Los Angeles Basin Contaminated Sediments Task Force

Summary of the Implementation Committee Meeting
March 3, 1999

bar4.gif (2919 bytes)

 

Attendees:

J. Michael Lyons, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Barbara Munoz, City of Long Beach
Tom Johnson, Port of Long Beach
Terri Ely, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer/Regulatory
Ralph Appy, Port of Los Angeles
Lauma Jurkevics, California Coastal Commission
Bill Paznokas, California Department of Fish and Game

Streamlining Report

a. Dredging Role Flow Chart
Ralph presented the 3.2.99 version of the flow chart, which included the recommendations the subcommittee members made at the February meeting. Ralph explained the changes and the members further refined the flow chart. Ralph will develop a final draft and present it to the Management Committee on March 9th.

[Note: At the CSTF March 9th meeting, the CSTF members received the 3.8.99 version of the flow chart and were asked for their comments.]

b. Ideas for Report

Group brainstormed some ideas for permit streamlining. No value judgement was given on those ideas, though some members did want to discuss the feasibility of some suggestions. Ideas tossed in for consideration included:

  1. Eliminate regulatory agencies;
  2. Trust the ports;
  3. Single permit application;
  4. Reconsider need for both the LARWQCB and Corps to permit;
  5. Single permit (LARWQCB or Corps) but not affecting other agencies;
  6. Issue Section 401 Water Quality Certification instead of Waste Discharge Requirements (LARWQCB "permitting" actions);
  7. Single permit overall;
  8. State Board to delegate certification authority to the LARWQCB;
  9. Clarify overlapping jurisdiction and holes in regulatory coverage – figure out who’s supposed to evaluate what (e.g., Corps and CCC have a wildlife agenda; LARWQCB and Corps evaluate protecting water quality and require monitoring). Many times permit conditions refer compliance to other permits, which can cause confusion for the permittee in keeping track of the conditions;
  10. Less regulatory control;
  11. Establish a DMMO (Dredge Material Management Office), which coordinates permit actions (DMMO is created through coordination with USEPA and Corps);
  12. One state permit and one federal permit;
  13. Change regulations associated with CEQA* review and permitting actions – i.e., if regulatory and resource agencies don’t comment on CEQA, then they can’t comment through the permitting process;
  14. Provide funds to agencies to comment on CEQA;
  15. Early comment period (prior to permit application being submitted) – i.e., continue with Interim Advisory Committee;
  16. Get USFWS and NMFS more involved in the process;
  17. Establish priorities;
  18. Get clear direction from the resource and regulatory agencies in advance; and
  19. Don’t wait to let your concerns be known until the permitting process.

Adoption Process Report – Direction

Michael discussed ways the LARWQCB could adopt the sediment management strategy. These included: (1) Basin Plan amendment, which needs to get approval from State Board, Office of Administrative Law, and USEPA (the record becomes a Functional Equivalent Document; there are exemptions from CEQA for this process); (2) Take the management plan directly to the Regional Board members as an information item (no formal action involved). The latter seems less complicated and would take less time to implement the plan than the former. However, the former would provide more opportunity for public input.

Lauma had draft copies of the CCC process; the draft is still under review by CCC management. However, the members agreed that they would wait to review the final copy when it gets incorporated into the draft report. In summary, one approach would be to apply the mechanism the non-point source staff is using, as follows: (1) February – meet with management to discuss and get approval; (2) March – have a draft ready for public review; (3) April – develop a staff report and put an action item on the Commission calendar; (4) May – present the plan for approval at the Commission hearing.

Members discussed what stage we would need to comply with CEQA/NEPA**. The San Francisco folks developed an EIS/EIR for the Long-Term Management Strategy for Bay Area Dredged Material before starting to write a management plan. However, members believed we could develop the strategy first (there might be an exemption from CEQA/NEPA for that process), then when individual projects needed permits, CEQA/NEPA compliance would be done on a project-by-project basis.

Funding Status

a. State Bill Process
We were informed during our meetings in January and February that Karnette’s staff was recommending we pursue funding through the State budget process instead of the bill process. However, it seemed Karnette would let us continue with the bill process if we found a different author. So Sara Wan (CCC) and Gus Hein (POLB) began coordinating with Lowenthal’s staff, who seemed willing to support the bill. Since that time, Lowenthal’s staff had reconsidered and requested we pursue funding through budget augmentation. As it now stands, we will not be seeking funds through the state bill process.

b. State Budget Process
In order for us to get funds through the budget process, we needed to find a State agency willing to request additional funding on behalf of the CSTF to be included in that agency’s budget. This was discussed with CCC management, who decided not to augment its funding to include CSTF projects. However, Peter Douglas (CCC) was able to discuss CSTF support with Lowenthal’s staff since the LARWQCB was willing to pursue CSTF funding through its own budget process. In addition to CSTF funds, the LARWQCB will need 0.25 PYs to administer the CSTF contracts. To pursue funding through the budget process, we will need to get Lowenthal’s and Karnette’s support and provide them with more detailed information on the proposed studies. Then the legislators will go and try to get the funding on Members’ Day, which usually occurs in May but no definite date has yet been set.

So, Michael had drafted a letter to Lowenthal and Karnette requesting their support for the CSTF projects and included a 1 ¼-page summary of the studies. These are the same projects for which we were trying to get support through the bill process. Modifications to the Database Development study were done to include Steven John’s (USEPA) concerns that we weren’t ready to commit to developing criteria until we knew more about the usefulness of them. Tom commented on the draft letter and summary. So Copy #2 of the drafts with Tom’s revisions was presented to the subcommittee for comment. Barbara recommended we clarify under the Sediment Transport Modeling study whether we were planning to model all three watersheds or were going to focus on just one watershed.

[Note: A modified version (#3) of the draft letter and summary was later presented to the Management Committee at the CSTF meeting on March 9th. Comments were received and a final draft was submitted to the LARWQCB. Per Michael, a recent development has occurred: Approval will need to be obtained by the State Water Resources Control Board and CalEPA before the LARWQCB can request to augment its budget on behalf of the CSTF.]

c. Federal Funding Strategy
C-MANC (California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference) is supporting the Corps’ request for $400,000 to do coastal studies. Per Tony Risko (Corps), we would be able to include the studies for which we’re seeking state funding through the budget process. Lauma will follow up with Tony on getting us the template we need to provide the local stakeholders with more information on the $400,000. Barbara and Tom will develop a joint Long Beach City and POLB support letter, while Ralph will coordinate on getting a POLA support letter.

[Note: Copies of Tony Risko’s template were sent to Barbara, Dean Smith (LA Co), Ralph, Tom and Michael on 3/5. Lauma went ahead and drafted a letter for Peter’s and Dennis Dickerson’s (LARWQCB) signatures on behalf of the CSTF supporting funding for the Corps’ studies. This draft was presented to the CSTF Management Committee at the March 9th meeting. Subsequently, Dean was able to provide the members with a copy of the County’s support letter, which also included requests for other work – beach replenishment and Marina del Rey dredging. Mitzy Taggart also provided copies of Heal the Bay’s support letter.]

Next Meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for April 7th, 10 a.m. – noon, Coastal Commission’s Long Beach office.

*CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act

**NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act


bluebull.gif (1028 bytes) Return to the Contaminated Sediments Task Force Committee Meetings page.

bluebull.gif (1028 bytes) Return to the Contaminated Sediments Task Force home page.

bluebull.gif (1028 bytes) Return to the California Coastal Commission's home page.