Colonel John Carroll (for Col. Peter Madsen), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Peter Douglas, California Coastal Commission
Mr. Dennis Dickerson, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Ms. Alexis Strauss (for Ms. Felicia Marcus), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Introduction

Catherine Tyrrell (LARWQCB) and Jaime Kooser (CCC) welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the members of the Executive Committee.

Slide Show Presentation

Lauma Jurkevics (CCC) presented a PowerPoint slide show that discussed the history, progress and direction of the Task Force, as well as some of the dredging and disposal problems and potential solutions to protect coastal resources.

Memorandum of Understanding

Catherine Tyrrell summarized the status of the MOU. The four regulatory agencies (USEPA, USACOE, LARWQCB, CCC) that are required to enter into agreement, per Karnette Senate Bill 673, have signed the original MOU and its addendum. In addition, the City of Long Beach, Port of Long Beach, and Port of Los Angeles have signed the MOU. The Task Force anticipates that the County of Los Angeles will commit in writing by January, 1999.

Interim Advisory Committee

Michael Lyons (LARWQCB) presented a summary of the Interim Advisory Committee’s progress in addressing dredging and disposal issues of projects occurring prior to the development of the sediment management strategy. One of the major efforts in streamlining the review process involves coordinating the dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments from the Los Angeles River Estuary and the Marina del Rey Entrance Channel with the creation of the POLB’s Pier E/Slip 2 landfill site.

Subcommittee Workplans

Jaime Kooser summarized the subcommittee workplans and discussed the progress of those committees. Peter Douglas (CCC) was interested in when research studies would be identified (June 1999, per the Task Force workplan) and emphasized that we should look at source reduction as part of the integrated process with the LARWQCB. Alexis Strauss (USEPA) would like the subcommittees to investigate wetland creation as a re-use of dredged sediments.

Comments by Stakeholders and Public

Dick Wittkop (POLA) emphasized the phenomenal growth of port commerce and consideration of cost, particularly since POLA is now getting into debt. More cargo and fewer ships mean the ports are encountering bigger ships, which require navigation channels to be bigger and deeper. Hence, the dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments becomes the responsibility of the ports, even though they are not a source of the contamination. So POLA is looking for environmentally sound and economically feasible options to handle contaminated sediments and the Task Force is an opportunity to provide that avenue.

Geraldine Knatz (POLB) identified the Anchorage Site as a site in POLA that accepts clean sediments. This has helped preserve the capacity of the borrow pits off Long Beach for disposing contaminated material. The work of the Task Force is essential to investigating disposal alternatives and coordinating projects. She has already been advertising the successes of the Task Force to the public and fellow ports around the country, resulting in getting this Task Force national recognition. One success is the conversion of the Naval Station to a port facility, whereby Pier S will need "fill to grade" to handle subsidence and to make it a developable site. In addition, the fill slip by Pier E is proposed as a regional disposal site to handle contaminants from other dredging operations prior to isolating the site for a port facility. With the Task Force and regulatory agencies accepting this fill slip as a viable disposal alternative, POLB can now consider disposal to a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site as a low priority. The only issue remaining is to get agreement from the tenant to give up a berth. Overall, the Interim Advisory Committee of the Task Force was successful in helping POLB obtain approval for the alternative disposal option.

Dean Smith (Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors) also indicated that his agency has become a responsible party dealing with contaminated sediments, even though his agency is not a source of the contamination. The USACOE is now looking at the watershed to identify sources, as a result of the Marina del Rey Task Force and the current Task Force. There now is a lot more cooperation between the agencies and Catherine Tyrrell has brought consensus building from her experiences with the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project.

Mitzy Taggart (Heal the Bay) agreed that the dialog and coordination have been excellent. HTB is supportive of the Pier E regional disposal site and would like it to happen. However, she said it was too early to say that the Task Force is a success. Nevertheless, the Task Force has provided an excellent foundation.

Bill Paznokas (California Department of Fish and Game) was encouraged by the outcomes of various Task Force activities. As trustees of fish and wildlife, CDFG will continue to participate in Task Force coordination. He also agreed with Peter Douglas that pollution prevention and source reduction are key in addressing the contaminant issues. However, funding for special studies and implementation is needed to make the strategy effective.

Guang-yu Wang (Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project) said that it took a Senate Bill to make the Task Force work. The challenge has just started and it takes time to develop a sediment management strategy. In addition, the Task Force has not seriously started to look at funding to support the studies needed to develop options and implement the strategy.

Bob Joe (USACOE) thanked Peter Douglas and the CCC for pushing the USACOE in this direction. Great strides have been made. There is now more coordination with the regulatory, planning, and construction aspects of USACOE projects. The USACOE is also now expanding in watershed areas and looking for hot spots in Marina del Rey and how to remediate such conditions. In addition, there is more coordination with POLA and LA River projects. Soon, dredging projects within the mouth of the LA River and Marina del Rey will be put forth to the CCC for approval.

Peter Douglas would like more environmental groups involved with the Task Force. In addition, he would like us to invite more regional entities and other stakeholders (e.g., other cities, like City of Los Angeles). Guang-yu Wang indicated that the SMBRP is a broad stakeholder group, which serves as a liaison between environmental groups and the Task Force. In addition, HTB has close ties with the other environmental groups.

Report to Legislature

Catherine Tyrrell presented the Report to the Legislature. Peter Douglas indicated he would like us to discuss funding in the report, to link subsequent actions to needed funding, and also to address the report to the governor. Alexis Strauss would like us to include the signed MOU. Dennis Dickerson (LARWQCB) wanted us to identify the positive achievements of the Interim Advisory Committee and the sources of contaminated sediments. John Carroll (USACOE) wanted us to show more what has been done to help facilitate in getting more money (i.e., "work has started, send money"). The Executive Committee adopted the report with the above-mentioned changes.

Funding Needs

Catherine Tyrrell presented the concerns of the Task Force that there is no funding to conduct special studies that would provide us with answers as to the best options to include in the sediment management strategy. In addition, no money has been slated for the implementation of that strategy.

Peter Douglas indicated that we need to identify the necessary elements of the funding package. Once that is done, then the Executive Committee and key stakeholders can get together to seek funding. We need to identify the studies, what we need, what the plan is. If we’re going to request State money for next fiscal year, then all this must be accomplished before the end of April.

John Carroll said that the federal fiscal year 2000 budget has already gone in. Pursuing a Reconnaissance Study is more flexible, with 100% of the cost being paid by the federal agency. However, beyond that, there’s cost sharing. Bob Joe would know the "ins and outs." What we need to do is build bridges between the needs and sources. The linkage needs to be identified between navigation and watershed, both at state and federal legislative levels (i.e., we need authority).

Peter Douglas said we need to figure out how to get the watershed concept into funding. We need to develop a strategy that doesn’t alienate others across the country. Plus, we’re looking at two different types of funding issues: (a) studies; (b) implementation.

Bob Joe mentioned that in the Marina del Rey Feasibility Study, USACOE was able to add Ballona Creek. There is also the Malibu Creek/Rindge Dam Removal Study. All these studies can be used to provide background information for the Task Force. In addition, the chair of the Corps’ Energy and Water Subcommittee is from Orange County (Congressman Packard). We might be able to get support from him. Plus, we can look into more cost share feasibility studies.

Ralph Appy (POLA) recommended that the funding issue be addressed by the Implementation Committee.

John Carroll identified the Mississippi case as one where there were competing needs and involvement from multiple states. Eventually, cooperation and support were there to put the pieces together. Historically, watershed impacts and sediment transport are not new and will not go away (i.e., "rivers will still run and ports will still sink"). We will need to eventually address this issue and coordinate with each other.

Alexis Strauss emphasized that we need to be aware of funding cycles. USEPA funds are available to States and Tribes as grants or matching funds. We should also consider congressional member interests; however, USEPA can not lobby.

After the meeting, the POLB and POLA provided interested parties with a boat tour of the two ports.

Next Task Force Meeting