Sediment Management Handbook for Dredge and Fill Projects

September 2018 Port of Long Beach

Sediment Management Handbook for Dredge and Fill Projects

Prepared for Port of Long Beach

September 2018 Port of Long Beach

Sediment Management Handbook for Dredge and Fill Projects

Prepared for Port of Long Beach 4801 Airport Plaza Drive Long Beach, California 90815

Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 27201 Puerta Real, Suite 350 Mission Viejo, California 92691

Sediment Management Handbook i September 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Water Resources Action Plan .......................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Regional Sediment Management Principals and the Contaminated Sediment

Management Task Force ............................................................................................................................... 10 1.5 Green Port Policy and Sustainable Practices ......................................................................................... 11 1.6 Organization of the Sediment Management Handbook .................................................................. 12

2 Operations Sediment Management Plan .......................................................................... 13 2.1 Dredge Committee .......................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Implementation of Dredging and Fill Projects ...................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Step 1: Project Initiation ................................................................................................................. 16 2.2.2 Step 2: Permitting ............................................................................................................................. 17 2.2.3 Step 3: Final Project Design .......................................................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Step 4: Pre-construction ................................................................................................................ 18 2.2.5 Step 5: Project Construction ......................................................................................................... 18 2.2.6 Step 6: Permit Closure .................................................................................................................... 18

3 Sediment Management Strategies ...................................................................................... 19 3.1 Contaminated Sediments Task Force and Port of Long Beach Sediment Management

Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.2 Evaluation of Sediment Reuse and Disposal Alternatives ................................................................ 21 3.3 Sediment Management Alternatives for Clean Sediment ................................................................ 24

3.3.1 Beneficial Reuse in a Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility) ......................... 24 3.3.2 Beneficial Reuse in Shallow Water Habitat Area .................................................................. 24 3.3.3 Temporary Upland Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse ...................................................... 26 3.3.4 Temporary Aquatic Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse ..................................................... 26 3.3.5 Beneficial Reuse for Beach Nourishment ................................................................................ 26 3.3.6 Clean Cap/Cover for Confined Aquatic Disposal or Capping Projects ........................ 27 3.3.7 Ocean Disposal .................................................................................................................................. 27

3.4 Sediment Management Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment ............................................... 27 3.4.1 Beneficial Reuse in a Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility) ......................... 27 3.4.2 Temporary Upland Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse ...................................................... 27 3.4.3 Treatment for Beneficial Reuse in Port Fill .............................................................................. 32

Sediment Management Handbook ii September 2018

3.4.4 Upland Placement ............................................................................................................................ 32 3.4.5 Submerged Confined Aquatic Disposal Site .......................................................................... 34

4 Fill Site Management ............................................................................................................. 35 4.1 Potential Sources of Fill Material ................................................................................................................ 35 4.2 Prioritization of Fill Material ......................................................................................................................... 35

4.2.1 Third-Party Material ......................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.2 Excavated Materials ......................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.3 Temporary Storage Material (Upland and Aquatic) ............................................................ 36 4.2.4 Borrow Site .......................................................................................................................................... 37

4.3 Evaluation of Sediment Quality for Fill Material ................................................................................... 37 4.3.1 Chemical Nature ............................................................................................................................... 37 4.3.2 Structural Nature .............................................................................................................................. 37

5 Permitting ................................................................................................................................. 38 5.1 Permit Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................................... 38 5.2 Types of Permits ............................................................................................................................................... 39 5.3 Agency Coordination ...................................................................................................................................... 42

6 Sediment Testing .................................................................................................................... 43 6.1 Evaluation of Geotechnical and Chemical Suitability for Selected Reuse or Disposal

Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................................... 43 6.1.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan .......................................................................................................... 44 6.1.2 Sampling Frequency ........................................................................................................................ 44

6.2 Testing for Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility) ............................................................ 44 6.3 Testing for Knockdown Dredging .............................................................................................................. 45 6.4 Testing for Shallow Water Habitat Creation .......................................................................................... 45 6.5 Testing for Temporary Aquatic Storage .................................................................................................. 46 6.6 Testing for Beach Nourishment .................................................................................................................. 46 6.7 Testing for Clean Cap/Confined Aquatic Disposal Cover ................................................................. 47 6.8 Testing for Ocean Disposal .......................................................................................................................... 47

6.8.1 Geotechnical and Chemical Analyses ....................................................................................... 47 6.8.2 Biological Testing ............................................................................................................................. 48

6.9 Testing for Temporary Upland Storage ................................................................................................... 49 6.10 Testing for Treatment (Various Alternatives) ......................................................................................... 49 6.11 Testing for Upland Placement ..................................................................................................................... 50 6.12 Testing for Submerged Confined Aquatic Disposal Site/In Situ Capping .................................. 50

Sediment Management Handbook iii September 2018

7 Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan ................................................................. 52 7.1 Dredge Plan and/or Fill Plan ........................................................................................................................ 52 7.2 Sediment Disposal/Reuse Alternatives .................................................................................................... 53 7.3 Monitoring Program and Environmental Controls.............................................................................. 53

7.3.1 Water Quality Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................... 53 7.4 Standard Best Management Practices for Dredging and Placement Activities ....................... 54

7.4.1 Dredging .............................................................................................................................................. 54 7.4.2 Material Placement within a Confined Fill Site ..................................................................... 57

8 Environmental Monitoring ................................................................................................... 60 8.1 Water Quality Monitoring Program .......................................................................................................... 60

8.1.1 Dredging/Marine Excavation ....................................................................................................... 60 8.1.2 In-Water Construction and Fill Activities ................................................................................. 61 8.1.3 Legacy Contamination Management ....................................................................................... 61

8.2 Mitigation Monitoring .................................................................................................................................... 61 8.3 Eelgrass Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 62 8.4 Caulerpa taxifolia Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 62 8.5 Confirmation Sampling for Remedial Projects ...................................................................................... 63

9 References ................................................................................................................................ 64

TABLES Table 1 Sediment Management Alternatives for Clean Sediment ...................................................... 25 Table 2 Sediment Management Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment ................................... 29 Table 3 Port Capital Dredging Project Permit Process ............................................................................. 41 Table 4 Summary of Testing Requirements to Determine Suitability for Each Placement

Alternative .................................................................................................................................................... 43 Table 5 Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Reduce Resuspension and

Contaminant Loss During Dredging ................................................................................................ 55 Table 6 Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Minimize Sediment Loss During

Discharge into Fill Site ............................................................................................................................ 58

FIGURES Figure 1 Operations Sediment Management Process ............................................................................... 15 Figure 2 In-Harbor Sediment Management Alternatives Assessment ............................................... 20 Figure 3 Decision Tree for Sediment Management Alternatives Assessment ................................ 23

Sediment Management Handbook iv September 2018

APPENDICES Appendix A Dredge Committee Schedules and Tracking Sheets Appendix B CSTF Application Appendix C Dredged Material Amendment Testing to Stabilize Oily Material: Pier D Cut

Middle Harbor Redevelopment Program Appendix D Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan Example: Middle Harbor Appendix E Achieving Design and Environmental Performance Standard for Dredging and Sediment Fill Sites

Sediment Management Handbook v September 2018

ABBREVIATIONS

BMP best management practice BP bioaccumulation potential CAD confined aquatic disposal CCA California Coastal Act CCC California Coastal Commission CCR California Code of Regulations CDF confined disposal facility CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Policy Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSLC California State Lands Commission 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 DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control 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 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

Sediment Management Handbook vi September 2018

MPRSA Marina Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 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 SC-DMMT Southern California Dredged Material Management Team

SET standard elutriate test SIP Standard Individual Permit SP solid phase SMP Sediment Management Plan SPP suspended particulate phase STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration SVOC semivolatile organic compound 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

Sediment Management Handbook vii September 2018

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 8 September 2018

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. Historically, sediments dredged at the POLB have been managed through careful coordination with large capital improvement construction projects (i.e., fill projects); thus, dredged materials were efficiently managed when needed. More recently, however, capital improvement projects with active or planned large fill sites have been infrequent and, thus, the Port has a need for better long-term dredged material management planning. Long-term planning is critical to accommodate deepening programs and maintenance dredging needed to accommodate the world’s largest ships.

1.2 Background Located in 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 $180 billion in annual trade, and the combined harbor (POLB and Port of Los Angeles [POLA]) handles more than 40% 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 vessel sizes grow, the POLB must create new land for cargo terminals and deepen and maintain 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 affect 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 sustainable port operations and protect and improve marine resources in the harbor while continuing port development. Submerged lands in the State of California are managed by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC). The City of Long Beach acts as a Trustee of the State for managing tidelands in Long Beach within the Harbor District. Current CSLC guidelines for environmental management of State aquatic land mandate that the tidelands be managed for commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and wildlife habitat values. The management of sediments accumulating in navigation channels important for commercial purposes fulfills multiple key criteria under the CSLC Public Trust Doctrine (Commerce and Navigation). CCA was developed to protect valuable natural resources for all residents. Projects implemented in the California coastal zone must be planned for the protection of those resources. Port activities like dredging and filling are to be carried out in a manner that will maintain a healthy marine community and should only be conducted when there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative (Sections 30230 and 30233).


Dredging and filling activities are permitted by both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These activities include dredging and dredged material placement or disposal, 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. Due to the scope and complexity of large programs, the Port often develops a project-specific Sediment Management Plan (SMP) to minimize the project’s environmental impacts and its potential for violating regulatory permits to help the project proceed as efficiently as possible.

1.3 Water Resources Action Plan In 2009, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (Ports) developed and adopted the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach Water Resources Action Plan (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.

The WRAP (Ports 2009) achieves its purpose by implementing a set of control measures that address specific sources and activities that impact harbor water and sediment quality. Control Measures S-1 and S-2 of the WRAP specifically address sediment management within the Ports.

Control Measure S-1 (Operations Sediment Management Plan/Capital and Maintenance Programs) was created to develop sediment management guidance for establishing priorities for removal, disposal, and management of sediments. This handbook serves as the resulting guidance for Control Measure S-1, summarizing the testing, dredging, and disposal of clean and contaminated sediments generated during port operations.

Control Measure S-2 (Legacy Hot Spot Management/Remedial and TMDL Program) provides for developing strategies to manage legacy contaminants in sediments as part of the implementation of and compliance with the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Toxics Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). The TMDL was adopted in March 2012 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and State WRQCB and addresses water quality impairments due to metals and organic compound concentrations in multiple environmental media, including harbor sediments.

The POLB is working with TMDL stakeholders to develop a Contaminated Sediment Management Plan (CSMP; Anchor, 2015) that provides 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 the CSMP and national remediation guidance. POLB-led remediation projects will be incorporated into the Operations SMP process.


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 USACE, USEPA, National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), California Coastal Commission (CCC), Los Angeles RWQCB, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), POLB, POLA, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors, Heal the Bay, and other interested parties. The CSTF review area includes the coastal areas of Los Angeles County, extending from Santa Monica Bay to San Pedro and Alamitos Bays (e.g., Marina del Rey/Ballona Creek Entrance Channel, the Ports, the Los Angeles River Estuary, and the mouth of Alamitos Bay).

The POLB is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding 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 BMPs, including dredging equipment and methods, turbidity control measures for dredging and disposal, and monitoring protocols.

3. Beneficially reuse all contaminated sediments generated on a project. The CSTF has a long-term goal of 100% beneficial reuse of 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 sediment management options (see Section 2.1). 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.


In addition to the CSTF, the Southern California Dredged Material Management Team (SC-DMMT) is an interagency team that oversees dredging projects and dredging policy issues within the Southern California area. The SC-DMMT review area is a broader area and includes the counties of San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles (projects not handled by the CSTF), Ventura, Santa Barbara, and parts of San Luis Obispo County.

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 when possible. Beneficial reuse options, such as reusing the material as fill material for a port landfill, are ranked higher in priority in terms of 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 project-specific SMP and implemented during project activities. These BMPs focus on dredging equipment and construction methods to minimize turbidity and impacts to water quality.

Project planning and coordination. The POLB’s internal Dredge Committee oversees port-wide sediment management through regularly scheduled meetings to coordinate port dredge and fill projects. When appropriate, the POLB coordinates with the CSTF on regional management options for 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


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 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 discusses current and future port dredge and fill projects and acts as the POLB’s internal working group for sediment management. The committee consists of representatives from the POLB’s Engineering Bureau (Program Management, Design, and Construction), Environmental Planning Division, Survey Division, Tenant Services and Operations, and the Port Pilots. The Dredge Committee’s chairperson is the Deputy Chief Harbor Engineer or Senior Program Manager in charge of dredging. 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 the Engineering Bureau, Environmental Planning, Surveys, and Tenant Services and Operations staff, and Port Pilots, 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 ‒ 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 Geographic Information System 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, efficient manner Environmental Planning Division

‒ Coordinate the POLB’s development and maintenance activities with the CSTF, including periodic reporting of the POLB’s status regarding dredge and fill projects

‒ Track regulatory developments that may affect projects and report these developments to the Dredge Committee

‒ Ensure legacy hot spots are managed in a timely, efficient manner Tenant Services and Operations

‒ Coordinate with tenants and shipping lines regarding dredging projects ‒ Track size of vessels calling at the port ‒ Provide input on dredge project priorities

Survey Division ‒ Provide bathymetric surveys for dredge planning, design, and permit compliance

Port Pilots ‒ Provide input on widths and depths required for safe navigation

2.2 Implementation of Dredging and Fill Projects Under the POLB’s Operations SMP, dredging (capital and maintenance) and fill projects are executed as illustrated in Figure 1 and detailed below. The four divisions (Program Management, Engineering Design, Environmental Planning, and Construction Management) work together with the Dredge Committee to execute projects to ensure priorities and best management strategies are met.


Figure 1 Operations Sediment Management Process


2.2.1 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.

For capital and remediation dredging projects, 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 and permitting of the project. At a minimum, the HDP application must 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, and project schedule)

Conceptual level design drawings that include dredge footprint, depths, and volumes Preferred and alternative disposal/beneficial reuse Preferred and alternative fill material source

For maintenance dredging projects, a Request for Planning Support Services will need to be submitted to the Environmental Planning Division once the details of the project have been finalized to initiate the permitting process for the maintenance dredging project. At a minimum the services request must 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, dredge method [mechanical or knockdown], design depth, and any other in-water work [debris and piling removal]) and project schedule.

Final signed design drawings that include dredge footprint, depths, and volumes. The design drawing should be based on recent bathymetric survey data (e.g., no more than 3 to 4 months old).

Proposed disposal site (if applicable).


2.2.2 Step 2: Permitting The Environmental Planning Division will review the HDP application or service request and initiate the regulatory agency application and permitting 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:

Prepare an application (see CSTF application in Appendix B) or request a letter to initiate the permitting process

Initiate a project-specific SMP if needed (Section 7) Develop a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) per the CSTF process (Section 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 re-handling (Section 6)

Validate potential disposal or reuse options for material Validate potential fill material sources Finalize a project-specific SMP if needed (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 Environmental Planning Division will also coordinate with the lead federal agency on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

2.2.3 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)


2.2.4 Step 4: Pre-construction This step includes issuance of a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to the contractor. During this stage, Environmental Planning will:

Obtain regulatory NTPs

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

2.2.5 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 as follows:

Environmental Planning ‒ Oversee field water quality monitoring and reporting in accordance with Waste

Discharge Requirements (WDRs) 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 the

post-dredge report ‒ Update Program Management on final dredge and fill volumes for the master list

2.2.6 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.


3 Sediment Management Strategies This section describes CSTF and POLB strategies for managing 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

The POLB’s management priority options for clean and contaminated material are consistent with the CSTF’s recommended guidance. 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 only if no agency-approved, cost-effective reuse options meeting the project schedule can be identified. Figure 2 illustrates the in-harbor sediment management alternatives.

For contaminated material, the Port’s preferred beneficial reuse option is to use the dredge material as fill material for Port fill sites as part of terminal redevelopment projects. However, as port fill site opportunities become increasingly scarce, it will become difficult to align this disposal option with POLB’s future capital deepening programs and maintenance dredging needs. In addition, there is currently no feasible and cost-effective treatment method and disposal option for contaminated dredged material in the Southern California region, other than treatment for situations where the material can be reused in a port fill site. In addition, treatment involves needing a large open area to process and temporarily store the material, which is not available in the Port area as open land is


Figure 2 In-Harbor Sediment Management Alternatives Assessment

limited and priority is reserved for Port operations. As such, if those options are not available, the Port may need to consider other options for disposal of contaminated material such as CAD sites or creation of shallow water habitat. Accordingly, because of the unique Port environment, challenges, and variability in future disposal opportunities, the POLB’s SMP decision tree for clean and contaminated sediment is organized differently. It places beneficial reuse in a Port fill site and other reuse options higher in priority and allows for a wider array of options to be evaluated simultaneously.

The POLB evaluates sediment management options for clean sediments per the following order of priority:

1. Beneficial reuse in a port fill (nearshore confined disposal facility [CDF]) 2. Select one of the following depending on specific Port need:

a. Beneficial reuse for shallow water habitat (SWH) creation b. Temporary (aquatic or upland) storage for later beneficial reuse (e.g., Western

Anchorage Storage Site) c. Beneficial reuse for beach nourishment d. Clean cap/cover for CAD or other capping projects

3. Permanent placement at an aquatic storage area (e.g., Western Anchorage Storage Site) 4. Ocean disposal


The POLB evaluates sediment management options for contaminated material per the following order of priority:

1. Beneficial reuse in a port fill (nearshore CDF) 2. Select one of the following depending on specific Port need:

a. Submerged CAD site b. Lower layers of shallow water habitat (SWH) creation c. Temporary upland storage for later beneficial reuse d. Treatment and reuse as port fill

3. Upland landfill disposal

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 3, whenever possible. Upon determination of a required dredging action, the available sediment management options and other regional placement options for clean and contaminated material should be identified. The decision tree (Figure 3) 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 consistent with the goals of the CSTF, which include maximizing beneficial reuse of dredged material and minimizing unconfined 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 to minimize the costs associated with the collection and analysis of dredged material.

As shown in Figure 3, 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 clean (i.e., suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal), then port construction fill, if available, should again first be considered as the preferred management option. Placement areas may have additional contaminant and geotechnical limits, restricted capacity, limited schedule, and defined permit conditions that may limit feasibility of placement in port fill. In addition, it is preferred to accommodate contaminated material in a port fill over clean material because the fill provides the most efficient method to manage contaminated materials. If no immediate port construction fill project is available for clean material, multiple options may be considered based on available


capacity, need, and technical/logistical constraints. Material from small projects may be temporarily placed upland to accommodate fill construction schedules or treated to meet POLB site construction needs. Beneficial reuse for SWH creation, temporary aquatic storage for later port use, beach nourishment, and cap/cover for CAD or other capping projects should all be considered equally depending on current needs. Permanent placement at an aquatic storage area or at the USEPA-designated ocean disposal site 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.

2. 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. As mentioned above, placement areas may have contaminant and geotechnical limits, restricted capacity, limited schedule, and defined permit conditions. If no immediate port construction fill project is available, multiple options may be considered based on available capacity, need, technical/logistical constraints, and degree of contamination. Material from small projects may be temporarily placed upland to accommodate fill construction schedules or treated to meet POLB site construction needs. POLB is developing a CAD site to improve habitat quality in the Outer Harbor area (see Section 3.4.5). Disposal in an upland landfill 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.


Figure 3 Decision Tree for Sediment Management Alternatives Assessment

Note: CAD: confined aquatic disposal

Dredging Action Required

Identify Available Beneficial Use and Placement Options

Design Program to Test for Available Placement Options

Sediment Chemical Analysis and Other Testing Requirements

Clean Sediment

Beneficial Use in Port Fill

Select one of the following depending on specific Port need:

•Shallow water habitat creation

•Temporary (aquatic or upland) storage for later beneficial reuse

•Beneficial reuse for beach nourishment

•Clean cap/cover for CAD or capping projects

Permanent placement at an aquatic storage area

Ocean disposal

Contaminated Sediment

Beneficial Use in Port Fill

Select one of the following depending on specific Port need:

•Submerged CAD site

•Lower layers of shallow water habitat (SWH) creation

•Temporary upland storage for later beneficial reuse

•Treatment and reuse as port fill

Upland landfill disposal


3.3 Sediment Management Alternatives for Clean Sediment The currently available sediment management alternatives for clean material include beneficial placement in a port fill, SWH, temporary aquatic storage area, beach, or as a cap for a CAD or capping project. Permanent disposal options include placement in an aquatic storage area or ocean disposal. Sediment management alternatives for clean sediment are summarized in Table 2 and described in more detail in the following subsections. Figure 3 provides a graphical depiction for some of these options.

3.3.1 Beneficial Reuse in a Port Fill (Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility) Nearshore CDFs are usually designed as part of a capital improvement project to support port operations or other future uses and to effectively contain clean or contaminated material placed within the CDF. Nearshore CDFs are diked islands or nearshore areas constructed with containment and control measures, such as covering and effluent control. They are typically created by constructing a containment dike out of rock, placing contaminated dredged material along with structural fill material (i.e., clean sand) behind the dike, using weirs to dewater the material, and covering the fill with asphalt and/or concrete.

Typically, this process is all constructed as one contiguous process but there are times when the lower lifts of the fill are placed within the CDF footprint months or even years prior to constructing the rest of the site. Early placement in a future fill area may be an option based on the geotechnical characteristics of the dredge material and if the placement of the fill material will not impede port operations. Approval for placement of dredged material would be achieved through permits from the regulatory agencies, and if materials are being placed in the wet (while site is exposed to the ocean), materials would need to meet the suitability requirements described in Section 6.8 to gain approval from the CSTF.

3.3.2 Beneficial Reuse in Shallow Water Habitat Area Due to a significant loss of SWHs in bays, harbors, and estuaries in the region, there is a desire to develop opportunities to create mitigation credits to offset habitat loss. SWH creation has become a preferred beneficial reuse option in Southern California and is being considered in long-term planning at POLB. Clean sediments or contaminated sediments with a clean cap can be 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). Development and approval of an SWH area to receive materials is required prior to material placement. Additionally, the POLB may have the need to mitigate impacts to eelgrass habitat in the future, which could be mitigated through the creation of a SWH.


Table 1 Sediment Management Alternatives for Clean Sediment Management Alternative and Priority Ranking Brief Description Relative Cost1 Factors Affecting Cost Advantages Disadvantages Regulatory Issues 1. Beneficial reuse in a port fill

(nearshore CDF) Placement in nearshore area behind diked berm or perimeter with covering and effluent control

Moderate (low if completed as part of port fill)

Transport distance Quantity of material Geometry of nearshore area/size of

required dike

Beneficial reuse of material Potentially cost-effective Regional examples Regulatory acceptance

Limited to availability of suitable nearshore areas or port construction fill projects

Restrictions on physical material types for constructability

CEQA and NEPA document required Resource agency coordination

regarding mitigation requirements CSTF coordination, Coastal

Development Permit/Port Master Plan Amendment, USACE 404/401 permits

2. Beneficial reuse for SWH creation

Sub-aqueous placement (potentially 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

Limited areas available in Southern California

Contaminated material requires a cap for additional cost

Typically handled on a case-by-case basis by the CSTF

Typically authorized as mitigation and contained in project-specific authorization

3. Temporary aquatic storage for later beneficial reuse

Temporary placement in a designated submerged aquatic storage area until it can be removed and beneficially used

Low Transport distance to storage site Quantity of material Availability of location for aquatic

storage

Cost Western Anchorage Storage Site

(POLB) permitted for this purpose Potential for future beneficial reuse

NGOs may disapprove (not considered a beneficial reuse)

Limited availability


4. Beneficial reuse for beach nourishment

Placement on or off shore of eroding beaches

Low Transport distance from dredge site Quantity of material

Beneficial reuse of material Cost-effective Numerous beaches in the region in

need of replenishment Acceptable by regulators and NGOs

Material must have comparable physical characteristics as placement beach

Material must be relatively clean (no effects range median exceedances)


5. Clean cap/cover for CAD or capping projects

Placement of clean sediment as capping material over contaminated material to isolate contaminants

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

Potentially cost-effective Beneficial reuse of material Regionally accepted management

alternative Regional examples (i.e., Port of

Hueneme cap on CAD)

Reused sediment must be shown to be sufficiently free of chemical impacts

Possible physical constraints: Cap design will limit the types of material that can be used as sediment cap

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)

None; projects permitted under 404 authority from USACE, with 401 WQC from RWQCB

CCC consistency determination likely required for any nearshore capping projects

6. Ocean Disposal Placement at a designated regional ocean disposal site

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: 1. Costs based on those specified in the CSTF Strategy (2005) and the DMMP (Everest and Anchor 2009). NGO: non-governmental organization WQC: Water Quality Certification


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. Upland placement sites also provide an opportunity for the material to dewater or be amended for final use.

Open space in the port is extremely limited, and priority for open land area is given to POLB operations. At present, no permanent upland storage sites are designated within the POLB, but sediments have been stored at temporary upland sites in the past. An area on Pier S has been equipped with the proper BMPs and used to process and temporarily store dredge material for future reuse or upland disposal. However, this site can only accommodate a small volume of material (approximately 10,000 cubic yards). Other upland sites in the Port area may be used temporarily as long as the proper BMPs are in place to contain the dewatered material and approvals are obtained from the appropriate regulatory agencies.

3.3.4 Temporary Aquatic Storage for Later Beneficial Reuse Temporary aquatic storage is the placement of material at a designated aquatic storage site that may be suitable for a beneficial reuse later (e.g., future port construction fill). While immediate use in a port construction project is preferred, a temporary storage site allows schedules to align between construction programs. This also allows for the temporary storage of a larger volume of material that may not be able to be accommodated on land. Under this scenario, dredged material is temporarily placed at a designated aquatic storage site until future fill sites or other beneficial reuse alternatives become available. Currently, the POLB has a designated temporary and permanent aquatic storage site, the Western Anchorage Temporary Sediment Storage Site (WASSS). The site is 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. Placement at the site is 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. Approval for beach or nearshore placement is dependent on material meeting suitability requirements described in Section 6.8 and the discretion of the CSTF.

3.3.6 Clean Cap/Cover for Confined Aquatic Disposal or Capping Projects Sediment may be used as capping material for a CAD or remediation project where capping is required as part of the remedy. 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 capped, as described in more detail in Section 3.4.5. Alternatively, contaminated sediment may be capped in-place.

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 cost-effective feasible alternative. Two regional ODMDS locations may be considered by the POLB: the permanently designated LA-2, off shore of San Pedro (the more common disposal site for POLB dredged material) and the permanently designated LA-3, off shore of Newport Beach. Approval for ocean disposal is dependent on material meeting suitability requirements described in Section 6.8 and the discretion of the USEPA and CSTF.

3.4 Sediment Management Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment The currently available sediment management alternatives for contaminated material include beneficial placement in a port fill, temporary upland storage for later beneficial reuse, treatment for reuse in port fill, and a submerged CAD site. The permanent disposal option is upland landfill. 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 An upland disposal and storage site would consist of a confined area within the port where contaminated sediments could be placed and subsequently managed on a long-term basis until a beneficial use site (e.g., port fill) becomes available. 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. At present, no upland storage sites are designated within the POLB, but sediments have been stored at temporary upland sites in the past.


Table 2 Sediment Management Alternatives for Contaminated Sediment Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking Brief Description Relative Cost1 Factors Affecting Cost Advantages Disadvantages Regulatory Issues 1. Beneficial reuse in a port fill

(nearshore CDF) Placement in nearshore area behind diked berm or perimeter with covering and effluent control

Moderate (low if completed as part of port fill)

Transport distance Quantity of material Geometry of nearshore area/size of

required dike

Beneficial reuse of material Potentially cost-effective Regional examples Regulatory acceptance

Limited to availability of suitable nearshore areas or port construction fill projects

Restrictions on physical material types for constructability

CEQA and NEPA document required

Resource agency coordination regarding mitigation requirements

CSTF coordination, Coastal Development Permit/Port Master Plan Amendment, and USACE 404/401 permits

2. Temporary upland storage for later beneficial reuse

Placement in a designated upland storage area

Low to moderate Transport distance Quantity of material

Cost-effective Potential for future

beneficial reuse

Limited availability Typically handled on a case-by-case basis by the CSTF

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

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 with treatment and 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


Sand Separation: Mechanical separation of finer-grained material from coarser-grained material

High Transport distance after dredging and after treatment

Cost of treatment facility setup Quantity of material High sand concentrations in the sediment

Regional pilot study example (i.e., Marina del Rey)

Beneficial reuse of sand possible after treatment

Ideally reduces volume of contaminated material

Contractor availability (specialized technology) Upfront cost associated with treatment and

treatment facility Requires nearshore space for a treatment facility Bench-scale and pilot studies needed


Best suited for material with high sand content

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


Cost of treatment facility Quantity of material

Beneficial reuse (i.e., cement) possible after treatment

Material must meet strict structural requirements Upfront cost associated 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

Not typically conducted in the region but would likely be handled on a case-by-case basis by the CSTF


Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking Brief Description Relative Cost1 Factors Affecting Cost Advantages Disadvantages Regulatory Issues

Bioremediation: Use of microorganisms or plants to degrade or transform contaminants to less toxic or nontoxic forms


Cost of treatment facility Quantity of material

Beneficial reuse possible after treatment

Upfront cost associated with treatment and facility for treatment

Uncertain reliability (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


Chemical Treatment (Additives): Mixing chemical additives with sediments to destroy or convert sediment chemicals


Suite of target contaminants Quantity of material On-site treatment facility

Beneficial reuse possible after treatment


Contractor availability (specialized and potentially proprietary)

No regional examples Requires nearshore space for a treatment facility Bench-scale and pilot studies may be required

(uncertain reliability)


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

Beneficial reuse (i.e., topsoil) possible after treatment


Pilot study required to determine optimal ratio of dredged material to organic additives

Requires nearshore space for a treatment facility


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

Transport distance Quantity of material Facility costs and tipping fee Potential need for dewatering

Beneficial reuse of material acceptable by regulators and NGOs

No structural requirements Landfills generally available

for contaminated material

Limited availability; few landfills in Los Angeles and Orange counties will accept material

Landfill approval may be difficult due to chloride leachate concerns

Requires on-site dewatering space Acceptable landfills may be located out of state and

require long haul distance

Disposal regulated by the Integrated Waste Management Board and RWQCB (disposal must not preclude compliance with landfill WDRs)

Chloride leaching issue may need to be addressed by the RWQCB

4. Upland Placement Upland CDF: Placement as fill in landside depressions or as surcharge for capital improvement projects

Moderate Transport distance to CDF Construction/maintenance costs

Straight-forward regulatory approval process

Regional examples

If temporary placement, material may need to be blended prior to use

Not a beneficial reuse

Projects permitted under 404 authority from USACE, with 401 WQC from RWQCB

Brownfield Redevelopment: Placement as fill for development projects at Brownfield sites

Project- and location-specific costs

Transport distance Quantity of material Potential future use of site (affects

placement methods)

Beneficial reuse of material Use of contaminated

material may be possible More cost-effective than

landfill disposal if located near dredge site

Dependent on availability of regional Brownfield site under development

Regulatory approval may be difficult due to chloride leachate concerns

No regional examples


Mine and Pit Reclamation: Placement as backfill at abandoned sand/gravel mining pits


Transport distance Quantity of material On-site dewatering facility Potential future use of site (affects

placement methods)


material may be possible More cost-effective than

landfill disposal if located near dredge site

Limited availability/need Possible chloride leachate issues No regional examples Requires on-site dewatering facility



Management Alternative and Port’s Priority Ranking Brief Description Relative Cost1 Factors Affecting Cost Advantages Disadvantages Regulatory Issues

Transportation Infrastructure: Placement as construction fill for transportation infrastructure projects


Transport distance Quantity of material On-site dewatering facility Need for reworking/ compacting material


material may be possible If project located near

dredging site, may be more cost-effective than landfill disposal

Material must meet strict structural requirements Limited availability Possible chloride leachate issues No regional examples Available space for on-site facility


CAD Site: Placement into a submerged depression or pit and capping with clean sediments

Moderate to high Transport distance to CAD site Quantity of material Excavation required to create CAD Cap thickness required

Large volume of contaminated material can be accommodated

Regional examples (i.e., Port of Hueneme and NEIBP)

RWQCB continues to discuss potential of NEIBP as a real option (currently not allowed by the City of Long Beach)

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

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

5. Submerged CAD Site Containment (Capping): Isolation of contaminated material by capping in place with clean sand and/or other materials that prevent flux

Low to moderate Area requiring capping Type of contaminant(s) Hydrodynamics of area Transport distance of cap material Cap thickness required Restrictions on final seafloor elevation

Regionally accepted management alternative

Regional examples (i.e., Port of Hueneme)

Cost associated with cap material for chemical containment purposes

Pilot studies may be required, depending on proposed cap material

Less disturbance of contaminated material NGOs may question why contaminants are not

being physically removed from the site Long-term monitoring will be needed

None; projects would be permitted under 404 authority from USACE, with 401 WQC from RWQCB

CCC consistency determination likely required for nearshore capping projects

Notes: 1. Costs based on those specified in the Long-Term Management Strategy (CSTF 2005) and the DMMP (Everest and Anchor 2009). NEIBP: North Energy Island Borrow Pit NGO: non-governmental organization


3.4.3 Treatment for Beneficial Reuse in Port Fill 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, access to a facility for the treatment process, and continuation of liability associated with the contaminated material. Consequently, only those treatments options likely to be implemented for use within POLB’s jurisdiction 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, pilot-scale, and field cement stabilization projects have been implemented at POLB. 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 for each project. One recent example where cement stabilization was used successfully within the POLB was for managing oil impacted sediments during shoreline excavation for the Middle Harbor development project (Appendix C).

3.4.3.2 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. Because contaminants tend 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 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 6.11).

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, so 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 contaminated sediment that exceeds the hazardous waste characterization threshold values (e.g.,


exceedance of STLC and/or TCLP; see upland testing requirements in Section 6.11). 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 (Kings 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., sand cap and 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.

The use of CAD as a feasible management tool for the Port has become increasingly favorable among the CSTF regulatory agencies due to the successful construction of CAD cells in the North Energy Island Borrow Pit (NEIBP) off the coast of Long Beach and in Port Hueneme. Recent meetings between Port and agency staff have indicated a preference for the use of CADs due to the lack of suitable treatment alternatives. As such, the POLB is currently in the process of obtaining the appropriate approvals to establish a CAD in the Outer Harbor for the management of clean and contaminated sediments. Once approved, the CAD will be managed under a separate permit and Operations Management and Monitoring Plan.


4 Fill Site Management Port growth and expansion often results in the filling of marine areas to accommodate additional shore-side operations. Fill sites provide the greatest and preferred method 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 as follows, 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 2. Material from other POLB dredging projects, with first priority given to agency-mandated

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 third-party material whenever feasible. If an opportunity to accept third-party material arises, the POLB has an established 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

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 project-specific 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 a temporary upland storage site becomes available, material stored at the site can be beneficially reused as 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 (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 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); 2) is deemed unsuitable for CAD 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. Fine-grained 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.


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 permit 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, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, by the USFWS, CDFW, and NMFS. These consultations are typically managed by and through the USACE.

Two permits (one application) are required from the RWQCB: the 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 are highly variable and depend 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 (Appendix B), 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.

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 (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. An NWP (38) may be needed in place of the SIP (see the 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 it should be 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.

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

Approximate Time to Complete*

Port dredged material characterization

1. Prepare SAP and CSTF approval 2. Sampling, laboratory testing, and data quality assurance 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.

24 to 36 months

USACE individual permit application process

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

9 to 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

* Timelines are not necessarily sequential as activities may be performed concurrently.


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; 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.


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, so specific requirements may change.

Table 4 Summary of Testing Requirements to Determine Suitability for Each Placement Alternative

Alternative

Chemical Analysis Biological Testing Other

Geot

echn

ical

Anal

ysis

Sedi

men

t Ch

emist

ry

Tiss

ue C

hem

istry

Elut

riate

Tes

ting

(SET

and

MET

) W

ET

TCLP

SPLP

SP

SPP

BP

Spec

ializ

ed

Test

ing

Long

-Ter

m

Mon

itorin

g

Port Fill (Nearshore CDF) X X X

SWH Creation X X X X X Temporary/Permanent Aquatic Storage X X X X X X1

Beach Nourishment X X

Clean Cap/CAD Cover X X X X X X X Ocean Disposal X X X X X X

Temporary Upland Storage X X X Treatment X X X Upland Placement X X X X X2

Submerged CAD Site/ In Situ Capping X X X X X

Notes: 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. X: required testing BP: bioaccumulation potential SP: solid phase WET: Waste Extraction Test MET: modified elutriate test SPLP: Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure SET: standard elutriate test SPP: suspended particulate phase


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 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 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 cubic yards (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). A primary concern associated with this alternative is the effect of effluent discharge during and after filling of the CDF (Everest and Anchor 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) 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 1 Formerly called modified elutriate test


the quality of the effluent at the point of dredging (see Section 6.3 for knockdown dredging), and the SET predicts the release of contaminants of concern during open-water disposal (see Section 6.12 for CAD placement). 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 (SVOCs; i.e., phenols and phthalates), and organotins. EET results will be compared to applicable water quality standards for enclosed bays and estuaries.

6.3 Testing for Knockdown Dredging For smaller programs (i.e., less than 2,000 cy), knockdown dredging using a drag beam or clamshell bucket may be the most efficient and less impactful sediment management alternative. The sediment investigation should confirm that COPCs are not present at hazardous levels in dredged material and effluent generated during knockdown or placement activities will not result in water quality impacts by elutriate testing using the DRET. The DRET will be used to predict the concentration of contaminants in the water column at the point of dredging. DRET samples will be prepared for analysis in accordance with procedures outlined in Dredging Elutriate Test Development (DiGiano et al. 1995). Chemical analysis of bulk sediment, the DRET, and site water used to prepare the elutriate should include general chemistry (i.e., ammonia, total sulfides, and TOC, trace metals, chlorinated pesticides, PCB congeners, PAHs, other semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs; i.e., phenols and phthalates), and organotins. DRET results will be compared to applicable water quality standards for enclosed bays and estuaries.

6.4 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 6.8), 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 6.8). 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.


6.5 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 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 6.8). 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 6.8. The identification and characterization of an appropriate reference site may need to be considered (CSTF 2005).

The Western Anchorage Storage Site is used for permanent and 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, grain size and elutriate chemistry would likely be required.

6.6 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 SVOCs (i.e., phenols and phthalates), and organotins. The analytical results can be compared to effects range low (ERL) and effects range median (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% sand or demonstrate a similar grain size distribution to that of the receiving beach (sand content within a 10% difference), and have low or background levels of chemical contamination (USACE 2006). It should be noted that acceptable grain 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

Magnuson-Stevens 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).

6.7 Testing for Clean Cap/Confined Aquatic Disposal Cover As described for testing for SWH creation (see Section 6.4) and placement in a CAD (see Section 6.12), 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 6.8). 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.

6.8 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.

6.8.1 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 ERL and 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

2 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.


Plan for Ocean Waters of California’s (SWRCB and CalEPA 2009) water quality objectives to determine the potential need for BMPs during placement.

6.8.2 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 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% greater than in the test sediment (10% 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 mixing zone model should be used to determine if LPC requirements will be met; water column concentrations must not exceed 1% 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 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.

6.9 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.

6.10 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 within the POLB. While there are no state or federal laws specific to treatment and beneficial reuse of dredged material (GeoSyntecF 2003), the 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.

6.11 Testing for Upland Placement Because contaminant leaching is a primary concern associated with upland placement (Everest and Anchor 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 the actual 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 and WET, testing requirements for these alternatives may also include Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (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.

6.12 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 3 These factors are based on liquid-to-solid ratios of 20:1 and 10:1 used in TCLP and WET, respectively.


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 unimpacted by chemical contaminants, 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 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.


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, may follow 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 and 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 D 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.

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, as applied to the specific conditions and priorities of the POLB (see Figure 3).

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.

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

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 and Placement 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 re-dredge 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 and placement activities to minimize potential water quality impacts. The types of BMPs that are typically employed with these programs are described briefly in the following subsections, with greater detail provided in Appendix E. The detailed information provided in Appendix E 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 implementing a water quality monitoring plan, additional BMPs can be incorporated to reduce potential 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.


Table 5 Best Management Practices that May Be Used to Reduce Resuspension and Contaminant Loss During Dredging

Note: 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.

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:

Dredge Approach Equipment Selection Operational Controls Site Containment

Mechanical (clean or contaminated material)

Environmental bucket

Real-time positioning

Bucket size/type

Use experienced operator Avoid tidal (current) extremes 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

Silt curtain1 Gunderboom1

Hydraulic (clean material)

Type of hydraulic (cutterhead, suction, etc.)

Real-time positioning

Use experienced operator Avoid tidal (current) extremes Reduce impeller rotation speed Reduce upswing speed Adjust cut thickness Eliminate the process of bank undercutting



‒ 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, wherein 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.

‒ 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% 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 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 Material Placement within a Confined Fill Site BMPs that could be implemented to minimize loss of sediment from a confined fill site (nearshore CDF, SWH, CAD) are listed in Table 6 and discussed below. These BMPs should be employed to ensure that no exceedance of water quality standards will occur and 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 Sediment Loss During Placement into Confined Fill Sites

Dredge Type Equipment Selection Operational Controls Site Containment

Mechanical Barge type Handling

equipment type

Use experienced operator Reduce rate of discharge Reduce barge movement during

discharge Place material further away from

dike/weir/site border Eliminate barge overflow/spilling


Hydraulic Offloader2

Diffuser Adjust flow rate Adjust solids concentration at point

of discharge Move discharge point to maximize

retention time Closely monitor and adjust weir

level

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 a hydraulic offloader to place material behind the containment dike.

A brief description of the BMPs listed in Table 6 is provided below:

Equipment BMPs to reduce sediment loss when using a mechanical offloader to transfer sediments into a fill site include:

‒ Barge type. The contractor should use the appropriate type of barge (e.g., flat-deck 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: ‒ 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.

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 installed 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 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.


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, capital dredging, 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: 1) physical effects such as increased turbidity, decreased transmissivity, and a residuals layer; and 2) chemical effects caused by the desorption of 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. Long-term 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 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:

Marine mammal observations Marine bird observations Post-dredge benthic/chemical evaluation Special water quality monitoring requirements


8.3 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, except for surveys completed from August through October. Surveys completed from August through October are valid until the resumption of the active 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. 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% 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 CDFW. If C. taxifolia is found, NMFS and CDFW must be notified within 24 hours.


8.5 Confirmation Sampling for Remedial Projects Sediment management action required to meet a remedial (cleanup) objectives will be designed through the methods provided in the CSMP (Anchor QEA, 2015). To determine the effectiveness of the action in meeting cleanup objectives, the regulatory agencies typically required confirmatory sampling. The confirmatory sampling program that matches the action will be designed and approved through the CSMP process. 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.


9 References 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.

Anchor QEA, 2015. Revised Contaminated Sediment Management Plan: Long Beach Harbor, Eastern San Pedro Bay, and Los Angeles River Estuary. December 2015

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.

DiGiano, F.A., C.T. Miller, and J. Yoon, 1995. Dredging Elutriate Test (DRET) Development. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Contract Report D-95-1. August 1995.

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 (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.

NMFS and CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), 2008. Caulerpa taxifolia Survey and Identification Information Package in support of the Caulerpa Control Protocol. 2008.

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.


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 Report DOER-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Ports (Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach), 2009. Water Resource Action Plan. Final Report.

SWRCB and CalEPA (State Water Resources Control Board and California Environmental Protection Agency), 2009. Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries - Part 1 Sediment 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. ERDC/EL TR-03-1. Prepared by USACE, Engineer Research and Development Center, Washington, D.C.

USACE, 2006. Regional General Permit Number 67. Discharges of Dredged or Upland-Derived 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. USEPA 503/8-91/001. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

USEPA/USACE, 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual. USEPA 823-B-98-004. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Appendix A Dredge Committee Schedules and Tracking Sheets

Appendix B CSTF Application

Appendix C Dredged Material Amendment Testing to Stabilize Oily Material: Pier D Cut Middle Harbor Redevelopment Program

Appendix D Project-Specific Sediment Management Plan Example: Middle Harbor

Appendix E ACHIEVING DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR DREDGING AND SEDIMENT FILL SITES

Documents

Sediment Management Handbook for Dredge and Fill Projects