Attendees:

J. Michael Lyons/Shirley Birosik, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Barbara Munoz, City of Long Beach
Tom Johnson/Rick Cameron/Stacey Crouch, Port of Long Beach
Mo Chang/Doland Cheung/Tony Risko, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ralph Appy, Port of Los Angeles
Lauma Jurkevics/Jaime Kooser, California Coastal Commission
Korie Johnson, National Marine Fisheries Service
Steven John, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dean Smith, Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors
Geoffrey Owu, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Mark Gold (via phone), Heal the Bay
Guang-yu Wang, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
Scott Gordon/Jason Wucetich, Congressman Kuykendall’s Office
David Moore, MEC Analytical
Russ Boudreau, Moffatt & Nichol Engineers
Janice Peck, Councilmember Dan Baker’s Office
Nick Buhbe, Ogden Environmental

Welcome, Introductions, and Announcements (Jaime Kooser)

Michael Lyons requested that we reschedule the Executive Committee meeting because Dennis Dickerson (LARWQCB) would not be able to attend the meeting on November 16^th. Note: Management from the four regulatory agencies on the committee need to notify Lauma Jurkevics as to other possible meeting dates in November.

At the January 1999 Task Force meeting, Catherine Tyrrell (then at the LARWQCB) announced that the City of Los Angeles was seeking a grant from MTA to work on the cleanup of pollutants originating from transportation sources. Catherine was going to obtain more information on this issue to determine whether the Task Force should send a support letter. To close the loop on this issue, Lauma informed the members that the City did not return phone calls so the Task Force is not going to pursue this issue any further.

Jaime Kooser updated the Task Force on the NOAA funding. Coastal Commission staff met with NOAA staff to discuss potential funding opportunities. However, there now appears to be little hope for getting money this year for Task Force sediment projects through the Lands Legacy Initiative because the Senate did not approve most of that funding.

Jaime discussed the Task Force’s workplan and reminded the subcommittees that data gaps need to be identified. Later in the meeting, the subcommittees presented their draft data gaps reports for Task Force review.

Jaime announced that the Task Force still needed to get a co-chair from the LARWQCB. Jim Kuykendall was going to be the co-chair but Michael doesn’t know if this will still be the case since Jim has not attended any Task Force meetings. Jaime emphasized that having another co-chair to replace Catherine Tyrrell would help focus the Task Force and help us to solve problems that arise. Lauma had spoken with Jon Bishop (LARWQCB) about the Task Force and he seemed interested in participating. Jon is the Regional Programs Section Chief, has been involved with the LARWQCB’s TMDL process, watershed activities, and the regional database, and would be a good candidate to represent the LARWQCB as a co-chair. Michael will discuss this issue with Jon Bishop and Dennis Dickerson. Jaime will also follow up with Dennis.

Steven John voiced concerns about having a manager’s connection to the Task Force. With changes in staffing within the various participating agencies, the Task Force is losing its managers from the Management Committee. Instead, we’re seeing mostly the subcommittee members attending the Management Committee meetings (AKA Task Force meetings). For the Task Force to be more effective in the decision-making process, we need to bring back our managers.

Task Force Status Report

1. Subcommittee Data Gap Reports
   
   i. Sediment Screening Thresholds (Steven John):
   Steven handed out the draft report for the Task Force to review. Five tasks have been identified and include the following: to complete surveying sediment quality guidelines (SQGs); to complete collecting and compiling a summary of local data; to determine whether to proceed with SQGs; to compile local data and integrate into one database; and, to proceed with an SQG effort. The biggest expenses would appear to come from the latter two tasks, if the Task Force decided to go forward with establishing SQGs.
   
   Lauma announced that Steven Weisberg (SCCWRP) would consider providing some funds for establishing a single database. In addition, SCCWRP has staff resources familiar with writing proposals if the Task Force needs to submit grant requests. SCCWRP is already a member of the Task Force, as well as the Sediment Screening Thresholds subcommittee. So SCCWRP could serve as a valuable resource. Also, coastal regional monitoring being conducted in southern California has the SCCWRP connection. However, the subcommittee would first need to determine what direction to take with SQGs before it could decide on establishing a database.
   
   The Task Force members emphasized that if a database were to be developed, we would need to look at long-term management of such a database. The LARWQCB is developing a regional database but this process has been slow. Instead, Guang-yu Wang recommended we consider either working with the NOAA database or involving SCCWRP. Michael indicated that data transfer between SCCWRP, NOAA, and LARWQCB databases should be achievable since they are somewhat compatible (about 90% similar).
   
   ii. Upland Disposal and Beneficial Re-Use (Michael Lyons):
   Michael passed out handouts of the draft data gaps report, which the subcommittee discussed earlier in July. The data gaps included: conducting a siting study for a treatment and rehandling facility; determining whether concrete stabilization locks up chlorides and petroleum hydrocarbons; determining whether dewatering flows associated with physical separation would require treatment; determining whether dredged material from the Los Angeles River Estuary would be suitable for physical separation; and, gathering more information on existing upland disposal and beneficial re-use projects. As for the last item, Port of Long Beach has a scope of work available, which should go out within the next few weeks.
   
   Task Force members discussed the concrete stabilization component. Most studies seem to have been done on fresh water sediments. Testing on metals show they get locked up with this form of treatment. However, not much is known on its effectiveness on chlorides and petroleum hydrocarbons. New York data indicate that this process doesn’t tie up organochlorine-type compounds and according to standard material testing requirements, such sediments don’t meet the requirements for re-use. This may have since been overcome. If the Port of Long Beach were able to do the literature search, we might clarify the effectiveness of concrete stabilization.
   
   There was some confusion regarding dewatering flows associated with physical separation (FYI – these flows are not associated with dredging dewatering). When sediments undergo physical separation, they are put in a centrifuge whereby compounds may get pushed from the sediments into the aqueous solution. Therefore, contaminants could get concentrated into the dewatering flows. Such flows would need to be tested for compounds to determine if the flows could be discharged to the harbor or need to be put back into the separation process for treatment.
   
   The proposed siting study generated extensive discussion as to its usefulness. One question was why expend resources on a siting study if we already know that treatment and rehandling is not cost-effective. On the other hand, some members believed that a siting study would provide us with an economic evaluation to back up the claims that such re-use is not cost-effective. Others believed this study would be important when developing the environmental documents for the management plan.
   
   iii. Watershed Management and Source Reduction (Mark Gold):
   The subcommittee had not developed a data gaps report but was going to meet later that week to hear the results of CH2M Hill’s watershed study. CH2M Hill was contracted by the Corps to analyze existing data and determine what additional data needed to be collected on the sediment quality of Marina del Rey and Ballona Creek. In addition, the subcommittee would like to look at LACDPW’s annual stormwater monitoring report, which should now be available. LACDPW was going to not only report on last year’s data but also do a status and trend analysis based on the past three years’ data.
   
   Mark posed the question to the Task Force as to what kind of a role should the subcommittee have in monitoring. Also, what kind of monitoring should be done in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River watersheds? Currently, TMDLs and the stormwater permitting process serve as hooks for monitoring but sediment and biomonitoring aren’t being adequately addressed. Other data gaps include sediment fate transport issues, which probably require additional sampling by CH2M Hill.
   
   iv. Aquatic Disposal and Dredge Operations (Tony Risko):
   Tony presented nine data gaps: volumetric update on dredged materials; consolidation field data; regional siting locations for aquatic disposal; baseline biological characterization of port and harbor waters; bottom sediment characterization; contaminant flux monitoring; mechanical environmental control measures; sediment resuspension impacts; and, turbidity plumes from dredges. To resolve these gaps, it appears that a minimum of $1 million would be needed. Funding for most of the studies could potentially come from federal funds.
   
   Near the end of July, a draft report should be available on the Waterways Experiment Station’s contaminant flux work conducted for the North Energy Island Borrow Pit, off of Long Beach. Meanwhile, the Corps may need to re-evaluate the borrow source because of potential competition of Queens Gate material for the Palos Verdes Shelf capping project. Compatibility of material with bottom sediments needs to be assessed, as well as, getting data from future channels. Tony would like to set up a back to back subcommittee meeting in August to discuss the contaminant flux work and the resuspension effects on the aquatic environment. (Note: The subcommittee will meet at the Corps’ office on August 24, 10am-3pm, to discuss the contaminant flux work.)

Dredged Material Management Office (Jaime Kooser)

Jaime outlined some of the key issues discussed at the May Task Force meeting. Because of time limitations, the members agreed to defer further discussion to the Interim Advisory Committee meeting, scheduled later for that day.

LARWQCB Watershed Approach (Shirley Birosik)

Shirley briefly presented the chronology of watershed management. One of the key elements was the establishment of the Watershed Management Initiative. Each Regional Board has a watershed management "Chapter," which is available in electronic form. The management ideals include a geographical focus, stakeholder involvement, and prioritization. The LARWQCB is divided into Watershed Management Areas (WMAs) with the goal of addressing permits on a watershed basis. Shirley alerted the Task Force members that the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors and Dominguez Channel WMA will be addressed around 2001-2002. One issue of concern is how to minimize pathogens at Cabrillo Beach. However, there is no stakeholder group dedicated to this WMA so she wants to be sure people are aware of the processes involved. Within the LARWQCB, watershed teams are created to bring together staff from various programs (NPDES, WDRs, stormwater, planning) in order to have effective permitting and monitoring programs. Shirley also emphasized that the watershed approach and TMDL process are on a converging course. (Note: Handouts of presentation are available upon request.)

East Coast Sediment Management Approach (Russ Boudreau)

Russ focussed his discussion on the upper New York Harbor and the use of sub-channel placement cells (SPCs) for dredged material. These SPCs are confined aquatic disposal sites within a navigational channel that gets overdredged to accommodate such disposal. From 1914-1977, the harbor had a mud dump site that was used for disposing all sorts of dredged material. Now only Category I material can be placed at this site. So dredgers have to locate new disposal areas.

SPCs are now being considered as viable disposal options. Surface contaminated sediments at the SPC site get removed and disposed to upland areas. Then the material below gets dredged and disposed to the mud dump site. Once the SPC is created, it can be used for disposal of contaminated sediments.

In the development and design of the SPC, one must consider many factors, including ongoing sedimentation, current speed, shipping activity, excavation volumes, and placement capacity. This type of input information is entered into a cell model. Dredging methodologies are also assessed and include material and dredge types. For example, on the West Coast, clam-shell dredges are commonly used because they don’t entrain a lot of water and treatment of dewatering flows is not an issue.

The short-term fate of placed dredged material is assessed. This includes the movement of material occurring during the placement operation, sedimentation, and propeller wash erosion. Currently, the SPC in the upper New York Harbor is on hold, pending environmental review. The key issue is determining how well monitoring will be done. (Note: Handouts of presentation are available upon request.)

Draft Adoption Process Report (Michael Lyons)

Michael briefly discussed the key points of the report the Implementation Subcommittee developed. The purpose of the report is to determine what steps will need to be taken in order for the agencies to adopt the strategy once it is developed. The agencies should look at the timelines involved and consider how each would fit into the process. All comments on this report should be given to Michael by August 31^st, so that a final report could be presented at the September Task Force meeting.

Note: Electronic copies of the draft report have already been sent to key Task Force members. If you would like a copy of this draft report or the slide summary, please contact either Michael or Lauma.

Next Meeting