Discussion revolved around the Port of Long Beach’s Pier T project and use of Slip 2/Pier E for disposal of contaminated sediments. Efforts are under way to coordinate with the dredging efforts of the Corps’/City of Long Beach’s Los Angeles River (LAR) Estuary project and the Corps’/County of Los Angeles’ Marina del Rey (MDR) project. Ideally, the contaminated sediments from the Port’s project and the other 2 projects (LAR & MDR) could go to Slip 2/Pier E for creation of a landfill site. However, the timing of the various projects and endangered species issues need to be resolved.

Before any disposal could occur, the Port will need to prepare the Slip 2/Pier E site (such as demolishing wharves and pilings). Once the preparation work has been done, Tom Johnson indicated that there would be no disposal constraints other than the least Tern issue. According to Mitzy Taggart, there is a USFWS 2/98 letter to the Corps indicating that disposal could be limited by endangered species issues. However, Hayley Lovan said that letter was in reference to disposing sediment to the Shallow Water Habitat, which is now no longer considered. The group agreed that the Corps would need to resolve this issue with USFWS and that someone from that agency, like John Hanlon, would need to be involved in future Interim Advisory meetings to address resource issues.

Permitting

With regards to permitting, the Port is awaiting final approvals from the Coastal Commission and the Corps. The amendment to include new disposal sites is scheduled for the Coastal Commission hearing on Thursday, November 5^th. In addition, the Corps has sent out its public notice on the Pier T project, including the new disposal options.

The LAR project still needs a Consistency Determination from the Coastal Commission and wants approval for an alternative to LA2 disposal at the December hearing. Lauma Jurkevics has notified Mark Delaplaine and asked about the timing of the submittal request. Hayley will still need to submit an application. However, it seems the original application focused on only a segment of the required dredging because of limited funding. There is potential for more money to come in later in the year to do more dredging. Tony Risko also indicated that if storms bring down additional sediments, the Corps might have to come back for additional approvals. Lauma requested that the Corps consider submitting one application for the entire LAR project and identifying various options addressing the funding scenarios. This could help streamline the application process.

The MDR project is also limited by funding. No permitting has begun but the Coastal Commission should be receiving an application early 1999. The Corps will focus on dredging the contaminated sediments if there isn’t enough money to do the entire project. Dean Smith would like to have the dredging done before the boating season and to dispose the material early into Slip 2/Pier E to minimize cost through bottom dumping. It looks like the time period for potential disposal at Slip 2/Pier E is from May 1 – Dec 1. Dean will also be looking at beach disposal to Redondo Beach for the non-contaminated sediments (estimated at 200,000 cy). The timing for beach disposal would be around Apr – Oct. Dean will need to look into the grunion issue, which may not be a problem for that particular site. Another possibility would be to dispose the clean sediments to Dockweiler Beach, which has least Tern issues. Lauma recommended that the Corps also consider applying for the entire MDR project in case additional funding is obtained within the year.

Sediment testing

For both the LAR and MDR projects, no new sediment testing is being proposed. Hayley indicated that the Corps has recent LAR data and that it will be using the previous MDR data. Hayley also indicated that the non-contaminated sediment would be disposed to LA 2. With regard to LAR, the group wanted to assume that any additional materials from storm events would be contaminated, thus eliminating the need to test the new material and quickly dispose of it to the Slip 2/Pier E site. It was decided that if a large volume came down with the storms, then sediment testing would be done; otherwise, if the volume were small, it wouldn’t be efficient to wait for testing results (so that material would be presumed contaminated). Bulk chemistry testing was suggested but Steven John brought up the point that sediments can still be contaminated if test results pass. An example was the results from the surface sediment that met the criteria for bulk chemistry but did not pass the bioassays. Steven recommended that bioassays be conducted in lieu of bulk chemistry.

Timing

The Corps was proposing to install silt curtains when disposing sediment at Slip 2/Pier E site. Disposal would occur prior to the dike being built. Tom had no objection to the use of the curtains, as long as they were removed when the Port began construction. The site is a quiet place with no major tidal action. The disposed material would be sufficiently contained. Tom indicated that there would be no ship dredging nor ship use within the site when disposal were to occur. Steven had no objection to the proposal.

Overview

The objective is to accomplish the Task Force activities. In order to do this, the group must consider getting money for data collection and identify the types of funding mechanisms available. In addition, funding for long-term monitoring needs to be considered. Tony believed that the main sources could come from the Coastal Commission, Regional Board, EPA, and Corps. The reasons this issue is being brought before the Interim Advisory Committee were to start the process quickly and to discuss with members who are already involved in other subcommittees and who know what the individual needs from those subcommittees are.

 Potential Sources

The Corps has several opportunities for funding. Tony indicated that these include:

1. Reconnaissance Study – 100% federally funded but Corps needs local sponsor; it’s not a commitment to do a feasibility study;
2. Feasibility Study – can apply to disposal; needs final contribution (50%) from local sponsor;
3. O & M General Program – project oriented but there’s discretion as to how to spend money; we would need to make connection between the project and the work; can get 100% funds to do a long-term management study but this requires approval from Congress; process is difficult (needs strong local sponsor/local support) but once done, this avenue of funding becomes cleanest; there’s competition between Districts; example of this funding is found in San Francisco where there was a group with political power who was able to get funding used to designate an ocean disposal site.

Starting with Fiscal Year 99, Dean Smith recommended that the Task Force make an annual request to Congress for O & M funds. Maybe the MDR Feasibility Study could be expanded to a Regional Scale. Perhaps all agencies could send concurrent letters around February.

The Regional Board also has access to funding sources but there is competition among the Regional Boards, State Board, and other state agencies. Michael Lyons (RWQCB) and Bill Paznokas (CDFG) identified:

1. Cleanup and Abatement Account – for concrete, tangible projects; Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program is trying to get funds from this account;
2. 205J and 319H funds – for watershed/source control projects;
3. Enforcement Actions – negotiate with dischargers in diverting settlement money to environmental projects (otherwise, direct enforcement leads to money going straight into the Cleanup and Abatement Account, which then is open to outside the region).

Proposition A funds are another avenue but the deadline is December 15^th. These funds, however, are limited to the Santa Monica Bay watershed and must be for capital outlay projects (physical in-place structures). Most likely, watershed-associated projects would benefit from these funds.

The Coastal Commission doesn’t appear to have significant sources of funding. Two grant programs include Adopt-A-Beach Grant Program and the WHALE TAIL^SM  Grant Program for Coastal and Marine Education. Both these programs tend to be geared towards educational awareness. Plus funds are small - $5,000-10,000 range for a project.

However, the State does have a means to pursue the legislative avenue. The Task Force was officially created under the Karnette bill and provided $1 million over a 5-year period to the Coastal Commission and Regional Board to develop a sediment management strategy. Commissioner Sara Wan and local agencies were successful in getting support for the bill. Perhaps a similar process could be pursued for the implementation of the strategy.

Steven indicated that USEPA provides a variety of grants but they tend to be for projects rather than studies, such as Brownfields. The grants are vast and numerous. Steven will follow up on what is available. (Note: Steven has since found an extensive draft document on USEPA funds and will share this information at the December Task Force meeting.)

Ralph Appy (POLA) and Tom Johnson (POLB) provided handouts on upcoming dredging projects. Ralph identified 12 projects during 1998-2000; seven have permit approvals. Tom also identified 12 projects, with four potentially occurring during 1999-2001. However, the Pier S Terminal project is primarily involving dike realignment and there is no disposal issue involved with the Pier W Landfill. (Note that at the November 20^th Task Force meeting, Ralph identified a 13^th project – Cabrillo Marine Phase II).