Los Angeles Basin Contaminated Sediments Task Force

Summary of Sediment Screening Thresholds Committee Meeting
June 21, 2000

1. Attendees: Maile Gee (CCC), David Moore (MEC), Steve Bay (SCCWRP), Guang yu Wang (SMBRP), John Johnsen (Hart Crowser), Seth Molinari (URS Corp), Burt Shepard (URS Corp), Corinne Severn (EVS), Michael Lyons (LARWQCB), Paul Johansen (POLA), Nick Buhbe (Ogden), Steven John (EPA)

2. Meeting purpose: discussion of draft Scope of Work for CSTF Study #6 (Sediment Quality Database); discussion of draft SOW for CSTF Study #7 (Establishing Sediment Quality Values); arranging for a demonstration of existing databases for the CSTF.

3. Meeting Notes:

(a) Sediment Subcommittee should identify key objectives and scheduling/timing of the work as these are the issues to be presented to the CSTF Executive Committee (July 5).

(b) Reiterating the three Study #6 tasks for assembling sediment quality data: (1) utilize existing database data (SCCWRP Bight studies, EMAP, etc.); (2) target historic dredging data (electronic and non-electronic); (3) integrate data into existing database. Database criteria should include being free, accessible and relatively easy to use.

(c) A user interface must be designed for the database, which leads to the question as to how CSTF intends to use the database. Is this a one time effort to create SQV’s or an ongoing data management effort? There is interest from other CSTF Subcommittees in a larger CSTF database that might include sediment quality data as well as watershed information.

(d) Integration of data should be a key focus of the Sediment Subcommittee as to accomplish Task #7 (establish SQVs) the data must be linked or integrated. Subcommittee was advised on the difficulty in assembling a database and establishing communication between data files. Developing an interface would be a complex undertaking while preparing an import/export tool would be easier (export data to a single data structure). Effort on the CSTF database would require precise importing of metadata (method detection limits, measurement units, methodologies, etc.).

(e) Summarizing – there would be two options for the Sediment Subcommittee database: (1) linking "live" databases or (2) unified format. Currently, the CSTF charter does not move past contaminated materials and setting SQVs. CSTF has not been charged with maintaining a database or with adding other data. CSTF would need to identify constructing a maintained/live/dynamic database as a goal.

Related to this is the concern that it is likely there will be holes in the data we are able to access where additional information will be necessary to move past a smaller subset of chemicals for which SQVs could be established. Modification of SQVs with a new database formed from additional info is the standard for preparing SQVs.

While the objective for the CSTF work is single time use, need to know ultimate plan for the database before it can be constructed.

(f) Geographic scope for data collection: Subcommittee discussed and concluded: Southern California Bight for all existing electronic (in existing databases) data, with LA County as the geographic scope for dredged materials reports (new files). Using all of the Bight data will help in validation of SQVs for LA County.

(g) Subcommittee needs to set standards for accepting studies (data) into the database. For example, biological data is necessary, not just chemical data, needs to have both toxic and non-toxic data. Paired chemical/biological effect data is high priority. Studies included shouldn’t be simply because they are convenient (i.e., in electronic format) but because they meet the selection criteria.

Need to establish, and include in Scope of Work, how the consultant will screen database for applicability (does it include controls, paired data, etc.) Data Suitability Criteria should be part of SOW, at a minimum setting a few criteria in the SOW and deferring the rest pending future discussions between hired consultant and CSTF. Suggestions for the Data Characteristics to be included in the SOW are:

- paired data (sediment chemistry data, biological effects data -- sediment toxicity; benthic infauna with individual numeric at species level; bioaccumulation, which, while not an "effect" should be included as it is available information. Should not include mussel watch -- water column studies -- data)

- geographic information (coordinates, latitude and longitude would be preferred, but can accept other data as well, such as a site map)

- timeframe for the data collection -- highest priority should be 1990 to present (coinciding with Greenbook)

- determinations on the quality (whether to accept or not) of the data will be made at a later time when SQVs are to be formed.

- effects judgement information is a high priority (i.e., pass or fail criteria)

Database features should include QA info, validation, controls, etc.

(h) The question of "what is intended to happen with the data" should be answered before attempting to capture it. A relational database structure similar to EMAP/SCCWRP databases was the recommendation of SBay and PJohansen with data fields and structure compatible with Bight ‘98 and EMAP, incorporating CSTF specific parameters and compatible with other databases. (Valuable information would come from including fate data -- where materials were disposed, volume, date, etc. Additionally, coring data is necessary, unlike monitoring data which is typically from the surface only, would include info such as compositing specifics, splits at depths, etc.)

The schema would also need to be able to handle older data that doesn’t have specific types of metadata (# of replicates, specific verses mean values, etc.).

It was proposed such a structure would be used to bring dredged material evaluation data into electronic format and that this structure be an attachment to the RFP (as well as the database inventory) at a "conceptual level."

Basic question is whether to link databases together with translating tables or to export data to a common database of standardized format (the latter of which would provide opportunity for necessary conversions, data standardization, etc., to occur). Key function of Study #6 is to provide set of data that can be utilized for Study #7 (versus using the database for other CSTF uses, or potential future uses).

How should SOW address this? This decision can be deferred until a later date. Task #1 should be to validate data, change format as necessary, fill in other parameters as necessary.

(i) Completion of the database (Study #6) within one year of the start for a July 2001 completion date.

(j) Topic: Database Demo

Sediment subcommittee was unresolved over whether database should be expanded to cover other CSTF database needs ... should this be an accessible or restricted database? Establish the sediment database into a framework that allows input of other GIS levels (for the purposes of the Watershed Subcomm).

Questions to be addressed: are we to develop an information management system for CSTF? What are database objectives of the subcomm (something that can be scaled up, require information management plan for future projects)? How would it be funded? How would it be used (this is what the demo’s could help answer)? Consider using Regional Board or SCCWRP databases.

Sediment subcommittee agreed to meet with the watershed and other subcomm’s (implementation subcomm) regarding utilizing the sediment database for on-going information management. Additionally, as this could affect the entire CSTF and require allocation of funds to develop and maintain, involvement by the CSTF Management Committee is needed, specifically to address the questions of how the database would be funded and how it would be used.

(k) Schedule:

* July 18 meeting of all the Subcommittees interested in a CSTF database. Schedule database demonstrations (CSTF Mgmt Comm schedule to meet 7/18 – the subcomm mtg will be afterwards, or if the Mgmt Comm mtg is canceled, in place of Mgmt mtg. At POLA.

*Comments on draft SOW #6 to SJohn by COB June 26.

*Redraft SOW #6 and e-mail to Subcomm for review by COB 6/30.

*E-mail SOW #7 to Sed Subcomm by 6/26.

*Comments


Return to the Contaminated Sediments Task Force Committee Meetings page.

Return to the Contaminated Sediments Task Force home page.

Return to the California Coastal Commission's home page.