Attendees:

Michael Lyons, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Terri Ely, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Regulatory
Steven John, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (via phone)
Tom Johnson, Port of Long Beach
Ralph Appy, Port of Los Angeles
Lauma Jurkevics, California Coastal Commission (via phone)
Tony Risko, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Coastal Resources

Strategy Adoption Process Report

In developing the Strategy Adoption Process Report, the Implementation Subcommittee members determined that the Task Force (Management Committee) would need to approve the Long-Term Contaminated Sediments Management Strategy. Then this strategy should be presented to the Executive Committee for approval. In order to meet the statutory deadline of January 1, 2003, the strategy would need to be finalized by the latter part of 2002. The question still remains as to how the Task Force would handle CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act - state) and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act - federal) issues. Regardless, the strategy must address environmental protection.

During the federal Fiscal Year 2000, the Corps must develop an EIS/EIR (Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report) after the Corps’ North Energy Island borrow pit study is completed. If a regional CAD (Confined Aquatic Disposal) site were determined to be a feasible option, then an EIS would definitely be required, which typically would go to Washington, DC, for review and approval. In addition, if the management strategy were to have specific alternatives listed, such as a CAD site, then an environmental document must also be developed (e.g., EA – Environmental Assessment) to support the strategy. [An EIS and an EA are federal documents to satisfy NEPA requirements while an EIR and an Initial Study satisfy state CEQA requirements.]

According to the Corps’ review and permitting process, the specific project alternatives (such as a CAD site) would need to comply not only with NEPA but also with the CWA (Clean Water Act). Such project alternatives would require approval from the South Pacific Division, Regulatory and Construction/ Operations Branch, which would be approving it for the local District. Then the District’s Regulatory Branch would take the approval and develop a general permit (this permit process would take 120 days).

The design of the CAD site would most likely require a programmatic EIS based on the Marina del Rey EIS being developed. Disposal alternatives could be addressed in this programmatic EIS. Once this EIS is approved, then the applicants would only need to have an EA developed when they are ready to conduct projects. The EIS process normally takes about two years. But the Corps could probably prepare this EIS much faster because Marina del Rey efforts are already underway. By December 1999, the Corps anticipates the Marina del Rey EIS would be adopted (this EIS won’t need to go to the Corps’ headquarters in Washington, DC). To satisfy the CEQA requirements for the CAD site, the ports would take the lead on developing the EIR since they would need to approve uses within the ports.

From Tony Risko’s (Corps) perspective, an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) would be needed for adopting the strategy and should include the resource agencies to ensure they are committed to that strategy. The Task Force will need to identify within the strategy both economic and environmental alternatives. The EIS development for the CAD site will parallel with the long-term strategy but will likely be finalized after the strategy gets adopted (probably six months later).

The members recommended we highlight resource agency issues at the Task Force May meeting. Currently, the Port of Los Angeles meets with resource agencies before submitting applications to the regulatory agencies. As a result, the port has not had the same coordination problems that the Corps and Los Angeles County are having with the Marina del Rey project. The Corps seems to get conflicting restrictions. Individual coordination may cause those conflicts. An MOU indicating that all agencies agree to meet on issues would be most helpful in resolving the discrepancies. Steven John (EPA) indicated that creating a Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) could help resolve conflicts.

The question was raised as to whether the long-term strategy would have enough information to identify the CAD sites and the upland sites (either in concept or specific places). There needs to be a decision-making framework that would identify the preferences and a method of evaluating which preference to implement.

When EPA reviews projects, staff determines whether the projects comply with CWA, MPSA (Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act) and NEPA. But to actually adopt a strategy, the process is much simpler if it were to entail reaching agreements on issues. This type of process would only require approval from the Regional Administrator (in this case, Felicia Marcus). There would be no additional process or agreement since this adoption process would not have the same scope as the Toxics Rule (unless you specify that, let’s say, 10% of contaminated material will go into one site). However, if we were proposing regulatory changes, then the adoption process would be more complex. In terms of establishing a permitting process, EPA and the Corps would go through a joint process – such as developing a general permit or a regional CAD site. Additionally, there would be no need to go through the Federal Register.

The timeline information presented above needs to be simplified so the members could get a clear understanding of the relationship involved with the environmental and permitting processes. Ralph Appy (POLA) volunteered to develop for the Task Force bar charts if the members were to provide him with the timelines, including those for the strategy adoption.

Besides looking at environmental and permitting processes, we would need to identify the processes required for adopting the strategy. For the Coastal Commission to adopt the strategy, it would go through an internal review process and a public workshop, and then would be presented to the Commission for adoption. The process would typically take a minimum of four months.

For the Regional Board to adopt the strategy, an amendment to the Basin Plan seems the most appropriate route. This would require going for approval through the Regional Board, State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Administrative Law, and EPA. The adoption process would take about 7-12 months.

For the Corps to adopt the strategy, Tony indicated that an MOU seemed the best route to take in order to streamline the timing process. And as previously discussed, for EPA to adopt the strategy, only approval from the Regional Administrator would be required.

Streamlining Report

Lauma Jurkevics (CCC) summarized the draft outline for the report, which included: (1) stating the problems from both the applicants’ and regulatory agencies’ perspectives; (2) identifying short-term solutions (before the strategy is developed) and long-term solutions (such as those involving internal and regulatory issues); (3) identifying each regulatory agency’s authorities; (4) determining how each agency could promote a streamlined permitting process; and (5) identifying stumbling blocks. The recommendations that were brainstormed during the last meeting were listed in this draft.

In addition, members brought up issues not previously discussed. It would seem the recommendations that are going to be identified in the report would naturally extend to the dredging and disposal of clean sediments. Examples include developing a general permit or having a DMMO look at all dredge material.

Ralph asked what the role of Heal the Bay is in the process. Resolving issues with the agencies and then having environmental groups oppose projects would be counterproductive. Heal the Bay needs to buy into the decision tree. So we need to pose the question of their involvement to them. There is reduced leverage for a project if we only involve the resource agencies, applicant, and regulatory agencies to resolve concerns and agree on the project and mitigation measures before the public review process starts.

DMMO

Currently, the Task Force has an Interim Advisory Committee that is not structured and usually meets on an ad hoc basis. In addition, there is no lead person for that committee. As a result, there are concerns with the process because there is no follow-up on projects and there is a background fear that no coordination is happening. The Interim Advisory Committee is gradually becoming more consistent with a DMMO but a DMMO involves a more formalized process and communication. The DMMO could be the ultimate review and permitting process for the Task Force.

The Task Force (Management Committee), however, should be the one approving the creation of a DMMO. The advantages and disadvantages of having a DMMO should be outlined but we could use other templates out there to streamline our review and permitting process. The advantage to a DMMO is knowing who’s in charge. Currently, Steven is the unofficial charge of the Interim Advisory Committee but he should not be held responsible for following up on all issues. On the other hand, Ralph likes a little flexibility in the process and is concerned about potentially creating another regulatory layer with a DMMO.

How could we improve coordination? We could identify a point person per project but there could potentially be a territorial battle within the Corps because there are different groups involved (e.g., Regulatory, Operations and Maintenance, Environmental, Coastal Resources). We should be aware of the problem, even when responsibility for coordination gets assigned to a specific person.

Tony posed the question as to why can’t the Interim Advisory Committee evolve into a DMMO. He would like to have the Interim Advisory Committee become more permanent.

Per Steven, the DMMO is formed on the basis of an MOU. The DMMO looks at all issues ahead of time. There is a single permit application and sediment data get reviewed concurrently. EPA will provide a summary of the DMMO process to the Task Force members at the May meeting.

Funding

Corps’ $400,000 request (C-MANC supported): Los Angeles County and Heal the Bay have sent in their support letters for the feasibility studies. The Port of Los Angeles does not have a support letter to the legislators. Meanwhile, the Port of Long Beach has developed a draft letter, which hasn’t yet been approved (seems that processing a joint letter with City of Long Beach has slowed down). Ralph asked that the ports’ involvement in the Task Force, as well as the importance of port activities, be identified in the Task Force support letter. We had already revised the letter to include the port, as well as, other key agencies involved with the Task Force. This letter has been finalized and is awaiting signatures from Peter Douglas (CCC) and Dennis Dickerson (LA Regional Board).

NOAA funding: Looks like there’s potential funding from NOAA through the Lands Legacy Initiative to support dredging activities. The Coastal Commission will follow up on this funding and Lauma will report back to the members.

Regional Board budget augmentation: Dennis sent a memo to CalEPA to ask for approval to send the funding letter to Karnette and Lowenthal. No news yet as to its status.

Next meeting

May 4^th, 10:00 am – noon, Coastal Commission office (Long Beach).