
Temporary Storage Material (Upland and Aquatic) ...............................................38
4.2.4
Borrow Site ...............................................................................................................38
4.3
Evaluation of Sediment Quality for Fill Material .........................................................39
4.3.1
Chemical Nature .......................................................................................................39
4.3.2
Structural Nature ......................................................................................................39
5 PERMITTING ...................................................................................................................... 40 5.1
Permit Jurisdiction .........................................................................................................40
5.2
Types of Permits .............................................................................................................41
5.3
Agency Coordination .....................................................................................................45
6 SEDIMENT TESTING .......................................................................................................... 46 6.1
Evaluation of Geotechnical and Chemical Suitability for Selected Reuse or Disposal Alternatives ....................................................................................................................46
6.1.1
Sampling and Analysis Plan .....................................................................................47
6.1.2
Sampling Frequency .................................................................................................48
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
ii
December 2011 100343-02
Table of Contents
6.2
Testing for Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility) ......................................48
6.3
Testing for Shallow Water Habitat Creation ................................................................49
6.4
Testing for Temporary Aquatic Storage ........................................................................49
6.5
Testing for Beach Nourishment ....................................................................................50
6.6
Testing for Clean Cap/Confined Aquatic Disposal Cover ............................................51
6.7
Testing for Ocean Disposal ............................................................................................51
6.7.1
Geotechnical and Chemical Analyses .....................................................................52
6.7.2
Biological Testing .....................................................................................................52
6.8
Testing for Temporary Upland Storage.........................................................................54
6.9
Testing for Treatment (Various Alternatives) ..............................................................54
6.10 Testing for Upland Placement .......................................................................................55 6.11 Testing for Submerged Confined Aquatic Disposal Site/In Situ Capping ...................56 7 PROJECT-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................... 58 7.1
Dredge Plan and/or Fill Plan .........................................................................................58
7.2
Sediment Disposal/Reuse Alternatives..........................................................................59
7.3
Monitoring Program and Environmental Controls......................................................59
7.3.1 7.4
Water Quality Monitoring Plan ..............................................................................60
Standard Best Management Practices for Dredging, Filling and In-Water Construction Activities ..................................................................................................61
7.4.1
Dredging....................................................................................................................61
7.4.2
Wharf Demolition/Wharf and Dike Construction .................................................65
7.4.3
Barge Offloading/Transport .....................................................................................65
7.4.4
Material Placement within Fill Site ........................................................................66
8 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING .................................................................................. 70 8.1
Water Quality Monitoring Program .............................................................................70
8.1.1
Dredging/Marine Excavation ...................................................................................70
8.1.2
In-Water Construction and Fill Activities ..............................................................71
8.1.3
Legacy Contamination Management ......................................................................71
8.2
Mitigation Monitoring ...................................................................................................72
8.3
Eelgrass Monitoring .......................................................................................................72
8.4
Caulerpa taxifolia Monitoring .......................................................................................73
8.5
Confirmation Sampling for Remedial Projects .............................................................74
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
iii
December 2011 100343-02
Table of Contents
9 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 75
List of Tables Table 1
Sediment Management Alternatives for Clean Sediment ................................. 19
Table 2
Sediment Management Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment ................... 24
Table 3
Port Capital Dredging Project Permit Process ................................................... 44
Table 4
Summary of Testing Requirements to Determine Suitability for Each Placement Alternative ......................................................................................... 47
Table 5
Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Reduce Resuspension and Contaminant Loss During Dredging ................................................................... 62
Table 6
Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Minimize Leakage and Contaminant Loss During Barge Offloading/Transport .................................... 65
Table 7
Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Minimize Sediment Loss During Discharge into Fill Site ........................................................................... 67
List of Figures Figure 1
Operations Sediment Management Process ....................................................... 10
Figure 2
Decision Tree for Sediment Management Alternatives Assessment ................ 17
List of Appendices Appendix A Dredge Committee Schedules and Tracking Sheets Appendix B
CSTF Application
Appendix C
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan Example: Middle Harbor
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
iv
December 2011 100343-02
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BMP
best management practice
BP
bioaccumulation potential
CAD
confined aquatic disposal
California Ocean
Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California
Plan CCA
California Coastal Act
CCC
California Coastal Commission
CCR
California Code of Regulations
CDF
confined aquatic disposal
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA
California Environmental Policy Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CSMP
Contaminated Sediment Management Plan
CSTF
Contaminated Sediments Task Force
CSTF Strategy
Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force Long-Term Management Strategy
CWA
Clean Water Act
cy
cubic yard
DMMP
Los Angeles Regional Dredged Material Management Plan
DRET
dredging elutriate test
EA
Environmental Assessment
EC50
median effective concentration
EET
effluent elutriate test
EFH
Essential Fish Habitat
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
ERL
Effects Range Low
ERM
Effects Range Median
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FDA
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
HASP
Health and Safety Plan
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
v
December 2011 100343-02
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
HDP
Harbor Development Permit
ITM
Evaluation of Dredged material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual
LC50
median lethal concentration
LOP
Letter of Permission
LPC
limiting permissible concentration
MBTA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MET
modified elutriate test
MLLW
mean lower low water
MMPA
Marine Mammal Protection Act
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MPRSA
Marina Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
NEIBP
North Energy Island Borrow Pit
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NTP
Notice to Proceed
NWP
Nationwide Permit
ODMDS
ocean dredged material disposal site
OTM
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing Manual
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PMP
Port Management Plan
POLA
Port of Los Angeles
POLB
Port of Long Beach
Ports
Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles
RHA
Rivers and Harbors Act
RGP
Regional General Permit
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAP
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SET
standard elutriate test
SIP
Standard Individual Permit
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
vi
December 2011 100343-02
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
SP
solid phase
SPLP
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
SPP
suspended particulate phase
SQO
Sediment Quality Objective
STFATE
short-term fate
STLC
Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
SWRCB
State Water Resource Control Board
SWH
shallow water habitat
TCLP
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC
total organic carbon
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UTM
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal at Island, Nearshore, and Upland Confined Disposal Facilities – Testing Manual
WASSS
Western Anchorage Sediment Storage Site
WET
Waste Extraction Test
WDR
Waste Discharge Requirement
WQC
Water Quality Certification
WRAP
Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach Water Resources Action Plan
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
vii
December 2011 100343-02
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1
Purpose
This Sediment Management Handbook was developed to guide Port of Long Beach (POLB) staff through evaluation and selection of the most appropriate management alternative(s) for contaminated and uncontaminated sediments generated during POLB dredging and fill projects. This document is intended to achieve the sediment management goals set forth under Control Measures S-1 and S-2 of the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach
Water Resources Action Plan (WRAP; 2009). Historically, sediments dredged at the POLB have been managed through careful coordination with capital improvement construction projects (i.e., fill projects), and thus, the need for creative management options was not a critical part of the planning process. More recently, however, capital improvement projects with large fill site components have been infrequent and, as a result, the need for better dredged material management planning has become critical. With the impending implementation of the harbor-wide Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), the need to dredge legacy contaminated sediment sites may increase, which may generate greater volumes of material that require placement or reuse than in recent years.
1.2
Background
Located on San Pedro Bay, the POLB is the second largest port in the United States. The POLB is a vital regional and national economic engine accounting for approximately $140 billion in annual trade, and the combined harbor handles more than 20 percent of all containerized trade in the nation. The POLB has the duty to promote maritime commerce as a core chartered mission, meaning it provides the port facilities necessary to handle domestic and international oceangoing cargo and the vessels that transport that cargo. As cargo volumes and transport vessel sizes grow, the POLB must create new land for cargo terminals and deepen berths and channels to allow safe passage of larger vessels. Creating new land and deepening and maintaining waterways involves dredging and discharging sediments from the harbor bottom, which can have adverse impacts on sediment quality, water quality, and marine biological resources. Based on obligations under the Tidelands Trust and the California Coastal Act (CCA), the POLB has a mission to promote
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
1
December 2011 100343-02
Introduction
sustainable port operations by protecting and improving water and sediment quality in the harbor while continuing port development. Specific activities involved in dredging and dredged material placement or disposal include dredging (both hydraulic and mechanical), transferring material into barges or through a pipeline, discharging material into a placement/disposal site, managing suspended solids and runoff water, and monitoring all operations to ensure compliance with environmental permits. The scope and complexity of these activities require that each major dredging and fill project implement a project-specific Sediment Management Plan (SMP) that will minimize the project’s environmental impacts and its potential for violating regulatory permits while ensuring that the project proceeds as efficiently as possible. In addition, sediments not dredged must still be managed to minimize future contamination.
1.3
Water Resources Action Plan
In 2009, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (Ports) developed and adopted the WRAP. The purpose of the WRAP is to provide the framework and mechanisms for the Ports to carry out their mission to protect and enhance water and sediment quality and to achieve the goals and targets established in the relevant TMDLs. The WRAP (Ports 2009) achieves its purpose by implementing a set of control measures that address specific sources and activities that threaten harbor water and sediment quality. A summary of the background conditions that led to the formulation of the measures are described in more detail in the WRAP and the TMDL comments provided to the U.S. Environmental Policy Act (USEPA) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in February 2011. Control Measures S-1 and S-2 of the WRAP specifically address sediment management within the Ports.
1.3.1
Control Measure S‐1: Operations Sediment Management Plan/Capital and Maintenance Programs
Control Measure S-1 (Operations Sediment Management Plan/Capital and Maintenance Programs) was created to protect sediment quality. It calls on the Ports to “develop sediment management policy/guidance establishing priorities for removal, disposal, and management Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
2
December 2011 100343-02
Introduction
of sediments with a clear decision-making framework.” Briefly, Control Measure S-1 provides an overall framework for how the Ports manage dredged material as part of their standard operations, including the construction of new fill areas and capital and maintenance dredging projects. This measure consists of establishing a sediment quality baseline and formulating a management strategy to address testing, dredging, and disposal of clean and contaminated sediments generated during routine port operations. Measure S-1 also helps minimize potential water quality impacts from water column exposure to dredged material.
1.3.2
Control Measure S‐2: Legacy and Hot Spot Contaminated Sediment Management Plan/Remedial and TMDL Program
Control Measure S-2 (Legacy Hot Spot Management/Remedial and TMDL Program) differs from Measure S-1 in that it is intimately related to TMDLs developed by the USEPA and RWQCB. Specifically, this measure provides for developing strategies to manage TMDL compliance and implementation and to manage legacy contaminants in sediments. As part of Control Measure S-2, the POLB will work with TMDL stakeholders to develop a Contaminated Sediment Management Plan (CSMP) that will provide guidance for identifying hot spots/legacy contaminants and prioritizing these areas for effective management. Sites to be managed will be prioritized for action and coupled with development projects when feasible. Once a contaminated site has been targeted for management, site-specific cleanup criteria will be developed following protocols consistent with national remediation guidance. POLB-led projects will be incorporated into the Operations SMP process.
1.3.2.1
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Toxics TMDL
A TMDL for toxic pollutants in the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters is expected to be completed in March 2012. The TMDL will address water quality impairments due to metals and organic compound concentrations in multiple environmental media, including harbor sediments. Historic activities in the Dominguez Channel watershed and San Pedro Bay have contributed to the current elevated sediment concentrations observed in some areas of the harbor. While Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
3
December 2011 100343-02
Introduction
POLB programs have resulted in substantial improvement to sediment quality in recent decades, more action must be taken to meet the full beneficial uses of the harbor and comply with the TMDL. Therefore, certain sediment hot spots within the POLB must be properly managed to ensure compliance with the TMDL throughout the next 20 years. A CSMP (see Section 1.3.2.2) will be developed to assist in this effort.
1.3.2.2
Contaminated Sediment Management Plan
A CSMP framework has been proposed as part of the TMDL and has been developed as part of Control Measure S-2 to ensure management actions are ecologically beneficial and logistically and economically feasible and to identify, prioritize, and manage chemically impacted sediments where necessary to protect/improve marine community health. The CSMP framework uses a risk-based approach to assess benthic impacts due to chemically mediated effects in order to determine the magnitude and extent of cleanup actions for the long-term management of legacy contaminants. To accomplish cleanup actions, the CSMP will use the recently established Sediment Quality Objectives (SQOs; SWRCB and CalEPA 2009) as a more relevant sediment quality indicator to determine areas requiring remediation and to demonstrate compliance. SQOs use multiple lines of evidence by integrating synoptically collected benthic community, sediment toxicity, and sediment chemistry to determine level of impact from chemicals of concern. Sediment quality will be evaluated as part of a sediment monitoring program. Impacts of sediment bound contaminants will be evaluated through the SQO process developed by the California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB; SWRCB and CalEPA 2009). If chemicals within sediments are contributing to an impaired benthic community, then causative agent(s) must be determined using SQO recommended procedures. Impacted sediments will then be included in the list of sites to be managed. Sites will be prioritized for action and coupled with development projects when feasible. This process will prioritize management efforts on sites with the greatest impact to the overall health of the benthic community, and sites with lower risks will be addressed in later phases when opportunities can be coupled to capital development projects. Once a contaminated site has been targeted for management, site-specific cleanup criteria will be developed following established protocols and consistent with national remediation guidance. The site will then be managed, and improvements confirmed through a sediment monitoring program. Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
4
December 2011 100343-02
Introduction
The management of sediments for the attainment of the fish tissue targets will be developed as the relationship between the sediments and fish tissue are better defined through ongoing scientific studies.
1.4
Regional Sediment Management Principals and the Contaminated Sediment Management Task Force
The sediment management strategies presented in this document are consistent with the regional policies, goals, strategies, and recommendations outlined in the Los Angeles
Contaminated Sediments Task Force Long-Term Management Strategy (CSTF Strategy; 2005) and the Los Angeles Regional Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP; Everest and Anchor 2009). Dredging, disposal, and the long-term management of contaminated sediments in the Los Angeles region are overseen by the Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force (CSTF). The CSTF includes representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USEPA, National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), California Coastal Commission (CCC), Los Angeles RWQCB, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), POLB, Port of Los Angeles (POLA), City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors, Heal the Bay, and other interested parties. The POLB is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the development and implementation of the CSTF Strategy (2005) and has been an active member of the CSTF since its creation in 1997. The CSTF Strategy is based upon four key principles: 1. Provide interagency coordination during project planning. CSTF members, including the POLB, recognized that effective project planning requires early and frequent communication among the project proponent, the regulatory agencies, and interested parties, such as environmental groups, in order to minimize delays, maximize environmental protection, and take advantage of opportunities for beneficial reuse and creative sediment management. 2. Use dredging and disposal best management practices (BMPs). The POLB’s sediment management approach outlines a process for selecting appropriate project-specific
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
5
December 2011 100343-02
Introduction
BMPs, including dredging equipment and methods, turbidity control measures for dredging and disposal, and monitoring protocols. 3. Beneficially reuse all sediments generated on a project. The CSTF has a long-term goal of 100 percent beneficial reuse of dredged contaminated dredged sediments. The POLB’s sediment management approach describes reuse alternatives for contaminated sediment management and outlines the process for selecting the appropriate alternative for a given project. 4. Employ a clear hierarchy of potential management alternatives. The POLB’s sediment management approach establishes a hierarchy of beneficial reuse options (see Section 2.1), such as beach nourishment, treatment, and conversion to marketable products, placement in a port fill or other confined upland disposal opportunity, or use in landfills as daily cover. Other management options used primarily for uncontaminated material (e.g., temporary aquatic storage) are discussed as well, and guidance is provided on appropriate scenarios for these uses. The sediment management approach presents a decision tree for selecting the appropriate project-specific management alternative and provides guidance for evaluating each step of the decision process.
1.5
Green Port Policy and Sustainable Practices
Additionally, the sediment management guidelines are consistent with the POLB’s Green Port Policy that requires establishing environmentally responsible decision-making frameworks to reduce environmental impacts from port operations. The POLB is committed to integrating sustainable practices in design, construction, operations, and administrative practices throughout the POLB. Accordingly, the POLB has developed Sustainable Design
and Construction Guidelines that provide recommendations for integrating sustainability elements into port marine, site, infrastructure and building-related construction projects and operations. This Sediment Management Handbook reflects the POLB’s commitment to sustainability and incorporates sustainable strategies for dredging and fill projects including:
Beneficial reuse. The POLB is committed to beneficially reusing clean or contaminated dredged sediments. Beneficial reuse options, such as reusing the material as fill material for a port landfill, are ranked higher in priority in terms of
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
6
December 2011 100343-02
Introduction
disposal alternatives.
Third-party fill material. Whenever feasible, the POLB will provide opportunities for outside third parties to dispose of their dredged material in port landfill projects. This option facilitates the management of sediment within the region while allowing the material to be beneficially reused in a sustainable manner.
Construction BMPs. To reduce environmental impacts during dredging, filling, and in-water construction activities, appropriate BMPs will be identified in each projectspecific SMP and implemented during project activities. These BMPs focus on dredging equipment and construction methods in order to minimize turbidity and impacts to water quality.
Project planning and coordination. The POLB’s internal dredge committee oversees port-wide sediment management and will coordinate to identify opportunities to couple dredge projects with capital development projects. The POLB will also coordinate with the CSTF on opportunities to beneficially reuse regional dredged material.
1.6
Organization of the Sediment Management Handbook
The Sediment Management Handbook is organized as follows:
Section 2: Operations Sediment Management Plan
Section 3: Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
Section 4: Fill Site Management
Section 5: Permitting
Section 6: Sediment Testing
Section 7: Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
Section 8: Environmental Monitoring
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
7
December 2011 100343-02
2 OPERATIONS SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN The POLB’s Operations SMP builds on the policies, institutions, and procedures already in place within southern California. As previously mentioned, basic policy guidance is provided in the CSTF Strategy (2005) and associated technical studies. Overall implementation of the POLB’s SMP is the responsibility of three primary POLB divisions: Program Management, Environmental Planning, and Construction Management. On a project-level basis, POLB staff are responsible for the day-to-day successful implementation of the goals and objectives of the program. Review of available sediment management alternatives and selection of the most appropriate option will be conducted by representatives of both the Engineering Bureau and the Environmental Planning Division, working in conjunction with members of the CSTF.
2.1
Dredge Committee
The Dredge Committee, which discusses current and future port dredge and fill projects, acts as the POLB’s internal working group for sediment management. The committee consists of representatives from the POLB’s Engineering Bureau—the Chief Harbor Engineer, the Director of Program Management, and one or more program managers responsible for projects involving dredge and/or fill operations—and Environmental Planning Division—the Director of Environmental Planning and one or more environmental specialists responsible for water quality, sediment management, and liaison with the regulatory agencies, specifically through the CSTF. The Dredge Committee’s chairperson is the Chief Harbor Engineer. The committee meets monthly or whenever the chairperson determines the need for a meeting based upon the status of POLB maintenance and development projects.
Specific roles and responsibilities of Engineering Bureau and Environmental Planning Division staff, respectively, as members of the Dredge Committee include:
Engineering Bureau
Track projects that involve or may involve dredging and fill and report their status to the Dredge Committee
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
8
December 2011 100343-02
Operations Sediment Management Plan
Maintain a sediment budget for the POLB, including an inventory of in-port disposal and storage site capacity, anticipated project and maintenance dredge and fill volumes, and an accounting of potential shortfalls and surpluses (see Appendix A)
Keep an account of sediment movement, including volumes and sources of sediment (in port and off site), reuse, and disposal sites for specific dredging projects and use of imported material in POLB projects
Maintain a medium-term (5 to 10 year) schedule of anticipated dredge and fill projects
Maintain a port-wide project database that includes project plans and drawings, permit support data and reports, and monitoring data and reports for every dredging and disposal project
Ensure legacy hot spots are managed in a timely and efficient manner
Environmental Planning Division
Coordinate the POLB’s development and maintenance activities with the CSTF, including periodic reporting of the POLB’s status with regard to dredge and fill projects
Track regulatory developments that may affect projects and report these developments to the Dredge Committee
2.2
Ensure legacy hot spots are managed in a timely and efficient manner
Implementation of Dredging and Fill Projects
Under the POLB’s Operations SMP, dredging (capital and maintenance) and fill projects are executed according to the process illustrated in Figure 1 and detailed below. Additionally, once hot spot/legacy sites are identified and targeted for management by the POLB under the CSMP, they will be incorporated into the Operations SMP process. The three divisions work together with the Dredge Committee to execute projects to ensure priorities and best management strategies are met.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
9
December 2011 100343-02
Operations Sediment Management Plan
Figure 1. Operations Sediment Management Process Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
10
December 2011 100343-02
Operations Sediment Management Plan
Step 1: Project Initiation. After a required dredging action or fill need has been identified, the first step is to develop a detailed project description and quantify all in-water elements. Based on the detailed project description, the Project Engineer, in consultation with the Dredge Committee, will determine the following:
Dredging projects. Identify preferred and alternative disposal/beneficial reuse options for clean and contaminated dredge material. Detailed guidance for evaluating sediment beneficial reuse and disposal alternatives can be found in Section 3.
Fill projects. Identify preferred and alternative fill material sources. Detailed guidance for evaluating sources of fill material can be found in Section 4.
All projects. Incorporate contaminated sediment hot spot management as deemed suitable by the Dredge Committee.
A Harbor Development Permit (HDP) application will need to be submitted to the Environmental Planning Division once the details of the project have been finalized to initiate environmental review of the project. At a minimum, the HDP application must be include the following items:
A detailed project description that quantifies all in-water elements of the project (e.g., total amount of material to be dredged, total amount of cut/marine excavation material, total quantity of fill material needed, in-water construction activities, project schedule)
Conceptual level design drawings that include dredge foot print, depths, and volumes
Preferred and alternative disposal/beneficial reuse
Preferred and alternative fill material source
Step 2: Permitting. The Environmental Planning Division will review the HDP application and initiate the regulatory agency application process (see CSTF application in Appendix B). Required regulatory agency permits generally include USACE and RWQCB permits (see Section 5 for more details). As part of the regulatory permitting process, the Environmental Planning Division will:
Initiate a project-specific SMP (Section 7)
Develop a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) according to the CSTF process (Section
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
11
December 2011 100343-02
Operations Sediment Management Plan
6)
Conduct sediment sampling (including soil sampling for cut/marine excavation material if applicable) to determine disposal or placement options for all material that requires rehandling (Section 6)
Validate potential disposal and or reuse options for material
Validate potential fill material sources
Finalize a project-specific SMP (Section 7)
Present project to CSTF during the USACE and RWQCB permit process
Obtain regulatory permits/approvals (Section 5)
Modify SMP as required
Please note that the Environmental Planning Division will also be leading the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the project in conjunction with these efforts (CEQA process is not discussed in this document). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process will be led by the lead federal agency. Step 3: Final Project Design. The final project design stage includes preparing the engineering design plans and specifications for the project and preparing the bid packages, soliciting bids and contracting with the selected contractor. Design plans and bid specification packages should include:
Copies of regulatory permits
Project-specific SMP or environmental controls/BMPs listed in the SMP
Project environmental controls and mitigation measures listed in the project environmental document (e.g., CEQA/NEPA document)
Step 4: Pre-construction. This step includes issuance of a Notice to Proceed (NTP). During this stage, Construction Management will:
Review and approve contractor submittals
Ensure contractor compliance with all permit and environmental control requirements
Provide the Environmental Planning Division with all required documentation (dredge and disposal plans, bathymetry surveys, etc.) for regulatory reporting
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
12
December 2011 100343-02
Operations Sediment Management Plan
Environmental Planning will:
Obtain regulatory NTPs
Step 5: Project Construction. This step involves monitoring during project activities to ensure compliance with permit requirements. The Environmental Planning and Construction Management divisions’ roles, respectively, during this step are described below:
Environmental Planning
Oversee field water quality monitoring and reporting in accordance with Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) and other environmental monitoring in accordance with regulatory permits (Section 8)
Notify the Construction Management Division of any compliance concerns
Provide technical support to the Construction Management Division
Construction Management
Oversee all construction-related activities
Ensure contractor compliance with all permit and environmental control requirements (Section 8)
Submit Inspection forms and other required documentation to the Environmental Planning Division as required
Immediately notify the Environmental Planning Division of any regulatory concerns or violations
Provide the Environmental Planning Division with all documents required for post-dredge report
Update Dredge Committee on final dredge and fill volumes for master list
Step 6: Permit Closure. Once the project is completed or as permitted activities (depending on length of project) are completed, the Environmental Planning Division will submit the necessary documents (e.g., post-dredge report and final water quality monitoring summary reports) to agencies for permit compliance and permit closure.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
13
December 2011 100343-02
3 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS This section describes CSTF and POLB strategies for managing the disposal of clean and contaminated sediment and presents a decision tree for selecting appropriate sediment management alternatives.
3.1
Contaminated Sediments Task Force and Port of Long Beach Sediment Management Strategies
The CSTF Strategy (2005) recommends the following order of priority for managing clean sediments (i.e., those deemed suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal): 1. Beach replenishment 2. Beneficial use in a port fill 3. Storage, either in-water or upland, for later reuse 4. Beneficial use as cover material, either upland or for a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site 5. Unconfined ocean disposal The CSTF Strategy (2005) recommends the following order of priority for managing contaminated sediments: 1. Beneficial use in a port fill or, particularly for structurally unacceptable material, placement in an upland storage or storage/treatment/reuse facility for later reuse 2. Other upland beneficial use, including landfill daily cover or conversion to a marketable/useful material 3. CAD, to be considered only when all other options have been exhausted As the POLB’s development continues to respond to increasing cargo volumes and the need for available land, land-based storage and treatment sites will become increasingly scarce. Accordingly, the POLB’s SMP gives a higher priority to a variety of specific reuse options and places less emphasis on sediment treatment. The POLB’s priority list, much like the CSTF Strategy (2005), emphasizes beneficial use as port fill, habitat enhancement/creation, and beach nourishment for managing clean dredged material. As with the CSTF Strategy, the POLB regards disposal (i.e., discarding of dredged material) as a last resort, to be used Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
14
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
only in the event that no agency-approved, cost-effective reuse options meeting the project schedule can be identified. The POLB evaluates sediment management options for clean sediments according to the following order of priority: 1. Beneficial reuse in a port fill (nearshore confined disposal facility [CDF]) 2. Beneficial reuse for shallow water habitat (SWH) creation 3. Temporary aquatic storage for later beneficial reuse (i.e., Western Anchorage Storage Site) 4. Beneficial reuse for beach nourishment 5. Clean cap/cover for CAD or capping projects 6. Ocean disposal The POLB’s evaluates sediment management options for contaminated material according to the following order of priority: 1. Beneficial reuse in a port fill (nearshore CDF) 2. Temporary upland storage for later beneficial reuse 3. Suitable treatment option and reuse opportunity 4. Upland placement (i.e., daily cover, construction fill) 5. Submerged CAD site
3.2
Evaluation of Sediment Reuse and Disposal Alternatives
The selection of appropriate sediment management alternatives for contaminated and clean dredged material should be conducted in accordance with the decision tree illustrated in Figure 2, whenever possible. Upon determination of a required dredging action, the available beneficial reuse options and other regional placement options for clean and contaminated material should be identified. The decision tree (Figure 2) indicates the hierarchy of sediment options, presenting two hierarchical pathways for evaluating preferred sediment management alternatives for clean or contaminated material. This sequence is appropriate and in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) and with the goals of the CSTF, which include maximizing beneficial reuse of dredged material and minimizing unconfined Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
15
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
discharges of dredged material to the ocean (clean material) or upland landfill disposal (contaminated material). A specialized sediment testing program should be designed in accordance with the testing requirements for each sediment management option, as described in Section 6. This program should be designed to simultaneously test for available beneficial reuse and alternative placement options where possible. The program should plan to perform testing using a phased approach in order to minimize the costs associated with the collection and analysis of dredged material. As shown on Figure 2, preferred sediment management alternatives for clean or contaminated material can be evaluated by using one of two hierarchical pathways: 1. If bulk sediment chemistry indicates that the material is contaminated, then beneficial reuse as port construction fill and other upland construction fill options should initially be considered. If no immediate port construction fill project is available or possible, then temporary upland storage should be considered, such that the material could eventually be beneficially used in a fill when an option becomes available. If a temporary upland storage site is not available, then suitable treatment options and reuse opportunities for resulting clean material should be considered. Alternatively, dredged material may be placed upland (e.g., daily cover, construction fill). Placement in a submerged CAD should be the last option evaluated and only used if all other options are unavailable or not viable. All testing requirements for determining suitability for each of these options are discussed in Section 6. 2. If bulk sediment chemistry indicates that the material is clean (i.e., suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal), then port construction fill, if available, should again first be considered to achieve beneficial reuse of the material. If a port fill is not available, material should be evaluated for SWH creation, temporary aquatic storage (until beneficial reuse alternative becomes available), beach nourishment, and clean cap alternatives. Unconfined ocean disposal should be the last alternative to be evaluated and used only for situations in which no other short- or long-term options are practical for clean sediment. All testing requirements for determining suitability for each of these options are discussed in Section 6.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
16
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
Figure 2. Decision Tree for Sediment Management Alternatives Assessment Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
17
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
3.3
Sediment Management Alternatives for Clean Sediment
The preferred sediment management alternatives for clean sediment are those that involve the regional beneficial reuse of the material, such as port fill (nearshore CDF) or SWH creation. Alternatively, the material may be temporarily stored in an approved aquatic storage area until one of these beneficial reuse alternatives becomes available. If a temporary aquatic storage site is unavailable, the dredged material may be beneficially used for beach nourishment or capping material. Sediment management alternatives for clean sediment are summarized in Table 1 and are described in more detail in the following subsections.
3.3.1
Beneficial Reuse in a Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility)
Nearshore CDFs are diked islands or nearshore areas constructed with containment and control measures, such as covering and effluent control. Nearshore CDFs are typically created by constructing a containment dike, placing contaminated dredged material along with structural fill material (i.e., clean sand) behind the dike, using weirs to dewater the material, and covering material with asphalt and/or concrete. The resulting CDF can then be used to support port operations or other future uses. Nearshore CDFs have been used as a consequence of port construction and development to increase cargo-handling capacity.
3.3.2
Beneficial Reuse for Shallow Water Habitat Creation
To create a SWH, clean or contaminated dredged material is placed behind a subaqueous dike at depths that support essential habitat (e.g., eelgrass [Zostera marina] at -3 to -4.5 meters [-10 to -15 feet] mean lower low water [MLLW]). Contaminated material is then capped with clean material. Because of the significant loss of SWHs in bays, harbors, and estuaries in the region and the need for mitigation due to habitat loss, SWH creation has become a preferred beneficial reuse in southern California.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
18
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
Table 1 Sediment Management Alternatives for Clean Sediment Management Alternative and Priority Ranking
Relative Cost1
Factors Affecting Cost
Moderate 1. Beneficial reuse in a port Placement in (low if nearshore area behind fill (nearshore CDF) completed as diked berm or part of port fill) perimeter with covering and effluent control
Transport distance Quantity of material Geometry of nearshore area/size of required dike
Beneficial reuse of material Potentially cost effective Regional examples Regulatory acceptance
2. Beneficial reuse for SWH Sub‐aqueous placement (potentially creation behind a dike) at depths supporting photosynthetic organisms
Low to Moderate
Transport distance Quantity of material Magnitude of contamination, if present
Beneficial reuse of material Mitigation credits achieved Regional full‐scale examples Demonstrated alternative
Low
Transport distance to storage site Quantity of material Availability of location for aquatic storage
Cost Regional aquatic storage area – Western Anchorage Storage Site (POLB) Potential for future beneficial reuse
3. Temporary aquatic storage for later beneficial reuse
Brief Description
Temporary placement in a designated submerged aquatic storage area until it can be removed and beneficially used
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
19
Advantages
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Limited to availability CEQA (and possibly of suitable nearshore NEPA) document areas or port required construction fill Resource agency projects coordination Restrictions on regarding mitigation physical material requirements types for CSTF coordination, constructability Coastal Development Permit/Port Master Plan Amendment, USACE404/401 permits Limited areas Typically handled on available in southern a case‐by‐case basis California by the CSTF Contaminated Typically it’s material requires a authorized as cap for additional mitigation and cost contained in project specific authorization NGOs may Typically handled on disapprove (not a case‐by‐case basis considered a by the CSTF beneficial reuse) Limited availability
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments Management Alternative and Priority Ranking 4. Beneficial reuse for beach nourishment
Brief Description Placement on or offshore of eroding beaches
5. Clean cap/cover for CAD Placement of clean sediment as capping or capping projects material over contaminated material to isolate contaminants
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
Relative Cost1
Factors Affecting Cost
Advantages
Low
Transport distance from dredge site Quantity of material
Low
Area requiring capping Type of contaminant(s) Hydrodynamics of area (potential erosive forces) Proximity of project capping need Amount and thickness of capping material required
Beneficial reuse of material Cost effective Numerous beaches in the region in need of replenishment Acceptable by regulators and NGOs Potentially cost‐ effective Beneficial reuse of material Regionally accepted management alternative Regional examples (i.e., Port of Hueneme cap on CAD)
20
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Material must have Typically handled on comparable physical a case‐by‐case basis characteristics as by the CSTF placement beach Material must be relatively clean (no effects range median exceedances) Reused sediment None; projects must be shown to be permitted under sufficiently free of 404 authority from chemical impacts USACE, with 401 WQC from RWQCB Possible physical constraints: Cap CCC consistency design will limit the determination likely required for any types of material nearshore capping that can be used as sediment cap projects Capping may prompt questions from NGOs regarding why contaminants are not being physically removed from the site Long‐term monitoring will be needed (as for any capping project)
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments Management Alternative and Priority Ranking 6. Ocean Disposal
Brief Description Placement at a designated regional ocean disposal site
Relative Cost1
Factors Affecting Cost
Advantages
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Low to Moderate
Transport distance to disposal site Quantity of material
Straight‐forward regulatory approval process
NGOs may disapprove (not considered a beneficial reuse) Material must meet limiting permissible concentration requirements
Oversight provided by the USEPA Region IX and Los Angeles District of the USACE to meet the requirements of Section 103 of MPRSA, with 401 WQC from RWQCB
Notes: NGO = Non‐Governmental Organization WQC = Water Quality Certification 1 Costs based on those specified in the CSTF Strategy (2005) and the DMMP (Everest and Anchor 2009).
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
21
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
3.3.3
Temporary Upland Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse
An upland disposal and storage site would consist of a contained area within the harbor district where contaminated sediments could be placed and subsequently managed on a long-term basis. While direct beneficial reuse alternatives are preferred, an upland disposal and storage site allows for the removal of contaminated material and is less costly than landfill disposal due to low transportation costs. In addition, material may ultimately be removed from an upland storage site and beneficially used should such an alternative become available. At present, no upland storage sites are designated within the POLB, but sediments have been stored at temporary upland sites in the past.
3.3.4
Temporary Aquatic Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse
Temporary storage is the placement of material that may be suitable for a beneficial reuse at a later time (e.g., future port construction fill). Dredged material is temporarily stored at an aquatic storage site until future fill sites or other beneficial reuse alternatives become available. The POLB’s Western Anchorage Storage Site has previously been used as a temporary aquatic storage area; placement has been subject to the same testing and regulatory approval process as material being evaluated for ocean disposal.
3.3.5
Beneficial Reuse for Beach Nourishment
Beach nourishment is the placement of material on eroding beaches or in nearshore areas to widen and/or protect beaches. Beach nourishment is typically used to enhance and replenish recreational beaches that are affected by significant littoral movement and subsequent erosion. Material used to replenish eroding beaches must be clean and have comparable grain size and aesthetic characteristics to that of the beach under consideration. In southern California, beach nourishment is an important beneficial reuse, because numerous public beaches need continued maintenance.
3.3.6
Clean Cap/Cover for Confined Aquatic Disposal or Capping Projects
Sediment may be used as capping material for a CAD or capping project. Capping involves the placement of clean sediment over contaminated material to isolate contaminants. For a CAD site, contaminated sediment is placed within a submerged depression and subsequently Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
22
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
capped, as described in more detail in Section 3.4.5. Alternatively, contaminated sediment may be capped in-place. Capping material is typically comprised of sand and must be free of contaminants.
3.3.7
Ocean Disposal
Ocean disposal involves the placement of dredged material in a designated ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS). As described in Table 1, ocean disposal is the last alternative to be considered, but there will likely be occasions when ocean disposal is the only costeffective feasible alternative. Two regional ODMDS locations may be considered by the POLB: the permanently designated LA-2, offshore of San Pedro (the more common disposal site for POLB dredged material) and the permanently designated LA-3, offshore of Newport Beach. Approval for ocean disposal is dependent on material meeting suitability requirements described in Section 6.7 and the discretion of the USEPA and CSTF.
3.4
Sediment Management Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment
The preferred management strategy for contaminated material is beneficial reuse in a port fill (nearshore CDF), temporary storage in an approved upland area (until a fill project becomes available), treatment and reuse as a marketable product (e.g., cement) or other beneficial reuses (e.g., clean sand for beach nourishment), upland placement, or placement in a CAD site and capped. Sediment management alternatives for contaminated sediment are summarized in Table 2 and described in more detail in the following subsections.
3.4.1
Beneficial Reuse in a Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility)
This sediment management alternative for contaminated material is the same as previously described as an option for clean sediment. See Section 3.3.1 for further detail.
3.4.2
Temporary Upland Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse
This sediment management alternative for contaminated material is the same as previously described as an option for clean sediment. See Section 3.3.3 for further detail.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
23
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
Table 2 Sediment Management Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking
Brief Description
Relative Cost1
Factors Affecting Cost
Moderate Transport distance 1. Beneficial reuse Placement in nearshore area behind diked berm (low if Quantity of material in a port fill completed as Geometry of nearshore (nearshore CDF) or perimeter with part of port fill) covering and effluent area/size of required dike control
2. Temporary upland storage for later beneficial reuse
Placement in a designated upland storage area
Low to Moderate
Transport distance Quantity of material
3. Suitable treatment option and reuse opportunity
Cement Stabilization: Physical and chemical stabilization of contaminated dredged material using cement‐ based binders
Moderate
Equipment and facility requirements Transport distance Quantity of material
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
24
Advantages
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Limited to availability of CEQA (and possibly NEPA) Beneficial reuse of suitable nearshore areas document required material or port construction fill Resource agency Potentially cost effective projects coordination regarding Regional examples mitigation requirements Restrictions on physical Regulatory acceptance material types for CSTF coordination, Coastal constructability Development Permit/Port Master Plan Amendment, USACE404/401 permits Cost effective Limited availability Typically handled on a case‐by‐case basis by the Potential for future CSTF beneficial reuse Beneficial reuse (i.e., structural fill) possible after treatment Bind some chemicals, decreasing their mobility Potentially turn contaminated material into a usable product for construction Regional pilot study examples (i.e., Colorado Lagoon)
Upfront cost associated Typically handled on a case‐by‐case basis by the with treatment and CSTF treatment facility Space needed for treatment facility Bench‐scale studies may need to be conducted to determine optimal binders and mix ratios Not appropriate for volatile organics May not bind all chemical types
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking
Brief Description
Relative Cost1
Thermal Desorption/Destruction: Application of direct and indirect heat to material to vaporize, destroy, or vitrify contaminants
High
Treatment facility setup Transport distance after dredging and after treatment Cost of equipment Quantity of material
Sand Separation: Mechanical separation of finer‐grained material from coarser‐grained material
High
Factors Affecting Cost
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
Advantages
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Beneficial reuse possible Contractor availability Not typically conducted in after treatment (specialized technology) the region but would likely be handled on a Regional full‐scale Upfront cost associated case‐by‐case basis by the example (recently used with treatment facility CSTF for Carnival maintenance Requires nearshore dredging [less than 2000 space for a treatment cy]) facility Bench‐scale and pilot studies may be required Transport distance after Regional pilot study Contractor availability Typically handled on a dredging and after example (i.e., Marina del (specialized technology) case‐by‐case basis by the treatment Rey) CSTF Upfront cost associated Cost of treatment facility Beneficial reuse of sand with treatment and Best suited for material setup possible after treatment treatment facility with high sand content Ideally reduces volume of Requires nearshore Quantity of material contaminated material space for a treatment High sand concentrations facility in the sediment Bench‐scale and pilot studies needed
25
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking
Brief Description
Relative Cost1
Cement Lock Technology: Use of extremely high heat in the presence of mineral modifiers to create Ecomelt, which can be ground and mixed to make cement
High
Transport distance after dredging and after treatment Cost of treatment facility Quantity of material
Bioremediation: Use of microorganisms or plants to degrade or transform contaminants to less toxic or nontoxic forms
High
Transport distance after dredging and after treatment Cost of treatment facility Quantity of material
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
Factors Affecting Cost
26
Advantages
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Beneficial reuse (i.e., cement) possible after treatment
Material must meet Not typically conducted in the region but would strict structural likely be handled on a requirements case‐by‐case basis by the Upfront cost associated CSTF with treatment and facility for treatment Contractor availability (specialized and proprietary technology) No regional examples Requires nearshore space for a treatment facility Bench‐scale and pilot studies may be required Beneficial reuse possible Upfront cost associated Not typically conducted in the region but would after treatment with treatment and likely be handled on a facility for treatment case‐by‐case basis by the Uncertain reliability CSTF (specialized technology and no regional examples) Contractor availability (specialized technology) No regional examples Available space for a treatment facility Bench‐scale and pilot studies may be required
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking
Brief Description
Relative Cost1
Chemical Treatment (Additives): Mixing chemical additives with sediments to destroy or convert sediment chemicals
High
Transport distance after dredging and after treatment Suite of target contaminants Quantity of material On‐site treatment facility
Manufactured Topsoil: Creation of topsoil by mixing the de‐watered dredged material with an organic biosolid
High
Suite of target contaminants Quantity of material Transport distance after dredging and after treatment Dewatering/treatment facility setup
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
Factors Affecting Cost
27
Advantages
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Beneficial reuse possible Upfront cost associated Not typically conducted in after treatment with treatment and the region but would facility for treatment likely be handled on a case‐by‐case basis by the Contractor availability CSTF (specialized and potentially proprietary) No regional examples Requires nearshore space for a treatment facility Bench‐scale and pilot studies may be required (uncertain reliability) Beneficial reuse (i.e., Upfront cost associated Not typically conducted in topsoil) possible after with treatment and the region but would treatment facility for treatment likely be handled on a case‐by‐case basis by the Pilot study required to CSTF determine optimal ratio of dredged material to organic additives Requires nearshore space for a treatment facility
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking 4. Upland Placement
Brief Description
Relative Cost1
Landfill: Placement as solid waste in landfill or as daily cover on the working surface of a landfill
High if solid waste/ Moderate if daily cover
Upland CDF: Placement as fill in landside depressions or as surcharge for capital improvement projects Brownfield Redevelopment: Placement as fill for development projects at Brownfield sites
Moderate
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
Factors Affecting Cost
Transport distance Quantity of material Facility costs/tipping fee Potential need for dewatering
Advantages Beneficial reuse of material acceptable by regulators and NGOs No structural requirements Landfills generally available for contaminated material
Transport distance to CDF Straight‐forward regulatory approval Construction/maintenanc process e costs Regional examples
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Limited availability, few Disposal regulated by the landfills Los Angeles and Integrated Waste Orange counties will Management Board and accept material RWQCB (disposal must not preclude compliance Landfill approval may be with landfill WDRs) difficult due to chloride leachate concerns Chloride leaching issue may need to be addressed Requires on‐site by the RWQCB dewatering space Acceptable landfills may be located out of state and require long haul distance If temporary placement, Projects permitted under material may need to be 404 authority from blended prior to use USACE, with 401 WQC from RWQCB Not a beneficial reuse
Project‐ and Transport distance Beneficial reuse of Dependent on Not typically conducted in location‐ material availability of regional the region but would Quantity of material specific costs Potential future use of site Use of contaminated likely be handled on a Brownfield site under case‐by‐case basis by the development material may be possible (effects placement methods) More cost effective than Regulatory approval may CSTF landfill disposal if located be difficult due to chloride leachate near dredge site concerns No regional examples
28
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking
Brief Description Mine and Pit Reclamation: Placement as backfill at abandoned sand/gravel mining pits
Transportation Infrastructure: Placement as construction fill for transportation infrastructure projects
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
Relative Cost1
Factors Affecting Cost
Advantages
Project‐ and Transport distance Beneficial reuse of location‐ material Quantity of material specific costs On‐site dewatering facility Use of contaminated Potential future use of site material may be possible More cost effective than (effects placement landfill disposal if located methods) near dredge site Project‐ and Transport distance Beneficial reuse of location‐ material Quantity of material specific costs On‐site dewatering facility Use of contaminated material may be possible Need for reworking/ If project located near compacting material dredging site, may be more cost‐effective than landfill disposal
29
Disadvantages
Regulatory Issues
Limited availability/need Not typically conducted in the region but would Possible chloride likely be handled on a leachate issues case‐by‐case basis by the No regional examples CSTF Requires on‐site dewatering facility Material must meet strict structural requirements Limited availability Possible chloride leachate issues No regional examples Available space for on‐ site facility
Not typically conducted in the region but would likely be handled on a case‐by‐case basis by the CSTF
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking
Brief Description
5. Submerged CAD CAD Site: Placement into a Site submerged depression or pit and capping with clean sediments
Containment (Capping): Isolation of contaminated material by capping in place with clean sand and/or other materials that prevent flux
Relative Cost1 Moderate to High
Low to Moderate
Factors Affecting Cost
Advantages
Transport distance to CAD Large volume of site contaminated material can be accommodated Quantity of material Regional examples (i.e., Excavation required to Port of Hueneme, NEIBP) create CAD RWQCB continues to Cap thickness required discuss potential of NEIBP as a real option (currently not allowed by the City of Long Beach)
Disadvantages Availability of submerged area available for CAD site Regulatory approval process difficult NGOs may disapprove (not considered a beneficial reuse) Long‐term monitoring may be required
Regulatory Issues Projects permitted under 404 authority from USACE, with 401 WQC from RWQCB Permitting process may be lengthy CAD site ownership/management, long‐term monitoring, and contingency issues need to be addressed CCC consistency determination likely required
Regionally accepted Cost associated with cap None; projects would be Area requiring capping permitted under 404 management alternative material for chemical Type of contaminant(s) containment purposes authority from USACE, Regional examples (i.e., Hydrodynamics of area with 401 WQC from Port of Hueneme) Pilot studies may be Transport distance of cap RWQCB required, depending on material proposed cap material CCC consistency Cap thickness required determination likely Less disturbance of Restrictions on final required for nearshore contaminated material seafloor elevation capping projects NGOs may question why contaminants are not being physically removed from the site Long‐term monitoring will be needed
Notes: NEIBP = North Energy Island Borrow pit NGO = Non‐Governmental Organization 1 Costs based on those specified in the Long‐Term Management Strategy (CSTF 2005) and the DMMP (Everest and Anchor 2009).
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
30
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
3.4.3
Suitable Treatment Option and Reuse Opportunity
Limited treatment alternatives are available for dredged material (see Table 2). Very few treatment options are readily implementable because of availability, high upfront costs associated with pilot studies, the access to a facility for the treatment process, and an uncertain regulatory approval process. Consequently, only those treatments options likely to be implemented in the region are described in detail below.
3.4.3.1
Cement Stabilization
Cement stabilization is the fixing of contaminants within dredged material by using cement-based binders (i.e., Portland cement) that react with, precipitate out, mobilize, and bind contaminants. While this technology has been used to remediate soil, it has not been widely used to mobilize contaminants in marine dredged material. This procedure may not be useful for immobilization of all organics (i.e., volatiles and some semi-volatiles) due to significant volatilization. Key considerations associated with this alternative include the chemical(s) of concern and whether physical characteristics of the dredged material are suitable for cement stabilization. Successful bench- and pilot-scale cement stabilization projects conducted in southern California indicate that the potential usefulness of this procedure. However, due to differences in chemicals found in project sediments and the ability of cement-based binders to precipitate, react with, or adsorb to different chemicals, project-specific pilot studies would be needed to determine the feasibility of the full-scale application of this alternative. In addition, the most cost-effective application of this technology may be limited to programs in which the cement may be used on site or locally.
3.4.3.2
Thermal Desorption/Destruction
Thermal desorption and destruction of sediment chemicals are processes in which sediments are heated at extremely high temperatures to the point at which the contaminants are vaporized (i.e., desorption) or destroyed. These thermal technologies are highly effective in destroying a wide variety of organic compounds, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated dioxins and furans, petroleum hydrocarbons, and pesticides. Types of thermal treatment include incineration, pyrolysis, high-pressure oxidation, hot air vapor extraction, and vitrification. Production costs for this
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
31
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
treatment are expected to be high, because significant electrical energy is required for the generation of the extremely high temperatures produced by an electric arc furnace.
3.4.3.3
Sand Separation
Sand separation involves the mechanical separation of finer-grained material from coarser-grained material (i.e., sand and gravel). Separation may be undertaken by using a hydrocyclone or a sand separation plant. As a consequence of the tendency for contaminants to be associated with finer-grained material, this process can produce clean sand that can be used for beach nourishment. The contaminated finer-grained material may be placed in a port construction fill or upland placement site. A trial sand separation project conducted in Marina del Rey in 2009 indicated the potential for application of this process as part of future sediment management programs (Everest and Anchor QEA 2009).
3.4.4
Upland Placement
Varieties of upland placement options are available for dredged material (see Table 2). Options more likely to be implemented are described in detail in the following subsections.
3.4.4.1
Landfill Daily Cover
Landfill daily cover is another possible, although less commonly available, beneficial reuse involving the placement of material as cover on the working surface of a landfill (i.e., on top of solid wastes) at the end of each day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. The acceptability of material at a landfill is dependent on the site-specific permit conditions that indicate the volume and type of material that can be accepted, suitability based upon analytical test results (may be different for each landfill), and approval by the Los Angeles RWQCB, the issuers of the original WDR for the dredged material. Typically, the RWQCB will not allow dredged material to be placed at inland landfills due to concerns about chlorides leaching out and contaminating aquifers. In southern California, a few coastal landfills may accept material as daily cover for a tipping fee; however, most landfills will only accept material as disposed waste with prices based on the tons disposed. For contaminated sediment that exceeds landfill analytical requirements (e.g., exceedance of Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations [STLC] and/or Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
32
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
Procedure [TCLP]), the material must be disposed of as hazardous waste at a facility permitted to accept such material (see upland testing requirements in Section 6.10).
3.4.4.2
Upland Confined Disposal Facility
An upland CDF is an above-ground facility that contains material and leachate using controls such as dikes, synthetic liners, a clay base, and a covering. Upland CDFs are typically constructed in an area adjacent to a harbor, bay, or other waterway in order to reduce costs associated with transporting dredged material (i.e., via hydraulic pump, truck, or rail). Material in an upland CDF is dewatered and may be beneficially used after temporary storage or may be capped with clean material and contained indefinitely. Typically, the decant water from the CDF is treated to remove suspended particulates and associated contaminants prior to discharging (e.g., via pipe) back to the dredge area. The CDF may be used as created industrial land, because its structural characteristics can be engineered during material placement, or as new habitat.
3.4.4.3
Upland Class III Landfill
Class III landfills are limited in size, and as a result, their daily permitted capacity is typically 15,000 tons or less. Typically, a Class III landfill accepts material that is not required to be disposed of in a Class I landfill, including material not suitable for some beneficial reuses (e.g., beach nourishment) or ocean disposal but not considered hazardous waste. Material suitable for placement in a Class III landfill is also suitable for landfill daily cover; however, this beneficial reuse is typically very limited. The acceptability of material at a landfill is dependent on the site-specific permit conditions that indicate the volume and type of material that can be accepted, suitability based upon analytical test results (may be different for each landfill), and approval by the Los Angeles RWQCB, the issuers of the original WDR for the dredged material. Typically, the Los Angeles RWQCB will not allow dredged material to be placed in Los Angeles County landfills due to concerns about chlorides leaching out and contaminating aquifers.
3.4.4.4
Upland Class I Landfill
A Class I landfill is permitted to accept hazardous waste (as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 261.20 and 22 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Article 9), including Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
33
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
contaminated sediment that exceeds the hazardous waste characterization threshold values (e.g., exceedance of STLC and/or TCLP; see upland testing requirements in Section 6.10). Class I landfills consist of several layers of natural and synthetic impervious material to prevent leachate from the landfill reaching the underlying groundwater. No Class I landfills are currently located in Los Angeles County; however, two such landfills in nearby counties include the Waste Management Kettleman Hills facility (King’s County, California) and the Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Landfill (Kern County, California). Both landfills offer some treatment options (e.g., bioremediation) for specified constituents to minimize the impact of hazardous wastes to the environment. Alternatively, material may be transported to Class I landfills in nearby states.
3.4.5
Submerged Confined Aquatic Disposal Site
Use of a submerged CAD involves the placement of contaminated dredged material at an appropriate open-water placement site and the subsequent covering or capping of the material with clean sediment. Contaminant isolation material (i.e., geotextile) and stabilizing material (i.e., rock) may also be used, depending on the specific project and site. Key considerations associated with this alternative include location of the CAD site, such as in a natural depression or excavated area, and the type of cap that will be required to isolate contaminants of concern from the overlying water. In addition, following cap placement, long-term monitoring is typically required to assess long-term cap stability, containment/isolation of the contaminated sediments, and biological recolonization of the cap surface. Hazardous waste defined in 40 CFR 261.20 and 22 CCR Article 9 cannot be placed in a CAD, as CAD sites are considered in-water disposal. One potential CAD site that has approximately 4 million cubic yards (cy) of space available for dredged material placement is the North Energy Island Borrow Pit (NEIBP), located off the coast of Long Beach, east of the POLB. This CAD site was been extensively assessed by the CSTF as part of a pilot field study using contaminated dredged material from the Los Angeles River Estuary (approximately 130,000 cubic yards) and a 1–yard-thick layer of clean sand as a cap. Intensive monitoring of the CAD site was conducted annually for 5 years after placement of material to demonstrate that the cap met the intended design, structural
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
34
December 2011 100343-02
Management Strategies for Disposal of Sediments
integrity was maintained, chemical migration was prevented, and complete biological recolonization had occurred.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
35
December 2011 100343-02
4 FILL SITE MANAGEMENT Often port growth and expansion results in the filling of marine areas to accommodate additional shore-side operations. Fill sites provide an opportunity to beneficially reuse dredged sediments. Material to be placed within the fill site will have limitations on its quality, both chemical and structural. Fill material sources should be identified as early on in the project as possible to ensure the evaluation of sediment quality and to obtain proper regulatory permitting/approvals. This section discusses the potential sources of fill material within the POLB, prioritization of fill material sources, and evaluation of sediment quality for use in an engineered port landfill site.
4.1
Potential Sources of Fill Material
The POLB normally generates its own fill material by aligning dredging programs with fill needs. However, a large fill project may require additional fill material beyond material generated by the project and other POLB projects. POLB can on occasion accept fill material from third-party projects (i.e., projects undertaken by entities other than the POLB) to benefit both the construction project and the region. Other sources of fill material may include excavated materials, temporarily stored material at upland and aquatic storage sites, and borrow sites within the POLB. If a need for fill material at the POLB is identified, every potential fill source will be evaluated in accordance with its priority protocol, as described below.
4.2
Prioritization of Fill Material
The POLB recognizes that there can be substantial regional benefits to beneficially reusing sediments from sources outside of the Long Beach Harbor. While working toward providing a regional benefit, the POLB must ensure that its own sediment management needs are met. Accordingly, the POLB has established a hierarchy of priority for accepting material into its fills. Potential sources of material are listed below, in descending order of priority based on geographic location: 1. Material generated by other elements of the development project for which the fill is a part
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
36
December 2011 100343-02
Fill Site Management
2. Material from other POLB dredging projects, with first priority given to agencymandated remedial dredging, second to capital projects, third to maintenance dredging, and fourth to voluntary hot spot clean-up projects 3. City of Long Beach material considered unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal (e.g., Los Angeles River, Queensway Bay, Alamitos Bay, and Colorado Lagoon) 4. POLA material from remedial dredging projects linked to attainment of TMDL compliance for Los Angeles/Long Beach Inner and Outer Harbor waters (in support of the WRAP; Ports 2009) 5. City of Long Beach material that is suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal but cannot be beneficially reused elsewhere 6. POLA material that is unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal 7. Material from temporary sediment storage sites (upland and aquatic) within the POLB 8. Material from dredging projects within Los Angeles County (but outside of the Ports) that is unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal (supports the intent and objectives of the CSTF Strategy [2005]) 9. Material from dredging projects outside of Los Angeles County that is unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal 10. Material from POLA dredging projects that is suitable for unconfined disposal but cannot be beneficially reused elsewhere 11. Sand borrow from within the POLB
4.2.1
Third‐Party Material
The POLB has previously accepted contaminated dredged material from outside the harbor into its fills and continues to be committed to the CSTF strategy of accommodating thirdparty material whenever feasible. If an opportunity to accept third-party material arises, the POLB has an established a third-party fill acceptance process that will be implemented to solicit and evaluate third-party candidates. Each potential third-party project will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and will be based upon four criteria:
Schedule, the timing of its delivery relative to the progress of fill construction Fill composition, the nature of the fill material, both chemical and geotechnical Documentation, the required permits, insurance, licenses, and agreements Geographic source, the location of the fill material Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
37
December 2011 100343-02
Fill Site Management
The interplay of these four factors will determine the priority of each potential opportunity. In each case, the POLB will document the decision-making process and coordinate with the CSTF for final concurrence of selected third parties. Through early disclosure of a projectspecific SMP, the POLB hopes to identify candidate projects that are interested in using the potential fill site.
4.2.2
Excavated Materials
The POLB may generate cut/excavated materials as part of dredging activities (e.g. wharf/berth cutbacks or widening a slip). This material may be used as fill material if it is previously dredged material and has been approved under the issued regulatory permits. The material can be tested to determine the potential for any water quality issues (see Section 6.2). If water quality impacts are expected, the material should only be placed after the site has been cut off from exchange with the surrounding marine environment (e.g., dike extends above water surface).
4.2.3
Temporary Storage Material (Upland and Aquatic)
As discussed in Section 3, disposal options for dredged material include temporary storage at an upland or an aquatic disposal and storage site within the harbor district. No upland storage sites are currently designated within the POLB; however, if such temporary upland storage site becomes available, material stored at the site can be beneficially reused as fill material. Currently, the POLB has a designated temporary aquatic storage site, the Western Anchorage Sediment Storage Site (WASSS). The WASSS is located in the Outer Harbor, north of the federal breakwater and west of the main navigation channel. Stockpiled sediment temporarily stored at this site can be beneficially reused as fill material; however, this site is not a borrow site, and only sediment stockpiled from previous dredged projects can be removed and used as a source of fill material.
4.2.4
Borrow Site
If sufficient material cannot be obtained from ongoing dredging programs and other outside sources due to logistical constraints (i.e., scheduling or equipment) or technical constraints Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
38
December 2011 100343-02
Fill Site Management
(i.e., chemical or geotechnical properties), then material may need to be borrowed from other areas of the POLB.
4.3
Evaluation of Sediment Quality for Fill Material
Fill sites will be engineered to safely contain chemically impacted materials, much like the use of a containment berm with a sand filter layer behind it. Based on the design of the fill, limits will be instituted for the chemical and structural quality of the material, and each material source will need to be evaluated for proper placement in the fill.
4.3.1
Chemical Nature
The material to be used as fill must meet minimum chemical criteria. Contaminated sediments from river and harbor dredging are, in general, chemically acceptable, but very heavily contaminated sediments that would fall into any of the following three categories would not be acceptable. Material that: 1) constitutes “hazardous waste” as termed by the USEPA or the DTSC; 2) is deemed unsuitable for confined aquatic disposal by the USEPA; or 3) has land use restrictions or other long-term operations and maintenance requirements imposed by DTSC or other regulatory agency.
4.3.2
Structural Nature
From a geotechnical performance standpoint, medium- and coarse-grain sands are the optimum fill material for most sites. Fine sands are also suitable structural material. Finegrained material (silt and mud) is structurally poor, and its incorporation into the fill generally increases costs and takes more time to dewater than the use of sandy material. Only a limited amount of fine-grained material can be accepted at a given point in fill construction, which decreases as the elevation of the fill rises. To the extent practical, those fine-grained materials will be placed lower in the fill and spread evenly over the fill to improve geotechnical stability at the site. The limitations of geotechnically unsuitable materials will increase as the site fills. The POLB will evaluate proposed fill materials to determine, based on a geotechnical analysis, if the material can be incorporated into the fill and, if so, where it must be placed.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
39
December 2011 100343-02
5 PERMITTING Dredging and discharge of dredged material into navigable waters are regulated activities, subject to a variety of state and federal statutes, such as the CEQA, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, NEPA, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA), and CWA. The following section provides an overview of basic regulatory jurisdiction and a discussion of permit types and agency coordination process.
5.1
Permit Jurisdiction
Dredging is regulated as “work” in traditionally navigable waters of the United States under Section 10 of the RHA. Any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, either unconfined or confined, is regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. Prior to undertaking these activities, as well as demolishing or constructing any infrastructure, a Section 404/10 permits must be obtained from the USACE Regulatory Division. A Section 404 permit is not required for projects involving upland placement of dredged material, unless there is return of decant water back into waters of the United States (upland return flow triggers Section 404 requirements). A Section 10 permit would still be required for dredging. In addition, transportation and disposal of dredged material at authorized ocean disposal sites is regulated pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA. The USEPA has final jurisdictional authority over approval of dredged material proposed to be placed at ocean disposal sites, whereas the USACE retains the final authority at “inland sites,” typically defined as inside the baseline of the territorial seas (usually the breakwater is the convention for the San Pedro Bay area). Each dredging and fill project is also reviewed for compliance with other state and federal statutes, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act (i.e., Essential Fish Habitat [EFH]), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), CDFG, and NMFS. These consultations are typically managed by and through the USACE. Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
40
December 2011 100343-02
Permitting
Two permits (one application) are required from the RWQCB: CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) permit addresses water quality issues associated with discharges of fill under Section 404 of the CWA, and the WDR addresses discharges associated with dredging and discharges of fill under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition to Section 404/10 and WQC/WDRs, the POLB must self-certify each dredging and disposal project as consistent with the CCA using the CCC-approved Port Master Plan (PMP). Any projects not covered under the PMP require the plan to be amended, as proof of consistency is required for issuance of federal permits. Finally, dredging and discharge of dredged material is subject to both CEQA and NEPA requirements. The POLB is required to make a CEQA determination, and the USACE makes a separate NEPA determination as part of issuance of any permit. The nature and timing of the CEQA and NEPA documents is highly variable and depends primarily on whether the project is only dredging or includes or is related to other project features, such as terminal development, channel deepening, or other connected upland features. The CEQA and NEPA process is largely driven by those non-dredging factors.
5.2
Types of Permits
Once jurisdiction, scope, dredging equipment, and preferred placement option (e.g., upland, offshore, CDF, etc.) are known, the required permits can be determined. The POLB has several tools available to facilitate permit applications in an efficient manner. The CSTF has developed a Master Dredging Permit application, which is available for use by both Ports. It conveniently contains the required permit application information to satisfy the USACE, RWQCB, USEPA, and CCC as well as the attendant consultations managed through the USACE process, as previously described. Use of this application reduces the amount of paperwork on the part of all parties. As long as the dredging project and disposal of dredged material is consistent with the POLB’s approved PMP, no further action is required by the CCC. The POLB can produce a self-certification that accompanies the application, which is usually the approved HDP.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
41
December 2011 100343-02
Permitting
If the project involves maintenance dredging, the POLB has in place a Regional General Permit (RGP) from the USACE, WDRs from the RWQCB, and HDP (CCC approval) that cover maintenance dredging throughout a multi-year period, within specific volume limitations. These permits encompass all approvals required, including CEQA and NEPA documentation and USACE, RWQCB, USEPA (for offshore placement), and CCC (as appropriate) permit applications. Thus, if the POLB is undertaking a maintenance activity, has volume available under its RGP, and is not proposing a new fill site that is not covered under the RGP (e.g., a new terminal fill is not covered), then the POLB can follow the request for NTP procedures outlined in the RGP. This process greatly increases permitting speed. To determine the disposition of dredged material, sediment characterization must still occur according to the normal CSTF process. If the activity is not covered under an RGP, then a variety of permits may be issued by the USACE; these permits would be primarily dependent on where the dredged material is to be placed. If permits would need to be issued, CEQA and NEPA documentation may be required. The RWQCB process is consistent as it relates to dredging and discharge of dredged material. Multiple possible scenarios and combinations with varying USACE and POLB actions exist. Below are several common examples:
Maintenance dredging with disposal at approved locations and within the volume limits specified by the RGP. This type of project would require no further action beyond following sediment testing and notification procedures and permit conditions.
Maintenance dredging with upland placement without runoff to waters of the United States. This type of project can generally also be permitted under a Letter of Permission (LOP), as this activity does not entail any CWA Section 404 discharge. If runoff would be present, this activity can be additionally covered through Nationwide Permit (NWP) 16. If the RGP is not being used, CEQA documentation (e.g., Exemption or Negative Declaration) is required. The USACE’s NEPA responsibility is covered by the LOP/NWP process and an Environmental Assessment (EA) is not required.
Maintenance dredging not covered under an RGP (e.g. volumes or disposal locations not in the RGP). This type of project would require a Standard Individual Permit
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
42
December 2011 100343-02
Permitting
(SIP) from the USACE, which includes a public notice and an EA under NEPA that in turn requires an alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis would need to meet the NEPA test for a reasonable range of alternatives and may also need to meet CWA Section 404(b)(1) guideline requirements if dredged material is being discharged into waters of the United States. CEQA documentation (e.g., Exemption or Negative Declaration) is required.
Deepening of wharf faces, berths, and approach channels associated with construction of a new container terminal. This type of project would likely require an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) because of the terminal operations aspects and the magnitude of potential impacts. A SIP from the USACE and project-specific WQC/WDRs from the RWQCB are also required.
Remedial dredging that is not part of a terminal improvement project or maintenance dredging project. This type of project would require a SIP, or the issuance of a Cleanup and Abatement Order. A NWP (38) may be needed in place of the SIP (see permit description previously mentioned). The NWP (38) includes a public notice and an EA under NEPA that in turn requires an alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis would meet the NEPA test for a reasonable range of alternatives and may also need to meet CWA Section 404(b)(1) guideline requirements if dredged material is being discharged into waters of the United States. CEQA documentation (e.g., Exemption or Negative Declaration) is required. Project-specific WQC/WDRs from the RWQCB are also required.
The permitting-related activities and estimated timelines for capital dredging projects are provided in Table 3. Maintenance dredging projects follow an abbreviated process and timeline. The permitting process is usually led by a dredged material characterization study (Section 6). As part of this study, a SAP should be prepared that includes a project description and purpose, site information, historical sampling data, and proposed sampling locations (and numbers) and presented to the CSTF for review and approval. Upon revisions to the SAP based on CSTF comments and subsequent approval, sampling and analysis should be conducted. A final Sediment Characterization Report should be prepared and again submitted to the CSTF for review and approval.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
43
December 2011 100343-02
Permitting
The requirements associated with the CEQA process are not presented but are completed before the permits are issued. After the issuance of required permits, the pre-dredge request for the NTP should be submitted to USACE and pre-dredge notifications should be submitted to the RWQCB. The pre-dredge activities include Caulerpa taxifolia (see Section 8.4) and eelgrass (see Section 8.3) surveys and the pre-dredge water quality monitoring. Water quality monitoring continues through the construction activities. Dredging water quality monitoring should be conducted in accordance with the information provided in the WDR. Post-dredge closure reports should be submitted after all dredging and water quality monitoring have been completed. Table 3 Port Capital Dredging Project Permit Process Permitting Related Activities
Elements
Approx. Time to Complete
Port dredged material characterization
1. Prepare SAP and CSTF Approval 2. Sampling, laboratory testing, and data QA 3. Prepare report and CSTF approval
6 to 12 months
Port CEQA Process
CEQA process not discussed in SMP; this information is provided to aid in schedule determinations. 1. Submit dredge permit application 2. USACE issues public notice 3. Respond to comments 4. Informal ESA/EFH consultation 5. NEPA documentation and draft permit 6. Final federal permits issued
24 to 36 months
USACE Individual permit application process
9 – 12 months (dependent on completion of characterization study and/or CEQA process)
RWQCB Section 401 WQC/WDR process
1. Submit WDR application 2. Tentative WDR and 401 issued 3. RWQCB Hearing 4. Final WDR and 401 issued 5. Final federal permits issued
7 to 9 months (dependent on completion of characterization study and/or CEQA process)
Port dredging and permit compliance monitoring
1. USACE pre‐dredge request for NTP 2. Pre‐dredge eelgrass and C. taxifolia surveys 3. Dredge water quality monitoring 4. Submit post‐dredge closure report to USACE and RWQCB
Up to 2 months before construction, during construction, and 1 month after construction
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
44
December 2011 100343-02
Permitting
5.3
Agency Coordination
A pre-application meeting with the agencies is recommended to determine the specifics of a permit process and to familiarize the agencies with the POLB’s project. For dredging projects, the primary permit coordination occurs as part of the CSTF process. All agencies are represented as part of this group, and thus, discussing the project-specifics, reviewing the testing process, and determining the disposal endpoint with this group accomplishes the goals of the pre-application meeting. Often, the POLB desires additional pre-application type meetings to discuss alternatives and provide additional overall context to the project. In this case, the POLB can use the established CSTF monthly meetings or the CSTF Advisory Committee process to set additional meetings with the CSTF group. Subsequent CSTF meetings are scheduled to review the field sampling results, discuss the need for additional sampling and analysis if warranted, and determine disposal locations. It should be noted that the CSTF process is focused on dredging and disposal of dredged material. Other project features, such as if the project affects POLB operations like increased throughput, may require far more enhanced and complex permit processes and CEQA/NEPA analyses (e.g., EIS/EIR) documents. The CSTF process does not encompass all issues but facilitates the negotiations related to handling of the project dredged material.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
45
December 2011 100343-02
6 SEDIMENT TESTING Multiple sediment management alternatives are available for dredged material from POLB. To determine the most suitable management alternative for a specific project, sampling and analysis must be conducted to evaluate the chemical and physical nature of the material. Typical testing requirements associated with sediment management alternatives are described below. Cost-effective testing programs can be designed that maximize the potential for beneficially using sediments and eliminating redundant testing programs or having to resample site sediments to allow for additional testing to occur.
6.1
Evaluation of Geotechnical and Chemical Suitability for Selected Reuse or Disposal Alternatives
Test requirements for various beneficial reuses and placement options are summarized in Table 4 and detailed in the following subsections. It should be noted that testing requirements are often project specific and are always subject to regulatory discretion and approval by the CSTF. In addition, testing protocols continually evolve and, therefore, specific requirements may change.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
46
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
Table 4 Summary of Testing Requirements to Determine Suitability for Each Placement Alternative
X
Specialized Testing
Long‐Term Monitoring
X
BP
SPP
X
SP
X
Other
SPLP
SWH Creation
X
TCLP
X
Biological Testing
WET
X
Elutriate Testing (SET, MET)
Sediment Chemistry
Port Fill (Nearshore CDF)
Alternative
Tissue Chemistry
Geotechnical Analysis
Chemical Analysis
X
X
Temporary Aquatic Storage
X
X
Beach Nourishment
X
X
Clean Cap/CAD Cover
X
X
X
Ocean Disposal
X
X
X
Temporary Upland Storage
X
X
X
Treatment
X
X
Upland Placement
X
X
X
X
X2
Submerged CAD Site/In Situ Capping
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes: X = required testing BP = bioaccumulation potential MET = modified elutriate test SET = standard elutriate test SP = solid phase SPLP = Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure SPP = suspended particulate phase WET = Waste Extraction Test 1 Historically, BP testing was not required, but it is believed BP testing will be required in future evaluations. 2 SPLP may be required by the RWQCB for some upland placement beneficial reuses.
6.1.1
Sampling and Analysis Plan
In typical sediment sampling and analysis programs, the first step in the evaluation process is to design a SAP. SAPs are required prior to conducting sediment characterization studies to assess physical and chemical characteristics of sediment and dredged material investigations for purposes of determining suitability for beneficial reuses and placement options. The SAP should provide detailed descriptions of the project plan and location and all methods and procedures used during field sampling activities. The SAP will include, at a minimum, sections covering project background, team organization, schedule, scope/objectives, field Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
47
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
sampling and measurement activities, field study design, sample size/coverage justification, field documentation, sample management (i.e., processing, packaging, shipping, and custody procedures), analytical and biological testing methods, and quality control. The SAP should also include a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) that addresses all health- and safety-related issues associated with the planned sampling activities including, but not limited to, waterside sampling, sample processing, and cleaning and decontamination of equipment. The SAP must be provided to the CSTF for review, discussion, and approval prior to initiation of field sampling and testing.
6.1.2
Sampling Frequency
With standard dredged material assessment programs, multiple cores should be used to generate composite samples for testing. The general rule is a minimum of two composite samples will be used for the first 100,000 cy and one composite sample will be used per subsequent 100,000 cy. However, additional composites or analyses of individual cores may be required if contaminant hot spots are suspected in areas adjacent to current or former industrial activities or if stratification is observed in the majority of cores. In the latter case, cores should be divided into top and bottom composite samples for subsequent compositing and analyses.
6.2
Testing for Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility)
Dredged or excavated material (generated as part of dredging activities) may be used as fill for port construction projects (e.g., the Middle Harbor redevelopment project at the POLB). A primary concern associated with this alternative is the effect of effluent discharge during and after filling of the CDF (Everest 2009). Testing to determine suitability for nearshore CDF placement should include geotechnical and chemical analyses on bulk sediment and may include elutriate testing using the effluent elutriate test (EET)1 in accordance with the
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal at Island, Nearshore, and Upland Confined Disposal Facilities – Testing Manual (UTM; USACE 2003). More discussion regarding the testing requirements/recommendations for fill material is provided in Section 4. The EET is used to assess effluent discharge by evaluating the concentration of contaminants of concern that are discharged from the CDF (i.e., over the weir structure) 1 Formerly called modified elutriate test
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
48
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
after placement. While there are other elutriate tests that have been historically used (i.e., standard elutriate test [SET] and dredging elutriate test [DRET]), those tests are less suitable for estimating effluent discharge. The DRET estimates the quality of the effluent at the point of dredging, and the SET predicts the release of contaminants of concern during open-water disposal. Chemical analysis of bulk sediment, the EET, and site water used to prepare the elutriate should include general chemistry (i.e., ammonia, total sulfides, and total organic carbon [TOC]), trace metals, chlorinated pesticides, PCB Congeners, PAHs, other semivolatile organic compounds (i.e., phenols and phthalates), and organotins.
6.3
Testing for Shallow Water Habitat Creation
Sediment may be tested and used for two types of SWH designs. Clean sediment, as demonstrated by a Tier III evaluation in accordance with Evaluation of Dredged material
Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. – Testing Manual (ITM; USEPA/USACE 1998) guidelines (see Section 6.7), can make up the entirety of the SWH. Alternatively, SWH may be created using a CAD design, whereby contaminated material is placed behind a dike and a liner and cap of clean material are used to prevent movement of contaminants. Testing requirements for contaminated sediment include geotechnical and chemical analyses of bulk sediment (for chemical classes previously described) to assess the magnitude of contamination and physical characteristics of the material. SET chemistry is then recommended to determine the release of contaminants of concern during open-water disposal in the SWH site. Bench-scale or pilot studies may be required in addition to modeling efforts as part of cap design to determine the appropriate cap composition and thickness needed to minimize contaminant flux through the cap. The sediment component of the cap should be non-contaminated, as demonstrated by a Tier III evaluation conducted in accordance with ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) guidelines (see Section 6.7). A long-term monitoring program must be designed as part of this management alternative in order to evaluate long-term cap stability, containment/isolation of the contaminated sediments, and biological re-colonization of the cap surface.
6.4
Testing for Temporary Aquatic Storage
Dredged material may be temporarily stockpiled at an aquatic storage site until it can be beneficially used as port fill or another end-use. Currently, the only temporary aquatic Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
49
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
placement site in the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor is the Western Anchorage Storage Site in the POLB (Everest and Anchor 2009). This site is used for unconfined, open-water placement; therefore, dredged material must be evaluated for aquatic disposal in accordance with ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) guidelines (see Section 6.7). A full Tier III evaluation, including bioaccumulation, should be anticipated; however, testing requirements are subject to regulatory discretion (bioaccumulation was not previously required to determine suitability for placement at this site). Physical, chemical, and biological analyses should be performed on sediment composite samples, as described in Section 6.7. The identification and characterization of an appropriate reference site may need to be considered (CSTF 2005). The Western Anchorage Storage Site is used for temporary storage; therefore, depending on the end-use, additional testing may be required before the material can be reused. For example, if material will be held for port construction fill, elutriate chemistry would likely be required.
6.5
Testing for Beach Nourishment
Clean dredged material of appropriate grain size may be beneficially used as beach nourishment. RGP 67, Discharges of Dredged or Upland-Derived Fill Materials for Beach
Nourishment (USACE 2006), outlines the conditions for discharging dredged material as beach nourishment within the boundaries of the Los Angeles District of the USACE. To meet these conditions, testing should include geotechnical (i.e., grain size) and chemical analyses of bulk sediment. Chemical analysis should include general chemistry (i.e., ammonia, total sulfides, and TOC), trace metals, chlorinated pesticides, PCB Congeners, PAHs, other semi-volatile organic compounds (i.e., phenols and phthalates), and organotins. The analytical results can be compared to ERL and ERM values developed by Long et al. (1995), as a screening tool to aid reviewers in estimating the relative degree of contamination. For dredged material to be suitable for beach nourishment, generally it must be comprised of at least 80 percent sand or demonstrate a similar grain size distribution to that of the receiving beach (sand content within a 10 percent difference), and have low or background levels of chemical contamination (USACE 2006). It should be noted that acceptable grain
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
50
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
size for beach nourishment is specified on a case-by-case basis. Other considerations associated with this beneficial reuse alternative include:
Pre- and post-monitoring for beach elevation contour profiles
Aesthetic impacts on receiving beach
Requirements for sensitive and listed species and habitats per the ESA and MagnusonStevens Fishery Management Act:
Snowy plover
EFH
California least tern breeding colony
Light-footed clapper rail habitat
Estuary or lagoons
Grunion
Eelgrass
Specific requirements for each species or habitat, including environmental windows, are described in more detail in RGP 67 (USACE 2006).
6.6
Testing for Clean Cap/Confined Aquatic Disposal Cover
As described for testing for SWH creation (see Section 6.3) and placement in a CAD (see Section 6.11), the sediment component of the cap should be clean as demonstrated by a Tier III evaluation. This evaluation should be performed in accordance with ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) guidelines (see Section 6.7). In addition, as with any CAD project, a long-term monitoring program must be designed to evaluate long-term cap stability, containment/isolation of the contaminated sediments, and biological re-colonization of the cap surface.
6.7
Testing for Ocean Disposal
To determine suitability for placement at LA-2, a Tier III evaluation should be conducted in accordance with ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) and Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed
for Ocean Disposal – Testing Manual (OTM; USEPA/USACE 1991) guidelines.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
51
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
6.7.1
Geotechnical and Chemical Analyses
Geotechnical and chemical analyses should be performed on bulk sediment composite samples and the reference sample used for comparative purposes. Physical analysis should include grain size, specific gravity, and total solids. Atterberg limits are also recommended to estimate strength and settlement characteristics of the sediment. Chemical analysis should be conducted for chemical classes previously described. Results of chemical analyses of the project's dredged material may be compared to Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Median (ERM) values developed by Long et al. (1995). The effects range values are helpful in assessing the potential significance of elevated sediment-associated contaminants of concern, in conjunction with biological analysis.2 While these screening level values are useful for identifying elevated sediment-associated contaminants, they should not be used to infer causality because of the inherent variability and uncertainty of the approach. EET chemistry results may be compared to the Water
Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California’s (California Ocean Plan’s; SWRCB and CalEPA 2006) water quality objectives to determine the potential need for BMPs during placement.
6.7.2
Biological Testing
Biological testing for ocean disposal should include two solid phase (SP) tests, three suspended particulate phase (SPP) tests, and two bioaccumulation potential (BP) tests, conducted in accordance with ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) and OTM (USEPA/USACE 1991) guidelines. SP tests—10-day acute tests performed on whole sediment—are conducted to estimate potential adverse effects of ocean disposed dredged material on benthic organisms. One SP test should be conducted using an amphipod species. The species should be selected based on grain size tolerance (i.e., Eohaustorius estuarius prefer primarily coarse-grained sediment while Ampelisca abdita prefer fine-grained sediment) to reduce confounding effects unrelated to contaminants. The polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata is recommend 2 Briefly, these values were developed from a large dataset where results of both benthic organism effects (e.g., toxicity tests and benthic assessments) and chemical concentrations were available for individual samples. To derive these guidelines, the chemical values for paired data demonstrating benthic impairment were sorted in ascending chemical concentration. The 10th percentile of this rank order distribution was identified as the ERL and the 50th percentile as the ERM.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
52
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
for use in the second SP test. SPP tests are conducted to estimate the potential adverse effects of ocean disposed dredged material on organisms that live in the water column. These tests are performed on sediment elutriates, prepared at a ratio of one part sediment and four parts site water in accordance with ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) and OTM (USEPA/USACE 1991) guidelines. SPP tests should be performed using the mysid shrimp Americamysis bahia (formerly Mysidopsis
bahia), the fish Menidia beryllina, and the larvae of a bivalve. The recommended bivalve species is Mytilus galloprovincialis; however, if gravid mussels are not available, an alternate species should be used (to be selected in consultation with USEPA and USACE). Both the mysid shrimp and fish SPP tests are 96-hour acute tests, while the M. galloprovincialis SPP test is a 48-hour chronic test that measures both survival and development. BP tests—28-day tests performed on whole sediment—are conducted to estimate the potential of benthic organisms to bioaccumulate contaminants of concern from ocean disposed dredged material. BP tests should be conducted using the bivalve Macoma nasuta and the polychaete Nereis virens; however, Nephthys caecoides is an acceptable alternative polychaete species. At test termination, bioaccumulation tissue samples should be submitted for chemical analysis. The tissue analyte list should focus on those chemicals present at levels of concern in sediment (i.e., greater than ERM values) and based on approval by the CSTF prior to analysis of tissue samples. To determine suitability for ocean disposal, results of biological testing should be evaluated in accordance with ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) and OTM (USEPA/USACE 1991) guidelines. For SP testing, results are compared to the concurrently tested reference sediment. If amphipod survival in reference sediment is 20 percent greater than in the test sediment (10 percent for other species) and significantly different, test sediments are considered to be acutely toxic to benthic organisms and do not meet the limiting permissible concentration (LPC) requirements for ocean disposal. For SPP testing, results are compared to the control. If a median lethal concentration (LC50) or median effective concentration (EC50) can be calculated, a dilution water model should be used to perform a comparison with water quality standards. A short-term fate (STFATE) mixing zone model should be used to
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
53
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
determine if LPC requirements will be met; water column concentrations must not exceed 1 percent of the LC50 or EC50 outside the mixing zone 4 hours after dredged material disposal. For BP testing, tissue concentrations are compared with applicable U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels, and tissue concentrations of organisms exposed to reference sediment. If tissue concentrations of organisms exposed to test sediment are statistically elevated compared to the organisms exposed to reference sediment, results should be assessed based on the criteria specified in the OTM (USEPA/USACE 1991; e.g., toxicological importance of contaminants, magnitude of exceedance, and propensity to biomagnify). If contamination is expected in part of the project area, it may be beneficial to phase biological testing for the evaluation of suitability for ocean disposal. Use of a phased approach allows for cost-savings by elimination of unnecessary testing while maximizing the volume of material deemed suitable for beneficial reuse alternatives (i.e., by minimizing the volume that may require upland placement). If biological tests do not meet LPC requirements for ocean disposal (per ITM [USEPA/USACE 1998] guidelines) or if sediment chemistry indicates elevated levels of contaminants (multiple ERM exceedances), the material should be evaluated for upland placement or other placement alternatives.
6.8
Testing for Temporary Upland Storage
Historically, geotechnical and chemical analyses on bulk sediment and a SET were required to determine suitability for placement at upland sites within POLB. Because no designated temporary upland storage site exists in the POLB, testing requirements are not discussed in further detail. However, should another upland storage site become available, similar tests may be required.
6.9
Testing for Treatment (Various Alternatives)
Sediment that does not meet suitability requirements for beneficial reuse due to chemical contamination may be treated and then beneficially used. While there are no state or federal laws specific to treatment and beneficial reuse of dredged material (GeoSyntec 2003), the Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
54
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
process is subject to state and federal laws for construction material. Consequently, testing to determine the suitability for treatment and subsequent beneficial reuse should occur on a material- and project-specific basis. Geotechnical and chemical analyses of bulk sediment (for chemical classes previously described) are initially necessary to assess the magnitude of contamination and physical characteristics of the material as well as for purposes of determining the most suitable treatment alternative. For example, cement stabilization is effective at treating metals and enhancing geotechnical characteristics of the sediment, while thermal destruction or desorption may be more appropriate to treat a variety of organic compounds (CSTF 2005). Prior to full-scale use, pilot-scale testing of a treatment will likely need to be optimized for the contaminants of concern and the grain size distribution of the material. Depending on the end-use of the material, additional testing may be required to ensure the product meets engineering requirements and is protective of the environment. Treatment plans and pilot test results will be submitted to the CSTF for review, revisions, and approval.
6.10 Testing for Upland Placement Because contaminant leaching is a primary concern associated with upland placement (Everest 2009), testing to determine suitability for upland placement should include geotechnical and chemical analyses on bulk sediment and leachate tests. The TCLP and Waste Extraction Test (WET) are leachate tests required under Title 40 CFR Part 261 and Title 22 CCR Chapter 11, Article 3, to evaluate whether a material is a hazardous waste. Prior to conducting these tests, bulk sediment chemical concentrations should be compared to 20 times the TCLP regulatory values and 10 times the STLC.3 It is necessary to perform actual the TCLP and/or WET for samples in which analytes exceed these criteria. Results of TCLP should be compared with USEPA regulatory values of 40 CFR Part 261. Results of the WET should be compared with STLCs of Title 22 CCR Chapter 11, Article 3. If no analytes exceed these criteria, the material is suitable for upland disposal. As previously described, other upland placement alternatives that require similar types of tests exist but are less commonly used (e.g., landfill daily cover, Brownfield redevelopment, mine and pit reclamation, and transportation infrastructure). However, in addition to TCLP 3 These factors are based on liquid-to-solid ratios of 20:1 and 10:1 used in TCLP and WET, respectively.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
55
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
and WET, testing requirements for these alternatives may also include Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP; CSTF 2005). This additional testing will be at the discretion of the Los Angeles RWQCB. For placement at a landfill, a “paint filter” test may also be required (CSTF 2005); testing requirements are subject to the specific landfill in which material may be placed as well as regulatory discretion. Other considerations associated with upland placement alternatives include the potential for chloride leaching as well as the need to develop a dewatering facility and obtain stormwater permits.
6.11 Testing for Submerged Confined Aquatic Disposal Site/In Situ Capping Because this alternative involves placing dredged material into a natural or excavated depression and then capping with clean material, testing and design work focus on assessment of contaminant release during placement and the long-term protectiveness of the capping layer against chemical breakthrough. Geotechnical and chemical analyses of the sediment to be disposed (for chemical classes previously described) are initially necessary to assess the magnitude of contamination and physical characteristics of the material. SET chemistry is then recommended to determine the potential for release of contaminants of concern during disposal, as the material falls down through the water column into the CAD cell. An in situ sediment cap must be designed to achieve the fundamental long-term goal of isolating the underlying contaminants from the surrounding environment and water column. To accomplish this goal, the cap also needs to resist being damaged or compromised by boring organisms, passing vessel traffic, winds and waves, and seismic activity. Nationally focused guidance for cap design has been developed by the USACE (Palermo et al. 1998a, 1998b). This guidance includes analytical procedures and formulas for evaluating the potential for chemical “breakthrough” as porewater moves upward through the granular cap matrix. The analysis allows the designer to select appropriate cap thickness and material types to achieve the desired protection. At a minimum, the sediment component of the cap should be clean, as demonstrated by a Tier III evaluation conducted in accordance with ITM (USEPA/USACE 1998) guidelines (see Section 6.1). The standard design analysis also includes evaluation of external effects (as previously mentioned), which could compromise
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
56
December 2011 100343-02
Sediment Testing
the cap and the means by which cap material layers can be designed to protect against these effects. A long-term monitoring program is required as part of this management alternative in order to measure and document long-term cap stability, containment/isolation of the contaminated sediments, and biological re-colonization of the cap surface.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
57
December 2011 100343-02
7 PROJECT‐SPECIFIC SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN POLB dredging and construction activities are managed in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations and the overall guidance of the port-wide SMP, under the general direction of the Program Management and Environmental Planning divisions. Each individual dredging or fill project, however, follows its own project-specific SMP which will generally include:
Section 1: Project Summary, which includes the objective/purpose, an overview of the dredge and disposal areas, and description of construction activities (phases, major components)
Section 2: Dredge Plan and/or Fill Plan (as applicable), which includes design and construction methods as well as fill quantities, source locations, and required equipment (Discussion may include special handling for contaminated material.)
Section 3: Sediment Disposal/Use Alternatives Discussion (as applicable) for the proposed project and a disposal/reuse plan for material that cannot be used in a port fill (Discussion may include special handling for contaminated material.)
Section 4: Monitoring Programs and Environmental Controls to be implemented during dredging and disposal/placement
Appendix C is an example of a project-specific SMP and can serve as a template for future project-specific management plans. Sections 2 through 4 of the project-specific SMP are discussed in more detail herein.
7.1
Dredge Plan and/or Fill Plan
Section 2 of the project-specific SMP includes the dredge plan, which describes dredge areas, dredge volumes, and dredging equipment (e.g., hydraulic dredging with pipeline conveyance, mechanical dredging, barge/scow conveyance, etc.) as well as the chemical and physical nature of the material and any environmental issues associated with dredging operations. The section also describes any other in-water work, such as pile-driving and rock placement, but the dredge plan focuses on managing sediments associated with the project. If necessary, subsections will describe the management of both clean and contaminated sediments.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
58
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
Section 2 also describes any fill or fills being constructed by the project, including construction design, methodology, geotechnical requirements, and placement procedures as well as quantities and opportunities for accepting contaminated sediments and third-party material. The section describes potential sources of fill material and outlines the POLB’s process for selecting fill material from POLB projects and outside (third-party) sources. Engineering drawings detailing how and where material is to be placed and describing placement methods and the anticipated schedule for the various stages of the fill process are contained in this section.
7.2
Sediment Disposal/Reuse Alternatives
Section 3 describes the disposal/reuse alternatives for contaminated material under consideration for the proposed project and how the POLB will reuse or dispose of sediments that cannot be immediately placed in a port fill, specifying the destinations and approximate quantities of surplus sediments. The decisions as to the project-specific disposal/reuse options will be based upon the guidance provided in this document and by the CSTF Strategy (2005), as applied to the specific conditions and priorities of the POLB (see Figure 2).
7.3
Monitoring Program and Environmental Controls
Section 4 describes the environmental controls and monitoring programs to be employed during dredging and disposal/placement. The section includes water quality monitoring programs for all dredging elements, placement of material in fills, and disposal/placement of material outside project boundaries (e.g., in a submarine temporary storage or nearshore site). In general, the monitoring program for dredging and disposal will closely reflect the conditions of the RWQCB WDRs and USACE 404 permit as adapted to specific site conditions. The monitoring program for fill material placement will be developed by the POLB for each project to ensure that the POLB’s and any third party’s activities do not result in unacceptable water quality degradation. Performance criteria are specified and adaptive management procedures for rectifying exceedances of those criteria are described. Section 4 also describes BMPs to be used for each construction activity and under what circumstances these BMPs should be used.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
59
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
7.3.1
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Prior to initiating a dredging, construction, or fill project, a water quality monitoring plan must be designed. This program should include a description of the POLB’s water quality monitoring objectives, which are to: 1) ensure that water quality conditions stay within the prescribed limits of relevant regulatory requirements, 2) designate water quality monitoring procedures, 3) plan appropriate project BMPs to avoid and minimize project impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and 4) document the results of water quality performance monitoring. The draft plan should be included in the project-specific SMP and submitted to the RWQCB and USACE as part of the permit applications. It is expected that those agencies would incorporate the water quality monitoring plan, amended as necessary during the application process, into the permit by reference. The RWQCB is expected to use the plan to describe the monitoring and reporting requirements of the WDRs. The water quality monitoring plan should include the following:
A description of the general requirements for water quality monitoring during dredging and placement activities (e.g., number of stations and relative distance from dredge or fill activity) based on project-specific information
The specific water quality parameters to be assessed during water quality monitoring and any visual observations and relevant information to be recorded and photographed in the field
The target depths in the water column to be assessed and the frequency with which the stations should be assessed
A description of water quality criteria to be used to assess water quality impacts during dredging (e.g., light transmittance limits)
A decision tree for how additional sampling can be triggered based on light transmittance exceedances, such that required additional sampling is not overlooked during the dredging/construction project
BMPs (described in Section 7.4) implemented to minimize potential water quality impacts if elevated turbidity (i.e., decreased light transmittance greater than a specified number of percentage points greater than the harbor background) is observed at the edge of the dredging mixing zone
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
60
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
In addition, the water quality plan should indicate that the Executive Officer of the RWQCB has the authority to amend sampling procedures should the available information support changes that would increase the efficiency of the water quality monitoring program. Required reporting and record keeping associated with water quality monitoring projects should also be discussed in the plan.
7.4
Standard Best Management Practices for Dredging, Filling and In‐Water Construction Activities
Dredging costs are a direct result of time and efficiency of sediment removal. Any limitation that slows a contractor will result in increased costs. In some cases (as with contaminated sediments), the additional costs incurred by having to redredge an area where material was not removed efficiently with the first pass will typically exceed the costs to employ BMPs. The use of BMPs requires an evaluation of cost versus benefit to select the proper mix of techniques to achieve the optimal mix of dredging efficiency and environmental controls. The goal in this process is to maximize speed while minimizing resuspension and potential material loss. A variety of BMPs may be implemented during dredging, construction, and placement to minimize associated water quality impacts. The types of BMPs that are typically employed with these programs are described in the following subsections, and the information presented herein may be incorporated directly into construction specifications, water quality monitoring plans, and permit applications necessary for dredge, construction, and fill projects.
7.4.1
Dredging
In addition to execution of the water quality monitoring plan, additional BMPs can be implemented to reduce water quality impacts associated with dredging (Table 5). These BMPs should be employed when monitoring indicates that an exceedance of water quality standards and permit limits is either likely or has already occurred in order to ensure compliance with permit conditions with minimal impact on both the environment and the construction schedule and budget.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
61
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
Table 5 Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Reduce Resuspension and Contaminant Loss During Dredging Equipment Selection Mechanical (clean or contaminated material)
Operational Controls
Site Containment
Environmental bucket
Use experienced operator
Silt curtain1
Real‐time positioning
Avoid tidal (current) extremes
Gunderboom1
Bucket size/type
Increase cycle time/slow down production Slow bucket at bottom and at water surface Eliminate multiple bites and bottom stockpiling Avoid sweeping with bucket Do not use bucket or derrick to reposition dredge Eliminate scow washing and overflow
Hydraulic (clean material)
Type of hydraulic (cutterhead, suction, etc.) Real‐time positioning
Use experienced operator Avoid tidal (current) extremes Reduce impeller rotation speed Reduce up swing speed Adjust cut thickness Eliminate the process of bank undercutting
Silt curtain1 Gunderboom1
Notes: 1 Minimal benefits provided when dredge site is located in deep water or dynamic site conditions
A brief description of BMPs listed in Table 5 is provided below:
Equipment BMPs to reduce sediment resuspension and contaminant loss when using a mechanical dredge include:
Environmental bucket. A closed bucket designed to reduce suspended sediments, which is typically effective in loose unconsolidated sediment.
Real-time positioning. Real-time positioning data allows the operator to better control the dredge cut and bucket depth.
Bucket size/type. Selection of the appropriate bucket can reduce overflow and excessive water in the bucket and reduce the need to take multiple bites.
Equipment BMPs to reduce sediment resuspension and contaminant loss when using a hydraulic dredge include:
Type of hydraulic dredge (cutterhead, suction, etc.). Using the appropriate type of hydraulic dredge will minimize sediment loss.
Real-time positioning. Real-time positioning data allows the operator to better control the dredge cut and bucket depth.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
62
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
Specific operational BMPs that could be used to reduce turbidity outside the allowable mixing zone at the dredge site when using a mechanical dredge include:
Use experienced operator. Experienced operators can better reduce sediment resuspension while maintaining production.
Avoid tidal extremes. Tidal extremes may limit the distance that suspended sediments travel.
Increase cycle time. To control turbidity, a longer cycle time could be used to reduce the velocity of the ascending loaded bucket through the water column, which reduces the potential to wash sediment from the bucket. Limiting the velocity of the descending bucket reduces the volume of sediment that is picked up and requires more total bites to remove the project material. For a clamshell bucket, the majority of the sediment resuspension occurs when the bucket hits the bottom.
Slow bucket at bottom and at water surface. Slowing the bucket at the bottom will reduce sediment resuspension when the bucket hits the bottom. Slowing the bucket at the water surface will reduce drainage at the surface.
Eliminate multiple bites. Until the turbidity exceedance is resolved, the contractor could be prohibited from using multiple bites of the clamshell bucket. When the bucket hits the bottom, an impact wave of suspended sediment travels along the bottom away from the dredge bucket. When the clamshell bucket takes multiple bites, the bucket loses sediment as it is reopens for subsequent bites. Sediment is also released higher in the water column as the bucket is raised, opened, and lowered.
Eliminate bottom stockpiling. The contractor should be prohibited to use bottom stockpiling to increase the efficiency of the dredging operation. Bottom stockpiling of dredged material in silty sediment has a similar effect as multiple dredging bites, an increased volume of sediment is released into the water column from the operation.
Avoid sweeping with bucket. Single bites of the sediment should be taken, and using the bucket to sweep or smooth out high spots should be avoided when working with contaminated sediments.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
63
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
Eliminate overflow or washing from scows. The contractor should be prohibited from overloading scows to increase the efficiency of the dredging operation or from washing excess material from scows.
Avoid using bucket or derrick to reposition barge. The barge should be repositioned using a second vessel and not the bucket, as to reduce sediment resuspension during relocating.
Specific operational BMPs to reduce turbidity outside the allowable mixing zone at the dredge site when using a hydraulic dredge include:
Use experienced operator. Experienced operators can better reduce sediment resuspension while maintaining production.
Avoid tidal extremes. Tidal extremes may limit the distance that suspended sediments travel.
Reduce impeller rotation speed. Reducing cutterhead rotation speed reduces the potential for side casting the excavated sediment away from the suction entrance and resuspending sediment. This measure is typically effective only on maintenance or relatively loose, fine-grained sediment.
Reduce swing speed. Reducing the swing speed ensures that the dredge head does not move through the cut faster than it can hydraulically pump the sediment and reduces the volume of resuspended sediment. The goal is to swing the dredge head at a speed that allows as much of the disturbed sediment as possible to be removed with the hydraulic flow. Typical swing speeds are 1.5 to 9 meters (5 to 30 feet) per minute.
Eliminate the process of bank undercutting. Dredge operators should remove the sediment in lifts equal to 80 percent or less of the cutterhead diameter.
Specific site containment BMPs to use if operational measures prove inadequate include:
Silt curtain. A silt curtain could be deployed around the dredge area, creating a physical barrier that contains the suspended sediments and allows them to settle out.
Gunderboom. A gunderboom is similar to the silt curtain; however, it is made of a permeable material. It filters out the sediment and allows the water to pass
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
64
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
through. It also extends all the way from the water surface to the sediment where the silt curtain only extends partially down the water column.
7.4.2
Wharf Demolition/Wharf and Dike Construction
To reduce water quality impacts associated with wharf and dike construction, the following BMPs could be implemented:
Remove debris. Remove demolition debris from waters of the state/United States daily and stockpile until disposal
Maintain solid debris curtain. Maintain a solid debris curtain in place during all demolition activities to isolate the active demolition area from the surrounding waters
7.4.3
Barge Offloading/Transport
Releases of dredged material outside of a fill site during transport could occur during transport of material from the source areas to the POLB or during disposal into the fill area. BMPs that could be implemented to minimize leakage from source areas are indicated in Table 6. These BMPs should be employed when monitoring indicates that an exceedance of water quality standards and permit limits is either likely or has already occurred to ensure compliance with permit conditions with minimal impact on both the environment and the construction schedule and budget. Table 6 Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Minimize Leakage and Contaminant Loss During Barge Offloading/Transport Equipment Selection Mechanical
Bucket size/type
Operational Controls
Site Containment
Eliminate barge overflow
Silt curtain1
Install spill plate/apron
Gunderboom1
Install filter material Avoid adverse weather Sealing flat‐deck barges/scows Notes: 1 Effectiveness dependent on the site’s hydrodynamic energy regime and water depth
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
65
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
A brief description of the BMPs listed in Table 6 is provided below:
Equipment BMPs to minimize sediment leakage and contaminant loss when using a mechanical offloader include:
Bucket size/type. Selection of the appropriate bucket can reduce spillage of sediment at the offloading location.
Specific operational BMPs that could be used to minimize sediment leakage and contaminant loss include:
Eliminate barge overflow. Eliminating barge overflow will reduce spillage of sediments into the water column.
Install spill plate/apron. Using a spill plate or apron at the offload site will reduce spillage of sediment into the water column.
Install filter material. When dewatering from a flat-deck barge, a filter can be used to reduce loss of sediment.
Avoid adverse weather. Avoiding adverse weather will reduce spillage during sediment offloading/transport.
Barge type. The contractor should use the appropriate type of barge (e.g., flatdeck barge with containment structures) to minimize sediment loss during offloading.
Specific site containment BMPs include:
Silt curtain. A silt curtain could be deployed around the offloading area, creating a physical barrier that contains the suspended sediments and allows them to settle out.
Gunderboom. A gunderboom is similar to the silt curtain; however, it is made of a permeable material. It filters out the sediment and allows the water to pass through. It also extends all the way from the water surface to the sediment where the silt curtain only extends partially down the water column.
7.4.4
Material Placement within Fill Site
BMPs that could be implemented to minimize loss of sediment from the fill site are listed in Table 7 and discussed below. These BMPs should be employed at all times to ensure that no exceedance of water quality standards will occur and to ensure compliance with permit Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
66
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
conditions with minimal impact on both the environment and the construction schedule and budget. Table 7 Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Minimize Sediment Loss During Discharge into Fill Site Equipment Selection Mechanical
Barge type Handling equipment type
Hydraulic 2 Offloader
Diffuser
Operational Controls
Use experienced operator Reduce rate of discharge Reduce barge movement during discharge Place material further away from dike/weir Eliminate barge overflow/spilling Adjust flow rate Adjust solids concentration at point of discharge Move discharge point to maximize retention time Closely monitor and adjust weir level
Site Containment Silt curtain1 Gunderboom1
Silt curtain1 Discharge site control: Install overflow weir Install baffles or other flow diversion device
Notes: 1 Effectiveness dependent on dynamic site conditions and water depth 2 Occasionally, a fill site elevation will require the use of an hydraulic offloader to place material behind the containment dike.
A brief description of the BMPs listed in Table 7 is provided below:
Equipment BMPs to reduce sediment loss when using a mechanical offloader to transfer sediments into a fill site or upland for placement include:
Barge type. The contractor should use the appropriate type of barge (e.g., flatdeck barge with containment structures) to minimize sediment loss during offloading.
Handling equipment type. The contractor should use the appropriate type of handling equipment (e.g., long-reach excavator) and spill aprons to reduce sediment loss.
Equipment BMPs to reduce sediment loss when using a hydraulic offloader include:
Diffuser. A diffuser can be used to slow the rate of discharge; therefore, reducing sediment resuspension in the fill and increasing the settling rates which will assist in controlling the loss of fines from the fill site.
Operational changes if using a mechanical offloader include:
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
67
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
Use experienced operator. Experienced operators can better reduce sediment resuspension while maintaining production.
Reduce rate of discharge. Disposing of sediment at a slower rate will have less impact on bottom and, therefore, reducing sediment resuspension.
Minimize barge movement during offloading. Moving the barge during offloading may increase the potential for losses during offloading.
Place sediment farther away from dike or weir. Position bottom-dump barges at a sufficient distance inside the slip to minimize the chance that excessive turbidity is released beyond the slip fill limits and that light transmittance requirements are exceeded outside the dike. Placing sediment farther away from dike or weir will increase retention time and allow more suspended sediment to settle.
Operational changes if using a hydraulic offloader include:
Adjust flow rate. Placing material at a slower rate will reduce the amount of sediment being discharged and increase the retention time in the settling basin.
Adjust solids concentration at point of discharge. In a settling basin, higher solids concentration may result in higher settling rates and less suspended sediment at the effluent discharge.
Move discharge point to maximize retention time. Moving the discharge point to a place in the settling basin that will increase retention time will allow more suspended sediment to settle.
Closely monitor and adjust weir level. The weir level should be adjusted as the settling basin is filled to maximize the settlement of fine material and minimize the amount of sediment that escapes in the return water.
Specific site containment BMPs if using a mechanical offloader include:
Silt curtain. A silt curtain could be deployed around the discharge area, creating a physical barrier that contains the suspended sediments and allows them to settle out.
Gunderboom. A gunderboom is similar to the silt curtain; however, it is made of a permeable material. It filters out the sediment and allows the water to pass through. It also extends all the way from the water surface to the sediment where the silt curtain only extends partially down the water column.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
68
December 2011 100343-02
Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan
Specific site containment BMPs if using a hydraulic offloader include:
Install an overflow weir. Include a weir system designed to maximize the settlement of fine material into the fill and minimize the amount of sediment that escapes in the return water. The specific design of the weir will vary with the fill geometry and fill height.
Silt curtain. When the dike is completed to full height, with a temporary drainage weir, a filter fabric barrier or continuous floating silt curtain should be install across, or just outside of, the weir outflow point to prevent the passage of suspended sediments out into the adjacent water area, if necessary.
Dredging (sweeping) outside of discharge point or weir at the end of fill operations. Include an additional final dredge pass over the area immediately adjacent to the containment berm in order to remove any escaped dredged material and place it back within the fill. This determination would be subject to results of observations via surveys and on water quality monitoring during the filling process.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
69
December 2011 100343-02
8 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING This section discusses the typical types of environmental monitoring activities that are usually required to be performed prior to, during, and after dredging, fill, and in-water construction activities in accordance with the regulatory permits issued for the project.
8.1
Water Quality Monitoring Program
Maintenance dredging, construction activities, and legacy contamination management all include activities that require water quality monitoring to ensure that short-term impacts are being controlled and long-term impacts are negligible. Water monitoring will be performed during these activities in accordance with project-specific WDRs issued by the RWQCB. Specifically, common activities occurring at the POLB that affect water quality include:
Dredging (via hydraulic or mechanical means) to maintain or increase navigation depth
Cutting or excavating to widen channels or improve wharves
Constructing or repairing rock dikes
Placing material in a nearshore CDF or storage area
Capping in-place or as part of a submerged CAD site
Mining sand
8.1.1
Dredging/Marine Excavation
A variety of dredging-related activities during capital projects may have adverse impacts on water quality and biological resources. Dredging and excavating slips and channels may result in sediment/soil resuspension during the removal process. Water quality may be adversely affected by dredging, as a consequence of sediment resuspension that occurs as the dredge bucket or hydraulic dredge removes sediment. Some resuspension may be controlled by dredge operations (i.e., speed of removal) and equipment types used (i.e., a hydraulic versus a mechanical dredge). However, the magnitude of resuspension may also be affected by uncontrollable sources, such as sediment type and hydrodynamic conditions. BMPs can be used to control resuspension and are described in Section 7.4. Resuspension has two potential effects on water quality: physical effects such as increased turbidity, decreased transmissivity, and a residuals layer and chemical effects caused by the desorption of Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
70
December 2011 100343-02
Environmental Monitoring
chemicals from suspended particulates. Water quality impacts from dredging are typically limited to the physical effects of turbidity and burial and are transient. A study, conducted by Anchor Environmental CA, L.P. (2003), comparing dredging-induced suspended sediment concentrations observed in the field to physical effects concentrations reported in literature found that dredging was not likely to cause acute lethal effects in aquatic organisms. Longterm impacts are not expected to occur due to the transient nature of suspended sediment following dredging.
8.1.2
In‐Water Construction and Fill Activities
Demolition and reconstruction of new wharves and shorelines may resuspend material during removal and placement of old and new materials, respectively. Rock dike construction may cause temporary resuspension with the release of quarry rock dust on the sediment surface. Finally, placement of material within a nearshore CDF may cause water quality impacts, as the material is released and spreads throughout the water column into the CDF. In most cases, water quality impacts are limited again to the physical effects of turbidity and burial, because the material is not contaminated. Some contaminated material may be placed in a nearshore CDF; however, toxicity-related water quality impacts are typically limited by the presence of a partial or full dike or weir enclosing the CDF. Long-term impacts are not expected to occur due to the transient nature of suspended sediment following these activities.
8.1.3
Legacy Contamination Management
Management of legacy contamination at the POLB may also cause water quality impacts. Dredging to remove contaminated sediments may cause sediment resuspension and chemical release from particulates into the water column at levels of concern. In addition, following completion of dredging, the remaining residuals (post-dredging surface sediments that are dislodged or suspended by the dredging operation and are subsequently redeposited on the bottom of the waterbody) may be contaminated and, therefore, have the potential for water quality impacts. As previously described, the placement of contaminated sediments in a nearshore CDF may also result in short-term water quality impacts as the material is released and spreads Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
71
December 2011 100343-02
Environmental Monitoring
throughout the water column into the CDF; however, toxicity-related water quality impacts are typically limited by the presence of a partial or full dike or weir enclosing the CDF. Long-term impacts are not expected to occur due to the transient nature of suspended sediment following dredging. As with clean sediment, BMPs may be implemented to control and minimize water quality impacts associated with removal and management (Section 7.4). In addition to standard BMPs, additional BMPs may be required when removing contaminated material due to the greater potential for contaminant release. Specialized BMPs that could be required in some cases are discussed in detail in the CSTF Strategy (2005).
8.2
Mitigation Monitoring
Special monitoring requirements may be requested for specific environmental concerns as part of permit compliance. Monitoring activities related to marine construction work may include the following:
8.3
Marine mammal observations
Marine bird observations
Post-dredge benthic/chemical evaluation
Special water quality monitoring requirements
Eelgrass Monitoring
Eelgrass is a marine plant that forms meadows or beds in southern California bays and estuaries. It provides habitat for a variety of fish and invertebrates and a food source and nursery for juvenile fish and foraging area for birds. Eelgrass habitat is protected under Section 404 of the CWA and is also designated EFH. Under the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, mitigation is required for projects that may adversely impact eelgrass (NMFS 1991). Prior to construction, eelgrass monitoring should be conducted within the project area as well as immediately adjacent areas that may be impacted. This survey should be completed during the active growth phase from March through October. Surveys are valid for 60 days, with the exception of surveys completed from August through October. Surveys completed from August through October are valid until the resumption of the active
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
72
December 2011 100343-02
Environmental Monitoring
growth phase, which is typically the beginning of March. Survey methods may include diver transects, remote cameras, or acoustic surveys (e.g., side-scan sonar) with diver confirmation. If the pre-construction survey indicates the presence of eelgrass, the distribution of eelgrass should be mapped. In addition, turion counts should be performed to determine the density of the eelgrass bed or patch. Turion counts should be performed using 0.25-square-meter quadrats randomly placed throughout the vegetated eelgrass habitat. This information is used to determine the degradation of existing eelgrass beds as well as the appropriate density for transplanting during required mitigation. A post-construction survey must be completed within 30 days of project completion to determine the area impacted by dredging activities. The need for eelgrass mitigation will be determined by the NMFS in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Based on impacts to eelgrass, a mitigation ratio of 1.2 to 1 may be required (NMFS 1991).
8.4
Caulerpa taxifolia Monitoring
C. taxifolia is an invasive alga that poses a substantial threat to marine ecosystems in southern California. This alga was previously detected and eradicated from two locations in southern California, including Aqua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington Harbor. In order to detect other infestations and prevent the spread of C. taxifolia, as well as eight other species of invasive C. taxifolia, monitoring is required prior to a permitted disturbing activity (e.g., dredging, bulkhead repair, etc.). It should be noted that pile-driving activities conducted by the POLB are exempt from these requirements. Surveys should be conducted in accordance with the Caulerpa Control Protocol (NMFS and CDFG 2008). Within a C. taxifolia-free system, such as Long Beach Harbor, a surveillance level pre-construction survey must be completed 30 to 90 days prior to the disturbing activity. A surveillance level survey consists of covering at least 20 percent of the bottom. Survey methods may include diver transects, remote cameras, or acoustic surveys with diver confirmation. Within an infected system, higher level surveys (high intensity level and/or eradication level) must be completed. These surveys are not relevant to the current condition of Long Beach Harbor and, therefore, are not discussed in further detail. Surveyors must be certified by NMFS and CDFG. If C.
taxifolia is found, NMFS and CDFG must be notified within 24 hours.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
73
December 2011 100343-02
Environmental Monitoring
8.5
Confirmation Sampling for Remedial Projects
When a sediment management action is required to meet a remedial (cleanup) objective, post-construction verification that the action was successful in meeting cleanup objectives is typically required by the regulatory agencies. In these instances, prior studies have been conducted that tie a potential ecological and/or human health risk to a measured concentration of one or more chemicals in sediment. A range of alternatives for reducing sediment concentrations to less than the risk threshold such as dredging, capping, and treatment are considered. Depending on the method selected, each alternative has varying accuracy as to what the final surface concentration may look like following the action. For example, dredging is a good way to remove bulk chemicals from a site but often leaves surface residual contamination as an artifact of the dredging process. Capping, on the other hand, does not remove any of the chemicals but is much more effective in leaving a “clean” surface layer. Regardless of the method selected, a confirmatory sampling program that matches the action must be implemented to monitor the success of the action. If dredging is selected as the remedial alternative, the confirmatory sampling program should include a provision for surface weighted averaging of the results to account for presence of dredge residuals. As the sediments shift around and the concentrations equilibrate, the final surface concentrations will become less variable.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
74
December 2011 100343-02
9 REFERENCES Anchor (Anchor Environmental CA, L.P.), 2003. Evaluation of Dredge Material Disposal
Options for Channel Deepening at Port of Hueneme Harbor. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. March 2003. CSTF (Contaminated Sediments Task Force), 2005. Los Angeles Regional Contaminated
Sediments Task Force: Long-Term Management Strategy. Prepared by Anchor Environmental CA, L.P.; Everest International Consultants, Inc.; and AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. May 2005. Everest and Anchor QEA (Everest International Consultants, Inc., and Anchor QEA, L.P.), 2009. Maintenance Dredging and Separation of Contaminated Sediments from the
Marina del Rey South Entrance Channel. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. May 2009. Everest and Anchor, 2009. Los Angeles Regional Dredged Material Management Plan. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. February 2009. GeoSyntec Consultants, 2003. Contaminated Sediments Market Evaluation: A Report on the
Market for Beneficial Reuse of Contaminated Dredged Sediments in the Greater Los Angeles Area. Prepared for Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder, 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. Environmental Management, 19:81-97. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1991 (as amended). Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (Revision 11). August 2005. Palermo, M.R., J. Miller, S. Maynord, and D. Reible, 1998a. Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments. USEPA 905/B-96/004. Prepared for the Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/iscmain. Palermo, M.R., Clausner, J.E., Rollings, M.P., Williams, G.L., Myers, T.E., Fredette, T.J., and Randall, R.E, 1998b. Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping. Technical
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
75
December 2011 100343-02
References
Report DOER-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. POLB (Port of Long Beach), 2011. TMDL comments provided to the USEPA and RWQCB. Available from: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_decisions/basin_plan_amendments/t echnical_documents/bpa_66_New_td.shtml. Ports (Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach), 2009. Water Resource Action Plan. Final Report. State Water Resources Control Board and California Environmental Protection Agency (SWRCB and CalEPA), 2009. Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Part 1 Sediment Management Quality. Available from: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/bptcp/docs/sediment/sed_qlty_part1. pdf. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2003. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Disposal at Island, Nearshore, or Upland Confined Disposal Facilities – Testing Manual (UTM). ERDC/EL TR-03-1. Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE, Engineer Research and Development Center, Washington, DC. USACE, 2006. Regional General Permit Number 67. Discharges of Dredged or UplandDerived Fill Materials for Beach Nourishment. Los Angeles District of the USACE. September 25, 2006. USEPA/USACE (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USACE), 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal – Testing Manual (OTM). USEPA 503/8-91/001. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC. USEPA/USACE, 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of
the U.S. - Testing Manual (ITM). USEPA 823-B-98-004. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Sediment Management Handbook Port of Long Beach
76
December 2011 100343-02
