Topics

1. Sediment Quality Advisory Committee MeetingDecember 13, 2004 SacramentoChris Beegancbeegan@waterboards.ca.gov 916 341 5577

2. Topics • SQO Framework • Point Source Applications • Dredged Materials and Water Quality Certification

3. SQO Framework - Basis Based upon MLOE • using the weight of evidence is the most desirable approach for assessing the effects of contaminants associated with sediment. • development of sediment management programs should be planned and implemented to support weight-of-evidence assessments. USEPA 2004 The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States National Sediment Quality Survey Second Edition EPA-823-R-04-007 http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/

4. Type of Objectives • Narrative Objectives for Direct and Indirect Effects SQOs. • Sediment indicators and guidelines in use today are not perfect. • Narrative SQOs provide an appropriate basis for implementing a MLOE • Indicator specific objectives could cause misuse (SLOE) or inappropriate application. • May be easier to update tools and thresholds in future if necessary.

5. Proposing Narrative SQOs • To be proposed for adoption draft policy must have appropriate thresholds and methodology to implement the narrative SQO. • Can propose numeric SQOs as an alternative in the FED.

6. SQO Framework – Narrative SQOs • Example of Narrative Objective for Direct Effects Sediment quality shall be maintained at a level that protects benthic communities from degradation or toxicity do to exposure to bio-available pollutants in bottom sediments. To determine if a station is in compliance with this objective, a multiple line of evidence approach shall be applied using the thresholds and decision matrix described in Section X.X.X.X of the policy……………

7. SQO Framework • Must apply MLOE before any conclusion can be made. • Thresholds will be provided for each indicator. • Station Results compared to thresholds using a point system and scored. • MLOE points summed and used to make station level determination. Example: Unimpaired (0 – 1 points) Likely unimpaired (2 – 3 points) Likely impaired (4 – 6 points) Clearly impaired (7 – 9 points)

8. Policy Content Policy Options: • The policy could be considered complete if narrative objective can be implemented and a station level determination made. • RWQCBs would use existing policies to implement Narrative SQOs (SIP/CTR, 303(d) Policy) or…. • Or SWRCB staff prepare limited program specific guidance, • Regardless of approach RWQCBs have independent authority to do what needs to be done…….SWRCB cannot prevent RWQCB from developing effluent limits to protect water quality and beneficial uses within their regions.

9. Point Sources Framework • Clean Water Act/California Water Code • Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California • California Toxics Rules • Water Quality Control Policy for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries

10. EPA Direction 1991 • EPA TSD March 1991 (EPA/505/2-90-001). SQOs could be used to establish permit limits to ensure that uncontaminated sediments remain uncontaminated or sediments already contaminated have an opportunity to cleanse themselves. This would occur only after criteria and the means to tie point sources to sediment deposition are developed.

11. EPA Direction 1998 EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. April 1998 EPA-823-R-98001 • NPDES permit limits are derived from State water quality standards, which in turn may be derived from EPA’s water quality criteria. Once EPA publishes sediment quality criteria…..EPA intends to recommend that the States use these numerical chemical criteria, which are guidance, along with appropriate test endpoints for chronic sediment bioassays…in interpreting their narrative criteria, e.g., of “no toxics in toxic amounts.” NPDES permit limits would continue to be based on applicable water quality standards…….OST, in coordination with the OWM, is developing sediment based modeling tools for use in calculating NPDES permit limits and TMDLs.

12. NPDES Permits • New and Revised NPDES Permitees would be required to monitor sediments in accordance with SQOs policy • Targeted sampling scheme accounting for hydrodynamic regime, outfall design and orientation and proximity to sensitive habitats… • Many point sources dischargers are performing sediment quality assessments as part of regional monitoring program or as a permit condition.

13. NPDES Permits Continued SQO Determination • Does sediment in vicinity of outfall meet narrative objectives? • Minimum number of stations required to make assessment. • Number of stations required to exceed objective (10% suggested for 303(d) assessment) • Ideally point source assessment strategy should attempt to be consistent with other sediment assessment programs as possible for ease of implementation.

14. NPDES Permits Continued Determination Made • Application of SQO/MLOE Policy sediment meets all narrative objectives. • Follow up activities; routine monitoring • Sediments around outfall consistently meet narrative objectives reduce monitoring frequency • Application of SQO/MLOE Policy sediment does not meet narrative objectives. • Follow-up studies and information gathering

15. NPDES Permits Continued SQOs exceeded, follow-up studies • Additional studies and information gathering required • Determine if impact is related to outfall using gradient analysis regional monitoring data, TIEs, equilibrium partitioning coefficients. • Determine if impact is related to effluent currently being discharged. • Identify Stressors/ • Determine extent of area impacted • Studies should be scaled to the threat to water body, size of discharge

16. NPDES Permits Continued Controlling Effluent • Reduce pollutant in influent or in stormwater • Optimize plant to remove pollutant • Develop more stringent effluent limits. • Identify fraction of pollutant that bio-available. • Support mass based limits. • Other Alternatives: • Sediment Management Zones • Limited Duration (ten years?) • Limit Level of Impairment (range of uncertainty?)

17. NPDES Permits Continued Example of Limiting Level of Impairment in Sediment

18. NPDES Permits Continued Sediment Cleanup – Risk Assessment Approach • Later Meeting Topic • Existing programs; detailed guidance available. • Other Agencies involved; DFG, DTSC, EPA, NOAA, and F&WS • Establishing Cleanup Levels • Resolution No. 92-49

19. NPDES Permits Continued Issues that the Advisory Committee may want to address related to point sources: • General Issues or Concerns • Traditional NPDES Point Sources • NPDES Stormwater Point Sources

20. Dredging Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control ActSection 13396. • The state and regional boards shall not grant approval for a dredging project that involves the removal or disturbance of sediment which contains pollutants at or above the sediment quality objectives….unless the board determines all of the following…………………

21. Dredging Section 13396. (a) The polluted sediment will be removed in a manner that prevents or minimizes water quality degradation. (b) Polluted dredge spoils will not be deposited in a location that may cause significant adverse effects to aquatic life, fish, shellfish, or wildlife or may harm the beneficial uses of the receiving waters, or does not create maximum benefit to the people of the state. (c) The project or activity will not cause significant adverse impacts upon a federal sanctuary, recreational area, or other waters of significant national importance.

22. Dredging Program Differences SWRCB • Program is intended to assess beneficial use protection • Focuses on the biologically active layer • The MLOE approach utilizes tools, methods and thresholds develop within and for specific water bodies (bays and estuaries).

23. Dredging Program Differences USACE/EPA • Designed to assess average bulk properties of a sediment • Determine appropriate method of disposal or reuse • Assess potential effects caused by the dredging and disposal action • Are precautions necessary to protect aquatic life from pollutants mobilized by activity • Inland and Ocean Testing Manuals • Tiered Approach • MLOE; similarities/differences

24. Dredging • San Francisco Bay DMMO; USACE, EPA, BCDC, SFRWQCB, SLC coordinate management of dredged materials for Sites SF-9 (Carquinez Strait), SF-10 (San Pablo Bay), and SF-11 (Alcatraz Island). • Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force; USACE, EPA, LARWQCB, Coastal Commission, develop long term management plan

25. Dredging Where could SWRCB policy help? • Management of Dredging Activity • In bay disposal sites versus open water disposal • Post dredge conditions: Puget Sound….