Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed Site Designation of the LA-3 Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site off Newport Bay,
Orange County, California
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
December 2004

-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Proposed Site Designation of the LA-3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site off
Newport Bay,
Orange County, California
Abstract: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) covers the proposed designation of the LA-3 site as
a permanent site for the ocean disposal of dredged material. The site will be used in conjunction with the
LA-2 site for the disposal of dredged material originating from projects located within Los Angeles and
Orange Counties. The interim LA-3 site has been used for the ocean disposal of dredged material from
projects in the Orange County area (primarily Newport Bay and Harbor) since the 1970s.
Except for air quality issues, continued use of the LA-3 ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) is
not anticipated to cause significant long-term adverse environmental impacts beyond the site boundaries.
As indicated the site has been used for the ocean disposal of dredged sediments since the 1970s and the
bcnthic communities and sediments within the site have been altered by those previous disposal activities.
Benthos within the site will continue to be smothered by sediment disposal but the environmental effects
are not anticipated to extend beyond the site boundaries. Water quality impacts will be localized, short-term
and negligible. Under worst-case conditions air quality impacts due to the dredged material hauling
activities could be significant, but could be mitigated through the individual dredging project permitting
process. The few identified potentially adverse impacts are not anticipated to be irreversible or to involve
any irretrievable commitment of resources. As part of the site designation process, the USACE and EPA
have developed a Site Monitoring and Management Plan (SMMP) included in an appendix to this EIS that
will ensure that environmental impacts remain insignificant.
In conjunction with the permanent designation of LA-3 as an ODMDS. the existing permanently designated
LA-2 site has been reevaluated in this EIS to increase the maximum annual volume of dredged sediment to
be disposed of at the site. As with the LA-3 site, although substantial impacts will continue within the LA-2
site boundaries, no significant impacts to sediments or benthos are anticipated to extend beyond the site
boundaries.
The alternatives considered in this EIS arc: 1) No Action. 2) Maximize Use of LA-2, 3) Local Use of LA-3
and LA-2, and 4) Maximize Use of LA-3. The Preferred Alternative identified in this EIS is Alternative 3,
the continued use of LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS and the continued use of the LA-2 ODMDS with a new
specified maximum annual disposal volume. This decision is based on the absence of significant long-term
environmental impacts beyond the LA-3 and LA-2 site boundaries, the potential for adverse environmental
impacts (particularly air quality) associated with the other alternatives, and the demonstrated need for
continued availability of an ocean disposal site for dredged material.
Forward Comments to:	Lawrence J. Smith, Environmental Coordinator
USACE CESPL-PD-RN
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
(213)452-3846

-------
Tabic of Contents
Table of Contents
Abstract	i
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms	x
Unit Conversions	xiv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
CHAPTER 1.0 - INTRODUCTION	1-1
1.1	General Introduction	1-1
1.2	Purpose of and Need for Action	1-7
1.3	Proposed Action	1-13
1.4	Areas of Controversy	1-13
1.5	Issues To Be Resolved	1-14
1.6	Regulatory Framework	1-15
1.6.1	London Convention	1-15
1.6.2	Federal Laws and Regulations	1-15
1.6.3	Executive Orders	1-23
1.6.4	State of California	1-23
1.6.5	South Coast Air Quality Management District	1 -24
1.7	Relation to Previous NEPA Actions and Other Major Facilities in the
Vicinity of the Proposed Project Sites	1-25
1.7.1	THUMS Disposal Site	1-25
1.7.2	Orange County Sanitation District Outfall	1 -25
1.7.3	White's Point Outfalls	1-26
1.7.4	Avalon Outfall	1-26
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation	ii

-------
Tabic of Contents
Table of Contents (cont.)
1.7 Relation to Previous NEPA Actions and Other Major Facilities in the
Vicinity of the Proposed Project Sites (continued)
1.7.5	Aliso Outfall	1-26
1.7.6	SERRA Outfall	1-26
1.7.7	Terminal Island Treatment Plant Outfall	1 -29
1.7.8	Commercial Port Development	1-29
CHAPTER 2.0 - ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED
ACTION	2-1
2.1	Alternatives to be Considered	2-1
2.1.1	No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)	2-2
2.1.2	Maximize Use of LA-2 (Alternative 2)	2-5
2.1.3	Alternatives for Permanent Designation of LA-3
(Alternatives 3 and 4)	2-7
2.2	Discussion of Alternatives	2-14
2.2.1	Alternative LA-3 Disposal Sites Considered but Eliminated from
Detailed Study	2-14
2.2.2	Compliance of the Alternatives with General Criteria for the
Selection of Sites (40 CFR 228)	2-16
2.2.3	Comparison of the Alternatives to EPA's 11 Specific Criteria
for Site Selection [40 CFR 228.6(a)]	2-18
2.2.4	Selection of the Preferred Alternative	2-18
CHAPTER 3.0 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT	3-1
3.1 Ocean Disposal Site Characteristics	3-1
3.1.1	Historical Use of the Study Region [40 CFR 228.5(e)]	3-1
3.1.2	Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring [40 CFR 228.5(d) and
228.6(a)(5)]	3-2
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
HI

-------
Tabic of Contents
Table of Contents (cont.)
3.2	Physical Environment	3-3
3.2.1	Meteorology and Air Quality	3-3
3.2.2	Physical Oceanography [40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)]	3-13
3.2.3	Water Column Characteristics [40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)]	3-29
3.2.4	Regional Geology	3-33
3.2.5	Sediment Characteristics	3-35
3.3	Biological Environment	3-48
3.3.1	Plankton	3-48
3.3.2	Invertebrates	3-52
3.3.3	Fish Community	3-68
3.3.4	Tissue Bioaccumulation	3-76
3.3.5	Marine Birds	3-83
3.3.6	Marine Mammals	3-85
3.3.7	Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species	3-88
3.3.8	Marine Protected Areas	3-91
3.4	Socioeconomic Environment	3-94
3.4.1	Commercial Fishing and Mariculture	3-94
3.4.2	Commercial Shipping	3-99
3.4.3	Military Usage	3-105
3.4.4	Oil and Natural Gas Development	3-105
3.4.5	Recreational Activities	3-107
3.4.6	Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources	3-112
3.4.7	Public Health and Welfare	3-112
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation	iv

-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents (cont.)
CHAPTER 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-1
4.1
Introduction
4-1
4.2
Preferred Alternative
4-2

4.2.1 Effects on the Physical Environment
4-6

4.2.2 Effects on the Biological Environment
4-25

4.2.3 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
4-32
4.3
No Action Alternative
4-39

4.3.1 Effects on the Physical Environment
4-39

4.3.2 Effects on the Biological Environment
4-44

4.3.3 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
4-45
4.4
Other Ocean Disposal Alternatives
4-49

4.4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment
4-49

4.4.2 Effects on the Biological Environment
4-59

4.4.3 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
4-62
4.5
Management of the Disposal Site(s)
4-72

4.5.1 Ocean Disposal Permits
4-73

4.5.2 Site Management and Monitoring
4-75
4.6
Cumulative Impacts as a Results of the Project
4-76

4.6.1 Physical Environment
4-76

4.6.2 Biological Environment
4-78

4.6.3 Socioeconomic Environment
4-78
4.7
Relationship Between Short-Term and Long-Term Resource Uses
4-80
4.8
Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
4-80
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
v

-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents (cont.)
CHAPTER 5.0 - COORDINATION	5-1
5.1	Notice of Intent and Public Scoping Meeting	5-1
5.2	Formal Consultation	5-2
5.3	Public Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5-2
CHAPTER 6.0 -PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS	6-1
CHAPTER 7.0 - BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES	7-1
APPENDICES
A: Site Monitoring and Management Plan
B: Air Quality Calculations
FIGURES
ES-1: Locations of LA-2 and LA-3 ODMDS	ES-2
1.1-1: Regional Location	1 -4
1.1-2: LA-3 Bathymetry	1-5
1.1-3: LA-2 Bathymetry	1-8
1.6-1:	Overview of Tiered Approach to Evaluating Potential Impact of
Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material	1-18
1.7-1:	Location of Cross-Section Between the LA-3 Sites and the OCSD
Outfall	1-26
1.7-2: Cross-Section Profile - OCSD Outfall to LA-3 Sites	1 -27
2.1-1:	Locations of LA-3 and LA-2 and Other Alternative Sites	2-8
2.1 -2: Location of Interim and Proposed Permanent LA-3 Disposal Sites 2-10
3.2-1:	2003 Air Monitoring Stations in the South Coast Air Basin	3-14
3.2-2: Locations of Buoys 092 and 096	3-22
3.2-3: Components of Mean Surface Circulation	3-24
3.2-4: Locations of Moorings A, B, and C	3-27
3.2-5: Sediment Sampling Locations at LA-3 Study Area	3-36
3.2-6: Sediment Sampling Locations at LA-2	3-37
3.2-7:	Sediment Grain Size Distribution (by weight) at LA-2 and LA-3
Sampling Sites, Summer 2000	3-40
3.3-1:	August 2000 Trawl Locations at LA-3	3-60
3.3-2: January 2001 Trawl Locations at LA-3	3-61
3.3-3: Commercial Fish Catch Blocks	3-63
3.3-4: August 2000 Trawl Locations at LA-2	3-66
3.3-5: January 2001 Trawl Locations at LA-2	3-67
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation	vi

-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents (cont.)
FIGURES (cont.)
3.3-6:
3.3-7:
3.4-1:
3.4-2:
3.4-3:
3.4-4:
3.4-5:
4.2-1:
4.2-2:
4.3-1:
4.4-1:
4.4-2
TABLES

1.1-1
Five General and Eleven Specific Site Selection Criteria
1-2
1.1-2
History of Dredged Material Disposed of at LA-3
1-6
1.1-3
History of Dredged Material Disposed of at LA-2
1-9
1.6-1
Summary of Compliance of the Proposed Project with


Environmental Statutes and Regulations
1-16
2.1-1
Alternative 1 (No Action) Forecasted Worst-Case Yearly and


Average Yearly Disposal Volumes
2-4
2.1-2
Alternative 2 Forecasted Worst-Case Yearly and Average


Yearly Disposal Volumes
2-6
2.1-3
Alternative 3 Forecasted Worst-Case Yearly and Average


Yearly Disposal Volumes
2-12
2.1-4
Alternative 4 Forecasted Worst-Case Yearly and Average


Yearly Disposal Volumes
2-13
2.2-1
Comparison of LA-3 and LA-2 Sites Based on the 11 Specific


Criteria at 40 CFR 228.6(a)
2-19
3.2-1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
3-6
3.2-2
De Minimis Emission Thresholds in the South Coast Air Basin for


General Conformity Applicability
3-10
3.2-3
SCAQMD Emission Significance Thresholds
3-12
3.2-4
Ambient Air Quality Summary - South Coast Air Basin
3-15
3.2-5
South Coast Air Basin Area Designations
3-16
3.2-6
Summary of Air Quality Measurements Recorded at the North Long


Beach Monitoring Station
3-17
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation vii
Fish Abundance, Species Richness, and Biomass (kg) Taken During
August 2000 and January 2001 Trawls at Interim LA3 and LA2
ODMDS	3-71
Marine Protected Areas	3-92
Traffic Separation Scheme and Regulated Navigation Area	3-106
State Offshore Oil and Gas Leases	3-108
San Pedro Bay OCS Operations	3-109
Coastal Parks and Beaches in the Project Vicinity	3-111
Shipwrecks in the Vicinity of the LA-2 and LA-3 Sites	3-113
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-3 for an Annual
Disposal Volume of 2,500,000 yd3	4-22
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-2 for an Annual
Disposal Volume of 1,000,000 yd3	4-24
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-2 for an Annual
Disposal Volume of 200,000 yd3	4-44
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-2 for an Annual
Disposal Volume of 3,500,000 yd3	4-55
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-3 for an Annual
Disposal Volume of 3,500,000 yd3	4-57

-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents (cont.)
TABLES (cont.)
3.2-7:	Summary of Air Quality Measurements Recorded at the Costa
Mesa - Mesa Verde Drive Monitoring Station	3-18
3.2-8:	Summary of Air Quality Measurements Recorded at the Mission
Viejo - 26081 Via Pera Monitoring Station	3-19
3.3-1:	Benthic lnfauna Community Composition and Parameters at LA-3 3-55
3.3-2: Benthic lnfauna Community Composition and Parameters at LA-2 3-58
3.3-3: Number of Species, Total Abundance, and Five Most Abundant Fish
Species Collected within the LA-3 Study Area by Station.
Combined Summer and Winter Totals.	3-69
3.3-4:	Comparison of Average Abundance and Species Richness for
5 Trawl Surveys in the Southern California
Bight (SCB) Area at a Depth Similar to LA-3	3-70
3.3-5:	Number of Species, Total Abundance, and Five Most Abundant
Fish Species Collected within LA-2 Study Area by Station.
Combined Summer and Winter Totals.	3-75
3.3-6:	Comparison of Average Abundance and Species Richness for
7 Trawl Surveys in the Southern California Bight (SCB) Area at a
Depth Similar to LA-2	3-77
3.3-7:	Comparison of Means of Total DDT and Total PCB Concentrations
in Livers of Pacific Sanddab, Longfin Sanddab, and Dover Sole 3-79
3.3-8:	Invertebrate (Sea Cucumber) and Fish (Dover Sole) Tissue
Contamination Concentrations from Samples Collected in and around
the LA-2 and Interim LA-3 Dredged Material Disposal Sites,
Including FDA and International Human Health Limits	3-81
3.3-9:	Number of Bird Observations by Species at LA-3 and LA-2 during
Summer 2000 Field Surveys and Seabird Species Common
in the SCB	3-84
3.3-10: Marine Mammals of the Southern California Bight	3-86
3.3-11:	Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring at the LA-2 and
LA-3 Disposal Sites	3-89
3.4-1:	Waterborne Freight Traffic 1994 - 2002	3-100
3.4-2: 2002 Commodity Traffic 3-102
3.4-3: San Pedro Bay Cargo Forecast Annual Growth Rates 2000 - 2020 3-103
3.4-4: 2002 Combined Inbound and Outbound Commercial Trips 3-104
4.1 -1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts for the Proposed
Alternatives	4-3
4.2-1:	One-Way Trip Distances	4-8
4.2-2:	Worst-Case Day Total Number of Barge Round Trips	4-9
4.2-3:	Worst-Case Year Total Number of Barge Round Trips	4-10
4.2-4:	Average Year Total Number of Barge Round Trips	4-11
4.2-5:	Worst-Case Year Maximum Daily Emissions	4-12
4.2-6:	Worst-Case Year Average Daily Emissions	4-13
4.2-7:	Average Daily Emissions for 10-Year Project Assessment Period 4-15
4.2-8:	Worst-Case Yearly Emissions	4-16
4.2-9:	Average Yearly Emissions for 10-Year Project Assessment Period 4-17
5.3-1:	Distribution List for Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 5-3
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
Vlll

-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents (cont.)
TABLES (cont.)
5.3-2:	Locations Where the DEIS Can Be Reviewed or Requested	5-4
6-1:	List of E1S Preparers	6-2
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ix

-------
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AD	adjacent disposal area
AHF	Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California
ANOVA	Analysis of Variance
ASBS	Area of Special Biological Significance
BCOC	bioaccumulative compound of concern
BHC	benzene hexachloride
°C	degrees Celsius
CalCOFI California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations
CDFG	California Department of Fish and Game
CDIP	Coastal Data Information Program
CEQA	California Environmental Quality Act
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
cm/sec	centimeter per second
cm/yr	centimeter per year
CO	carbon monoxide
CO2	carbon dioxide
COE	See USACE
CSCC	California State Coastal Conservancy
CSDOC	County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
CSLC	California State Lands Commission
CWA	Clean Water Act
cy	cubic yard
CZMA	Coastal Zone Management Act
DAMOS	Disposal Area Monitoring System
DDD	dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE	dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT	dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DEIS	Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DO	dissolved oxygen
EFH	Essential Fish Habitat
EIS	Environmental Impact Statement
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
ERL	Effects Range-Low
ERM	Effects Range-Median
ESA	Endangered Species Act
°F	degrees Fahrenheit
FEIS	Final Environmental Impact Statement
FR	Federal Register
ft	foot
ft/sec	foot per second
HC	hydrocarbon
X

-------
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
(CONTINUED)
HD	historical disposal area
hp	horsepower
hr	hour
Hs	significant wave height
IEC	Interstate Electronics Corporation
JWPCP	Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
km	kilometer
kn	knot
kW	Kilowatt
LA	Los Angeles
LACOSAN Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
LACSD	Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (also Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County)
lb	pound
LC	London Convention
LPC	Limited Permissible Concentrations
m	meter
m3	cubic meter
MBC	Marine Biological Consultants
MBTA	Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDM	marine disposal mound
Mg	megagram
mgd	million gallons per day
mg/kg	milligram/kilogram
mg/1	milligram per liter
MHHW	mean higher high water
(xg/kg	microgram per kilogram
Hg/1	microgram per liter
MLLW	mean lower low water
MMPA	Marine Mammal Protection Act
MMS	Minerals Management Service
MP	million pounds
MPA	Marine Protected Area
MPRSA	Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
MSA	Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act
MSL	mean sea level
N	north (latitude)
NEPA	National Environmental Policy Act
ng/1	nanogram per liter
NMFS	National Marine Fisheries Service
nmi	nautical mile
XI

-------
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
(CONTINUED)
NOA
Notice of Availability
NO A A
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI
Notice of Intent
NOS
National Ocean Service
NOx
nitrogen oxide (oxide of nitrogen)
no2
nitrogen dioxide
ocs
Outer Continental Shelf
OCSD
Orange County Sanitation District
ODMDS
ocean dredged material disposal site
PAH
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PAR
port access route
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
%
percent
PM
particulate matter
pm25
particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
PM10
particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
POCS
Pacific Outer Continental Shelf
PPb
parts per billion
ppt
parts per trillion
R
reference location
RD
recent disposal area
RNA
Regulated Navigation Area
ROC
reactive organic compound
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
S
disposal site
SAIC
Science Applications International Corporation
SCAB
South Coast Air Basin
SCAMIT
Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCB
southern California bight
SCBPP
Southern California Bight Pilot Project
SCCWRP
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
SERRA
South East Regional Reclamation Authority
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
SMMP
Site Management and Monitoring Plan
SOCWA
South Orange County Wastewater Authority
SOx
sulfur oxide (oxideof sulfur)
S02
sulfur dioxide
SPI
sediment profile imagery
SVPS
sediment vertical profiling system
SWQCB
State Water Quality Control Board
xii

-------
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
(CONTINUED)
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
THUMS
Texaco, Humble, Union, Mobil, and Shell
TOC
total organic carbon
TVS
total volatile solids
TSS
Traffic Separation Scheme
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C.
United States Code
USCG
U.S. Coast Guard
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VOC
volatile organic compound
VTS
Vessel Traffic Service
W
west (longitude)
WRDA
Water Resources Development Act
yd
yard
yd3
cubic yard
yr
year
ZID
zone of initial dilution
ZSF
Zone of Siting Feasibility
xiii

-------
Unit Conversions
UNIT CONVERSIONS (METRIC SYSTEM WITH U.S. EQUIVALENTS)
Metric Unit
U.S. Equivalent(s)
Length/Depth
millimeter (mm)
0.039 inches (in)
centimeter (cm)
0.39 inches (in)

39.37 inches (in)
meter (m)
3.28 feet (ft)

0.55 fathoms (fm)
kilometer (km)
0.62 statute miles (mi)

0.54 nautical miles (nmi)
Area
square centimeter (cm2)
0.155 square inches (in2)
square meter (m")
1.196 square yards (yd")
square kilometer (km")
0.3861 square statute miles (mi")

0.292 square nautical miles (nmi")
hectare (ha) = 10,000 m2
2.471 acres
Volume
cubic centimeter (cm )
0.061 cubic inches (in3)
milliliter (ml)

cubic meter (cm3)
1.31 cubic yards (yd3)
liter (1)
61.02 cubic inches (in3)
Mass
gram (g)
0.035 ounces(oz)
1,000 milligrams (mg)

kilogram (kg)
2.2046 pounds (lb)
metric ton (MT)
1.1 tons

2,205 pounds
Speed
centimeter per second (cm/sec)
0.02 knots (kn)
meter per second (m/sec)
1.94 knots (kn)

2.24 statute miles per hour (mi/hr)
kilometer per hour (km/h)
0.54 knots (kn)
Temperature
Degree Celsius (C)
Degree Fahrenheit ( F) = (1.8 x C) + 32
OC
32 F (freezing point of water)
100 C
212 F (boiling point of water)
1 knoi(l nautical mile per hour) equals 1.15 statute (land) miles per hour.
xiv

-------
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.l Introduction
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9 (EPA) to evaluate the final designation of an ocean dredged material
disposal site (ODMDS) located offshore of Newport Beach, California (known as LA-3),
and to re-evaluate the management of the existing LA-2 ODMDS located offshore of the
Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor complex in California (Figure ES-1). These sites have
been and will continue to be utilized for the disposal of clean dredged material
originating in the Los Angeles and Orange County region. This EIS is issued in
accordance with Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), and as required by EPA's national policy on the designation of ocean disposal
sites (39 FR 37119, October 21,1974).
This document has been prepared in compliance with EPA's site designation criteria (40
CFR 228) and it evaluates a number of alternatives for the disposal of dredged material
generated in the region. The objective of this action is to provide for the economically
feasible management of dredged material ocean disposal for the Los Angeles/Orange
County region in a manner that will not cause unreasonable degradation of the ocean with
respect to the marine environment and human health.
The USACE and EPA have identified as the preferred alternative the final designation of
the LA-3 ODMDS managed at a maximum annual dredged material disposal quantity of
3	3
2,500,000 yd (1,91 1,000 m ) and the management of LA-2 at an increased maximum
annual dredged material disposal quantity of 1,000,000 yd3 (765,000 m3) for the ocean
disposal of dredged material from the Los Angeles and Orange County region.
The LA-3 ODMDS was an interim disposal site and has been used historically for the
disposal of material dredged primarily from Newport Harbor and Bay. As discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2 of this EIS, during the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey review a
substantial amount of dredged material was noted outside the interim site boundaries.
The proposed action would shift the center of the LA-3 site approximately 2.4 km (1.3
nmi) to the southeast of the interim LA-3 site as shown on Figure ES-1. The circular
boundary of the permanently designated LA-3 site would be centered at 33°31'00" N and
117°53'30" W and would have a 915-meter (3,000-foot) radius. By shifting the center of
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-1

-------
Pacific
Ocean
if
<> ]-i Los Angeles
^ Harbor
,-2
Site
Newport -%/
Harbor
\.
San Pedro Channel
Interim s~~\
LA-3 Site V_J
o
Proposed
LA-3 Site

\
V
Santa Catalina
Island
N
A
0 Kilometers 8
Locations of LA-2 and LA-3 ODMDSs

CI

i,n,i

M\jobs2\364-3\gis\figES-1 mxd 09/01/04


I'Vl

-------
Executive Summary
the LA-3 site, the permanent site would not only encompass a region that is already
disturbed by dredged material, but also would be located on a flat, depositional plain that
will be more amenable to monitoring via precision bathymetry.
The LA-2 site is a permanently designated ODMDS that has been historically managed at
an annual disposal quantity of 200,000 yd (153,000 m ) for the disposal of material
dredged primarily from the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor complex.
The availability of suitable ocean disposal sites to support ongoing maintenance and
capital improvement projects is essential for the continued use and economic growth of
the vital commercial and recreational areas in the region. Dredged material will not be
allowed to be disposed of in the ocean unless the material meets strict environmental
criteria established by the EPA and USACE.
ES.2 Alternatives
A number of alternatives were considered in the EIS to determine the alternative that best
meets the goals and objectives of the proposed action while minimizing the potential for
environmental effects. The alternatives originally considered include:
•	Local Use of LA-3 and LA-2 (Preferred Alternative [Alternative 3])
•	No Action (Alternative 1)
•	Maximize Use of LA-2 (Alternative 2)
•	Maximize Use of LA-3 (Alternative 4)
•	Upland disposal at a sanitary landfill
•	Beach replenishment
•	Ocean disposal at a site at a similar depth to LA-3
•	Ocean disposal at a shallow water site
•	Ocean disposal at a deep water site
Upland disposal and beach replenishment are considered on a case-by-case basis prior to
the issuance of permits for ocean disposal. Nevertheless, preliminary analysis indicated
that these two options are not sufficient for handling the quantities of dredged material
that are anticipated to be generated in the region. Additionally, preliminary analysis
indicated that ocean disposal at a shallow water site, deep water site, or at a site with a
depth similar to that of LA-3 was either inadequate, not feasible, or would be more
environmentally damaging than the remaining alternatives. Consequently, these five
alternatives were eliminated from further consideration in the EIS. The remaining four
alternatives are evaluated in detail.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-3

-------
Executive Summary
ES.3 Affected Environment
The following sections summarize the physical, biological, and socioeconomic
environments of the preferred and other alternatives.
ES.3.1 Physical Environment
The LA-2 and LA-3 ocean disposal sites are located in the offshore waters of southern
California, between Palos Verdes Point and Dana Point.
The proposed LA-3 site is located on the slope of Newport Canyon centered at a depth of
approximately 490 m (1,600 ft), approximately 8.5 km (4.5 nmi) southwest of the
entrance to Newport Harbor (33o31'00" N and 117°53'30" W). The bottom topography is
gently sloping from approximately 460 to 510 m (1,500 to 1,675 ft). Situated at the foot
of a submarine canyon, this area would be expected to receive sedimentation from
erosion and nearshore transport into the canyon.
The LA-2 site is located approximately 9.3 km (5 nmi) southwest of the breakwater at
San Pedro and 38 km (20.5 nmi) from the Newport Harbor entrance (33°37'06" N and
118°17'24" W). The site is near the top edge of the continental slope in approximately
110 to 340 m (360 to 1,115 ft) of water. The LA-2 site is located just south of the San
Pedro Valley submarine canyon.
The climate of southern California coastal and offshore areas is classified as
Mediterranean coastal, with warm dry summers and relatively wet, mild winters. Extreme
variations in yearly temperature are uncommon. Although the air quality offshore and
near the coast is generally good, the air quality inland in the South Coast Air Basin is
generally considered poor with some of the worst air quality in the nation. This is in part
because the predominant westerly winds carry pollutants inland. Occasionally, strong
easterly Santa Ana winds carry pollutants from the inland areas offshore. Under these
circumstances, air quality and visibility in the offshore areas may be significantly
reduced.
The primary ocean current in the study area is the California Current, a diffuse and
meandering water mass that generally flows to the southeast at a maximum speed of
about 10 to 15 centimeters per second (cm/sec; 0.19 to 0.29 kn). Most of the equatorward
(toward the equator) transport of the California Current occurs 200 to 500 km (108 to 270
nmi) from shore, with maximum speeds occurring about 300 km (162 nmi) offshore.
South of Point Conception, the California Current diverges and the offshore component
continues to flow southeast while another component flows shoreward (toward the coast)
and upcoast (parallel to shore and northerly), resulting in a counterclockwise, nearshore
gyre known as the Southern California Countercurrent. During spring, however, the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-4

-------
Executive Summary
countercunent can be altered such that flow enters the Southern California Bight (SCB),
but transport is equatorward rather than poleward (toward the North Pole).
Shoreward of and below the California Current is the poleward-flowing California
Undercurrent, the flow of which is concentrated over the continental slope. In the SCB,
the California Undercurrent flows nearshore over the continental slope rather than
offshore, spatially separating it from the California Current. The Undercurrent is
comparatively narrow, with the high-speed core centered over the continental slope. The
California Current, Countercurrent, and Undercurrent all have seasonal speed maxima in
late summer.
Near-bottom currents at LA-3 are low (usually less than 6 cm per second [cm/sec]; [0.2
feet per second {ft/sec}] and always less than 16 cm/sec [0.53 ft/sec]) compared with
those at LA-2 (usually less than 12 cm/sec [0.4 ft/sec] and always less than 40 cm/sec
[1.3 ft/sec]). The potential for erosion of disposed sediments is therefore greater at LA-2
than at LA-3. Essentially no erosion is predicted for the LA-3 site.
Sediments within the LA-3 site generally show a larger percentage of sand and gravel and
a lower percentage of silt compared with sediments at stations surrounding the site and at
reference sites. Conversely, sediments in the LA-2 site and surrounding areas are
composed primarily of silt and sand, lesser amounts of clay, and relatively small gravel
fractions. Sediments within and adjacent to the LA-2 site boundary differ from those at
reference areas in that the reference area sediments are composed of smaller amounts of
fines and larger fractions of sand. Differences in sediment composition between the
disposal sites and reference areas may be attributed to disposal activities. Both sites show
varying degrees of chemical contamination.
ES.3.2 Biological Environment
The marine organisms found at the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites are typical of those
found throughout the Southern California Bight. Plankton distributions tend to be patchy,
and individual stations sampled more than once at the disposal sites exhibit great
variation. In general, greatest concentrations of plankton are found in the SCB in early
fall and spring months, and abundances are lowest in the late fall and winter months.
Benthic invertebrates are small organisms, or fauna, that live within the sediments on the
sea floor. These infaunal organisms are highly dependent on the sediments in which they
live for food and protection. At the LA-2 study area, density per sampled station ranged
from 743 to 3,363 individuals/m", species richness ranged from 48 to 167 species, and
Shannon-Wiener species diversity ranged from 2.69 to 4.23. At the LA-3 study area,
density per sampled station ranged from 193 to 623 indivuduals/m2, species richness
ranged from 22 to 52 species, and species diversity from 2.43 to 3.46.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-5

-------
Executive Summary
The epibenthic and pelagic invertebrate species compositions at the LA-3 study area are
typical of those seen on the slope of the Southern California Bight at the LA-3 depth.
The five most abundant species at all LA-3 sites surveyed in 2000-2001 were a complex
of the Pacific heart urchin (Brissopsis pcicificct) and the California heart urchin
(.Spatcmgus ccdifornicus), the northern heart urchin (Brisaster latifrons), the fragile sea
urchin (Allocentrotus fragilis), and the sea star Zoroaster evermanni. Likewise, the
species composition at the LA-2 site is typical of that seen on the outer shelf - upper
slope at the LA-2 depth. The five most abundant species at all LA-2 sites surveyed in
2000-2001 were the fragile sea urchin, northern heart urchin, Pacific heart urchin,
California heart urchin, and the Pacific/California heart urchin complex.
The fish species composition at the LA-3 study area is typical of that seen in demersal
fish communities on the slope at the LA-3 depth. During 2000-2001 surveys, the most
abundant species taken were longspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis), dogface
witch-eel (Facciolella gilberti), Dover sole, and shortspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus
alascanus). The fish species composition at the LA-2 site is also typical of that seen in
demersal fish communities on the slope at the LA-2 depth. Because of the shallower
depth at LA-2, a different species assemblage is seen compared to that at the LA-3 study
area, with only seven species occurring at both locations. During the surveys the most
abundant species taken at LA-2 were Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), slender
sole (Lyopsetta exilis), and shortspine combfish (Zaniolepis frenata). Fishes found
throughout the SCB, including the LA-2 and LA-3 study areas, exhibit varying degrees of
tissue bioaccumulation of contaminants. There is no evidence that tissue bioaccumulation
found in fish within the disposal site areas differs from that of the region as a whole.
Seabirds and marine mammals found at the LA-2 and LA-3 study areas are typical of
those found throughout the SCB and include Western gull (Larus occidental is), sooty
shearwater (Puffinus griseus), elegant tern (Sterna elegans), common dolphin (Delphinus
delphis), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops tnmcatus), and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Only one species
occurs, or has a high potential to occur, in the LA-2 and LA-3 study areas that is listed by
the federal government as threatened or endangered: California brown pelican (Pelecanus
occidentalis califomicus). In addition, elegant tern (Sterna elegans) is a state and federal
species of concern and was observed at LA-3 in summer 2000.
There are twenty-two Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the general vicinity of the LA-2
and proposed LA-3 sites.
ES.3.3 Socioeconomic Environment
The LA-2 and proposed LA-3 disposal sites are located in the Los Angeles commercial
fishing area. There are currently no known registered mariculture operations on the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-6

-------
Executive Summary
southern California coast between Palos Verdes Point and Dana Point. There are,
however, a variety of commercial fisheries in the LA-2 and LA-3 study areas.
Commercial fishing in the San Pedro region consists predominantly of purse-seining,
crab and lobster trapping, and set-netting. The principal market species in this region
include Pacific sardine (Sardinops scigax), market squid (Loligo opalescens), Pacific
mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), northern
anchovy (Engraulis mordcix), red urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscamts), California
halibut (Paralichthys califomicus), California barracuda (Sphyraena argentea),
California spiny lobster (Panulinis interruptus), and swordfish (Xiphicts glcidius).
A setline dory fishery off Newport Beach has existed since 1891, one of the few
traditional dory fisheries remaining on the West Coast. Principle species landed in this
localized fishery include sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), thornyhead (Sebastolobus
spp.), and rockfish (Sebastes spp.). While dory landings of these species pale in
comparison to overall commercial landings, they represent a fishery that has changed
little in over 110 years.
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach comprise one of the most important shipping
complexes in the nation. In 2002 the Port of Long Beach ranked 8th in the nation in terms
of total tonnage handled (61.6 million metric tons [67.9 million short tons]) while the
Port of Los Angeles ranked 12th in the nation with 47.4 million metric tons (52.2 million
short tons) handled. The harbors handle all types of commercial cargo including coal,
petroleum and petroleum products, crude materials (inedible materials not including
fuels), primary manufactured goods, food and farm products, manufactured equipment,
machinery and products, and other miscellaneous cargos.
Vessel traffic within the San Pedro Channel traveling to and from the harbors must
follow a system of traffic separation schemes (TSS) and port access routes (PAR). The
TSS consists of a northbound coastwise traffic lane and a southbound coastwise traffic
lane with an intermediate separation zone. Additionally, the area directly outside of the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is designated a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA).
Vessels within the RNA are subject to strict navigation regulations designed to ensure
safe vessel separations and operating conditions. The proposed LA-3 site is
approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) east of the northbound coastwise traffic lane of the
southern TSS and approximately 24 km (13 nmi) southeast of the RNA. The LA-2 site is
located within the separation zone between the northbound and southbound coastwise
traffic lanes of the northern TSS and is partially contained within the designated RNA.
Additionally, powered vessels over a certain size including tugboats transporting disposal
barges are required to participate in the Los Angeles-Long Beach Vessel Traffic Service
(VTS). LA-2 and the proposed LA-3 sites lie within the VTS monitoring area.
The coastal waters between San Diego and the Los Angeles Harbor are heavily utilized
by the military. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, located approximately 32 km (17
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-7

-------
Executive Summary
nmi) southeast of the proposed LA-3 site, is home to the largest amphibious marine
training base on the west coast. Many of the base activities require unencumbered
maneuvering space for surface vessels, submarines, and aircraft. These exercises are
conducted throughout the year. In addition to the exercises at Camp Pendleton, the Navy
maintains a weapons station at Seal Beach (NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach). Munitions are
loaded into cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and medium-sized amphibious ships from the
facility's 305-meter-long (1,000-foot-long) wharf located in Anaheim Bay. Anaheim Bay
is approximately 22 km (11.9 nmi) northeast of LA-2 and approximately 30 km (16.2
nmi) northwest of the proposed LA-3 site.
In the vicinity of LA-2 and LA-3 there are currently 12 oil and gas lease tracts within the
jurisdiction of the State of California. Of these twelve tracts, ten are producing, one is
used for water injection, and one is not producing. Currently, four artificial islands and
three platforms associated with these lease tracts are located within State waters and all of
the facilities in State waters are within 3.3 km (1.8 nmi) of the coast. In addition to the
tracts under State jurisdiction, there are 4 lease tracts located in federal waters in the
vicinity of LA-2 and LA-3. There are four platforms located within three of these tracts;
however, all four tracts have been developed. These platforms lie approximately 14 to 17
km (7.5 to 9 nmi) to the east of the LA-2 site. The distance from the proposed LA-3 site
to these platforms ranges from approximately 22 to 25 km (12 to 13.5 nmi). No new oil
or gas development has been proposed in the immediate vicinity of the LA-2 or proposed
LA-3 sites.
Recreational activities in the vicinity of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites include
sportfishing, recreational boating including whale watching, sailing, and fishing, surfing,
diving, sunbathing, beachcombing, swimming, snorkeling, sightseeing, and picnicking.
Due to the depth and location of the proposed LA-3 and LA-2 ODMDSs, partyboat
fishing is the type of sportfishing most likely to occur in the vicinity of both sites.
Partyboat fishing off Los Angeles and Orange Counties usually occurs in relatively
shallow waters (less than 100 m [328 ft]) at reefs (natural or articifical) and kelp beds,
areas where fish aggregate. During the summer, additional fishing occurs further offshore
for coastal pelagic species such as yellowtail and tunas.
Offshore islands are one of the major attractants to ocean going recreational boating.
Santa Catalina Island is approximately 35 to 50 km (18.9 to 27 nmi) from the major
harbors. Because of the island's relative proximity to the mainland and its relatively
unrestricted and major anchorages, most pleasure boat traffic to the offshore islands
travels between the mainland harbors and the harbors on Santa Catalina Island. The boats
generally follow a straight path between the island and mainland, and these routes often
come near to the LA-2 and LA-3 sites. In addition to privately owned pleasure boats,
regular ferry service operates between Santa Catalina Island and the Harbors at Los
Angeles, Long Beach, Newport Beach, and Dana Point.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-8

-------
Executive Summary
All other recreational activities in the vicinity of LA-2 and LA-3 occur away from the
disposal sites.
The southern California coast has had a long period of human occupation, both
prehistoric and historic. As a result the coast of the mainland and Channel Islands contain
numerous archaeological, historical, and cultural resources. The offshore regions are also
thought to contain a number of these resources. However, there are no documented
shipwrecks or other cultural resources within 5 km (2.7 nmi) of either the proposed LA-3
or LA-2 sites.
ES.4 Environmental Consequences
Potential environmental consequences associated with the ocean disposal of dredged
material corresponding to the alternatives evaluated in this EIS are summarized in Table
4.1-1 (Chapter 4). The impact category (level of impact) as well as the spatial and
temporal extents of the potential impacts for each of the analyzed environmental
conditions are identified in this table.
Potential effects resulting from dredged material ocean disposal on air quality, water
quality parameters (e.g., suspended particle concentrations), and sea floor conditions
(bottom deposit thicknesses) were evaluated using computer models to simulate the
disposal activities under each of the alternatives. Additional information from monitoring
and research activities at and in the vicinity of the LA-2 and LA-3 disposal sites was also
used in the evaluation of potential impacts.
ES.4.1 Physical Environment
Impacts resulting from the ocean disposal operations on air quality are potentially
significant for all of the alternatives under worst-case conditions. However, assuming
more realistic average annual disposal activities, air quality emissions are not anticipated
to be significant for the Preferred Alternative (local use of LA-2 and LA-3) and the No
Action Alternative. Even assuming average annual conditions, air quality emissions are
estimated to be potentially significant for Alternatives 2 (maximize use of LA-2) and 4
(maximize use of LA-3).
Impacts from dredged material disposal operations on water quality and geology are
considered insignificant regardless which alternative is chosen. Based on sediment
deposition modeling, deposits thicknesses greater than 30 cm (1 ft) will be confined
within the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 site boundaries for all alternatives considered.
Changes in sediment particle size distribution at LA-2 and LA-3 will likely continue as a
result of dredged material disposal. These effects are considered locally not significant.
Significant impacts on sediment quality at either of the sites are not expected given that
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-9

-------
Executive Summary
the dredged material proposed for ocean disposal must be tested and determined suitable
according to EPA and USACE testing criteria that include specific tests for water column
impacts.
ES.4.2 Biological Environment
Impacts to infauna, epifauna, and fishes are anticipated to be temporary and limited to the
areas within the boundaries of the disposal sites. Impacts to the benthic community are
anticipated to be greatest as a result of smothering of some organisms and alteration of
sediment characteristics. However, these impacts are expected to only occur in areas with
annual deposition thicknesses equal to or exceeding 30 cm (1 ft). Areas with depositional
thicknesses less than 30 cm (1 ft) are not expected to incur significant changes in
abundance or diversity of infauna, epifauna, or demersal fishes. As indicated above,
deposition thicknesses of 30 cm (1 ft) or more are anticipated to be confined within the
LA-2 and proposed LA-3 site boundaries for all alternatives. Consequently, impacts to
these organisms are not anticipated to be significant.
Impacts on water column organisms such as plankton, pelagic fishes, and marine
mammals are expected to be minimal, temporary, and limited to the area within the site
boundaries. No significant impacts to seabirds are anticipated for any of the alternatives.
Furthermore, the exposure of marine organisms and other fauna to dredged material is not
expected to result in significant adverse effects given that the dredged material proposed
for ocean disposal must be tested and determined suitable according to EPA and USACE
testing criteria.
ES.4.3 Socioeconomic Environment
Dredged material disposal activities have occurred at the LA-2 and LA-3 sites since the
late 1970s. The continued use of these sites is unlikely to interfere with other ocean uses
such as shipping, fishing, and recreation. Effects on commercial and recreational fishing
in the vicinity of the LA-2 and LA-3 sites will be temporary and insignificant.
Additionally, most disposal impacts will be at the sea bottom and no significant demersal
fisheries exist within the LA-2 or proposed LA-3 site boundaries.
Potential hazards to commercial, military, and recreational navigation resulting from the
transport and disposal of dredged material at the sites are also expected to be
insignificant. Vessel traffic in the region is highly regulated and conflicts with disposal
barges are anticipated to be minimal. There have been no impacts to commercial,
military, or recreational vessel traffic due to the past use and operation of the LA-2 or
interim LA-3 sites. As such, no significant impacts to navigation are anticipated with the
continued use of these sites. There are no existing or planned oil developments within the
LA-2 or proposed LA-3 site boundaries. Consequently, the continued use of these sites
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-10

-------
Executive Summary
for the ocean disposal of dredged material is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on
development of these resources.
There are no known cultural or historical resources within the LA-2 or LA-3 site
boundaries. As such, continued disposal operations at these sites will not adversely
impact cultural or historical resources. Potential impacts to human safety would be very
small as the number of disposal barge trips, even under worst-case conditions, is small
compared to the overall vessel traffic in the region. The Preferred Alternative would
minimize the coastwise disposal barge traffic that could potentially come in contact with
existing developed oil facilities. However, such potential conflicts are considered
insignificant for all of the alternatives. As stated in the MPRSA, the disposal of materials
that are considered hazardous is prohibited at an ODMDS. Furthermore, as mentioned
previously, dredged material proposed for ocean disposal will be subject to strict testing
requirements established by the EPA and USACE. Material found not to be suitable for
ocean disposal will be prohibited from disposal at either LA-2 or LA-3. Therefore, the
potential for human health and safety hazards is minimal and not significant for all of the
alternatives.
ES.5 Comparison of the Alternative Ocean
Disposal Sites with the 5 General and
11 Specific Site Selection Criteria
The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) and remaining alternatives are compared to the
5 general criteria listed at 40 CFR 228.5 and the 11 specific site selection criteria listed at
40 CFR 228.6(a). A summary of the 11 site selection criteria is also contained in Table
2.2-1 (Chapter 2).
ES.5.1 General Selection Criteria
1. The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at sites or
in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal activities with
other activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellflsheries, and regions of heavy commercial or
recreational navigation.
Dredged material disposal activities have occurred at the LA-2 and LA-3 sites since the
late 1970s. Historical disposal at the interim LA-3 site has not interfered with commercial
or recreational navigation, commercial fishing, or sportfishing activities. Disposal at the
LA-2 site, while located within the U.S. Coast Guard Traffic Separation Scheme, has not
interfered with these activities. The continued use of these sites would not change these
conditions.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-II

-------
Executive Summary
2.	Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbances in water quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere
within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater
levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before
reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known
geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
The LA-2 and LA-3 sites are sufficiently removed from shore and limited fishery
resources to allow water quality perturbations caused by dispersion of disposal material
to be reduced to ambient conditions before reaching environmentally sensitive areas.
3.	If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is
determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an interim
basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site selection set
forth in Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of such sites will be
terminated as soon as suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated.
Evaluation of the LA-2 and LA-3 sites indicates that they presently do and would
continue to comply with these criteria. Additionally, compliance will continue to be
evaluated through implementation of the Site Monitoring and Management Plan.
4.	The sizes of the ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any immediate adverse impacts and permit the
implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to
prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size, configuration, and location
of any disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal site
evaluation or designation study.
The LA-2 and proposed LA-3 disposal sites consist of circular areas with a 915-m
(3,000-ft) radius. The size of the sites has been determined by computer modeling to limit
environmental impacts to the surrounding area and facilitate surveillance and monitoring
operations. The designation of the size, configuration, and location of sites was
determined as part of this evaluation study.
5.	EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the
edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been
historically used.
The proposed LA-3 site is located beyond the continental shelf, near a canyon on the
continental slope. This site has also been used historically for the disposal of dredged
material. LA-3 is the only site that fully meets the above criteria.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-12

-------
Executive Summary
The LA-2 site, which has been permanently designated for the ocean disposal of dredged
material, is located near the edge of the continental shelf at the 183 m (600 ft) contour.
The LA-2 site has been used for the ocean disposal of dredged material since 1977.
ES.5.2 Specific Selection Criteria
1.	Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and distance from
the coast.
Centered at 33°3r00" N, 117°53'30" W, the LA-3 bottom topography is gently sloping
from approximately 460 to 510 m (1,500 to 1,675 ft). Situated near the slope of a
submarine canyon, the site center is approximately 8.5 km (4.5 nmi) from the mouth of
Newport Harbor.
The LA-2 site is at the top edge of the continental slope in approximately 110 to 340 m
(360 to 1,115 ft) of water. Centered at 33°37'06" N and 118° 17'24" W,
the LA-2 site is located just south of the San Pedro Valley submarine canyon
approximately 11 km (5.9 nmi) from the entrance to Los Angeles Harbor
2.	Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas of
living resources in adult or juvenile phases.
The LA-2 and LA-3 sites are located in areas that are utilized for feeding and breeding of
resident species. The LA-3 site is located in the gray whale migration route area, while
the LA-2 site is located near the migration route. The California gray whale population
was severely reduced in the 1800s and 1900s due to international whaling. However,
protection from commercial whaling was initiated in the 1940s that has allowed the
population to recover. There is no indication that disposal activities at LA-2 or LA-3 have
adversely affected the gray whale.
There are no known special breeding or nursery areas in the vicinity of the two disposal
sites.
3.	Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
The proposed LA-3 site boundary is located over 6.5 km (3.5 nmi) offshore of the nearest
coast in the Newport Beach and Harbor area; the LA-2 site boundary is located over 8.5
km (4.6 nmi) offshore of the nearest coast in the Palos Verdes area. Other beach areas are
more distant.
4.	Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and proposed
methods of release, including methods of packaging the waste, if any.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-13

-------
Executive Summary
Dredged material to be disposed of will be predominantly clays and silts primarily
originating from the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor area and from Newport Bay and
Harbor. Worst-case annual disposal volumes at LA-3 range from 0 to approximately
3.20 million yd (0 to 2.45 million m3) depending on the alternative chosen. Average
annual disposal volumes at LA-3 range from 0 to approximately 322,000 yd3 (0 to
3	*>
246,000 nr). Worst-case annual disposal volumes at LA-2 range from 439,000 yd to
approximately 3.64 million yd (336,000 to 2.78 million m) depending on the alternative
chosen. Average annual disposal volumes at LA-2 range from 68,000 yd3 to
approximately 390,000 yd3 (52,000 to 298,000 m3).
Dredged material is expected to be released from split hull barges. No dumping of toxic
materials or industrial or municipal waste would be allowed. Dredged material proposed
for ocean disposal is subject to strict testing requirements established by the EPA and
USACE.
5.	Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
The EPA (and USACE for federal projects in consultation with EPA) is responsible for
site and compliance monitoring. USCG is responsible for vessel traffic-related
monitoring. Monitoring of the disposal sites is feasible but somewhat complicated by
topography. At LA-3 this complication is reduced by relocation of the proposed
permanent LA-3 site away from underwater canyons.
6.	Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics of the area,
including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any.
Currents and vertical mixing will disperse fine sediments. Prevailing currents are
primarily parallel to shore and flow along constant depth contours. Situated near the slope
of a submarine canyon, the LA-3 area would be expected to receive sedimentation from
erosion and nearshore transport into the canyon. At LA-2, some sediment transport
offshore occurs due to slumping. Overall, sediments at both sites are expected to settle
offshore (as opposed to onshore).
Chapter 4 of this EIS includes a discussion of the sediment deposition modeling along
with the anticipated sediment accumulations resulting from the proposed disposal
activities.
7.	Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in the
area (including cumulative effects).
Localized physical impacts have occurred to sediments and benthic biota due to past
disposal operations. These effects have not created a significant adverse impact on the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-14

-------
Executive Summary
environment. No interactions with other discharges are anticipated due to the distances
from the discharge points.
8.	Interference with shipping, Ashing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination,
fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance, and other
legitimate uses of the ocean.
Continued use of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites would result in minor interferences
with commercial and fishing vessels due to disposal barge traffic. Sites are not located
within active oil or natural gas tracts. Continued disposal operations are not anticipated to
adversely impact existing nearby oil and gas development facilities or tracts, or other
socioeconomic resources.
9.	Existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by available data or
by trend assessment or baseline surveys.
Water quality in the two disposal areas is good, but temporary, localized physical impacts
have occurred to sediments and benthic ecology due to past disposal operations.
Additionally, dredged material deposited at the two disposal areas in the past was
chemically screened prior to disposal and no known dredged material was disposed of for
which chemical concentrations exceeded EPA toxic concentration limits.
10.	Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance species in the
disposal site.
Unknown, but the potential is low due to depth differences between the disposal sites and
the likely sources of dredged material.
11.	Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant natural or cultural
features of historical importance.
No known shipwrecks or other cultural resources occur within 5 km (2.7 nmi) of either
the LA-2 or proposed LA-3 disposal sites.
ES.6 Conclusion
The No Action Alternative does not meet the goals and objectives for the availability of
an ocean site for the continued disposal of dredged material anticipated to be generated in
the Orange County region. Impacts resulting from disposal of dredged material under the
Preferred Alternative (local use of LA-2 and LA-3) are expected to minimal for the
following reasons:
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-15

-------
Executive Summary
•	The availability of two disposal sites provides more flexibility in managing
the dredged material disposal needs for the region;
•	Air quality emissions are anticipated to be potentially significant for the
Preferred Alternative under worst-case yearly disposal assumptions but not for
anticipated average annual disposal assumptions. These potentially significant
air quality impacts can be avoided through the dredged material disposal
permitting process. In contrast, air quality emissions associated with
Alternative 2 (maximize use of LA-2) and Alternative 4 (maximize use of LA-
3) are anticipated to be potentially significant under both worst-case and
average annual disposal assumptions. As such, the potentially significant air
quality impacts cannot be avoided for these two alternatives;
•	Computer simulations in conjunction with bathymetric and sediment surveys
indicate that the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites are located in depositional
areas that are likely to retain dredged material which reaches the ocean floor.
Chapter 4 of this EIS includes a discussion of the sediment deposition
modeling along with the anticipated sediment accumulations resulting from
the proposed disposal activities;
•	No significant impacts to other resources or amenity areas (e.g., marine
sanctuaries, beaches, etc.) are expected to result regardless which of the
alternatives is selected;
•	Existing and potential fisheries resources within the LA-2 and proposed LA-3
sites are minimal;
•	Potential impacts to benthic infauna and epifauna are anticipated to be
localized and limited to the area within the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 site
boundaries and thus not significant;
•	Potential impacts to fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, and other midwater
organisms are expected to be insignificant regardless which of the alternatives
is selected; and
•	Dredged material disposal has occurred historically at the permanent LA-2
and interim LA-3 sites since the 1970s.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
ES-16

-------
1.0 Introduction
CHAPTER 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Introduction
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the proposed designation of the
LA-3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) as a permanent site for the ocean
disposal of dredged material. The EIS also evaluates the joint ocean disposal at both
LA-2 and LA-3 on an overall regional basis so that the cumulative environmental impacts
of disposal within Los Angeles and Orange Counties can be minimized.
Ocean disposal of dredged materials is regulated under Title I of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA; 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) share responsibility for the management of ocean disposal of dredged material.
Under Section 102 of MPRSA, EPA has the responsibility for designating an acceptable
location for the ODMDS. With concurrence from EPA, the USACE issues permits under
MPRSA Section 103 for ocean disposal of dredged material deemed suitable according to
EPA criteria in MPRSA Section 102 and EPA regulations in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Part 227 (40 CFR 227).
It is EPA's policy to publish an EIS for all ODMDS designations (Federal Register,
Volume 39, Page 37119 [39 FR 37119], October 21, 1974). A site designation EIS is a
formal evaluation of alternative sites in which the potential environmental impacts
associated with disposal of dredged material at various locations are examined. The EIS
must first demonstrate the need for the proposed ODMDS designation action (40 CFR
6.203(a) and 40 CFR 1502.13) by describing available or potential aquatic and non-
aquatic (i.e., land-based) alternatives and the consequences of not designating a site—the
No Action Alternative. Once the need for an ocean disposal site is established, potential
sites are screened for feasibility through the Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) process.
Remaining alternative sites are evaluated using EPA's ocean disposal criteria at 40 CFR
Part 228 (Table 1.1-1) and compared in the EIS. Of the sites which satisfy these criteria,
the site which best complies with them is selected as the preferred alternative for formal
designation through rulemaking published in the Federal Register (FR).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-1

-------
TABLE 1.1-1
FIVE GENERAL AND ELEVEN SPECIFIC SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
General Site Selection Criteria - 40 CFR 228.5
(a)	The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at sites or in areas selected to
minimize the interference of disposal activities with other activities in the marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries. and regions of heavy commercial
or recreational navigation.
(b)	Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that temporary perturbances in water
quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations
anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine
sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
(c)	If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is determined that existing disposal
sites presently approved on an interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site
selection set forth in Sections 228.5 through 228.6. the use of such sites will be terminated as soon
as suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated.
(d)	The sizes of the ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to localize for identification and
control any immediate adverse impacts and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size, configuration, and
location of any disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or
designation study.
(e)	EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental
shelf and other such sites that have been historically used.
Specific Site Selection Criteria - 40 CFR 228.6(a)
(1)	Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and distance from the coast.
(2)	Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living resources
in adult or juvenile phases.
(3)	Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
(4)	Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of. and proposed methods of release,
including methods of packaging the waste, if any.
(5)	Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
(6)	Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics of the area, including
prevailing current direction and velocity, if any.
(7)	Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in the area (including
cumulative effects).
(8)	Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination, fish and
shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance, and other legitimate uses of the ocean.
(9)	Existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by available data or by trend
assessment or baseline surveys.
(10)	Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance species in the disposal site.
(11)	Existence at. or in close proximity to. the site of any significant natural or cultural features of
historical importance.

-------
1.0 Introduction
Formal designation of an ODMDS in the Federal Register does not constitute approval of
dredged material for ocean disposal. Designation of an ODMDS provides an ocean
disposal alternative for consideration in the review of each proposed dredging project.
Ocean disposal is only allowed when EPA and USACE determine that the proposed
activity is environmentally acceptable according to the criteria at 40 CFR Part 227.
Decisions to allow ocean disposal are made on a case-by-case basis through the MPRSA
Section 103 permitting process or its equivalent process for Corps' Civil Works projects.
Material proposed for disposal at a designated ODMDS must conform to EPA's
permitting criteria for acceptable quality (40 CFR Parts 225 and 227), as determined from
physical, chemical, and bioassay/bioaccumulation testing (EPA and USACE 1991). Only
clean dredged material is acceptable for ocean disposal. An outline of the dredged
material screening process is provided below in Section 1.6.2.1, Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
The interim LA-3 site is located on the continental slope of Newport Submarine Canyon
at a depth of about 450 meters (m; 1,475 feet [ft]), approximately 8 kilometers (km; 4.3
nautical miles [nmi]) southwest of the entrance of Newport Harbor, as shown in Figures
1.1-1 and 1.1-2. This region is characterized by a relatively smooth continental slope
(approximately two-degree slope) incised by a complicated pattern of superimposed,
meandering broad submarine canyons that can be up to 30 m (98 ft) deep and 200-800 m
(656-2,625 ft) wide (Figure 1.1-2). The circular interim site boundary centered at
33°31'42" N and 117°54'48" W covers a 915-meter (3,000-foot) radius.
As discussed more fully in Chapter 2 of this EIS, the proposed action would shift the
center of the LA-3 site approximately 2.4 km (1.3 nmi) to the southeast of the interim
LA-3 site as shown on Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2. The circular boundary of the permanently
designated LA-3 site would be centered at 33°31'00" N and 117°53'30" W and would
have a 915-meter (3,000-foot) radius. At this location the depth of the center of the site
would be approximately 490 m (1,600 ft) and would move the site boundary away from
the submarine canyons that run through the interim site thus simplifying surveillance and
monitoring activities.
The present LA-3 site has been used for disposing sediment dredged from harbors and
flood channels within the County of Orange since 1976. Table 1.1-2 presents the history
of dredged material disposed of at LA-3.
Prior to 1992, LA-3 was permitted by the USACE as a designated ocean disposal site for
specific projects only. In 1992, the EPA approved LA-3 as an interim disposal site; this
interim status expired January 1, 1997 (Water Resources Development Act [WRDA]
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-3

-------
Hyperion
Treatment
Plant Outfalls
Whites Point
JWPCP Outfalls
^ L°s Ange|es	^^	
.<*1 " Harbor HuntingtorrV-^, _//
''nt	Harbor \ ' [y7-
Pacific
Ocean
THUMS
Site
vV— 1="*%,
"fc=VJ^ v
Orange County
Sanitation District / Newport
Outfalls -y Harbor \
Interim
LA-3 Site Q

San Pedro Channel
\
P

Santa CatalinaN Avalon Outfall
Island te> '
V

r'°po°iid oAutfaii\jr
Hv
SERRAy %
Outfall
N

A
0 Kilometers 14
Regional Location

A

rwi

M \jobs2\3643\gis\fig1,1-1 mxd 08/20/04


l-V'l

-------
Newport
Harbor
Interim
LA-3 Site
Proposed
LA-3
0 Meters 2000
M:\jobs2\3646\gis\fig1.1 -2.mxd 07/22/04
A

n?i


|m®mJ -
Figure 1.1-2
LA-3 Bathymetry

-------
TABLE 1.1-2
HISTORY OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSED OF AT LA-3
Year
Disposal Quanlity
yd1 (nr1)
Dredge Material Source
1976
5.689 (4.350)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1977
1.742 (1.332)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1978
975 (745)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1979
925 (707)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1980
2.960 (2.263)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1981
2.545 (1.946)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1982
20.737 (15.855)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1983
27.055 (20.685)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1984
86.269 (65.957)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1984
13.150(10.054)
Dana Point Harbor
1985
166.866 (127.578)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1986
34.176 (26.129)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1986
17.445 (13.338)
Dana Point Harbor
1987
1.180.744 (902.744)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1987
22,000(16.820)
Dana Point Harbor
1988
1.200 (917)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1989
4.022 (3.075)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1989
33.148 (25.343)
Dana Point Harbor
1990
7.764 (5,936)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1991
13.543 (10,354)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1992
11,516 (8,805)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1993
650 (497)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1994
1,551 (1,186)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1995
1.722 (1.317)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1996
2,508 (1.918)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1997
164.000(125,387)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1998
907 (693)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1999
273,480 (209.090)
Newport Harbor/Bay
1999
3.048 (2.330)
Dana Point Harbor
2000
860.135 (657,621)
Newport Harbor/Bay
2001
2,063 (1.577)
Newport Harbor/Bay
SOURCE: USACE 2003
nv1 = cubic meters; ycT = cubic yards

-------
1.0 Introduction
1992). The expiration date was extended to January I, 2000, through the 1996 WRDA
(1996). In 1999, this interim status was extended for another three years and expired
December 31, 2002. Due to ongoing dredging activities, either to preserve the wetland
habitat within the Upper Newport Bay or to maintain navigation channels at Newport and
Dana Point Harbors, the County of Orange is actively pursuing the conversion of this
interim dredged material disposal site into a permanent one.
In addition to the LA-3 ODMDS site, the LA-2 ODMDS site has previously been
permanently designated for the ocean disposal of dredged material. The existing LA-2
ODMDS is located on the outer continental shelf, margin, and upper southern wall of the
San Pedro Sea Valley at depths from approximately 110 to 340 m (360 to 1,115 ft), about
11 km (5.9 nmi) south-southwest' of the entrance to Los Angeles Harbor, as shown in
Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-3. The relatively flat continental shelf occurs in water depths to
about 125 m (410 ft) with a regional slope of 0.8 degree. Then the slope becomes steep
at about 7 degrees seaward to the shelf break. The southern wall of the San Pedro Sea
Valley drops away with slopes steeper than 9 degrees. The site boundary is centered at
33°37'6" N and 118°17'24" W with a radius of 915 meters (3,000 ft).
The LA-2 ODMDS was designated as a permanent disposal site on February 15, 1991.
There was no annual disposal volume limit placed on the use of this site, although the
EIS evaluated potential impacts based on a historical annual average of 200,000 cubic
yards (yd3; 153,000 cubic meters [m3]). Since 1991, the disposal quantity has
occasionally exceeded the pre-designation historical annual average because of capital
projects from both the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (see Table 1.1-3).
It is necessary to evaluate whether these occasional higher volumes at LA-2 can be
accommodated or whether the excess volume of dredged material should be placed at a
permanently designated LA-3 site. Consequently, ocean disposal at both LA-2 and LA-3
are considered on an overall regional basis so that the cumulative environmental impacts
of disposal within Los Angeles and Orange Counties can be assessed.
1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure that adequate, environmentally
acceptable ocean disposal site capacity is available for suitable dredged material
generated in the greater Los Angeles County-Orange County area in conjunction with
other management options including upland disposal and beneficial reuse.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-7

-------
Los Angeles
Harbor
LA-2 Site
0 Meters 2000

LA-2 Bathymetry

A

rm
M:\)obs2\3646\gis\fig1. 1 -3.mxd 08/06/04
\|/

i i i


Figure 1.1-3

-------
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 532711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
January 12, 2005
Office of the Chief
Planning Division
To Interested Parties:
Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for the Proposed Site Designation, of the LA-3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site off Newport Bay,
Orange County, California.
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to evaluate the final designation of an ocean dredged
material disposal site (ODMDS) located offshore of Newport Beach, California (known as LA-3), and to
re-evaluate the management of the existing LA-2 ODMDS located offshore of the Los Angeles/Long
Beach, California harbor complex. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9 (EPA).
The DEIS evaluates the alternatives carried forward for detailed environmental analysis. The
environmental consequences related to the proposed project and other alternatives are addressed in the EIS,
Chapter 4. The EPA is the Federal lead agency responsible for complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The USACE is the co-local lead agency assisting the EPA. This
environmental document is written in compliance with NEPA and other applicable environmental laws and
regulations.
Two Public Hearings are scheduled for Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 2:00 and 7:00 PM, at the
Upper Newport Bay Peter and Mary Muth Interpretive Center, 2301 University Drive, Newport Beach,
California 92660 (corner of University Drive and Irvine Avenue).
Comments must be received by March 7, 2005. Please address your comments to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. Lany Smith (CESPL-PD-RN)
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Sincerely,
Ruth Bajza Villafobos
Chief, Planning Division

-------
TABLE 1.1-3
HISTORY OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSED OF AT LA-2
Disposal Quantity
Year
yd3 (m3)
Dredge Material Source
1976
48,500 (37,081)
Long Beach Harbor
1977
18,333 (14,017)
Long Beach Harbor
1978
194,000(148,324)
Los Angeles Harbor
1979
12,425 (9,500)
Los Angeles Harbor
1979
355,000 (271,417)
Los Angeles River
1980
60,000 (45,873)
Long Beach Harbor
1981
1,005,000 (768,378)
Long Beach Harbor
1982
333,000 (254,597)
Los Angeles Harbor
1982
580,000 (443,442)
Long Beach Harbor
1983
64,300 (49,161)
Los Angeles Harbor
1983
15,000(11,468)
Long Beach Harbor
1984
107,600 (82,266)
Los Angeles Harbor
1984
20,000(15,291)
Long Beach Harbor
1985
146,935 (112,340)
Los Angeles Harbor
1985
220,000(168,202)
Long Beach Harbor
1986
114,600 (87,618)
Los Angeles Harbor
1986
185,000(141,443)
Long Beach Harbor
1987
232,600(177,835)
Los Angeles Harbor
1987
46,500 (35,552)
Long Beach Harbor
1988
179,300(137,085)
Los Angeles Harbor
1988
132,000(100,921)
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
1989
100,000 (76,455)
Los Angeles Harbor
1989
108,250 (82,763)
Anaheim Bay
1990
100,000 (76,455)
Los Angeles Harbor
1991
30,000 (22,937)
Los Angeles Harbor
1992
21,500(16,438)
Marina del Rey
1992
737,400 (563,783)
Long Beach Harbor

-------
TABLE 1.1-3
HISTORY OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSED AT LA-2
(continued)
Year
Disposal Quantity
yd3 (m3)
Dredge Material Source
1993
7,000 (5,352)
Los Angeles Harbor
1994
0(0)
—
1995
47,022 (35,951)
Los Angeles Harbor
1996
30,000 (22,937)
Los Angeles Harbor
1996
700,000 (535,188)
Long Beach Harbor
1997
499,633 (381,997)
Los Angeles Harbor
1998
51,951 (39,719)
Marina del Rey
1998
622,563 (475,984)
Los Angeles Harbor
1999
499,633 (381,997)
Los Angeles Harbor
1999
38,363 (29,331)
Los Angeles River
1999
121,600 (92,970)
Long Beach Harbor
1999
143,880(110,004)
Anaheim Bay
2000
0(0)
-
2001
106,400 (81,349)
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
SOURCE: USACE 2003
m3 = cubic meters: yd5 = cubic yards

-------
1.0 Introduction
The need for ongoing ocean disposal capacity is based on historical dredging volumes
from the local port districts, marinas and harbors, and federal navigational channels, as
well as on estimates of future average annual dredging (USACE 2003a). An overall
average of approximately 390,000 yd3 (298,000 m3) per year of dredged material
requiring ocean disposal is expected to be generated in the area (USACE 2003a).
Upland disposal at a sanitary landfill is an alternative for dredged material generated
from individual dredging projects. There are four Class III landfills in Orange County:
Santiago Canyon (no longer accepting waste with final closure anticipated during 2004),
Prima Deshecha, Olinda Alpha, and Frank R. Bowerman. These facilities can accept
nonhazardous solid waste including dredged material. However, the material must be
dewatered and be relatively clean with low concentrations of certain chemicals, heavy
metals, and salt. Also, the material must conform to Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) criteria for waste disposal. While dredged material suitable for ocean
disposal would be free of chemical contamination, the RWQCB considers the presence of
salts in dredged sediment to be a contaminant that often precludes upland disposal as an
option.
USACE also encourages the use of dredged material for beach replenishment in areas
degraded by erosion. The grain size distribution of dredged material must be compatible
with the receiving beach, and biological and water quality impacts must be considered
prior to permitting of beach disposal. The USACE evaluates the selection of appropriate
disposal methods on a case-by-case basis for each permit. If suitable, the material could
be used for beach replenishment.
Additionally, the opportunity periodically arises to use dredged material for marine
landfilling projects, also referred to as the creation of "fastlands." When the need arises,
the use of dredged material for the creation of fastlands is considered a viable alternative
to ocean disposal. Other potential beneficial uses of dredged material include
construction fill, use as cap material in aquatic remediation projects, wetland creation,
wetland restoration, landfill daily cover, and recycling into commercial products such as
construction aggregate, ceramic tiles, or other building materials. Each of these disposal
management options is evaluated when permits are issued for individual dredging
projects.
As indicated above, after consideration of upland disposal and other beneficial uses an
average of approximately 390,000 yd3 (298,000 m3) per year of dredged material will
require ocean disposal (USACE 2003a). This material is proposed for ocean disposal by
project proponents because it is not of an appropriate physical quality (e.g., it is
predominantly fine-grained material) for reuse or because a reuse opportunity cannot be
found that coincides with the timing of the dredging projects.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 1-11

-------
1.0 Introduction
The LA-2 ODMDS is located in approximately 110-340 m (360-1,115 ft) of water,
approximately 11 km (5.9 nmi) offshore from the entrance to the Port of Los Angeles and
approximately 15.5 km (8.4 nmi) from the entrance to the Port of Long Beach (see Figure
1.1-1). The majority of suitable dredged material from US ACE and port dredging
projects in the Los Angeles County area that could not be beneficially reused has
traditionally been disposed of at this site. When EPA originally designated LA-2 as a
permanent disposal site in 1991, it evaluated the past history of disposal at the site up to
that time and determined that significant adverse environmental impacts were unlikely to
occur, if similar levels of disposal continued there in the future.
Most dredging projects from the Orange County area have not used the LA-2 site because
of the extra costs and increased environmental impacts (such as increased air emissions)
associated with transporting their dredged material the 38-km (20.5-nmi) distance to this
site. Instead, they have traditionally used the LA-3 interim ODMDS, located
approximately 8 km (4.3 nmi) offshore from Newport Bay and in approximately 410-480
m (1,345-1,575 ft) of water.
The LA-3 interim disposal site was originally scheduled to close down on January 1,
1997, but was extended by Congress until January 1, 2000, in order to allow a major
Newport Bay dredging project to be completed (the approximately 1,000,000 yd
[765,000 m ] project to restore depth to a sediment basin located in Upper Newport Bay).
LA-3 was the only interim ODMDS in the nation specifically extended in this manner.
Most recently, via the WRDA of 1999, Congress extended the status of LA-3 as an
interim ODMDS for another three years (until December 31, 2002) in order to allow time
for site designation studies and ultimately this site designation EIS to be completed. A
major goal of this EIS is thus to determine whether LA-3 should be designated as a
permanent ocean dredged material disposal site and, if so, how it should be managed.
In recent years dredging in the Los Angeles County area has resulted in ocean disposal at
LA-2 that at times has substantially exceeded the volumes evaluated in EPA's 1988 Final
EIS (see Table 1.1-3; EPA 1988). Thus, another important goal of the present evaluation
is to determine whether these higher disposal volumes at LA-2 should be allowed to
continue, especially in light of the possible permanent designation of the LA-3 site
approximately 38.5 km (20.8 nmi) to the southeast.
These goals, considering permanent designation of the LA-3 disposal site and
reevaluating management at the existing LA-2 disposal site, are directly related. Some
dredging projects from the Los Angeles County area could practicably use the LA-3
disposal site, and it is also possible that at least some projects from the Orange County
area could practicably use the LA-2 disposal site. Therefore the two questions, whether to
designate LA-3 as a second permanent disposal site for the greater Los Angeles-Orange
County area and how to manage it in conjunction with the existing LA-2 site, must be
evaluated comprehensively.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-12

-------
1.0 Introduction
Factors to be considered in the LA-3 site designation include (1) the practicability for
Orange County area projects to use the existing LA-2 site; (2) the potential for adverse
environmental impacts from the current and estimated future volumes of disposal of
dredged materials at LA-2 and LA-3; and (3) the relative environmental impacts of
disposal at LA-3 versus LA-2, including cumulative effects.
Similarly, the volume of material that can appropriately be disposed of and managed at
LA-2 would be considered in light of (1) the overall regional dredging and ocean disposal
demand; (2) the practicability of Los Angeles County area projects using LA-3 instead of
LA-2; and (3) the relative environmental impacts of disposal at LA-2 versus LA-3,
including cumulative effects.
To address these goals, this EIS will:
•	evaluate the overall long-term need for ocean disposal of dredged material for the
greater Los Angeles-Orange County region in light of availability of other options
including beneficial reuse;
•	evaluate the need for a second permanent ocean dredged material disposal site in the
region based on the practicability for dredging projects from the Los Angeles and
Orange County areas to use either or both sites;
•	evaluate whether a greater disposal volume than was originally considered may occur
at the existing LA-2 disposal site without causing any significant adverse
environmental impacts; and
•	evaluate how to optimally manage two permanent disposal sites in order to minimize
environmental impacts (including cumulative effects) for the region as a whole.
1.3	Proposed Action
The proposed action is to designate the LA-3 ODMDS as a permanent site, to evaluate
whether any modifications to the management of the existing LA-2 ODMDS are
necessary, and to coordinate operations of these two regional ODMDSs in order to
minimize potential environmental impacts, including cumulative effects, to the region as
a whole.
1.4	Areas of Controversy
The disposal of dredged material in the ocean is generally considered a controversial
issue. Discharge and disposal of waste products such as sewage effluent, radioactive and
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-13

-------
1.0 Introduction
toxic wastes, explosives, and garbage are not permitted at an ODMDS. Dredged material
proposed for ocean disposal is subjected to stringent bioassay and chemical tests.
Disposal of dredged material is not expected to produce significant long-term
environmental effects. Rather, because of the stringent pre-disposal testing requirements
used to evaluate the suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal, the disposal of
suitable dredged material is only expected to result in temporary, localized physical
impacts.
Some areas of controversy do exist with the ocean disposal of dredged material. One of
these concerns is the potential impact to commercial fishing. Commercial fishermen
depend on ocean resources for their livelihood and are concerned with any activity that
has the potential to impair this environment. The potential effects to commercial fishing
are discussed in Section 4.2.3, Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment.
1.5 Issues to Be Resolved
The site determination analysis for this EIS examined previous reports relating to the
environmental effects of dredged material disposal. Additionally, field surveys evaluating
sediment characteristics, abundance and diversity of biota, and contaminant
concentrations in sediment and animal tissues were conducted at and around the LA-3
and LA-2 disposal sites, at an alternate LA-3 site, and at reference sites. Any significant
differences between the disposal and reference sites are assumed to be potentially related
to past disposal activities. However, determining the exact causes for environmental
variations at a disposal site are extremely difficult.
One of the issues to be resolved concerns determining the mechanisms for and extent of
environmental variation at the designated disposal sites. This determination will be
resolved through a site management program designed and administered jointly by the
USACE and EPA. This program will involve detailed monitoring and analysis of disposal
activities and effects, including laboratory and field studies, and sampling along distance
gradients to examine cumulative effects. The site management program is discussed
further in Section 4.5, Management of the Disposal Site(s).
Potential impacts to marine birds, mammals, and fisheries resources have been evaluated
based on existing information and from computer model predictions of the dispersion of
dredged material at the disposal sites (see Chapter 4 of this EIS). A Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) has been developed that contains approaches for monitoring
impacts to marine organisms, as well as verification of model predictions. Development
of this SMMP was based on a review of other SMMPs prepared for similar ocean
disposal sites, and the SMMP will undergo final public review as part of the proposed
rule package required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-14

-------
1.0 Introduction
1.6 Regulatory Framework
An international treaty and several laws, regulations, and orders apply to ocean disposal
of dredged material and to the designation of an ODMDS. The relevance of these statutes
to the proposed action and to related compliance requirements is described below.
Compliance of the proposed action to these requirements is summarized in Table 1.6-1.
1.6.1	London Convention
The principal international agreement governing ocean disposal is the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (26 UST 2403:
TIAS 8165), also known as the London Convention (LC). This agreement became
effective on August 30, 1975, after ratification by the participating countries, including
the United States. Ocean disposal criteria incorporated into MPRSA have been adapted
from the provisions of the LC. Thus, material considered acceptable for ocean disposal
under MPRSA also is acceptable for ocean disposal under the LC.
1.6.2	Federal Laws and Regulations
1.6.2.1 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) regulates the
transportation and ultimate disposal of material in the ocean, prohibits ocean disposal of
certain wastes without a permit, and prohibits the disposal of certain materials entirely.
Prohibited materials include those that contain radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agents, high-level radiological wastes, and industrial waste. MPRSA has
jurisdiction over all United States ocean waters in and beyond the territorial sea, vessels
flying the United States flag, and vessels leaving United States ports. The territorial sea is
defined as waters extending 22 km (12 nmi) seaward of the nearest shoreline. For bays or
estuaries, the 22-km (12-nmi) territorial sea begins at a baseline drawn across the opening
of the water body.
Section 102 of the MPRSA authorizes the EPA to promulgate environmental criteria for
evaluation of all disposal permit actions, to retain review authority over USACE MPRSA
Section 103 permits, and to designate ocean disposal sites for dredged material disposal.
Additionally, as provided in Section 102(c) of MPRSA:
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-15

-------
TABLE 1.6-1
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Statute
Level of
Compliance
Status of Compliance
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. as amended (33
U.S.C. 1401 etseq.)
Full
In compliance with Section 103 of the MPRSA. a site management and
monitoring plan (SMMP) has been developed in support of the proposed
ODMDS final designation. The SMMP is included as Appendix A to this
DEIS. USACE will issue ocean disposal permits for future dredge material
through regulations promulgated under Section 103 of the MPRSA. USEPA
is responsible for MPRSA compliance of all ocean disposal activities.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4341 et seq.)
Full
This draft EIS was prepared for public review puisuant to NEPA with the
USEPA as the lead agency.
Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
N/A1
Not Applicable; see Footnote 1
Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)
Full
The proposed action (the designation of an ODMDS) does not permit the
actual disposal of dredged material and. as such, would not of itself generate
air emissions. However, because the CAA is applicable to the proposed
action, a basic air quality evaluation of the potential impacts to air quality
resulting from future use of the disposal sites is presented in the DEIS.
Subsequent projects that would generate material to be disposed of at an
ODMDS would be subject to further individual environmental review by the
USEPA.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
Full
Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National marine Fisheries Service was initiated on December 3. 2001 (see
Chapter 5 of this DEIS). The DEIS concludes that the proposed action
would not adversely impact fish or wildlife.
Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.)
Full
Formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service was initiated
on December 3, 2001 (see Chapter 5 of this DEIS). The DEIS concludes
that the proposed action will not result in any significant, adverse impacts to
any species on the Fishery Management Plan or their habitat.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456 et seq.)
Full
As part of the site designation process, EPA will prepare a coastal
consistency determination and will seek approval from the California
Coastal Commission.

-------
TABLE 1.6-1
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Statute
Level of
Compliance
Status of Compliance
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Full
Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service was initiated on December 3. 2001 (see
Chapter 5 of this DEIS). The DEIS concludes that the proposed action
would not adversely impact endangered species.
National Historic Preservation Act of J 966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
Full
Per 36 CFR 800 3(a)( 1) the proposed action is not anticipated to cause
effects. Nevertheless, the EPA is coordinating the proposed ODMDS
designation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
Executive Order 11593. Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment (36 FR 8921, May 15. 1971)
Full
Per 36 CFR 800.3(a)( 1) the proposed action is not anticipated to cause
effects. Nevertheless, the EPA is coordinating the proposed ODMDS
designation with the SHPO.
Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (47
FR 30959. July 16. 1982)
Full
For this EIS. the EPA is coordinating with the Resources Agency of
California, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the
appiopriate state agencies, boards, and departments on the proposed action.
California Coastal Act of 1976 (Public Resources Code Section 30000 et
seq.)
Full
As part of the sue designation process, EPA will piepare a coastal
consistency determination and will seek approval fiom the California
Coastal Commission.
California Environmental Quality Act. June 1986 (Public Resources Code
Section 21000et seq.)
N/A:
Not Applicable; see Footnote 2
California Clean Air Act of 1988 (Health and Safety Code Section 39000 et
seq.)
N/A2
Not Applicable; see Footnote 2
South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan
N/A3
Not Applicable; see Footnote 3
'N/A = not applicable; disposal sites are outside of jurisdiction of Clean Water Act.
2N/A = not applicable; proposed action is a federal action outside state boundaries.
?N/A = not applicable; proposed action is a federal action outside state boundaries. However, the project air emission significance thresholds implemented by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District are used to assess the proposed action's potential effect on the district's ability to achieve federal ambient
air quality standards.

-------
1.0 Introduction
After January 1, 1995, no site [ODMDS] shall receive a final designation
unless a management plan has been developed pursuant to this section.
Beginning on January 1, 1997, no permit for dumping pursuant to this Act
or authorization for dumping under section 103(e) of this Act shall be
issued for a site unless such site has received a final designation pursuant
to this subsection or an alternative site has been selected pursuant to
section 103(b).
EPA's regulations for ocean disposal are published at 40 CFR Parts 220-229. As
described in 40 CFR 228(e)(1), designation of an ocean disposal site is to be based on
environmental studies of the proposed site, regions adjacent to the proposed site, and on
historical knowledge of the impact of dredged material disposal on areas similar to the
proposed site. Impacts to be considered include those on the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the site. All studies and evaluations prepared for the
proposed site must be conducted in accordance with the general and specific site
selection criteria specified in 40 CFR 228.5 and 40 CFR 228.6, respectively (see Table
1.1-1). Considerations addressed by these site selection criteria include physical location,
prior use, currents, feasibility of surveillance and monitoring, and proximity to sensitive
resources.
Under the authority of Section 103 of the MPRSA, USACE may issue ocean disposal
permits for dredged material if EPA concurs with the decision. If EPA does not agree
with a USACE permit decision, a waiver process under Section 103 allows further action
to be taken. The permitting regulations promulgated by the USACE, under the MPRSA,
appear at 33 CFR Parts 320 to 330 and 335 to 338. Both EPA and USACE may prohibit
or restrict disposal of material that does not meet the regulatory criteria specified in 40
CFR Part 227. An equivalent process is used for Corps' Civil Works projects that include
disposal at an ODMDS.
Dredged material proposed for ocean disposal undergoes an extensive four-tiered
evaluation to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 227. Figure 1.6-
I illustrates an overview of the tiered evaluation process. Tiers I and II use existing
information and relatively simple, rapid procedures for determining the potential
environmental impacts of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal. If it is readily
apparent that the dredged material proposed for ocean disposal has the potential to cause
substantial environmental impacts (or lack thereof), the information collected in Tiers I
and II may be sufficient for making a decision as to the suitability of the material for
ocean disposal.
However, where the potential environmental impacts are not clear or where sufficient
information is lacking, more extensive evaluation through Tiers III and IV may be
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-18

-------
DM Dredged Material
LPC Limiting Permissible
Concentration as
Defined in 40 CFR 227.27
WQC Applicable Marine
Water Quality Criteria
TIER I
Overview of Tiered Approach to Evaluating
Potential Impact of Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material
M UOBS2\3646\env\graphics\final_fgs\fig1 6-1 ai
08/06/04
Figure 1.6-1

-------
1.0 Introduction
needed. Each successive tier incorporates more intensive procedures that provide
increasingly detailed information for assessing the potential environmental impacts of the
dredged material. The intent of this tiered approach is to ensure the suitability of dredged
material proposed for ocean disposal while using resources efficiently. This is achieved
by testing the proposed material only as intensely as is necessary to provide sufficient
information for making the disposal suitability decision (EPA and US ACE 1991). The
application of this tiered process will ensure that only cleaned dredged material will be
disposed of at an ODMDS.
The EPA and USACE also may determine that ocean disposal is inappropriate, because
of ODMDS management restrictions or because options for beneficial use(s) exist. Site
management guidance is provided in 40 CFR 228.7-228.11.
1.6.2.2	National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4341
et seq.)
NEPA was established to ensure that the environmental consequences of federal actions
were incorporated into agency decision-making processes. It establishes a process
whereby the parties most affected by the impact of a proposed action are identified and
their opinions are solicited. The proposed action and several alternatives are evaluated in
relation to their environmental impacts, and a tentative selection of the most appropriate
alternative is made. A draft EIS (DEIS) is developed which presents sufficient
information to evaluate the suitability of the proposed and alternative actions. A Notice of
Availability, announcing that the DEIS can be obtained for comment, is published in the
Federal Register. After the DEIS comment period, the comments are addressed, revisions
are made to the DEIS, and the document is published as a Final EIS (FEIS). A proposed
rule is published after the FEIS. For ODMDS designations, publication of a Final Rule in
the Federal Register is equivalent to a NEPA Record of Decision.
The Council on Environmental Quality has published regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500 to
1508 for implementing NEPA. EPA NEPA regulations are published at 40 CFR Part 6.
The USACE regulations for implementing NEPA are published at 33 CFR Part 220.
1.6.2.3	Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Specific sections of the Act control the
discharge of pollutants and wastes into aquatic and marine environments.
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredge and
fill material into navigable waters of the United States. The CWA and MPRSA overlap
for discharges to the territorial sea. CWA supersedes MPRSA if dredged material is
placed in the ocean for beach restoration or some other beneficial use. MPRSA
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-20

-------
1.0 Introduction
supersedes CWA if dredged material is transported and disposed of in the territorial sea.
The territorial sea is the area of the ocean generally extending 22 km (12 nmi) out from
the coast. As such, disposal actions at both LA-3 and LA-2 lie outside the jurisdiction of
the CWA and are governed by the MPRSA.
1.6.2.4	Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is intended to protect the nation's air quality by regulating
emissions of air pollutants. The Act is applicable to permits and planning procedures
related to dredged material disposal within the territorial sea. The proposed action (the
designation of an ODMDS) does not permit the actual disposal of dredged material.
However, because the CAA is applicable to the proposed action, a basic air quality
evaluation of the potential impacts to air quality resulting from future use of the disposal
sites is presented in Chapter 4 of this EIS. Subsequent projects that would generate
material to be disposed of at an ODMDS would be subject to further individual
environmental review.
1.6.2.5	Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.)
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that water resource development
programs consider wildlife conservation. Whenever any body of water is proposed or
authorized to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise controlled or modified, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the state agency responsible for fish and
wildlife must be consulted. Section 662(b) of the Act requires federal agencies to
consider recommendations based on USFWS investigations. The recommendations may
address wildlife conservation and development, any damage to wildlife attributable to the
project, and measures proposed for mitigating or compensating for these damages.
1.6.2.6	Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)
The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSA) was
authorized in 1996 and charges the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with
identifying, conserving, and enhancing essential fish habitat (EFH) for those species
regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. The MSA requires:
•	Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions
authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that have the potential to
adversely affect EFH;
•	NMFS to provide conservation recommendations for any federal or state
action that would adversely affect EFH; and
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-21

-------
1.0 Introduction
• Federal agencies to provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS within 30
days of receiving the EFH conservation recommendations.
The LA-2 and proposed LA-3 disposal sites are located within the jurisdiction of the
MSA.
1.6.2.7	Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456
et seq.)
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), any federal agency conducting or
supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone must proceed in a manner
consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs to the maximum
extent practicable. If a proposed activity affects water use in the coastal zone (i.e., the
territorial sea and inland), the applicant may need to demonstrate compliance with a
state's approved CZMA program.
The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (Section 6208) state that any
federal activity, regardless of its location, is subject to the CZMA requirement for
consistency, if it will affect any natural resources, land uses, or water uses in the coastal
zone. No federal agency activities are categorically exempt from this requirement. As
part of the site designation process, EPA will prepare a coastal consistency determination
and will seek approval from the California Coastal Commission. The coastal consistency
determination will address potential effects of dredged material disposal at the
ODMDS(s) on marine organisms, including threatened and endangered species. It will
also describe provisions for sediment testing, to ensure that contaminated material is not
discharged at the ODMDS, and other aspects of the SMMP. The California Coastal
Commission will continue to review permit applications for dredging projects and federal
determinations of consistency for federal dredging projects, including the transport of
dredged material through the coastal zone, for consistency with the California Coastal
Zone Management Plan.
1.6.2.8	Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
The Endangered Species Act protects threatened and endangered species by prohibiting
federal actions that would jeopardize the continued existence of such species or that
would result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat of such
species. Section 7 of the Act requires that consultation regarding protection of such
species be conducted with the USFWS and/or the NMFS prior to project implementation.
During the . site designation process, the USFWS and the NMFS evaluate potential
impacts of ocean disposal on threatened or endangered species. These agencies are asked
to certify or concur with the sponsoring agency's findings that the proposed activity will
not adversely affect endangered or threatened species. Documentation of the consultation
process on the proposed ODMDS designation is included in Chapter 5.0.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-22

-------
1.0 Introduction
1.6.2.9 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.)
The purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act is to preserve and protect historic
and prehistoric resources that may be damaged, destroyed, or made less available by a
project or action. Under this Act, federal agencies are required to identify cultural or
historical resources that may be affected by a proposed action and to coordinate project
activities with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). EPA is coordinating the
proposed ODMDS designation with the SHPO.
1.6.3	Executive Orders
1.6.3.1	Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment (36 FR 8921, May 15,1971)
This executive order requires federal agencies to direct their policies, plans, and programs
so that federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or
archaeological significance are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and
benefit of the public. Compliance with this order is coordinated with the SHPO.
1.6.3.2	Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Programs (47 FR 30959, July 16,1982)
This order requires federal agencies to consult with elected officials of state and local
governments that may be directly affected by proposed federal financial assistance or
direct federal development. In providing for this consultation, existing state procedures
must be accommodated to the maximum extent practicable. For this EIS, the EPA is
coordinating with the Resources Agency of California, the California Environmental
Protection Agency, and the appropriate state agencies, boards, and departments on the
proposed action.
1.6.4	State of California
1.6.4.1 California Coastal Act of 1976, Public Resources Code
Section 30000 et seq.
This act establishes the Coastal Zone Management Plan, which has been approved by the
U.S. Department of Commerce. All federal actions that affect the coastal zone must be
determined to be as consistent as practicable with this plan (see CZMA above).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-23

-------
1.0 Introduction
1.6.4.2	California Environmental Quality Act, June 1986, Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes requirements similar to
those of NEPA for consideration of environmental impacts and alternatives and for
preparation of an environmental impact report prior to implementation of applicable
projects. However, this proposed action is a federal action involving site designation
outside state boundaries and, therefore, does not fall under the purview of CEQA.
1.6.4.3	California Clean Air Act of 1988, Health and Safety Code
Section 39000 et seq.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), also known as the Sher Bill or Assembly Bill
(AB) 2595, was signed into law on September 30, 1988 and became effective on
January 1, 1989. It established a legal mandate to achieve health-based state air quality
standards at the earliest practicable date. The CCAA requires that districts implement
regulations to reduce emissions from mobile sources through the adoption and
enforcement of transportation control measures. However, this proposed action is a
federal action involving site designation outside state boundaries and, therefore, does not
fall under the purview of CEQA.
1.6.5 South Coast Air Quality Management District
1.6.5.1 Air Quality Management Plan
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency that
regulates air quality in the South Coast Air Basin and is responsible for achieving
attainment of the federal and state ambient air quality standards. In 1989, the SCAQMD
and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) established an air
quality management plan (AQMP) that is revised routinely in compliance with the
requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act.
Additionally, the SCAQMD implements a set of rules and regulations that were initially
adopted in January 1976. The South Coast Air Quality Management District also
establishes air emission significance thresholds for evaluating projects occurring within
the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).
Although the proposed action (the designation of an ODMDS) is outside of the
jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, the project air emission significance thresholds
implemented by the SCAQMD are used to provide a point of comparison for assessing
the proposed action's potential effect on the District's ability to achieve federal ambient
air quality standards resulting from future use of the disposal sites.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-24

-------
1.0 Introduction
1.7	Relation to Previous NEPA Actions and
Other Major Facilities in the Vicinity of
the Proposed Project Sites
Several NEPA actions and other facilities in the general project vicinity could potentially
be affected by the continued disposal of dredged material at LA-3 and/or LA-2. Disposal
of dredged material could interact with other projects potentially causing cumulative
impacts to the quality of water, sediments, and the marine biological environment.
Potentially interacting projects are discussed below.
1.7.1	THUMS Disposal Site
The EPA designated the THUMS site (named for the original shareholders: Texaco,
Humble, Union, Mobile, and Shell) for the disposal of drilling muds and cuttings from oil
and gas drilling islands in Long Beach Harbor. This site is a circular area with a radius of
2.8	km (1.5 nmi), centered at 33°34'30" N and 118°27'30" W, southwest of the Los
Angeles/Long Beach Harbor complex in 890 m (2,920 ft) of water. Disposal of
approximately 100,000 yd3 (76,000 m3) of muds and cuttings are authorized per year. The
proposed LA-3 project site is about 50 km (27 nmi) from the THUMS disposal site. The
LA-2 site lies approximately 18.5 km (10 nmi) east-northeast of the THUMS disposal site
(see Figure 1.1-1).
1.7.2	Orange County Sanitation District Outfall
The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) discharges a mix of primary and
secondary treated wastewater through an outfall upcoast of Newport Beach.
Approximately 50 percent of the effluent receives advanced secondary treatment while
the remaining 50 percent of the effluent receives advanced primary treatment (OCSD
2002; SCCWRP 2004). It is one of the few facilities in the U.S. that still operates under a
CWA Section 301(h) waiver. Recently, the OCSD agreed to upgrade its facility to full
secondary treatment, but these upgrades will not be complete until at least 2012.
In 1987, an average of approximately 920 million liters per day (243 million gallons per
day [mgd]) of effluent was discharged from this outfall. An average of 890 million liters
per day (235 mgd) of effluent was discharged in 2003 (OCSD 2004). The outfall, located
in approximately 60 m (200 ft) of water, is approximately 13 km (7 nmi) from the
proposed LA-3 project site and approximately 26 km (14 nmi) from the LA-2 site (see
Figure 1.1-1).
Concern has been expressed that material deposited at the LA-3 site could impact
nearshore water quality, particularly in conjunction with discharges from the OCSD
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-25

-------
1.0 Introduction
outfall. Figure 1.7-1 shows the location of a cross-section drawn between the OCSD
outfall and the interim and proposed LA-3 sites. The profile corresponding to this cross-
section is shown in Figure 1.7-2. As seen in Figure 1.7-2 the depths of the LA-3 sites are
well below that of the OCSD outfall. As such, dredged material deposited at LA-3 is
expected to remain at depth and is not expected to impact the shallower, nearshore
environment in the vicinity of the OCSD outfall. Water quality impacts during dredged
material disposal operations at the LA-3 site will be temporary and localized in the
vicinity of the LA-3 site and are not expected to extend to the shallower, nearshore area.
Consequently, any water quality impacts that are detected in the shallow nearshore water
area would likely be due to discharges from the OCSD outfall or some other source.
1.7.3	White's Point Outfalls
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Joint Water Pollution Control Project
(JWPCP) discharges an average of approximately 1.2 billion liters per day (320 mgd) of
secondary treated effluent through a network of outfalls at White's Point on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula (Los Angeles County Sanitation District [LACSD] 2004). These
outfalls are located approximately 45 km (24 nmi) from the proposed LA-3 project area
and approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) from LA-2 (see Figure 1.1-1).
1.7.4	Avalon Outfall
The City of Avalon on Santa Catalina Island discharges an average of 2.4 million liters
per day (0.63 mgd) of secondary treated effluent through an offshore outfall. This outfall
is located approximately 42 km (22.5 nmi) from the proposed LA-3 project site and
approximately 30 km (16 nmi) from the LA-2 site (see Figure 1.1-1).
1.7.5	Aliso Outfall
Treated wastewater is discharged from the Aliso outfall, offshore of Aliso Creek in
Orange County. Approximately 79.5 million liters per day (21 mgd) of secondary treated
are currently discharged from this facility (South Orange County Wastewater Authority
[SOCWA] 2004). The Aliso outfall is located approximately 12 km (6.5 nmi) from the
proposed LA-3 project site and approximately 51 km (27.5 nmi) from LA-2 (see Figure
1.1-1).
1.7.6	SERRA Outfall
The South East Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA) outfall (San Juan Creek
outfall), located offshore of San Juan Creek just south of Dana Point, discharges
approximately 72.3 million liters per day (19.1 mgd) of secondary treated effluent
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-26

-------
Newport
Harbor
Interim
LA-3 Site
Proposed
LA-3 Site
0 Meters
OCSD Outfalls
Location of Cross-Section Between
the LA-3 Sites and the OCSD Outfall
M:\jobs2\3646\gis\fig1.1-7.mxd 08/06/04
A

I'lW.'l




Figure 1.7-1

-------
Distance (meters)
0.000	2000.000 4000.000 6000 000 8000 000 10000 000 12000 000 14000 000 16000.000
Cross Section Profile - OCSD Outfall to LA-3 Sites
(Vertical Scale Exaggerated)
M \JOBS2\3G46\eriv\graphtcstfinal_figs\fig1 7-2 ai
08/06/04
LEJ

Figure 1.7-2

-------
1.0 Introduction
(SOCWA 2004). This wastewater discharge is located 20 km (11 nmi) from the proposed
LA-3 project site and approximately 59 km (32 nmi) from LA-2 (see Figure 1.1-1).
1.7.7	Terminal Island Treatment Plant Outfall
The Terminal Island Treatment Plant (TITP) outfall, located on Terminal Island in the
Los Angeles Harbor, discharges approximately 60.6 million liters per day (16 mgd) into
Los Angeles Harbor (ICF Consulting 2003). The plant has capacity for advanced
treatment options including reverse osmosis and tertiary treatment. This wastewater
discharge is located approximately 12.9 km (7.0 nmi) from LA-2 and approximately 40
km (21.6 nmi) from the proposed LA-3 site (see Figure 1.1-1).
1.7.8	Commercial Port Development
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach propose the dredging of harbor entrances and
channels and the corresponding creation of a landfill in the outer harbor. This ongoing
process is designed to expand the commercial shipping capacity of the ports to meet
projected future demands.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
1-29

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
CHAPTER 2.0
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE
PROPOSED ACTION
This chapter discusses four general alternatives for the disposal of dredged material from
Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Each of the alternative ocean disposal sites is
evaluated on the basis of the five general and eleven specific site selection criteria listed
at 40 CFR Parts 228.5 and 228.6(a), respectively (see Table 1.1-1). Disposal alternatives
are described in Section 2.1 and discussed in Section 2.2.
The proposed action is to designate the LA-3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site as a
permanent site and to evaluate whether any modifications to the management of the
existing LA-2 ODMDS are necessary to coordinate operations of these two regional
ODMDSs in order to minimize potential environmental impacts, including cumulative
effects, to the region as a whole.
2.1 Alternatives to Be Considered
A number of alternatives are considered in this EIS to determine the disposal scenario
that is most practicable and least damaging to the environment. The Zone of Siting
Feasibility Study prepared for the proposed action (USACE 2003a) defined the radii
within which the disposal of dredged material generated in Los Angeles and Orange
Counties is considered feasible. The potentially feasible disposal radii were mainly
determined as a result of economic considerations and, to a lesser extent, operational and
regulatory limitations. The economic considerations included dredging projects that are
revenue (e.g., dredging of harbors for navigational purposes) and non-revenue (e.g.,
habitat restoration and maintenance) generating. Also included in the ZSF study are
forecasts of potential future dredging projects and the resulting need for ocean disposal of
dredged material. As such, the ZSF study also evaluated appropriate annual disposal
quantities for both the proposed permanent LA-3 site and for the permanently designated
LA-2 disposal site.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-1

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
The results of the ZSF were used as the basis for developing the ocean disposal
alternatives considered in this EIS. These alternatives include: No Action and several
alternatives involving the existing LA-2 and proposed LA-3 site, a shallow-water site, a
deep-water site, and a site at a depth similar to the proposed LA-3 site. The alternatives
selected for the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites to be considered in this EIS are:
No Action (Alternative 1): Do not designate LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS, and continue
to manage the existing LA-2 ODMDS at historical levels evaluated in the site designation
EIS.
Alternative 2 (Maximize Use of LA-2): Do not designate LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS,
but establish a maximum annual disposal volume limit for the LA-2 site adequate to meet
the ocean disposal needs of all Los Angeles-Orange County region projects.
Alternative 3 (Local Use of LA-3 and LA-2): Designate LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS
primarily for Orange County projects, and establish a higher maximum annual disposal
volume limit for LA-2 to accommodate most Los Angeles County area projects.
Alternative 4 (Maximize Use of LA-3): Designate LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS with a
maximum annual disposal limit to meet the ocean disposal needs of all Los Angeles-
Orange County region projects to the extent feasible, and establish an annual disposal
volume limit for LA-2 to accommodate only those projects that could not feasibly use
LA-3.
2.1.1 No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
The No Action Alternative would mean that EPA would not designate an appropriate
ODMDS for disposal of suitable dredged material from the Newport Harbor area. The
interim status designation of the LA-3 site would remain expired prohibiting future
disposal at this site. LA-2 would remain available for disposal of suitable dredged
material and managed at historical levels evaluated in the original site designation EIS
(an average of 200,000 yd3 [153,000 m3] per year).
Pleasure and commercial operations in the Los Angeles/Newport Harbor area provide
approximately $120 billion a year to the local economy. Many of these maritime
operations are dependent on the continued maintenance of the harbors and on future
dredging projects.
Each year existing channels and boat slips are dredged to maintain navigation access for
these users. While some of the material dredged from the harbor areas is suitable for
replenishment for local beaches, the remainder is unsuitable for beach replenishment and
other management options are needed, such as ocean disposal.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-2

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
By not permanently designating LA-3, the No Action Alternative could limit future
maintenance and improvement projects in the LA/Newport area by limiting the amount of
dredged material that could be deposited at a designated ocean disposal site. This in turn
could result in a negative impact on future maritime operations in the area.
Additionally, Upper Newport Bay is an estuary and ecological reserve. The continued
health of the estuary is dependent upon ongoing restoration and dredging projects. It is
anticipated that if dredging activities within the reserve were eliminated, the bay
eventually would fill with sediment from San Diego Creek and ultimately would become
upland habitat (Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends 2004). Although the reserve is not
revenue generating as is the harbor area, it represents the vast majority of the Newport
Bay dredging need (approximately 1,000,000 yd3 [765,000 m3] in 1998-99). Most of this
material, if not all, is too fine to be suitable for beach replenishment.
Therefore, unless and until other management options become feasible, ocean disposal of
dredged material from the bay is expected to remain the most practicable option. Even if
money were available to transport all the Newport material to LA-2, there may be
potential significant environmental impacts to air quality and the marine environment.
The combined Los Angeles/Orange County area material would represent a substantial
increase over historic disposal volumes at LA-2.
The ZSF Study evaluated for each potential dredging project whether disposal at the
existing LA-2 or proposed LA-3 ODMDSs would be economically feasible (USACE
2003a). Based on this assessment, the total worst-case yearly and average yearly disposal
volumes at LA-2 for the No Action alternative were estimated. These volumes are shown
in Table 2.1-1.
It is possible that during any given single dredging cycle for the projects listed that the
potential total dredged volume for that project's cycle could be higher than the average
volumes shown in Table 2.1-1. Therefore, for computing the worst-case yearly volumes,
the average project cycle dredging volumes were increased by a factor of 50 percent
(USACE 2003a). As such the total worst-case yearly volume shown in Table 2.1-1
1,451,000 yd3 (1,109,000 m3) assumes that all projects occur simultaneously and includes
this 50 percent conservatism factor. The total average yearly volume of 152,000 yd
(116,000 m3) assumes that the dredging projects are spread out over their anticipated
dredging cycles and that the total dredged volume per cycle for each project is equal to
the average volume per cycle.
As seen in Table 2.1-1, under the No Action Alternative disposal of dredged material
from projects at Newport Bay and Dana Point Harbor are assumed to not be economically
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-3

-------
TABLE 2.1-1
ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) FORECASTED WORST-CASE YEARLY AND AVERAGE YEARLY DISPOSAL VOLUMES





Maintenance
Alt. 1 -
No Action
Alt. 1 - No Action

Disposal

Average
Dredging Time
Forecasted
Forecasted
Forecasted
Forecasted

Economically

Volume per
Period for
Worst-Case
Worst-Case
Annual Average
Annual Average

Feasible*
County of
cycle
Each Cycle
Year LA-2
Year LA-3
LA-2
LA-3
Harbor/Facility
LA-2
LA-3
Origin
(cubic yards)
(years)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
Regular Maintenance









Los Angeles River Estuary
Yes
No
LA
75,000
4-5**
113.000
NA
19.000
NA
Los Angeles Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
10,000
1
15,000
NA
10,000
NA
Long Beach Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
38.000
1
57,000
NA
38,000
NA
Marina del Rey
Yes
No
LA
67,000
2
101,000
NA
34,000
NA
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
Yes
Yes
Orange
100.000
10
150.000
NA
10,000
NA
Newport Harbor
No
Yes
Orange
250.000
25
-
NA
-
NA
Dana Point Harbor
No
Yes
Orange
50.000
8
-
NA
-
NA
Upper Newport Bay
No
Yes
Orange
100.000
10
-
NA
-
NA
Anaheim Bay
Yes
No
Orange
150,000
10
225,000
NA
15.000
NA






661,000
NA
126.000
NA
Capital Improvement









Los Angeles Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
263.000
20 - 25 f
395,000
NA
13.000
NA
Long Beach Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
263.000
20 - 25 f
395,000
NA
13.000
NA
Upper Newport Bayt
No
Yes
Orange
2.120,000
-i
-
NA
-
NA






790.000
NA
26.000
NA
TOTAL (Forecasted)





1,451,000
NA
152,000
NA
HISTORICAL VOLUMES





803,000
860,000
363,000

FOR PERIOD 1992 - 2001





132,000
' USACE 2003a
1 '•'For worst-case annual average, assume a four-year cycle.
fFor worst-case annual average, assume a 20-vear cycle.
JUpper Newport Bay capital improvement project occurs over two years (worst-case year assumes 1.060.000 cubic yards for capital improvement)
NA. not applicable

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
feasible and, consequently, ocean disposal may not be an option for projects in these
areas. As such, disposal at LA-2 for projects from these areas is not assumed for the No
Action Alternative. Also as seen in Table 2.1-1, although the average annual disposal
volume is less than the previously analyzed volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3), this
volume could be substantially exceeded in a worst-case year.
As indicated, under this alternative LA-3 would not be designated as a permanent
ODMDS and LA-2 would continue to be managed for an average annual disposal volume
of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Consequently, the availability of adequate disposal capacity
would be limited and would not meet the anticipated need for ocean disposal of dredged
material identified in the ZSF study.
2.1.2 Maximize Use of LA-2 (Alternative 2)
As with the No Action Alternative, under this alternative the EPA would not permanently
designate an ODMDS appropriate for disposal of suitable dredged material from the
Newport Harbor and Bay area. The interim status designation of LA-3 would remain
expired, prohibiting future disposal at this site.
This alternative would increase the maximum analyzed annual dredged material quantity
that could be managed and placed at the LA-2 site. However, this increase in maximum
annual disposal capacity would primarily be to account for the greater than anticipated
dredged material quantities currently being generated in Los Angeles County. Although
it may be feasible for some projects to transport limited quantities of dredged material
from the Newport area to the LA-2 site, transportation of all dredged material from the
Newport area to LA-2 is not considered practical. Additionally, the added transportation
distance for disposal at LA-2 would result in other potentially significant environmental
impacts as mentioned in the No Action Alternative discussion.
Although it may not be feasible at this time for some projects in the Newport Bay and
Dana Point Harbor areas to transport their dredged material to LA-2, for the purposes of
establishing a maximum analyzed annual dredged material quantity that could be placed
at LA-2, it was assumed that all projects identified in the ZSF Study (USACE 2003a)
would utilize LA-2. Based on this assumption, the total worst-case yearly and average
yearly disposal volumes at LA-2 for Alternative 2 were estimated. These volumes are
shown in Table 2.1 -2.
As with the No-Action Alternative, the total worst-case yearly volume shown in Table
2.1-2 (3,641,000 yd3 [2,784,000 m3]) assumes that all projects occur simultaneously and
include the 50 percent conservatism factor. The total average yearly volume (390,000
3	3
yd [298,000 m ]) assumes that the dredging projects are spread out over their anticipated
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-5

-------
TABLE 2.1-2
ALTERNATIVE 2 FORECASTED WORST-CASE YEARLY AND AVERAGE YEARLY DISPOSAL VOLUMES





Maintenance
Alternative 2
Alternative 2

Disposal

Average
Dredging Time
Forecasted
Forecasted
Forecasted
Forecasted

Economically

Volume per
Period for
Worst-Case
Worst-Case
Annual Average
Annual Average

Feasible*
County of
Cycle
Each Cycle
Year LA-2
Year LA-3
LA-2
LA-3
Harbor/Facility
LA-2
LA-3
Origin
(cubic yards)
(years)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
Regular Maintenance









Los Angeles River Estuary
Yes
No
LA
75.000
4 - 5*
1 13.000
NA
19.000
NA
Los Angeles Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
10.000
1
15.000
NA
10,000
NA
Long Beach Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
38.000
1
57.000
NA
38.000
NA
Marina del Rey
Yes
No
LA
67.000
2
101.000
NA
34.000
NA
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
Yes
Yes
Orange
100.000
10
150.000
NA
10,000
NA
Newport Harbor
No
Yes
Orange
250.000
25
375.000
NA
10,000
NA
Dana Point Harbor
No
Yes
Orange
50.000
8
75.000
NA
6.000
NA
Upper Newport Bay
No
Yes
Orange
100.000
10
150.000
NA
10.000
NA
Anaheim Bay
Yes
No
Orange
150.000
10
225.000
NA
15.000
NA






1.261.000
NA
152.000
NA
Capital Improvement
Los Angeles Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
263,000
20 - 251
395.000
NA
13.000
NA
Long Beach Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
263.000
20 - 25|
395.000
NA
13,000
NA
Upper Newport Bayt
No
Yes
Orange
2,120.000
">•!-
— T
1.590.000
NA
212.000
NA






2.380.000
NA
238.000
NA
TOTAL (Forecasted)





3,641,000
NA
390,000
NA
HISTORICAL VOLUMES
FOR PERIOD 1992 - 2001





803,000
860,000
363,000
132,000
*USACE 2003a
1 " For worst-case annual average, assume a four-year cycle.
tFor worst-case annual aveiage. assume a 20-year cycle.
tUpper Newport Bay capital impiovement project occurs over two years (worst-case year assumes 1.060.000 cubic yards for capital improvement).
NA: not applicable

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
dredging cycles and that the total dredged volume per cycle for each project is equal to
the average volume per cycle.
As indicated, under this alternative LA-3 would not be designated as a permanent
ODMDS. Based on the projected dredging volumes from the ZSF study as well as site
management considerations, under this alternative the LA-2 site would be designated for
an annual maximum of 3,500,000 yd3 (2,676,000 m3). This maximum volume
designation would accommodate the projected average annual volume requirements as
well as provide for substantial annual volume fluctuations.
It is anticipated that the same concerns discussed above for the No Action Alternative
regarding continued maritime operations in the Newport Harbor area and the ongoing
maintenance and restoration activities at Upper Newport Bay would also occur with
Alternative 2.
As discussed in Section 1.2, the USACE considers it essential that an acceptable disposal
site be designated for dredged material from Newport Bay and Harbor. Selection of
Alternative 2 would eliminate an ocean disposal site within reasonable distance of
Newport Harbor.
2.1.3 Alternatives for Permanent Designation of LA-3
(Alternatives 3 and 4)
Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the EPA would permanently designate an LA-3 ODMDS to
accommodate disposal of dredged material originating from the Newport Bay area.
These two alternatives offer different management options that may yield different
overall cumulative environmental impacts from the disposal of dredged material
generated from the Los Angeles-Orange County region.
The location of the interim LA-3 site is 33°31'42" N and 117°54'48" W, approximately
8.5 km (4.5 nmi) southwest of the entrance channel to Newport Harbor (Figure 2.1-1).
The interim site is a circular area with a radius of 915 m (3,000 ft) and a water depth at
the center of approximately 450 m (1,475 ft). LA-3 is positioned on the continental slope
within Newport Canyon. At the site, the seafloor slopes from the northwest to the
southeast from water depths of 410 to 480 m (1,345 to 1,575 ft).
During the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey review, a substantial amount of dredged
material outside the interim site boundaries was noted, both to the north and to the
northeast and southeast of the site. This may be attributed to disposal short of the
targeted disposal site, errors in disposal generally resulting from inaccurate navigation,
and/or dispersion of disposed material. Approximately 786,000 yd3 (601,000 m3) of
sediment dredged from the Upper Newport Bay was recently disposed in the southeast
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-7

-------
Locations of LA-3 and LA-2 and Other Alternative Sites

A

E23

M UOBS2\3646\env\graphics\final_figs\fig2 1-1 ai
08/06/04
V'

Figure 2.1-1

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
quadrant of the interim site boundary. In addition, the interim location may preclude the
effective use of bathymetry or other acoustic techniques during site monitoring due to the
presence of complex submarine canyon features located within the site boundary.
Consequently, the proposed permanent site boundary would be centered at about 2.4 km
(1.3 nmi) southeast of the interim site center with a boundary radius of 915 m (3,000 ft)
that reflects the results of the modeling runs that predicted the size of the anticipated
dredged material footprint (Figure 2.1-2).
The center of the proposed LA-3 site is at 33°3I'00" N and 117°53'30" W, approximately
8.5 km (4.5 nmi) southwest of the entrance channel to Newport Harbor (Figure 2.1-1). As
discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIS, based on the results of the modeling runs, the
boundary of the proposed site would remain at a radius of 915 m (3,000 ft). By doing so,
the permanent site would not only encompass the region that is already disturbed by
dredged material, but also would be located on a flat, depositional plain that will be more
amenable to monitoring via precision bathymetry.
Designating the center of the permanent LA-3 site to the southeast of the interim site
within the LA-3 study area as indicated would not significantly change the transportation
distance from the Newport area. Locating the permanent site boundaries at this location
would not be anticipated to change the environmental impacts associated with the interim
LA-3 site and would redirect the disposal of material to an area historically used for
disposal. Focusing the permanent disposal area away from the submarine canyon that
exists at the interim site would simplify monitoring of the disposal activities.
2.1.3.1 Alternative 3 - Local Use of LA-3 and LA-2
Under Alternative 3, EPA would permanently designate the LA-3 ODMDS with an
annual quantity adequate to manage disposal of dredged material generated locally from
the Newport Beach and general Orange County area. The existing LA-2 site would be
evaluated for a higher maximum annual quantity to manage disposal of dredged material
generated primarily from the Los Angeles County region.
The ZSF Study evaluated for each potential dredge project whether disposal at the
existing LA-2 or proposed LA-3 ODMDS would be economically feasible (USACE
2003a). For the purposes of establishing the maximum analyzed annual dredged material
quantities that could be placed at LA-2 or LA-3, it was assumed that the Los Angeles
County projects identified in the ZSF Study (USACE 2003a) would utilize LA-2.
Likewise, it was assumed that the Orange County projects identified in the ZSF Study
(USACE 2003a) would utilize LA-3. The exception to this are dredging projects in
Anaheim Bay for which disposal at LA-3 is not considered economically feasible
(USACE 2003a). Consequently, for this alternative it is assumed that disposal of dredged
material from Anaheim Bay would occur at the LA-2 site.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-9

-------
0 Meters 1000
Proposed LA-3 Site
Centered at
33°31'00" N
117°53'30" W
Interim LA-3 Site
Centered at
33031 >42" n
117°54'48" W
Location of Interim and Proposed
Permanent LA-3 Disposal Sites
M:\jobs2\3646\gis\fig2.1-2.mxd 07/22/04
A



V

I'i'l
Figure 2.1-2

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Using these assumptions, the total worst-case yearly and average yearly disposal volumes
at LA-2 and LA-3 for Alternative 3 were estimated. These volumes are shown in Table
2.1-3. As with the No-Action Alternative, the total worst-case yearly volumes shown in
Table 2.1-3 (1,301,000 yd3 [995,000 m3] for LA-2; 2,340,000 yd3 [1,789,000 m3] for LA-
3) assume that all projects occur simultaneously and include the 50 percent conservatism
factor. The total average yearly volumes (142,000 yd3 [109,000 m3] for LA-2; 248,000
yd3 [190,000 m3] for LA-3) assume that the dredging projects are spread out over their
anticipated dredging cycles and that the total dredged volume per cycle for each project is
equal to the average volume per cycle.
Accordingly, based on the projected dredging volumes from the ZSF study as well as site
management considerations, under this alternative the LA-2 site would be designated for
an annual maximum of 1,000,000 yd3 (765,000 m3) and the LA-3 site would be
designated for an annual maximum of 2,500,000 yd3 (1,911,000 m3). These maximum
volume designations would accommodate the projected average annual volume
requirements as well as provide for substantial annual volume fluctuations.
2.1.3.2 Alternative 4 - Maximize Use of LA-3
Under Alternative 4, EPA would permanently designate the LA-3 site for a maximum
annual disposal quantity adequate to meet the ocean disposal needs of all Los
Angeles/Orange County region projects to the extent feasible, and would establish an
annual disposal quantity limit for LA-2 to accommodate only those projects that could
not feasibly use LA-3.
The ZSF Study evaluated for each potential dredge project whether disposal at the exiting
LA-2 or proposed LA-3 ODMDSs would be economically feasible (USACE 2003a). For
the purposes of establishing the maximum analyzed annual dredged material quantities
that could be placed at LA-2 or LA-3, it was assumed for this alternative that all projects
identified in the ZSF Study (USACE 2003a), for which disposal at LA-3 would be
economically feasible, would utilize LA-3. Those projects for which disposal at LA-3 is
not economically feasible would continue to utilize LA-2.
Using these assumptions, the total worst-case yearly and average yearly disposal volumes
at LA-2 and LA-3 for Alternative 4 were estimated. These volumes are shown in Table
2.1-4. As with the No-Action Alternative, the total worst-case yearly volumes shown in
Table 2.1-4 (439,000 yd3 [336,000 nr3] for LA-2; 3,202,000 yd3 [2,448,000 m3] for LA-3)
assume that all projects occur simultaneously and include the 50 percent conservatism
factor. The total average yearly volumes (68,000 yd3 [52,000 m3] for LA-2; 322,000 yd3
[246,000 m3] for LA-3) assume that the dredging projects are spread out over their
anticipated dredging cycles and that the total dredged volume per cycle for each project is
equal to the average volume per cycle.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-11

-------
TABLE 2.1-3
ALTERNATIVE 3 FORECASTED WORST-CASE YEARLY AND AVERAGE YEARLY DISPOSAL VOLUMES





Maintenance
Alternative 3
Alternative 3

Disposal

Average
Dredging Time
Forecasted
Forecasted
Forecasted
Forecasted

Economically
Feasible*
County of
Volume per
Cycle
Period for
Each Cycle
Worst-Case
Year LA-2
Worst-Case
Year LA-3
Annual Average
LA-2
Annual Average
LA-3
Harbor/Facility
LA-2
LA-3
Origin
(cubic yards)
(years)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
Regular Maintenance
Los Angeles River Estuary
Yes
No
LA
75,000
4-5*
113.000

19.000

Los Angeles Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
10,000
1
15.000
-
10.000
-
Long Beach Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
38.000
1
57.000
-
38,000
-
Marina del Rey
Yes
No
LA
67,000
2
101,000
-
34,000
_
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
Yes
Yes
Orange
100.000
10
-
150,000
-
10,000
Newport Harbor
No
Yes
Orange
250.000
25
-
375,000
-
10,000
Dana Point Harbor
No
Yes
Orange
50,000
8
-
75,000
-
6,000
Upper Newport Bay
No
Yes
Orange
100,000
10
-
150.000
-
10.000
Anaheim Bay
Yes
No
Orange
150.000
10
225.000

15.000
-






51 1,000
750.000
116.000
36.000
Capital Improvement
Los Angeles Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
263,000
20 - 251
395.000

13.000

Long Beach Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
263,000
20 - 25 f
395.000
-
13.000
-
Upper Newport Bayt
No
Yes
Orange
2,120,000
2t
-
1.590,000
-
212,000






790,000
1,590.000
26.000
212,000
TOTAL (Forecasted)





1,301,000
2,340,000
142,000
248,000
HISTORICAL VOLUMES
FOR PERIOD 1992 - 2001





803,000
860,000
363,000
132,000
^USACE 2003a
1 Tor worst-case annual average, assume a four-year cycle.
fFor worst-case annual average, assume a 20-year cycle.
flipper Newport Bay capital improvement project occurs over two years (worst-case year assumes l.060.000 cubic yards for capital improvement).

-------
TABLE 2.1-4
ALTERNATIVE 4 FORECASTED WORST-CASE YEARLY AND AVERAGE YEARLY DISPOSAL VOLUMES





Maintenance
Alternative 4
Alternative 4

Disposal

Average
Dredging Time
Forecasted
Forecasted
Forecasted
Forecasted

Economically

Volume per
Period for
Worst-Case
Worst-Case
Annual Average
Annual Average

Feasible*
County of
Cycle
Each Cycle
Year LA-2
Year LA-3
LA-2
LA-3
Harbor/Facility
LA-2
LA-3
Origin
(cubic yards)
(years)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
Regular Maintenance









Los Angeles River Estuary
Yes
No
LA
75,000
4-5**
113.000
-
19.000
-
Los Angeles Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
10.000
1
-
15.000
-
10.000
Long Beach Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
38.000
1
-
57.000
-
38.000
Marina del Rey
Yes
No
LA
67.000
2
101,000
-
34.000
-
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
Yes
Yes
Orange
100.000
10
-
150,000
-
10.000
Newport Harbor
No
Yes
Orange
250,000
25
-
375.000
-
10.000
Dana Point Harbor
No
Yes
Orange
50.000
8
-
75.000
-
6.000
Upper Newport Bay
No
Yes
Orange
100.000
10
-
150.000
-
10.000
Anaheim Bay
Yes
No
Orange
150.000
10
225.000
-
15,000
-






439,000
822.000
68.000
84.000
Capital Improvement









Los Angeles Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
263.000
20 - 251
-
395.000
-
13.000
Long Beach Harbor
Yes
Yes
LA
263.000
20 - 25 f
-
395.000
-
13.000
Upper Newport Bay±
No
Yes
Orange
2.120.000
->+
— T
-
1.590.000
-
212.000






-
2,380.000
-
238,000
TOTAL (Forecasted)





439,000
3,202,000
68,000
322,000
HISTORICAL VOLUMES





803,000
860,000
363,000
132,000
FOR PERIOD 1992 - 2001





' USACE 2003a
+>! For worst-case annual average, assume a four-year cycle.
tFor worst-case annual average, assume a 20-yecir cycle.
£Upper Newport Bay capital improvement project occurs over two years (worst-case year assumes 1.060.000 cubic yards for capital improvement)

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Accordingly, based on the projected dredging volumes from the ZSF study as well as site
management considerations, under this alternative the LA-2 site would be designated for
an annual maximum of 500,000 yd3 (382,000 m3) and the LA-3 site would be designated
for an annual maximum of 3,500,000 yd3 (2,676,000 m3). These maximum volume
designations would accommodate the projected average annual volume requirements as
well as provide for substantial annual volume fluctuations. As also seen in Table 2.1-4, it
is noted that although the worst-case yearly disposal volume at LA-2 is estimated to be
439.000	yd3 (336,000 m3), the average annual disposal volume (68,000 yd3 [52,000 m3])
is much less than the previously analyzed volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3).
2.2 Discussion of Alternatives
2.2.1	Alternative LA-3 Disposal Sites Considered but
Eliminated from Detailed Study
Ocean disposal sites considered as alternatives to the proposed LA-3 site include a
shallow-water site, a deep-water site, and a site at a depth similar to the proposed LA-3
site. The alternative sites represent generic regions, principally determined by water
depth. These areas were chosen to consider the environmental advantages/disadvantages
of designating a disposal site at an oceanic area other than the interim or proposed LA-3
sites.
The shallow-water site is located offshore of Newport Beach, 9.3 km (5.8 miles) upcoast
and downcoast from the entrance to Newport Harbor (see Figure 2.1-1). Water depth in
this area ranges from 18.3 to 183 m (60 to 600 ft). The area is adjacent to the OCSD
outfall, which discharges in 60 m (197 ft) of water. This site was selected to keep the
shallow-water site within an economical distance of the harbor entrance.
Evaluation of this site involves considering the proximity of boating and fishing areas,
nearshore biological resources, recreational beach and harbor use, and synergistic effects
of the OCSD sewage outfall. Changing the disposal site from the LA-3 interim site to the
shallow-water site would not decrease the amount of disposal impacts and would expose
a relatively undisturbed area to new environmental impacts. A shallow-water site would
be expected to be more dispersive than a deepwater site. Consequently, a shallow-water
site would have the greatest potential to impact Areas of Special Biological Significance,
particularly the Marine Protected Areas to the south of Newport Harbor, as well as other
nearshore resources. Likewise, the shallow-water (nearshore) site would result in the
greatest potential conflicts with sportfishing activity as there is more recreational use of
this area relative to those areas farther offshore. This site was eliminated from further
study for these reasons and because it is a relatively undisturbed area, thus not satisfying
the site selection criteria.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-14

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
The deep-water site considered is located southeast of the LA-3 interim site
approximately 17.6 to 31.5 km (10.9 to 19.6 miles) from the entrance to Newport Harbor
(see Figure 2.1-1). The site is located on the lower portion of the continental slope at
water depths of 640 to 732 m (2,100 to 2,400 ft).
Factors considered during preliminary evaluation of this site relative to other alternatives
include: the distance from shore which may result in potential significant impacts to air
quality; the increased dispersion of sediments throughout the water column and over a
larger area of the sea floor; the abundance and composition of benthic fauna; and the
location of the site off the continental shelf. Additionally, the site must be evaluated
relative to the general and specific site selection criteria outlined in Chapter 1,
particularly as related to past disturbance. Site selection should focus on areas of
historical use and avoid creating new impacts.
As with the shallow-water site, designation of an ODMDS in the deep-water area would
subject an undisturbed area to new environmental impacts. Because of the greater water
depth at the deep-water site, the area of deposition will be larger even though the
thickness of deposited material will be less than at the other sites. This site was
eliminated from further study for these reasons and because it is an undisturbed area, thus
not satisfying the site selection criteria.
Another alternative for ocean disposal is a site at a similar depth to the LA-3 interim and
proposed sites. The location considered for this alternative is an area extending 9.3 km
(5.8 miles) east and west of the LA-3 interim site along the 457 m (1,500 ft) contour (see
Figure 2.1-1). Environmental and physical characteristics of this site would be similar to
the LA-3 interim and proposed sites, with the exception that this site would be a
relatively undisturbed habitat. Selection of this alternative for final designation as an
ODMDS would not reduce the impacts from those expected for the proposed LA-3 site
and would subject a previously undisturbed habitat to new environmental stress.
Furthermore, as with the shallow-water site, those areas located closer to the shore have a
greater potential to adversely impact Marine Protected Areas and other nearshore
resources and to conflict with recreational fishing activities. This site was eliminated
from further studies for these reasons and because it is an undisturbed area, thus not
satisfying the site selection criteria.
Upland disposal at a sanitary landfill is always evaluated as an alternative to ocean
disposal for dredged material generated from an individual dredging project. There are
four Class HI landfills in Orange County: Santiago Canyon (no longer accepting waste
with final closure anticipated during 2004), Prima Deshecha, Olinda Alpha, and Frank R.
Bowerman. These facilities can accept nonhazardous solid waste including dredged
material. However, the material must be dewatered and relatively clean with low
concentrations of certain chemicals, heavy metals, and salt. Also, the material must
conform to RWQCB criteria for waste disposal. The RWQCB considers the presence of
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-15

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
salts in dredged sediment to be a contaminant. Consequently, due to salinity
considerations upland disposal outside the immediate vicinity of the Los Angeles/Long
Beach harbors is generally not an option. Further, Newport Harbor does not have
sufficient area for spreading and drying dredged material prior to landfill disposal.
The use of dredged material for beach nourishment is encouraged in areas suffering from
erosion, but only if the material is compatible with the grain size distribution of the
receiving beach. Impacts on biological communities and water quality must also be
considered before beach nourishment is permitted. This method of dredged material
disposal is evaluated by the USACE on a case-by-case basis for each disposal permit but
is not a feasible alternative for disposal of all dredged materials. Therefore, beach
disposal is not considered as a feasible alternative to designation of LA-3 as an ODMDS.
2.2.2 Compliance of the Alternatives with General
Criteria for the Selection of Sites (40 CFR 228)
This section presents an assessment of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites with the five
general site selection criteria.
2.2.2.1	General Criteria 40 CFR 228.5(a)
The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at sites or
in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal activities with
other activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or
recreational navigation.
Historical disposal at the LA-3 site has not interfered with commercial or recreational
navigation, commercial fishing, or sportfishing activities. Disposal at the LA-2 site, while
located within the U.S. Coast Guard Traffic Separation Schemes, has not interfered with
these activities. The continued use of these sites would not change these conditions.
2.2.2.2	General Site Selection Criteria 40 CFR 228.5(b)
Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbances in water quality or other environmental conditions
during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere within the
site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any
beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-16

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
The LA-2 and LA-3 sites are sufficiently removed from shore and limited fishery
resources to allow water quality perturbations caused by dispersion of disposal material
to be reduced to ambient conditions before reaching environmentally sensitive areas.
2.2.2.3	General Site Selection Criteria 40 CFR 228.5(c)
If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is
determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an interim
basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site selection set forth
in Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of such sites will be terminated as
soon as suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated.
Evaluation of the LA-2 and LA-3 sites indicates that they presently do and would
continue to comply with these criteria.
2.2.2.4	General Site Selection Criteria 40 CFR 228.5(d)
The sizes of the ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any immediate adverse impacts and permit the
implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to
prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size, configuration, and location
of any disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal site
evaluation or designation study.
The LA-2 and LA-3 disposal sites consist of circular areas with a 915-m (3,000-ft) radius.
The size of the sites has been determined by computer modeling to limit environmental
impacts to the surrounding area and facilitate surveillance and monitoring operations. The
designation of the size, configuration, and location of sites was determined as part of this
evaluation study.
2.2.2.5	General Site Selection Criteria 40 CFR 228.5(e)
EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the
edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been
historically used.
The LA-3 site is located beyond the continental shelf, in a canyon on the continental
slope. This site has also been used historically for the disposal of dredged material. LA-3
is the only site that fully meets the above criteria.
The LA-2 site, which has been permanently designated for the ocean disposal of dredged
material, is located near the edge of the continental shelf at the 183 m (600 ft) contour.
The LA-2 site has been used for the ocean disposal of dredged material since 1977.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-17

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
2.2.3	Comparison of the Alternatives to EPA's 11
Specific Criteria for Site Selection [40 CFR
228.6(a)]
Discussions of the proposed alternatives relative to the eleven specific criteria for site
selection specified in 40 CFR 228.6(a) are provided in Chapter 3, Affected Environment,
and in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. The proposed action and alternatives
relate to the continued use or cessation of use of existing ODMDSs, LA-2 and LA-3. As
such, Table 2.2-1 provides a summary of comparisons between the LA-2 and LA-3 sites
to support the decision process in evaluating the selection of the preferred alternative
over the other viable alternatives.
2.2.4	Selection of the Preferred Alternative
The disposal of dredged material at the LA-2 and LA-3 sites will continue to alter
conditions within the site boundaries. These temporary, localized, physical impacts
would only occur during disposal operations. Between disposal operations, the sites
would recover to more ambient conditions. Both the LA-2 and LA-3 sites have been used
for the disposal of dredged material since the late 1970s. To date, impacts resulting from
this disposal have not caused unreasonable or significant impacts to the marine
environment nor have they significantly impacted commercial and recreational users in
the area.
With the No Action Alternative, the interim status designation of the LA-3 site would
remain expired prohibiting future disposal at this site. As such the No Action Alternative
would result in no impacts to the LA-3 site. Disposal at LA-2 would continue and be
managed at pre-1991 historical levels evaluated in the original site designation EIS.
Future dredging projects exceeding historical levels of disposal would have to be
evaluated separately for approval.
The elimination of disposal at LA-3 would allow for a shift from the benthic community
currently at the site to one that more resembles the community that was present prior to
the initiation of disposal activities. Because of the increased hauling distances between
Newport Harbor and the LA-2 site, there are a number of proposed dredging projects in
Newport Bay for which ocean disposal of dredged material would not be economically
feasible. Consequently, unless other viable disposal options become available, these
projects may not go forward. As such the No Action Alternative does not meet the goals
and objectives of the proposed action, because it does not provide a viable means of
ocean disposal of dredged material for all Orange County projects. Air quality emissions
would also be the lowest for the No Action Alternative. However, this is primarily due to
the reduction in the total volume of dredged material that could feasibly be disposed of at
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-18

-------
TABLE 2.2-1
COMPARISON OF LA-3 AND LA-2 SITES BASED ON THE 11 SPECIFIC CRITERIA AT 40 CFR 228.6(a)
40 CFR 228.6(a) Criieria
LA-3
LA-2
Geographical position, depth of water, bottom
topography, and distance from the coast.
Centered at 33°31 "OCT N. 117°53'30" W
The bottom topography is gently sloping from
approximately 460 to 510 m (1.500 to
1,675 ft). Situated near the slope of a
submarine canyon, the site center is
approximately 8.5 km (4.5 nmi) from the
mouth of Newport Harbor
(see Figure 2.1-1).
Centered at 33°37'06" N and 118°I7'24" W
The site is at the top edge of the continental
slope in approximately 110 to 340 m (360 to
1,1 15 ft) of water. The LA-2 site is located just
south of the San Pedro Valley submarine
canyon centered approximately I 1 km
(5.9 nmi) from the entrance to Los Angeles
Harbor
	(see Figure 2.1-1).	
Location in relation to breeding, spawning,
nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living
resources in adult or juvenile phases.
Located in an area for feeding and breeding of
resident species. Located in gray whale
migration route area. No known special
	breeding or nursery areas.	
Located in an area for feeding and breeding of
resident species. Located near the gray whale
migration route. No known special breeding or
	nursery areas.	
Location in relation to beaches and other
amenity areas.
The proposed site boundary is located over
6.5 km (3.5 nmi) offshore of the nearest coast
in the Newport Beach and Harbor area. Other
beach areas are more distant.
The site boundary is located over 8.5 km
(4.6 nmi) offshore of the nearest coast in the
Palos Verdes area. Other beach areas are more
distant.
Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be
disposed of, and proposed methods of release,
including methods of packaging the waste, if
any.
Dredged material to be disposed will be
predominantly clays and silts primarily
originating from the Los Angeles/Long Beach
Harbor area and from Newport Bay and
Harbor. Worst-case annual disposal volumes
range from 0 to approximately 3.20 million yd3
(0 to 2.45 million m3). Average annual
disposal volumes range from 0 to
approximately 322,000 yd1 (0 to 246.000 nr).
Dredge material is expected to be released
	from split hull barges.	
Dredged material to be disposed will be
predominantly clays and silts primarily
originating from the Los Angeles/Long Beach
Harbor area and from Newport Bay and
Harbor. Worst-case annual disposal volumes
range from 439.000 yd3 to approximately
3.64 million yd3 (336.000 to 2.78 million m3).
Average annual disposal volumes range from
68.000 yd3 to approximately 390,000 yd3
(52,000 to 298.000 m3). Dredge material is
expected to be released from split hull barges.

-------
TABLE 2.2-1
COMPARISON OF LA-3 AND LA-2 SITES BASED ON THE 11 SPECIFIC CRITERIA AT 40 CFR 228.6(a)
(continued)
40 CFR 228.6(a) Criteria
LA-3
LA-2
Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
EPA (and USACE for federal projects in
consultation with EPA) is responsible for site
and compliance monitoring. USCG is
responsible for vessel traffic-related
monitoring. Monitoring of the disposal site is
feasible but somewhat complicated by
topography. This complication is improved by
relocation of permanent LA-3 site away from
underwater canyons.
EPA (and USACE for federal projects in
consultation with EPA) is responsible for site
and compliance monitoring. USCG is
responsible for vessel traffic-related
monitoring. Monitoring of the disposal site is
feasible but somewhat complicated by
topography.
Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical
mixing characteristics of the area, including
prevailing current direction and velocity, if
any.
Currents and vertical mixing will disperse fine
sediments. Prevailing currents are primarily
parallel to shore and flow along constant depth
contours. Situated near the slope of a
submarine canyon, this area would be expected
to receive sedimentation from erosion and
nearshore transport into the canyon from an
offshore direction. Overall, sediments are
expected to settle offshore (as opposed to
onshore).
Currents and vertical mixing will disperse fine
sediments. Prevailing currents are primarily
parallel to shore and flow along constant depth
contours. Some sediment transport offshore
due to slumping. Overall, sediments are
expected to settle offshore (as opposed to
onshore).
Existence and effects of current and previous
discharges and dumping in the area (including
cumulative effects).
Localized physical impacts have occurred to
sediments and benthic biota due to past
disposal operations. No anticipated
interactions with other discharges due to
	distance from discharge points.	
Localized physical impacts have occurred to
sediments and benthic biota due to past
disposal operations. No anticipated
interactions with other discharges due to
	distance from discharge points.	
Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation,
mineral extraction, desalination, fish and
shellfish culture, areas of special scientific
importance, and other legitimate uses of the
ocean.
Minor interferences with commercial and
fishing vessels due to disposal barge traffic.
Site is not located within active oil or natural
gas tracts. Continued disposal operations not
anticipated to adversely impact existing nearby
oil and gas development facilities or tracts.
Minor interferences with commercial and
Fishing vessels due to disposal barge traffic.
Site is not located within active oil or natural
gas tracts. Continued disposal operations not
anticipated to adversely impact existing nearby
oil and gas development facilities or tracts.

-------
TABLE 2.2-1
COMPARISON OF LA-3 AND LA-2 SITES BASED ON THE 11 SPECIFIC CRITERIA AT 40 CFR 228.6(a)
(continued)
40 CFR 228.6(a) Criteria
LA-3
LA-2
Existing water quality and ecology of the site
as determined by available data or by trend
assessment or baseline surveys.
Water quality is good but temporary, localized
physical impacts have occurred to sediments
and benthic ecology due to past disposal
	operations.	
Water quality is good but temporary, localized
physical impacts have occurred to sediments
and benthic ecology due to past disposal
	operations.	
Potentiality for the development or recruitment
of nuisance species in the disposal site.
Unknown, but due to depth differences
between the disposal site and the likely sources
of dredged material, the potential is low.
Unknown, but due to depth differences
between the disposal site and the likely sources
of dredged material the potential is low.
Existence at or in close proximity to the site of
any significant natural or cultural features of
historical importance.	
No known shipwrecks or resources within 5
km (2.7 nmi) of the disposal site.
No known shipwrecks or resources within 5
km (2.7 nmi) of the disposal site.

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
the LA-2 site under the No Action Alternative resulting from those dredging projects that
would not go forward.
Under Alternative 2, the interim status designation of the LA-3 site also would remain
expired, prohibiting future disposal at this site. As such Alternative 2 would result in no
impacts to the LA-3 site. The volume for LA-2 would be maximized to accommodate
dredged material suitable for ocean disposal that is generated throughout the Los Angeles
and Orange Counties region irrespective of the disposal cost.
The elimination of disposal at LA-3 would allow for a shift from the benthic community
currently at the site to one that more resembles the community that was present prior to
the initiation of disposal activities. However, because of the increased hauling distance
for dredged material originating in Orange County, this alternative results in the greatest
projected air emissions for the hauling activities. Alternative 2 would result in the
disposal of the greatest volume of dredged material at the LA-2 site of the four
alternatives and, consequently, impacts to the LA-2 site would be greatest for this
alternative. Additionally, although the LA-2 site would be reevaluated to accommodate
the increased volume of dredged material projected for ocean disposal in the Los
Angeles/Orange County region, the high cost of hauling the material to LA-2 could
preclude certain Orange County dredging projects from moving forward.
Under Alternative 3, the EPA would permanently designate the LA-3 ODMDS with an
annual quantity adequate to manage disposal of dredged material generated locally from
the Newport Beach and general Orange County area. The existing LA-2 site would be
evaluated for a higher maximum annual quantity to manage disposal of sediments
generated primarily from the Los Angeles County region. With this alternative the ocean
disposal of dredged material would continue at both the LA-2 and LA-3 sites, which have
been accepting dredged material since the late 1970s. LA-2 would primarily be used by
dredging projects in Los Angeles County while LA-3 would primarily be used by
dredging projects in Orange County. As such, dredged material hauling activities would
be optimized under this alternative. Ocean disposal would be economically feasible for
all of the identified dredging projects requiring ocean disposal in the region.
Because more material would be disposed of under Alternative 3 than under the No
Action Alternative, this alternative would result in greater air emissions than the No
Action Alternative. However, air emissions resulting from implementation of Alternative
3 would be less than those projected for Alternatives 2 or 4. Impacts to benthic organism
would be confined to within the LA-2 and LA-3 site boundaries. Alternative 3 would
result in the continued use of areas previously disturbed by disposal activities and would
allow dredging projects in the region to continue as in the past, although the maximum
annual disposal volumes for the individual sites would be reevaluated.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 2-22

-------
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Under Alternative 4 the LA-3 site would be permanently designated for a maximum
annual disposal quantity adequate to meet the ocean disposal needs of all Los Angeles-
Orange County region projects to the extent feasible, and would establish an increased
annual disposal quantity for LA-2 to accommodate only those project that could not
feasibly use LA-3. The ocean disposal of dredged material would continue at both the
LA-2 and LA-3 sites under this alternative.
The volume of dredged material disposed of at LA-2 would be minimized under this
alternative and, correspondingly, impacts at LA-2 would be minimized. The potential for
impacts between disposal barges traveling between the harbors and LA-2 and commercial
vessels would also be minimized under this alternative. With Alternative 4 the volume of
dredged material disposed of at LA-3 would be maximized. Therefore, impacts to the
LA-3 site would be greatest under this alternative. Additionally, this alternative also
results in the second highest air emissions to the basin of the four alternatives, primarily
due to the increased hauling distance of dredged material originating in the Los Angeles
area.
As discussed, implementation of the No Action Alternative or Alternative 2 potentially
could preclude certain projects within Orange County from going forward. No other
adverse impacts to the socioeconomic resources of the region are anticipated for these or
the other alternatives. Where adverse benthic impacts are anticipated, those impacts
would be limited to the area within the disposal site boundaries.
Although not considered significant, the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 could
result in greater disposal barge traffic crossing commercial shipping lanes than would
occur under Alternatives 3 and 4. Not permanently designating LA-3 as an ODMDS (No
Action Alternative and Alternative 2) could free up the LA-3 site area to the development
of oil and gas resources. However, there are no current plans for future oil or gas
development in the vicinity of the LA-3 site.
Based on the forgoing discussion and rational, the USACE and EPA have determined that
Alternative 3 is the Preferred Alternative. In concert with the implementation of this
action a detailed Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) has been developed by
the EPA and USACE and is included as Appendix A of this EIS. The purpose of the
SMMP is to monitor biological and other physical resources within and surrounding the
disposal sites, and to track all disposal activities in the region. This program is discussed
in more detail in Section 4.5 of this EIS.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
2-23

-------
3.0 Affected Environment
CHAPTER 3.0
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The following sections describe the affected environment and existing conditions within
the LA-3 and LA-2 study areas. The LA-2 study area includes the permanently
designated LA-2 ODMDS and surrounding environs. The LA-3 study area was initially
defined to evaluate the conditions at the interim LA-3 disposal site. As discussed in
Chapter 2 of this EIS, a substantial amount of dredged material was noted outside the
interim LA-3 site boundaries during recent bathymetric surveys. Consequently, the LA-3
study area was expanded to include areas of disposal that have occurred outside of the
interim boundary. The LA-3 site proposed for permanent designation located 2.4 km (1.3
nmi) to the southeast of the interim site accounts for these disposal areas. Given the
proximity of the interim and proposed permanent LA-3 sites, the LA-3 study area data
are applicable to both sites.
3.1 Ocean Disposal Site Characteristics
3.1.1 Historical Use of the Study Region [40 CFR
228.5(e)]
The proposed LA-3 site is located on the slope of Newport Canyon centered at a depth of
approximately 490 m (1,600 ft), approximately 8.5 km (4.5 nmi) southwest of the
entrance to Newport Harbor (33°31'00" N and 117°53'30" W; see Figures 1.1-2 and 2.1-
2). The bottom topography is gently sloping from approximately 460 to 510 m (1,500 to
1,675 ft). Situated at the foot of a submarine canyon, this area would be expected to
receive sedimentation from erosion and nearshore transport into the canyon.
The LA-2 site is located approximately 9.3 km (5 nmi) southwest of the breakwater at
San Pedro and 38 km (20.5 nmi) from the Newport Harbor entrance (33°37'06" N and
118°17'24" W; see Figure 1.1-3). The site is near the top edge of the continental slope in
approximately 110 to 340 m (360 to 1,115 ft) of water. The LA-2 site is located just south
of the San Pedro Valley submarine canyon.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-1

-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Historically, the LA-3 site has been used for the disposal of dredged material primarily
from sources in Newport Bay and Newport Harbor. Table 1.1-2 lists the disposal amounts
and dredged material sources for LA-3 from 1976 through 2001. Material disposed of at
the LA-3 site was evaluated according to the environmental criteria established by the
EPA and USACE (40 CFR 227).
The LA-2 site has historically been used for the disposal of dredged material from
sources primarily located in Los Angeles County (particularly Los Angeles and Long
Beach Harbors). Table 1.1-3 lists the disposal amounts and dredged material sources for
LA-2 from 1976 through 2001. As with LA-3, material disposed of at the LA-2 site was
evaluated according to the environmental criteria established by the EPA and USACE (40
CFR 227).
A site designated for dredged material disposal will only be used for the disposal of
dredged material that has undergone environmental evaluation according to permitting
criteria established by the EPA and USACE. A site management program will monitor
compliance of disposal operations and monitor site conditions. Should monitoring reveal
unexpected adverse environmental impacts, management actions would include
modification of site use and/or disposal procedures, additional site monitoring and
evaluation, or closing the site.
The amount, frequency, and methods of dredged material disposal are expected to remain
comparable to historical dredging operations. The sources of dredged material are
anticipated to remain the same and include: Los Angeles Harbor, Long Beach Harbor, the
Los Angeles River Estuary, Marina del Rey, Anaheim Bay, Sunset/Huntington Harbor,
Dana Point, Newport Harbor, Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay and the immediate
surrounding areas.
3.1.2 Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring
[40 CFR 228.5(d) and 228.6(a)(5)]
The EPA (and USACE for federal projects in consultation with EPA) conducts
surveillance, monitoring, and site management at ocean dredged material disposal sites.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for vessel traffic-related tracking and
monitoring. In general, these surveillance and monitoring efforts are complicated by
distance from shore and bottom topography of the disposal site. The difficulty of
monitoring varies for the LA-2 and LA-3 sites; however, accurate sampling is possible at
both sites.
The major hindrance to monitoring at LA-2 is the bottom topography. There is a wide
range in bottom depths at the site because it is located at the top edge of a relatively steep
slope. This complicates benthic sampling of the area, although monitoring is still feasible.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-2

-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Although the proposed LA-3 site is nearer to shore than the LA-2 site, the LA-3 site is
located in deeper water. Consequently, deployment and retrieval of sampling equipment
is fairly time consuming at the LA-3 site. Once equipment is deployed, benthic sampling
is fairly easy considering the gently sloping bottom and soft sediments that characterize
the area.
The OCSD outfall is located approximately 13 km (7 nmi) northwest of the proposed LA-
3 site (see Figure 1.1-1). As discussed in Chapter 1 of this EIS, the depth of the LA-3 site
is well below that of the OCSD outfall. As such, dredged material deposited at LA-3 is
expected to remain at depth and is not expected to impact the shallower, nearshore
environment in the vicinity of the OCSD outfall. Water quality impacts during dredged
material disposal operations at the LA-3 site will be temporary and localized in the
vicinity of the LA-3 site and are not expected to extend to the shallower, nearshore area.
Consequently, any water quality impacts that are detected in the shallow nearshore water
area would likely be due to discharges from the OCSD outfall or some other source.
The other municipal waste outfalls in the region surrounding the LA-2 and LA-3 study
areas include the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (White's Point) outfall, the Avalon
outfall, the Aliso outfall, and the South East Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA)
outfall (see Figure 1.1-1). These outfalls are significantly removed from the permanent
LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites or have sufficiently low outflows to preclude potential
significant interactions or cumulative impacts.
3.2 Physical Environment
3.2.1 Meteorology and Air Quality
3.2.1.1 Meteorology
The climate of southern California coastal and offshore areas is classified as
Mediterranean coastal, with warm dry summers and relatively wet, mild winters. Extreme
variations in yearly temperature are uncommon. The mean air temperature ranges from
12 to 15 degrees Celsius (°C; 54 to 59 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) in January and from 14 to
22 °C (57 to 72 °F) in August. Average annual precipitation in the coastal region ranges
between 25 and 38 cm (10 and 15 inches). Precipitation tends to decrease as the distance
offshore increases. Most precipitation occurs during the months of October through
April.
The dominant wind pattern for southern California is northwest winds offshore. During
the summer months, the Seabreeze or stratus regime predominates. It is associated with
coastal fog, stratus clouds, and persistent westerly to northwesterly winds averaging 15
km/hr (8 knots [kn]). Locally the Santa Catalina eddy causes these northwesterly winds to
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-3

-------
3.0 Affected Environment
shift and blow southeasterly to southwesterly along the shore of the southern California
bight, especially during night and early morning hours. The eddy is caused by the
orientation of the peninsular mountains which trend north to south but abruptly change
east to west, north of the Santa Monica Mountains.
The winter months experience more variable wind patterns, with a land-sea orientation. It
is characterized by northeast winds during the afternoon and evening with westerly winds
after sunset. The northeast wind orientation is associated with high pressure over the
western U.S. and referred to as Santa Ana winds.
During the spring when strong northwest winds prevail, the maximum intensity of
upwelling occurs. The net direction of surface waters shows a tendancy to a westerly
bend due to the Coriolis Effect. Vertical flows of water are extensive in the area.
3.2.1.2	Air Quality
Air quality in a particular area depends upon prevailing wind conditions, local onshore
topography, and pollutant emissions. Pollutants that frequently exceed air quality
standards in the region include ozone, suspended particulates, nitrogen oxides, and
carbon monoxide.
3.2.1.3	Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and regional agencies have established standards and regulations
addressing air pollutant emissions that are pertinent to the study area. A sampling of rules
and regulations pertinent to the study area are discussed below.
a. Federal Regulations
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is intended to protect the nation's air quality by regulating
emissions of air pollutants. The Act is applicable to permits and planning procedures
related to dredged material disposal within the territorial sea. The proposed action (the
designation of an ODMDS) does not permit the actual disposal of dredged material.
However, because the CAA is applicable to the proposed action, a basic air quality
evaluation of the potential impacts to air quality resulting from future use of the disposal
sites is presented in Chapter 4 of this EIS. Subsequent projects that would generate
material to be disposed of at an ODMDS would be subject to further individual
environmental review and specific conformity determinations during the permitting
process.
However, because the site(s) chosen for ocean disposal of dredged material will
ultimately affect the emissions resulting from hauling the material to that site(s) due to
the varying haul distances resulting from each alternative, for the purposes of assessing
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-4

-------
3.0 Affected Environment
the alternatives presented in this analysis the guidance and Conformity Demonstration
thresholds specified in the CAA will be used.
The federal CAA was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 U.S.C.
7506(c)] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air
resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve
the purposes of Section 109 of the act, the EPA developed primary and secondary
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Six pollutants of primary concern were
designated: ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and
suspended particulates (PM|0). The primary NAAQS must "protect the public health
with an adequate margin of safety" and the secondary standards must "protect the public
welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects (aesthetics, crops, architecture, etc.)"
(Federal Clean Air Act 1990: Section 109). The primary standards were established, with
a margin of safety, considering long-term exposures for the most sensitive groups in the
general population (i.e., children, senior citizens, and people with breathing difficulties).
Table 3.2-1 summarizes the current federal ambient air quality standards.
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which consists of all of Los Angeles and Orange
Counties and the nondesert portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, is
currently the smoggiest area in the nation. If an air basin is not in federal attainment for a
particular pollutant, the basin is classified as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or
extreme. The SCAB is currently designated as an extreme nonattainment area for the one-
hour ozone standard and as a serious nonattainment area for both PMio and CO.
In 1997, the EPA established new federal air quality standards for 8-hour ozone. Until
recently, the EPA had been unable to implement and enforce the eight-hour ozone
standard established in 1997 as a result of several legal challenges culminating with the
U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on February 27, 2001
upholding the new ozone standard. However, the Court said EPA must reconsider its
implementation plan for moving from the 1-hour standard to the revised standard. The
Court instructed EPA to develop an implementation plan (including a timetable)
consistent with the Court's opinion. While the case was pending before the Supreme
Court, the ozone and fine particle standards remained in effect as a legal matter, because
the D.C. Circuit Court had not vacated the standards.
Consequently, although enforcement of the standard had been delayed by the litigation,
the EPA directed air districts to begin collecting eight-hour ozone data to be used in
determining the attainment status of the districts relative to the new standard. The
resolution of litigation regarding the new eight-hour ozone standard has allowed the EPA
to move forward with implementation of the standard.
The EPA requested States to provide designation recommendations to the Regional
Administrator by July 15, 2003. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) supplied
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-5

-------
TABLE 3.2-1
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards'
Federal Standards"
Concentration'
Method4
r> • 1.5
Pi unary
Secondary1"
Method7
Ozone (Oi)
1 Hour
0.09 ppm
(180 ng/m")
Ultraviolet
Photometry
0.12 ppm
(235 |.ig/nr)
Same as
Primary Standaid
Ultraviolet Photometry
8 Hour
--
0.08 ppm
(157 ng/m1)
Respirahlc
Particulate
Matter (PMio)
24 Hour
50 ng/m'
Gravimetric or
Beta
Attenuation
150 jig/m"
Same as
Primaiy Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetic
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 ng/nv
50 Lig/nv'
Fine
Particulate
Matter
-------
TABLE 3.2-1
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(continued)
ppm = pans per million. Mg/m' = micrograms pci cubic mclei.
'Calit'omia standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Talioe). sulfur dioxide (I and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended
particulate matter—PM|0. PM? •>. and visibility ¦ educing particles arc values that aie not to be exceeded. All others aie not to be equaled 01
exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed 111 the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code
of Regulations.
^National standards (othei than ozone, paniculate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be
exceeded more than once a yeai. The ozone standaid is attained when the fourth highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over
three years, is equal to oi less than the standard. For PMio. the 24-hour standaid is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations,
aveiaged over three years, aie equal to or less than the standard. For PM; 5. the 24-houi standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily
concentiations. averaged over three years, aie equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA foi further clarification and current
federal policies.
'Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference
temperature of 25° C and a icference pressuie of 760 ton. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature
of 25° C and a reference pressure of 760 torr, ppm in this table lefers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality
standard may be used.
'National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
6NationaI Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of a pollutant.
'Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship
to the reference method" and must be approved by the EPA.
"New federal 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards were promulgated by U.S. EPA on July 18. 1997. Contact U.S. EPA for
further clarification and current fedeial policies.
l)The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as "toxic air contaminants" with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects
determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these
pollutants.
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
monitoring data for the years 2000 through 2002 to the EPA on July 15, 2003 and
recommended that the SCAB be designated as nonattainment for the federal eight-hour
ozone standard (Witherspoon 2003). The EPA reviewed the designation
recommendations and on April 30, 2004 listed the final designations in the Federal
Register (EPA 2004a). These designations became effective June 15, 2004.
The SCAB, including the coastal areas near the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites, has been
designated a non-attainment area for the eight-hour ozone standard under Subpart 2 of
Part D of the Clean Air Act, and classified as a "Severe 17" type non-attainment area
(EPA 2004a). For areas subject to Subpart 2, consistent with Section 181(a) of the CAA,
under the Severe 17 classification the period of attainment will be no more than
seventeen years from the effective date of designation (EPA 2004b). Consequently, the
SCAB must demonstrate attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard by June 15, 2021.
A new federal fine particles standard was also established in 1997, targeting PM25 or
inhalable particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Despite the new PM25
standard, the existing federal standard for particles that are 10 microns or less in diameter
(PM10) has been retained. In compliance with federal regulation, installation of PM2.5
monitors began in 1998 and most have been in operation since early 1999. Currently,
there are eighty-one 24-hour mass monitors for PM2.5 operating throughout the state
(State of California 2003).
A list of recommended designations was due to the EPA by February 15, 2004. The
CARB supplied monitoring data for the years 2000 through 2002 to the EPA on February
11, 2004 and recommended that the SCAB be designated as nonattainment for the federal
PM25 standard (Witherspoon 2004). The EPA must issue final PM25 designations for all
areas by December 2004. Attainment of the PM2.5 standards must be achieved five years
after the designation date (a five year extension is possible with adequate demonstration).
b. Clean Air Act Conformity
The 1990 amendments to Federal Clean Air Act Section 176 required the EPA to
promulgate rules to ensure that federal actions conform to the appropriate SIP. The rules,
collectively known as the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR §§ 51.850-860 and 40 CFR
§§ 93.150-160), require any federal agency responsible for an action in a nonattainment
area to determine that the action is either exempt from the General Conformity Rule's
requirements or positively determine that the action conforms to the applicable SIP. In
addition to the roughly 30 presumptive exemptions established and available in the
General Conformity Rule, an agency may establish that rates would be less than the
specified emission rate thresholds, known as de minimis limits. An action is exempt from
a conformity determination if an applicability analysis shows that the total direct and
indirect emissions from the project will be below the applicable de minimis thresholds
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-8
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
and will not be regionally significant, which is defined as representing 10 percent or more
of an area's emissions inventory or budget.
These de minimis limits vary based on the attainment status and pollutant. The de minimis
levels applicable in the SCAB are presented in Table 3.2-2.
If an action is not exempt, the federal agency must demonstrate that the total of direct and
indirect emissions from the proposed action that would be presumed to conform would
not:
•	Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area;
•	Interfere with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard;
•	Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in
any area; or
•	Delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission
reductions or other milestones in any area including, where applicable, emission
levels specified in the applicable SIP for the purposes of demonstration of
reasonable further progress, a demonstration of attainment, or a maintenance
plan.
c. State Regulations
The EPA allows states the option to develop different (stricter) air quality standards. The
state of California generally has set more stringent limits on the six pollutants of national
concern (see Table 3.2-1). In addition to the federally listed six criteria pollutants,
California has also established ambient air quality standards for sulfates, vinyl chloride,
hydrogen sulfide, and visibility reducing particles.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), also known as the Sher Bill or Assembly Bill
(AB) 2595, was signed into law on September 30, 1988 and became effective on
January 1, 1989. It established a legal mandate to achieve health-based state air quality
standards at the earliest practicable date. The CCAA requires that districts implement
regulations to reduce emissions from mobile sources through the adoption and
enforcement of transportation control measures. The South Coast Air Basin is classified
as a nonattainment area for PM!0 and the western portion of the Basin is classified as a
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide. As a state extreme nonattainment area for
ozone, the South Coast Air Basin is subject to various requirements including (SCAQMD
2002):
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-9
-------
TABLE 3.2-2
DE MINIMIS EMISSION THRESHOLDS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
FOR GENERAL CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY
CO
voc
NOx
NO.
SO,
PM|o
Attainment status
Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Maintenance Attainment
(all NAAs)	(extreme)	(extreme)
Nonattainment
(serious)
63.5
70
De minimis emissions (metric tons/year)
De minimis emissions (tons/year)
90.7
100
9.1
10
9.1
10
90.7
100
NA
NA
CO = carbon monoxide
VOC = volatile organic compounds
NO, = nitrogen oxides
N02 = nitrogen dioxide
SO; = sulfur dioxide
PM|0 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
'Attainment status is for ozone; de minimis limits apply to precursor pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOJ.
NAA - nonattainment area.
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
•	A five percent annual reduction in hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen emissions
from 1987 until standards are attained. If this reduction cannot be obtained, all
feasible measures must be implemented.
•	An air quality permitting program requiring: (1) an indirect and area source control
program, (2) best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for existing sources,
(3)	a program to mitigate all emissions from new and modified sources,
(4)	assessment of relative upwind emissions contributions from new and modified
permitted sources, and (5) significant use of low-emission vehicles by fleet operators.
d. South Coast Air Quality Management District/Air Quality
Management Plan
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency that
regulates air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. In 1989, the SCAQMD and the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) established an Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). Every three years, the SCAQMD and SCAG prepare an
updated plan to address overall air quality improvement. Each iteration of the plan is an
update of the previous plan and includes a 20-year horizon. The original 1989 AQMP
was a three-tiered emissions control program addressing CCAA requirements. Tier I
measures used known, available control technologies. Tier II measures were based on
control technologies focusing around the year 2000. Tier ID measures required the
advancement of technologies after 2000. In July 1991, the SCAQMD and SCAG revised
the 1989 AQMP by adopting a 1991 AQMP which continued an aggressive emission
control program and proposed a comprehensive set of control measures that included the
use of advanced technologies for stationary and mobile sources. One of the most
significant advancements in the 1991 AQMP was the movement of the on-road mobile
source control strategy from Tier HI to Tier I through the state's adoption of the Low
Emissions Vehicle (LEV) program.
In order to satisfy the SIP requirements under Title I of the federal Clean Air Act and the
CCAA, the AQMP was revised again in 1994, 1997, and most recently in 2003 (the 1997
AQMP was amended in 1999). The AQMP revisions and amendments strive to set forth
the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality
standards. The SCAQMD has also established a set of rules and regulations that were
initially adopted in January 1976. The rules and regulations define requirements
regarding stationary sources of air pollutants and are periodically reviewed and updated.
These rules, including their adoption or amendment dates, are available for review on the
Agency's website (www.aqmd.gov).
The South Coast Air Quality Management District also establishes air emission
significance thresholds for evaluating projects occurring within the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB). The SCAQMD thresholds are shown in Table 3.2-3. Although the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 3-1 I
-------
TABLE 3.2-3
SCAQMD EMISSION SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Threshold Threshold
Pollutant (kg/day) (lbs/day)
ROC
24.9
55
NOx
24.9
55
CO
249.5
550
PM10
68.0
150
SOx
68.0
150
SOURCE- SCAQMD 1993
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
proposed action (the designation of an ODMDS) is outside of the jurisdiction of the
SCAQMD, the project air emission significance thresholds implemented by the
SCAQMD are used to provide a point of comparison for assessing the proposed action's
potential effect on the District's ability to achieve federal ambient air quality standards
resulting from future use of the disposal sites. Subsequent projects that would generate
material to be disposed of at an ODMDS would be subject to individual environmental
review and permitting as discussed above.
3.2.1.4 Current Air Quality
The air quality in the South Coast Air Basin generally is considered poor. Table 3.2-1
shows the federal and California ambient air quality standards. Air quality is commonly
expressed as the number of days in which air pollution levels exceed state standards set
by the CARB or federal standards set by the EPA. The SCAQMD maintains a number of
air quality monitoring stations located throughout the SCAB. Figure 3.2-1 shows the air
monitoring stations that were active in 2003. Air pollutant concentrations and
meteorological information are continuously recorded at these stations. The
measurements are then used by scientists to help forecast daily air pollution levels as well
as to provide data for assessing the attainment status of the basin.
Table 3.2-4 summarizes the number of days per year during which state and federal
standards were exceeded in the SCAB overall during the years 1999 to 2003 for ozone,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PMio (the only criteria pollutants for which data
is reported). The SCAB is the only extreme federal nonattainment area for the one-hour
ozone standard in the country. The SCAB is also designated nonattainment for carbon
monoxide, PM|0, and the eight-hour ozone standard. Table 3.2-5 provides the 2003 area
designations for the SCAB.
As seen from Figure 3.2-1, the coastal air monitoring stations closest to the LA-2 and
LA-3 areas are the North Long Beach, Costa Mesa - Mesa Verde Drive, and Mission
Viejo - 26081 Via Pera monitoring stations. Not all stations monitor for all criteria
pollutants. Tables 3.2-6 through 3.2-8 provide the monitoring data for those criteria
pollutants monitored at each site for the years 1999 through 2003 for these three
monitoring stations, respectively. Comparison of the data in these tables with that in
Table 3.2-4 indicates that the air quality at these locations near the coast is generally
much better than that found throughout the basin overall.
3.2.2 Physical Oceanography [40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)]
The study area is located in the southern California bight (SCB), the body of water
between Point Conception and the U.S./Mexico international border. Within the SCB is a
unique basin-and-range submarine topography, featuring 32 submarine canyons (13 of
which are relatively large and named) and 7 islands.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-13
-------
Santa Clarita
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
—
¦¦ :
I
i
:
1
:
J
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
» I
Reseda
®Burbank-W Palm Avenue
Pasadena-S Wilson Avenue •
Azusa • Glendora-Laafel
! - '
j ¦-.*	¦
j K \
Crestline
Big Bear City-501 W. Valley Bl
West Lost Angeles-VA Hospital

w
\?
Los Angeles-North Main Street
* Pico Rivera
Hawthorne Lynwood
m
i
r *
/
Ujjtbnd #	0	9 San Bernardino-4th Street
# Pomona Fontana-Arrow Highway
/	""v1®	®
• Ontario-1^08 Francis Street	Redlands-Dearborn
/		-J	^Riverside-Rubidoux
	2
*La Habra	N
Anaheim-Loara School
^	Riverside-Magnolia
_ Norco-Norconian
Banning Airport
Pacific
Ocean
^ Los Angeles
Harbor Huntington ,
Harbor
O
LA-2
San Pedro Channel
NlSrth Long Beach * Anaheim-Harbor Blvd
ORANGE COUNTY
V v
v,
Santa Catalina
Island
\
o
Proposed
LA-3
SOURCE: MMS 2004b
Perris
JIIVERSIDE COUNTY
® /
Costa Mesa-Mesa Verde Drive
Newport
Harbor	'<
v.
Lake Elsinore-W Flint Street

N
A
SAN DIEGO COUNTY 0 Kilometers 20
® APCD Monitoring Stations
2003 AIR MONITORING STATIONS
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
M:\jobs2\3646\env\env.apr\fig3.2-1 08/06/04
Figure 3.2-1
-------
TABLE 3.2-4
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY - SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Pollutant
Average
Time
California
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards'1
Attainment
Status
National
Ambient
Air Quality
Standards6
Attainment
Status'

Maximum Concentration0

Number of Days Exceeding State Standard
or Annual A\erage Concentration11
Number of Days Exceeding National Standard
Of Annual Average Concentration11
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1999
2000
2001
2002 2003
O,
1 hour
0 09 ppm
N
0.12 ppm
N
0.17
0.18
0.19
0 17
0 19
111
1 15
121
1 16
125
39
33
36
45 64
O,
8 hours
N/A
N/A
0 08 ppm
N
0 14
0.15
0.14
0 14
0.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
93
94
92
96 109
CO
8 hours
9 0 ppm
N: A"
9 ppm
N
11.2
10.1
7.6
10 1
7.3
1 1
6
0
1
0
7
3
0
1 0
NO,
1 hour
0.25 ppm
A
N/A
N/A
.307
214
.251
.262
158
1
0
0
1
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
NO'
Annual
N/A
N/A
0.053 ppm
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.034
.031
.030
029 Na
PM,o
24 liouis
50 Mg/ni'*
N
150 (ig/niJ
N
183
139
219
130
164
26H
248''
240*
251'
Na
61
01
5*
0J Na
PMio
Annual
30 Hg/ni'
N
50 tig/m1
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
72 2
60.1
62 9
58.4
Na
72 2
59 1
63.3
58 1 Na
that ire hi-c.l upon I -
dining the inosi ie<.ent
SOURCE: State of California 2004
ppm-parts per million, (.ig/nr'-nucrograms per cubic meter
"California standards for ozone, caibon monoxide (except at Lake Tahoe). nitrogen dioxide. and rM|0 arc values that arc not to be exceeded Some measurements gathcicd for pollutants u'ith air quality standatd?
hour. 8-hour, or 24-hour averages, may be excluded if the CARB determines they would occur less than once per year on average
hNauonal siaudaids oilier than foi ozone and pauieulaies;. and diose based on annual aveiages: or annual aiiihineiic means aie 1101 to be exceeded inuie ilian once a yeai The 1-lioui ozone siandaid is attained if.
3-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one.
cA-attainment: N-non-attainment. N/A-not applicable
dN/A - not applicable. Na - data not available
^Calculated days - Calculated days aic the estimated nuinbei of days that a measuicnicut would have been greater than the lc\cl of the standard had measurements been collected c\cry day. The number of days above the standard is
not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year
* *LA County is non-attainment for carbon monoxide, the rest of (he SCAB is attainment for carbon monoxide.
-------
TABLE 3.2-5
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN AREA DESIGNATIONS
Pollutant
Federal Status
State Status
I-hour Ozone
8-hour Ozone
Carbon Monoxide
N [extreme] (1)
N [severe 17]
N
N
NT [SCAB portion of LA Co.]
A [remainder of SCAB]
Nitrogen Dioxide
U/A
A
Sulfur Dioxide
A (I)
A
PM,o
N [serious]
N
PM2.5
TBD
N (1)
Lead
A
A
Sulfates

A
Vinyl Chloride
—
(2)
Hydrogen Sulfide

U
Visibility Reducing Particles

u
SOURCE: State of California 2004b: SCAQMD 2003.
Particulate matter 10 micron or less in diameter
Particulate matter 2.5 micron or less in diameter
Attainment
Nonattainment
Nonattainment-Transitional
South Coast Air Basin
To be determined
Unclassified
(1)	South Coast Air Basin portion of Los Angeles County includes San Clemente and Santa Catalina Lslands.
(2)	Vinyl Chloride is regulated as a toxic air contaminant
PM10:
PM2<:
A:
N:
NT
SCAB-
TBD:
U.
-------
TABLE 3.2-6
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS RECORDED
AT THE NORTH LONG BEACH MONITORING STATION
Pollutant/Standard
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Ozone





Days State 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.09 ppm)
3
3
0
0
1
Days Federal 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.12 ppm)
1
0
0
0
0
Max. l-hr(ppm)
0.131
0.118
0.091
0.084
0.099
Days Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.08 ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
Max. 8-hr (ppm)
0.081
0.081
0.070
0.064
0.068
Carbon Monoxide





Days State 8-hour Standard Exceeded (9.0 ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
Days Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (9 ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
Max. 8-hr (ppm)
5.49
5.73
4.74
4.56
4.66
Nitrogen Dioxide





Days State 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.25 ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
Max. l-hr(ppm)
0.151
0.140
0.122
0.130
0.135
Federal Annual Average (0.053 ppm)
0.034
0.032
0.030
0.029
0.029
Sulfur Dioxide





Annual arithmetic mean (0.03 ppm. 80 Hg/m3)
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
State 24-hour standard (0.04 ppm, 105 (ig/m3)
0
0
0
0
0
Federal 24-hour standard (0.14 ppm. 365 Hg/nv3)
0
0
0
0
0
PM|o





Days State 24-hour Standard Exceeded (50 |ig/m3)*
79.8
Na
61.7
32.6
Na
Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (150 ng/nr3)"
0
0
0
0
0
Max. Daily (|ig/m3)
79.0
105.0
91.0
74.0
63.0
State Annual Average ((.ig/m3)
38.8
Na
37.4
36.0
Na
Federal Annual Average (lag/nr )
38.8
37.7
37.2
36.0
Na
PM:s





Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (65 Hg/nv3)
1
4
1
0
0
Max. Daily (fig/m3)
66.9
81.5
72.9
62.7
46.5
Annual Average (|.ig/nr3)
20.7
19.6
21.2
19.5
Na
SOURCE State of California 2004a.
Calculated days - Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been greater than the level of the
standard had measurements been collected every day (measurements are usually collected every six days) The number of days
above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year.
Na - data not a%'ailable
-------
TABLE 3.2-7
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS RECORDED
AT THE COSTA MESA - MESA VERDE DRIVE MONITORING STATION
Pollutant/Standard
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Ozone





Days State 1 -hour Standard Exceeded (0.09 ppm)
1
1
1
0
4
Days Federal 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.12 ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
Max. l-hr(ppm)
0.098
0.102
0.098
0.087
0.107
Days Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.08 ppm)
0
1
0
0
1
Max. 8-hr (ppm)
0.075
0.086
0.073
0.070
0.088
Carbon Monoxide





Days State 8-hour Standard Exceeded (9.0 ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
Days Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (9 ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
Max. 8-hr (ppm)
6.41
6.29
4.64
4.29
5.90
Nitrogen Dioxide





Days State 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.25 ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
Max. 1-hr (ppm)
0.123
0.107
0.082
0.106
0.107
Federal Annual Average (0.053 ppm)
0.020
0.020
0.017
0.018
0.018
Sulfur Dioxide





Annual arithmetic mean (0.03 ppm, 80 ng/m3)
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
State 24-hour standard (0.04 ppm, 105 (ig/m3)
0
0
0
0
0
Federal 24-hour standard (0.14 ppm, 365 jug/m1)
0
0
0
.0
0
SOURCE: State of California 2004a.
-------
TABLE 3.2-8
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS RECORDED
AT THE MISSION VIEJO - 26081 VIA PERA MONITORING STATION
Pollutant/Standard
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Ozone





Days State 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.09 ppm)
NA
5
10
9
16
Days Federal 1-hour Standard Exceeded (0.12 ppm)
NA
0
1
2
4
Max. l-hr(ppm)
NA
0.119
0.125
0.136
0.153
Days Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (0.08 ppm)
NA
2
2
1
8
Max. 8-hr (ppm)
NA
0.087
0.097
0.093
0.105
Carbon Monoxide





Days State 8-hour Standard Exceeded (9.0 ppm)
NA
0
0
0
0
Days Federal 8-hour Standard Exceeded (9 ppm)
NA
0
0
0
0
Max. 8-hr (ppm)
NA
3.13
2.36
1.88
1.64
PMi0





Days State 24-hour Standard Exceeded (50 |ig/m3)
Na
12.3
18.1
31.1
Na
Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (150 ng/m3)*
0
0
0
0
0
Max. Daily (ng/nr)
56.0
98.0
60.0
80.0
53.0
State Annual Average (|ig/m3)
Na
27.8
26.4
31.3
Na
Federal Annual Average ((.tg/m3)
Na
27.7
26.5
30.9
Na
pm25





Days Federal 24-hour Standard Exceeded (65 |ig/m3)
0
1
0
0
0
Max. Daily (|ag/m3)
56.6
94.7
53.4
58.5
37.6
Annual Average (|ag/m3)
Na
14.7
15.8
15.5
Na
SOURCE: Stale of California 2004a
* Calculated days - Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been greater than the level of
the standard had measurements been collected every day (measurements are usually collected every six days). The number of days
above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year.
NA - data not collected in 1999.
Na - data not available
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
3.2.2.1	Bathymetry
Bathymetric surveys at LA-2 and LA-3 were conducted in March 1998 using a high-
resolution multibeam mapping system (Gardner et al. 1998a, 1998b). These surveys
allowed the accurate determination of areawide bathymetry and the estimation of the area
and volume of allochthonous (foreign material) marine disposal mounds (MDMs),
indicative of past disposal activities at each of the sites.
a.	LA-3
The proposed LA-3 ODMDS is located on the continental slope south of Newport
Harbor. The study area is bounded on the north by the 33°33'00" N latitude, on the south
by the 33°31'00" N latitude, on the east by the easternmost canyon of the Newport
Canyon system, and on the west by one of the main canyons of the Newport Canyon
system (Gardner et al. 1998b; refer to Figure 1.1-2 for the location of the proposed LA-3
site). The proposed site is situated over a relatively smooth continental slope incised by
several canyons, where the regional slope gradient is approximately two to three degrees.
Water depth at the proposed LA-3 ODMDS ranges from approximately 460 to 510 m
(1,500 to 1,675 ft), with the site centered at approximately 490 m (1,600 ft).
b.	LA-2
The LA-2 ODMDS is located on the outer continental shelf, margin, and upper southern
wall of the San Pedro Sea Valley, southwest of Long Beach, California. The region is
bounded to the north by the 33°41'00" N latitude, on the south by the San Pedro Basin, on
the east by the broad San Pedro Shelf, and on the west by the 118°25'00" W latitude
(Gardner et al. 1998a; refer to Figure 1.1-3 for the location of the LA-2 site). The site is
situated over the shelf, slope, and deeply incised sea valley in approximately 110 to 340
m (360 to 1,115 ft) of water. At a depth of about 125 m (410 ft), the shelf is relatively flat
with a regional slope of about 0.8°. However, the slope drops from the shelf at about 7°,
and the steep southern wall of the San Pedro Sea Valley drops with slopes greater than
9°. The slope is cut by several channels incised from 4 to 24 m (13.1 to 78.7 ft) deep and
up to 100 m (328 ft) wide (Gardner 1998a).
3.2.2.2	Waves
The wave climate in the SCB consists of swell generated from distant areas and locally
generated seas. To some degree, nearly the entire southern California coast is protected
from swell generated from outside the coastal area by the Channel Islands. Off Los
Angeles and Orange Counties, the shadowing effect from Santa Catalina Island is quite
dramatic. For example, spectral amplitudes measured at Sunset Beach, California, can be
one order of magnitude smaller than those measured at Begg Rock off San Nicolas Island
(Hickey 1993). Significant waves over the shelf are primarily locally derived, with the
restricted fetches allowing only the development of short period waves (State Water
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-20
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Quality Control Board [SWQCB] 1965). It is only when gale winds (greater than about
63 km/hr [34 kn]) blow from the west that high waves are formed in the local region over
the shelf. Waves as high as 7.6 m (24.9 ft) have been recorded in the San Pedro Channel
(SWQCB 1965).
Recent data from Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP) Dana Point Buoy 096 (see
Figure 3.2-2), located approximately 13.3 km (7.2 nmi) east-southeast of the proposed
LA-3 site, and from CDIP San Pedro Buoy 092 (Figure 3.2-2), located approximately 2.5
km (1.3 nmi) west of the LA-2 site, indicate two slightly different wave climates at the
two sites. Off Dana Point, most waves are from the west (260 to 280°) and south (180 to
200°), while further north off San Pedro, most waves arrive from the west (CDIP 2002).
This illustrates the shadowing effect of Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands from
southerly waves near LA-2. Also, it is not uncommon for wave trains from different
directions to arrive simultaneously off southern California. From mid-July 2000 through
mid-March 2002, the dominant wave period at Dana Point was 12 to 16 seconds,
indicative of more distant swell. At San Pedro from January 2000 to January 2002,
however, wave period was between 5 to 9 seconds, indicative of locally derived wind
waves. Significant wave height (Hs) at Dana Point was less than 1.0 m (3.3 ft) 72 percent
of the time, while at San Pedro Hs was less than 1.0 m (3.3 ft) 79 percent of the time. At
both locations, maximum Hs never exceeded 3.0 m (9.8 ft).
Internal waves are gravity waves moving through the density structure of the ocean.
Compared with surface waves, however, internal waves are relatively slow, moving at
only a few knots at most (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
[SCCWRP] 1973). Similar to surface waves, they exhibit the same orbital motion and
likely break when they enter shallow water. Internal waves are associated with short-
period fluctuations in current speed and direction, especially in regions with high
bathymetric relief.
3.2.2.3 Tides
Astronomical tides in southern California are classified as mixed, semi-diurnal, with two
unequal high tides (high water and higher high water) and two unequal low tides (low
water and lower low water) each lunar day (approximately 24.5 hr).
Water level extremes in Los Angeles Outer Harbor from 1997 to 2002 have ranged from
-0.60 m (1.97 ft) to +2.35 m (7.71 ft) above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), a
difference of 2.95 m (9.68 ft). Analysis of water level data since 1923 indicates that off
Los Angeles, mean sea level (MSL) is increasing at a rate of 0.84 millimeter (mm; 0.033
inches) per year (NOS 2002). Water level extremes from 1997 to 2002 have ranged from
-0.52 m (1.71 ft) to +2.41 m (7.91 ft) above MLLW at La Jolla. Analysis of water level
data since 1924 reveals mean sea level is increasing at a rate 2.22 mm (0.087 inches) per
year (NOS 2002).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-21
-------
J
\
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
r
/

l.'jtt V-lfc

Sj$$i
^ Los Angeles
if
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
J^i Harbor
Pacific
Ocean

*
Huntington
Harbor \
\
\
Lr'7-
ORANGE COUNTY

BUOY 092# Q LA-2



" '	
Harbor S
"
V
(^) Proposed LA-3 \
\
San Pec/ro Channel
V«"V

£~
V
V-
<
X A->
(
f
\
i . «
/
\
Santa Catalina
Island
BUOY 096 (

SAN DIEGO
\ / COUNTY
\
13

V 		 	 	



	
0 Kilometers 10
	
# Buoys
LOCATIONS OF BUOYS 092 AND 096
M:\jobs2\3646\env\env.aprifig3.2-2 08/06/04
Figure 3.2-2
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
3.2.2.4 Currents
Water in the northern Pacific Ocean is driven eastward by prevailing westerly winds until
it impinges on the western coast of North America, where it divides to flow both north
and south. The southern component is the California Current, a diffuse and meandering
water mass that generally flows to the southeast at a maximum speed of about 10 to 15
centimeters per second (cm/sec; 0.19 to 0.29 kn) (Dailey et al. 1993). Most of the
equatorward (toward the equator) transport of the California Current occurs 200 to 500
km (108 to 270 nmi) from shore, with maximum speeds occurring about 300 km (162
nmi) offshore. South of Point Conception the California Current diverges and the
offshore component continues to flow southeast while another component flows
shoreward (toward the coast) and upcoast (parallel to shore and northerly), resulting in a
counterclockwise, nearshore gyre known as the Southern California Countercurrent
(Jones 1969). During spring, however, the countercurrent can be altered such that flow
enters the southern California bight, but transport is equatorward rather than poleward
(toward the north pole) (Figure 3.2-3).
Shoreward of and below the California Current is the poleward-flowing California
Undercurrent, the flow of which is concentrated over the continental slope (Dailey et al.
1993). In the SCB, the California Undercurrent flows nearshore over the continental
slope rather than offshore, spatially separating it from the California Current. The
Undercurrent is comparatively narrow, with the high-speed core centered over the
continental slope (Dailey et al. 1993). The California Current, Countercurrent, and
Undercurrent all have seasonal speed maxima in late summer.
Upwelling usually occurs when nearshore, equatorward winds drive warmer surface
waters offshore and they are replaced by deeper, colder water. (Upwelling may also be
induced by tidal currents in areas with irregular sea floor topography.) These colder
bottom waters generally have a higher nutrient concentration. In the SCB, dramatic
upwelling events occur in winter and early spring (Dailey et al. 1993), though the most
intense events usually occur in April, May, and June (SCCWRP 1973).
Site-specific current patterns in southern California have been studied by numerous
agencies. Currents off Newport Beach have been evaluated from moored current meter
data from the SCCWRP and the OCSD, and from wastewater plume-tracking studies
initiated by the OCSD. Currents off Palos Verdes have been evaluated from moored
current meter data from the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
(SCCWRP) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
a. LA-3
Shelf Currents. Current studies have concluded that the net flow off Newport Beach is
upcoast, though there can be strong fluctuations on a variety of time scales (County
Sanitation District of Orange County [CSDOC, now OCSD] 1988; Hendricks 1992;
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-23
-------
's
¦-\ W i
-SAH LOIS OBIbHO
I
1 rami conceptiom
\ \\ i\ ;C/\
\ \ '|1 / \ r	v
ML -,N^^XV-^
%
•t

f-\
5 A N t A MONICA
\	ORANGE COUNTY
^ 'V /
V?
¦<% v\\ ,V-' \
% \ \
V
, V" \ c4W \ \ I!
Sam oirso
u V __
me XI CO
\
*
*Q
£ MST M A DA
V
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Environmental Quality Analysis lnc.&
Marine Biological Consultants, 1973
COMPONENTS OF MEAN SURFACE CIRCULATION
M \JOBS2\3S46\env\graphics\fig3 2-3 ai 08/06/04
Figure 3.2-3
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
SAIC 2001). CSDOC (1988) determined surface to mid-depth currents over the shelf
near the OCSD outfall (located a depth of about 60 m [197 ft]) were relatively weak (less
than 5 cm/sec [0.1 kn]) and were almost always directed upcoast (poleward), while
deeper currents at about 75 m (246 ft) depth were stronger, yet still less than 10 cm/sec
(0.19 kn). Shallow currents reversed on occasion to downcoast (equatorward and
southerly) flow, with the strongest reversals in summer and spring. Peak current velocity
was 62 cm/sec (1.2 kn), but long-term mean currents were 10 to 15 cm/sec (0.19 to 0.29
kn). Near-bottom flow was primarily aligned with bottom contours.
Hendricks (1992) determined the direction of net flow near the OCSD's 8-km (4.3-nmi)
ocean outfall varied with depth, and current speeds between 11 and 54 m (36 and 177 ft)
depth ranged roughly between 0 and 51 cm/sec (0 to 1 kn). Current speeds exceeded 9 to
11 cm/sec (0.17 to 0.21 kn) only about 50 percent of the time. At 11 m (36 ft) deep,
annual net flow was downcoast at 2.1 cm/sec (0.04 kn). Below the seasonal thermocline
at 36 m (118 ft) depth, net flow was upcoast at 4.4 cm/sec (0.09 kn). Just above bottom at
55 m (180 ft) depth net flow was upcoast and offshore at 2.8 cm/sec (0.05 kn).
Superimposed on these net flows were strong fluctuations on a variety of time scales
(e.g., minutes, tidal periods, days, weeks, seasons, and years).
Longshore (along the shoreline) flow direction near the OCSD's 8-km (4.3-nmi) outfall
varied with depth; however, the most probable current direction was approximately
upcoast and downcoast, parallel to contours of constant depth (Hendricks 1992). At 11 m
(36 ft) deep the principal axis of flow for long-period fluctuations was 102 to 282°
Magnetic, while at 36 and 54 m (118 and 177 ft) depths it was 85 to 265° Magnetic.
Onshore (toward the shoreline) and offshore (away from the shoreline) flows occurred
only about one quarter as frequently as longshore movements. Downcoast flows occurred
about one third as frequently as upcoast flows. From early summer through early winter,
monthly net flows at 36 m (118 ft) were upcoast at their high velocities (up to 20 cm/sec
[0.39 kn]). In winter, however, water temperatures declined and transport weakened at 36
m (118 ft), while currents at 11 m (36 ft) were strong and downcoast.
SAIC (2001) also found predominant currents to be longshore, though upcoast currents
were more prevalent below about 25 m (82 ft) depth and downcoast currents prevailed
above 25 m (82 ft). Barotropic tidal currents (which are driven by pressure differentials)
in the region were relatively weak as compared to the background, lower frequency
fluctuations. Strong, periodic current fluctuations at exactly 24 hours (with a weaker but
probably linked response at 12 hours) in the study area likely resulted from the diurnal
sea-breeze system in the study area. Currents driven by local sea breezes forced a strong
sheared flow in the upper third of the water column over the outer shelf, with strongest
winds and strongest currents recorded in summer.
Newport Canyon Currents. CSDOC (1988) maintained a current meter mooring at the
head of Newport Canyon at a depth of about 65 m (213 ft) for approximately one year.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-25
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Mean current speed at that mooring never exceeded 2 cm/sec (0.04 kn), suggesting short
duration currents with no dominant direction. This could possibly result from circular
current motion over the canyon in response to topography; however, this could not be
verified. Surface currents were much stronger than bottom currents, and did not seem to
be affected by canyon topography. Rather, surface flow was alongshore. Deep currents
were much weaker than surface currents, and there was appreciable up- and down-canyon
flow at tidal periods. Overall, current flow in the canyon was about one tenth that over
the shelf.
Slope Currents. A current meter array was moored in the LA-3 study area in August
1988 and January 1989 (MITECH 1990). Flows were strongest near the surface (18 m
[59 ft] depth) in summer. At 18 m (59 ft), flow velocity was 3.5 to 69.8 cm/sec (0.07 to
1.36 kn) 80 percent of the time, and flow was predominantly downcoast. In winter,
however, 80 percent flow velocity at 18 m (59 ft) was between 5.5 and 14.3 cm/sec (0.11
and 0.28 kn), with net flow toward shore. At deeper depths (290 and 427 m [950 and
1,400 ft]), the 80 percent range current velocities in summer were between 1.9 and 8.4
cm/sec (0.04 and 0.16 kn), with net upcoast flow. In winter, 80 percent range current
velocities were between 2.6 and 7.2 cm/sec (0.05 and 0.14 kn), with upcoast flow at 290
m (950 ft) and upcoast/inshore flow at 427 m (1,400 ft).
b. LA-2
SAIC (1992) deployed three current meters in the vicinity of the LA-2 site in 1991.
Mooring A was deployed in 90 m (295 ft) of water just east of the LA-2 boundary,
Mooring B was deployed in 450 m (1,476 ft) of water just west of LA-2, and Mooring C
was deployed in 540 m (1,772 ft) of water north-northwest of LA-2 in the San Pedro Sea
Valley (Figure 3.2-4).
Shelf Currents. Surface currents over the outer shelf at Mooring A were directed
alongshore (within ±30°) 58 percent of the time, split almost equally between upcoast and
downcoast (SAIC 1992). The overall mean speed was about 15 cm/sec (0.29 kn). At mid-
depth, 54 percent of the current was directed north-northwest to east-northeast, with
average currents directed upcoast at 4.72 cm/sec (0.09 kn). There was also a weak
onshore flow at mid-depth (0.24 cm/sec [0.005 kn]). Near the bottom, current directions
were oriented approximately 30° clockwise from the alongshore alignment (30° to 180°
True) with the overall mean velocity downcoast at 0.4 cm/sec (0.008 kn) and offshore at
0.17 cm/sec (0.003 kn).
SCCWRP deployed a current meter in 53 m (175 ft) of water off Palos Verdes in 1987
(Hendricks 1987). This location is approximately 13 km (7 nmi) north-northwest of the
LA-2 site. Near-bottom currents at this mooring generally flowed upcoast and offshore
(Hendricks 1987). Average net near-bottom current speed in summer 1987 was 2.5
cm/sec (0.048 kn), with a net offshore component of 0.83 cm/sec (0.016 kn). Maximum
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 3-26
-------
Rancho Palos Verde
ss

A
V/ .S!/V:^ Long
S~
^'	j»»
Los Angeles
; / ;f
ssswLJ//
-J /
^, ~ Portuguese yy** .
Point Inspiration
Point




White
Point
Point
Fermin
\
M
II
ir
. -	Los Angeles
\ \/\% 1 Harbor
<\U1
x Aw
\Vj\v\ V?
i Lfl
-
Beach pr- -X ^
i,:k MiH v
v" x	'v,
/ V *. Long Beach	, — )
^ v, Midd,e H°rbor ( ^ < !_ L.. n \ I
• \\~* ; \
nc Artrtalae	™ /	"
San Pedro Channel
"""* Li.—

Mooring C
Mooring B®	• Mooring A
N
A
0 Kilometers 3
® Moorings
LOCATIONS OF MOORINGS A, B, AND C

A

I'.WJ

M:\jobs2\3646\env\env.apr\fig3.2-4 08/06/04
N/

l"t"l
Figure 3.2-4



-------
3.0 Affected Environment
current speed two meters above the bottom was 25 cm/sec (0.49 kn), but occurred only
0.1 percent of the time. While the overall distribution of near-bottom current speeds was
comparable to that observed near the OCSD outfall (see LA-3 currents), the offshore
component near the OCSD outfall was approximately 60 percent stronger (1.3 cm/sec
[0.025 kn]) than off Palos Verdes. Results from Hendricks (1987) agree with those of
Jones et al. (1990), who recorded nearshore currents over the Palos Verdes shelf to flow
predominantly alongshore. Near surface currents were also strongly sheared, possibly
indicative of wind forcing.
Average mid-water flow off Palos Verdes in summer 1987 was upcoast and onshore
(about 280° Magnetic) at 4.8 cm/sec (0.09 kn; Hendricks 1987). Near the bottom, net
current movement was upcoast and offshore (251° Magnetic) at 2.4 cm/sec (0.047 kn).
The net upshore movement recorded in 1987 was consistent with effluent distribution
from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' (LACOSAN) outfall and from
previous current measurements (Hendricks 1980). However, currents measured in spring-
summer 1981 displayed net downcoast or only weak upcoast movement (Hendricks
1987).
Slope Currents. Surface currents over the continental slope at Mooring B were directed
alongshore (within ±30°) 56 percent of the time (SAIC 1992). The strongest mean speed
of 20.4 cm/sec (0.40 kn) was recorded just clockwise from directly downcoast, with an
overall mean current velocity 14.5 cm/sec (0.28 kn). Average cross-isobath velocity was
0.98 cm/sec (0.019 kn), while the mean alongshore velocity was only 0.14 cm/sec (0.003
kn). Alongshore flow was divided almost equally between upcoast and downcoast
directions. Mid-depth currents differed from surface currents in both magnitude and
direction. The most common mid-depth current directions were centered on a line
approximately 30° clockwise to local isobaths, with currents most often directed toward
the San Pedro Sea Valley. Overall mean current velocity was 10 cm/sec (0.19 kn), lower
than the average surface velocity of 14.5 cm/sec (0.28 kn). Near-bottom currents were
directed toward the San Pedro Sea Valley or the downcoast slope 73 percent of the time.
Currents were relatively weak near the bottom, with a mean velocity of only 2.62 cm/sec
(0.05 kn).
At Mooring C, located in the San Pedro Sea Valley, current measurements were only
made at 400 and 530 m (1,312 and 1,739 ft; SAIC 1992). At 400 m (1,312 ft), mean
speed only ranged from 1.58 to 3.2 cm/sec (0.03 to 0.06 kn), with flows oriented ±30° of
upcoast and also downcoast at about 150°. Upcoast flows at 400 m (1,312 ft) paralleled
the north wall of the San Pedro Sea Valley; however, downcoast flows were not aligned
with the Valley wall or the San Pedro Channel axis. At 530 m (1,739 ft), flow direction
centered on 120° and 270°, which is similar to the orientation of the San Pedro Sea
Valley. Currents at that depth were relatively weak, with flow velocities of 5 cm/sec
(0.10 kn) or less 81 percent of the time. Overall mean current velocities were 2.54 cm/sec
(0.049 kn) at 400 m (1,312 ft) and 2.98 cm/sec (0.058 kn) at 530 m (1,739 ft).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-28
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Results of the SAIC mooring study indicated near-surface current flow was generally
±30° from the alongshore direction, parallel to regional isobaths (SAIC 1992). At mid-
depth, outer shelf currents were similar in direction and magnitude to near-surface
currents, while near-bottom currents were aligned more with local isobaths, and current
magnitudes decreased with depth (e.g. greatest mean velocities were almost always near
the water surface and lowest mean velocities were almost always near the seafloor). The
dominant tidal constituents were the primary contributors to high-frequency currents, and
the mechanism(s) driving the low-frequency currents are unknown, though wind-forcing
likely accounted for some portion of the flow in the upper water column.
3.2.3 Water Column Characteristics [40 CFR
228.6(a)(9)]
Water quality within the SCB has been studied for decades. Water quality parameters
such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and contaminants fluctuate in response
to both regional and local oceanography and climate, as well as to human-induced
influences. Nearshore waters in the SCB are more affected by anthropogenic effects,
while waters further from shore more closely resemble open ocean waters. Due to
circulation patterns within the SCB, water column parameters at the LA-2 and LA-3
disposal sites are affected by surface runoff, outflow from local bays and harbors, and
other regulated and unregulated discharges.
3.2.3.1 Water Column Characteristics LA-3
Water column data from the vicinity of LA-3 are presented in the following text. Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD, formerly CSDOC) has historically monitored the
marine environment inshore of the LA-3 disposal site, allowing analysis of water column
characteristics of the LA-3 area.
a. Temperature
Long-term water temperatures from monitoring in the area range from approximately 12-
24°C (54-75 °F) at the surface to 10-13°C (50-55 °F) at a depth of approximately 60 m
(197 ft; CSDOC 1996, 1998). In 1994, temperatures at depths of about 200 m (656 ft) in
the area approached 9°C (48 °F; SCCWRP 2002). Seasonal temperature structures in the
LA-3 area are typical of the SCB. In winter, the water column is unstratified or weakly
stratified, with temperature difference of less than 2°C (3.6 °F) between the surface and
60 m (197 ft) depth (MITECH 1990). In spring, seasonal upwelling leads to increasing
stratification of the water column, and a thermocline forms. Strong layering occurs in
summer, with a surface-mixing zone that ranges from 5 to 40 m (16.4 to 131 ft) deep, and
a temperature difference of up to 11°C (19.8 °F) in the upper 60 m (197 ft). In fall, the
thermocline diminishes, and is more evident in shallower water.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-29
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
b.	Salinity
Salinities over the Orange County Slope over a ten-year period ranged from 33-34 parts
per trillion (ppt) at the surface to 33.2-34 ppt to a depth of 100 m (328 ft; CSDOC 1996).
Salinity increased gradually with depth, with salinities of slightly more than 34 ppt found
at depths of about 200 m (656 ft) in 1994. Seasonal changes in surface salinity can be
pronounced, with salinity reductions of up to 4 to 5 ppt noted in the upper 10 m (32.8 ft)
of the water column due to freshwater runoff during winter (CSDOC 1996). Evaporation
can cause slight salinity increases in surface waters, but below the thermocline, water
column salinities remain stable.
c.	Density
Water temperature is the major factor influencing density stratification in southern
California since salinity is relatively uniform. The result is layering of water of different
densities, each with unique characteristics. Density gradients in the area of LA-3 are most
pronounced in spring through fall, when thermoclines are present and may extend down
to a depth of 40 m (131 ft; CSDOC 1996).
d.	Dissolved Oxygen
Seasonal patterns of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the LA-3 area are typical
of the SCB. Generally, higher concentrations are found in surface waters due to
atmospheric mixing, with a decrease in DO concentrations with depth (CSDOC 1996,
1998). During winter, the DO reduction with depth is gradual, with typical reductions of
about 2 mg/1 between the surface and 60 m (197 ft; CSDOC 1998). Lowest
concentrations in the area tend to occur at depth in spring, when colder, oxygen-depleted
water is upwelled into the area (SCCWRP 1983). Developing in spring, and most evident
during the summer, DO levels are characterized by a subsurface DO maximum near the
bottom of the surface-mixed layer, usually in the upper 10 to 40 m (32.8 to 131 ft), a
rapid decline through the thermocline, then a more gradual reduction with depth below
the thermocline. In fall, as water column stratification decreases, differences in DO
concentrations throughout the water column are reduced and the DO maximum may be
found slightly deeper than in summer. The long-term range of DO concentrations in the
LA-3 area is approximately 6-11 mg/1 at the surface and 3-7 mg/l at a depth of 90 m (295
ft; CSDOC 1996).
e.	Hydrogen Ion Concentration
Hydrogen ion concentrations tend to be related to depth in the water column, with pH
levels generally decreasing with depth. Subsurface maxima, related to atmospheric and
biological processes, are most evident in summer. Measurements of pH in the area range
from about 7.7-8.7 in surface waters to 7.5-8.4 at a depth of 60 m (197 ft; CSDOC 1996).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 3-30
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
f.	Transparency
Natural patterns of reduced water transparency in the area are caused by surface runoff
and sediment loading during the winter, plankton and suspended particles in spring and
summer, and sediment resuspension near the bottom (CSDOC 1996, 1998).
Anthropogenic sources such as wastewater and industrial discharges and turbidity plumes
from disposal activities may also temporarily reduce local water transparency. Water
transparency can change rapidly, with most reductions caused by short-term events.
Typical transmissivity in the area is in the upper 80 percent range (CSDOC 1998).
g.	Nutrients
Ammonia-nitrogen, an effective indicator of a wastewater discharge plume, is routinely
monitored inshore of the LA-3 area. Levels of ammonia in the LA-3 area are expected to
be low or undetected. Other nutrients are not commonly monitored in the area.
h.	Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon (oil and grease) concentrations in the water column inshore of the LA-3
area have been found to be consistently low, with a typical range of 0.4-0.6 parts per
billion (ppb; CSDOC 1996, 1998).
3.2.3.2 Water Column Characteristics LA-2
Water column data from the vicinity of LA-2 are presented in the following text. Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) has historically monitored the marine
environment inshore of the LA-2 disposal site, allowing analysis of water column
characteristics of LA-2 area.
a. Temperature
Seasonality in the area of LA-2 is similar to that throughout the SCB, with temperature
structures changing throughout the year. Water quality results from the LACSD
monitoring inshore and upcoast of LA-2 showed limited vertical temperature
stratification in February 2000 with a temperature difference of about 3°C (5.4 °F) from
the surface to 100 m (328 ft; LACSD 2000). During winter, limited stratification or
isothermal conditions are typical in the area. In May 2000, upwelling processes brought
cold water closer to the surface and further inshore than during other times of the year. At
the same time, surface waters became warmer, forming a shallow thermocline (LACSD
2000). By August, a strong thermocline had formed in the area, with temperatures mostly
above 18°C (64 °F) in the upper 10 to 20 m (32.8 to 65.6 ft) of the water column, and
peak surface temperatures over 21°C (70 °F). In November, a strong thermocline was still
present. Surface water temperatures were lower than their summer highs, but the depth of
the thermocline had increased, suggesting that heat energy was stored deeper in the water
column. The temperature structures observed in 2000 were similar to long-term seasonal
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-31
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
stratification patterns of the outer portion of the Palos Verdes shelf (SAIC 1992). Similar
water column characteristics are found at and near LA-2 (IEC 1982; Tetra Tech and
MBC 1985; MBC 1986a, 1986b; SCCWRP 2002). Water temperatures recorded at LA-2
during current meter studies in 1991-1992 were considered non-representative of the
area; near-surface cooling events in summer 1992 were atypical based on comparison
with other long-term data (SAIC 1992). However, monthly mean temperatures ranged
between 11°C and 17°C (52 and 63 °F) at 20 m (65.6 ft) depth, between 9°C and 11°C
(48 and 52 °F) at 150 m (492 ft) depth, and between 7°C and 8°C (45 and 46 °F) at 400 m
(1,312 ft) depth.
b.	Salinity
Salinity in the LA-2 area is relatively stable, with a range between 31.5 and 34.7 ppt
among seasons and throughout the water column. Reduced surface salinities in the area
are attributable to freshwater runoff from the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor complex
and the San Gabriel River (LACSD 2000). This feature is apparent inshore of LA-2
throughout the year, but most notable in the winter months. Highest salinities are found at
depth in spring, when seasonal upwelling brings deeper water onto the Palos Verdes
shelf. During the summer and fall, evaporation tends to increase the salinity of the
surface waters in the area of LA-2, leading to salinity minimums below the thermocline.
c.	Density
Water temperature is the major factor influencing density stratification in southern
California since salinity is relatively uniform. Highest densities in the area are found
when upwelling brings cold saline water onto the shelf (LACSD 2000). Density gradients
in the area of LA-2 were most pronounced when thermoclines were present (SCCWRP
2002).
d.	Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen distributions in the area are primarily determined by vertical
stratification (LACSD 2000). Water in the upper 30 m (98 ft) of the water column tends
to be at or close to saturation year-round, with values as high as 12.3 mg/1 recorded.
Dissolved oxygen levels tend to be lowest below 30 m (98 ft) when upwelling brings
oxygen-depleted deep water up onto the shelf. At 100 m (328 ft) depth, DO levels are
about one-half that of surface waters. Dissolved oxygen concentrations as low as 1.5 mg/1
have been found near LA-2 at a depth of 380 m (1,247 ft; IEC 1982).
e.	Hydrogen Ion Concentration
Hydrogen ion concentrations tend to be related to depth in the water column, with pH
levels generally decreasing with depth. Measurements of pH in the area range from about
8.4 in surface waters to 7.7 at a depth of 380 m (1,247 ft).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-32
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
f.	Transparency
In 2000, the majority of deep and offshore water throughout the southern California
coastal region was very clear, with high levels of light transmittance (LACSD 2000).
Similarly high values have been found in the LA-2 area. Inshore of LA-2, areas of
increased surface turbidity have been associated with the harbor complex, and stormwater
run-off. Other sources of turbidity in the area include resuspension of bottom sediments,
surface and mid-water phytoplankton blooms, and turbidity plumes from disposal
activities. These sources tend to be short-term events, and local water transparency can
change rapidly.
g.	Nutrients
Ammonia-nitrogen, an effective indicator of a wastewater plume, is routinely monitored
in the LA-2 area. In 2000, levels of ammonia inshore of LA-2 were low, usually below
the detection limit of 20 |xg/l, and even when detected were well below receiving water
objective limits (LACSD 2000). Other nutrients are not commonly monitored in the area.
h.	Metals
Mercury, cadmium, and lead concentrations measured in April 1980, mid-depth at a
station within the LA-2 boundary and at a reference station north of LA-2 were similar to
levels found elsewhere in the SCB (EEC 1982; Chan 1974). Between August 1983 and
May 1984, four stations (two inside the LA-2 boundary and two at a reference site south
east of LA-2) were sampled four times to determine the levels of seven trace metals. All
metals were undetected in the water column (Tetra Tech and MBC 1985). Monitoring at
the THUMS drilling mud disposal site, 14.3 km (7.7 nmi) west of LA-2, in 1985 and
1986 found that trace metal concentrations in the water column were generally below
detection limits, or, when detected, not significantly elevated above background levels
(EPA 1988).
i.	Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon (oil and grease) concentrations in the water column near LA-2 have been
found to be consistently below the detection limit of 0.1 mg/1 (Tetra Tech and MBC
1985; MBC 1986b; EPA 1988).
3.2.4 Regional Geology
The mainland shore of southern California is bordered by a narrow continental shelf,
followed by a narrow slope region (SCCWRP 1973). Beyond this is a wide, complex
series of basins, troughs, and ridges that form the offshore islands. Both LA-2 and LA-3
are in the submerged northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geologic province,
which consists of north west-trending faults and ridges (CSLC 1982). This Peninsular
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-33
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Ranges province extends from the Los Angeles Basin southeastward to the Mexican
border, and beyond into Baja California (Dennis 1974). The islands of Santa Barbara,
Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente are included in this province.
3.2.4.1	Topography
Both the LA-2 and LA-3 study areas are located on the San Pedro Shelf, which is
characterized by fairly flat, featureless topography out to a water depth of about 60 m
(197 ft). Two prominent features offshore of Orange County are the Newport and San
Gabriel submarine canyons, which incise the shelf and terminate in relatively shallow
water. The LA-3 study area is situated over the slope of Newport Canyon. The Newport-
Inglewood fault, located in the vicinity of the LA-3 site, is a narrow zone of deformation
characterized by a northwest-trending chain of low hills and fault scarps (Dennis 1974).
The fault extends over 60 km (32.4 nmi) from just offshore Dana Point northwesterly
through Newport Beach to just north of Culver City in Los Angeles County (CSDOC and
EPA 1977).
3.2.4.2	Sediment Transport
Sediments can be transported by a variety of pathways, including (1) over the seawater
by the wind, (2) on top of the seawater, usually in a freshwater lens as an "epithalassis"
after rainfall, (3) through the seawater by currents, and (4) at the seafloor by turbidity
currents (Emery 1960; Gorsline et al. 1984). The following discussion of sediment
transport is limited to movement by currents through seawater and by turbidity currents.
a.	LA-3
Off Seal Beach, to the northwest of LA-3, it has been determined that appreciable
amounts of sediments are transported across the shelf to the basin beyond (Dailey et al.
1974). At Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, the Santa Ana River contributes a large
supply of suspended silt to the nearshore waters, with most of the material restricted to
within a few kilometers (miles) from shore and traveling longshoreward (Dailey et al.
1974). Sands are deposited directly off the river mouth, whereas finer sediments are
transported by southeasterly currents toward the head of Newport Canyon (SAIC 2000).
Most of the suspended material brought to the seafloor arrives by gravity-driven turbidity
flow. Within Newport Canyon, frequency and magnitude of sediment movement is
hypothesized to be minimal (SAIC 2000).
b.	LA-2
Current measurements off Palos Verdes in 60 m (197 ft) of water indicate that if
sediments are in suspension for one-half day or longer, they are likely to be carried
offshore of the shelf and into deeper water (Hendricks 1987). Sedimentary and
physiographic evidence indicates turbidity current deposits occur in all basins off the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-34
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
southern California coast, but this process is far more important in the nearshore Santa
Monica and San Pedro Basins, and in the San Diego Trough, than elsewhere (Gorsline
and Emery 1959; Emery 1960). Rice et al. (1976) hypothesized that longshore drift off
Palos Verdes may eddy north in some areas, potentially halting southerly drift near
barriers. Reported sediment accumulation rates on the Palos Verdes Shelf range from
0.03 to 4.9 cm/yr (0.01 to 1.93 inches/yr; LACSD 1981).
3.2.5 Sediment Characteristics
Sediment characteristics examined for this ODMDS designation include mineralogy,
grain size, organic content, and sediment concentrations of metals, hydrocarbons, and
other constituents. In general, sediments in the SCB are increasingly finer with increasing
water depth, and the distribution of contaminants is often related to the proportion of
fine-grained material in the sediments.
Sediments were collected from the LA-2 and LA-3 study areas in summer 2000 for
analysis of sediment characteristics (Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-6) (Chambers Group 2001).
The sampling program at LA-3 targeted four specific strata to determine possible spatial
differences in sediment characteristics; the four strata were (1) within the interim LA-3
site boundary [sampling locations identified as "S" in the sampling reports and on Figure
3.2-5], (2) areas of historical dredged material disposal outside the current site boundary
[sampling locations identified as "HD" in the sampling reports and on Figure 3.2-5], (3)
areas outside the site boundary where dredged material had been disposed of recently
(from the 1999 Newport Bay dredging project [sampling locations identified as "RD" in
the sampling reports and "D" on Figure 3.2-5]), and (4) a reference area unaffected by
disposal activities located approximately 2 to 3 km (1.1 to 1.6 nmi) east and east-
southeast of the interim site [sampling locations identified as "R" in the sampling reports
and on Figure 3.2-5].
The sampling program at LA-2 targeted three specific strata to determine possible spatial
differences in sediment characteristics; the three strata were (1) within the LA-2 site
boundary [sampling locations identified as "S" in the sampling reports and on Figure 3.2-
6], (2) areas adjacent to the site boundary where dredged material had been disposed of
[sampling locations identified as "AD" in the sampling reports and "D" on Figure 3.2-6],
and (3) a reference area, unaffected by disposal activities, located approximately 12 to 14
km (6.5 to 7.6 nmi) southeast of the LA-2 site boundary [sampling locations identified as
"R" in the sampling reports on Figure 3.2-6]. Depths at the reference areas were similar
to those at the disposal site areas. The sediment constituent analyses in the following
sections assume the reference sites were unaffected by ocean dredged material disposal
activities.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-35
-------
S = Interim LA-3 Disposal Site
HD = Historic Disposal Site
D = Recent Disposal Site
R = Reference Site
33*34'
osrcr;-:
GC.40DC
SMIneitt Sampling Stations
Contours of Bathrnstrv - mete's
BaihiT-eti i ¦ (resets.

-6C0 - -550

-550 - -500

5C4I *60

-450 - -400

4C0 350

-350 - -300

-300 - -250

-250 - -200

-200 - -150

•150 - -100

-1CO--50

5C-0

No Data
33"32'
550300
33*30'
64&0CC
1 0 1 Kilometers
117-56'	117"54'
8«OOC	18«6C0£'	4 848000
117"52"
85000C
117-5C'
'852OD0	85400C
HOI
INTERIM ~
•R,	R2
1
•R3j
PROPOSED LA-3
*HD4 ^4!
COCO	1342000	1844000	' S45000	134 80 CO	1850000	" 852030	18540CO
n 7°%'	1 i7°w	nrs2-	ii7°5o*
L
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT LA-3
Source: USACE, 2003b
M:\JOBS2\3646\env\graphics\fig3.2-5.ai	08/24/04
Figure 3,2-5
-------
I l8r20'
I18°10'
1820000	1S24G0G
656000
664O0C
66000
3J°35'
6S6CCO
S5JOOO
S = LA-2 Disposal Site
D = Adjacent Disposal Site
R = Reference Site
• Sodlroont Sampling Locations
Contours of Bathmalry meters
Bathmetry - meters
-9C0 -fiOO
-8C0 - -700
-700 - -600
-60O- -600
-500 - -400
-4C0 -300
-300 - -ZOO
-200 - -100
-100 0
No Data
10 12
Kilometers
IS'2000
1818000
'13-20'
118c,5'
1820000	18240DC
118' 10'
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Sediment profile imagery (SPI) surveys were performed in summer 2000 at both the LA-
2 and interim LA-3 sites, as well as surrounding areas of the two sites (USACE 2002).
At LA-3, evidence of recently and historically disposed sediments was found inside the
interim site boundaries, and to the east, south, and north of the site. The recently
deposited sediments were likely from the 1998-1999 Upper Newport Bay dredging
project and/or the 1999 Lower Newport Harbor dredging project. At stations south of the
site boundary, sediments in areas of historical disposal activities were reworked by
benthic organisms to the point where the oxygenated surface layer and sediment texture
were similar to those found on the ambient seafloor.
At LA-2, evidence of recent deposition was generally limited to within the confines of
the site boundary (USACE 2002). While some stations sampled outside the site boundary
showed signs of historic deposition, results of the SPI survey differed from the results of
a seafloor-mapping survey conducted at LA-2 in 1998 (Gardner et al. 1998b). The
seafloor-mapping survey recorded more disposal mounds outside the site than within.
However, the SPI survey results indicate that if dredged material was present at the
stations outside the boundaries of LA-2 two years prior, the material had been reworked
and recolonized such that it resembled the ambient seafloor.
3.2.5.1 Grain Size Distribution
Off southern California, sediments generally become increasingly finer with increasing
water depth (SCCWRP 1983; SCBPP Steering Committee 1998; LACSD 2000; OCSD
2000). Though several mechanisms affect the introduction, suspension, transport, and
deposition of sediments, the trend of decreasing grain size with increasing distance from
shore and increasing depth is primarily attributed to increased wave action and water
motion in nearshore waters, which limits the deposition of fine material. Grain size
distribution at the stations within each of the regions surveyed at LA-2 and LA-3 is
illustrated in Figure 3.2-7.
a. LA-3
In summer 2000, sediments within the LA-3 interim site boundary had a larger proportion
of sand and gravel and a lower proportion of silt compared with sediments at stations
surrounding the site and at the reference site (Chambers Group 2001). The smaller silt
fraction within the site boundary was determined to be statistically significant at the 0.01
level, suggesting a less than one percent probability the difference was due to chance.
Differences in sediment composition between disposal sites and the reference area may
be attributed to disposal activities (Chambers Group 2001). Compared with sediments
collected in summer 1988, sediments within and proximate to the interim LA-3 site were
much finer in 2000 than in 1988 (MITECH 1990). Sediments at LA-3 were composed of
substantially higher percentages of clay in 2000 (14 to 52 percent) than in 1988 (2 to 5
percent). Likewise, the amount of sand in sediments at LA-3 in 2000 (9 to 60 percent)
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-38
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
was substantially less than that recorded in 1988 (27 to 87 percent). Reason(s) for the
differences in sediment composition between 1988 and 2000 are unknown, but could
have resulted from deposition of fine material from storm-related runoff prior to 2000 or
sediment redistribution offshore of Newport Beach (Chambers Group 2001). The
percentages of fines (silt and clay combined) in sediments at LA-3 in 2000 (37 to 94
percent) were similar to, but in general slightly lower than, the percentages of fines in
sediments from Newport Canyon in 1999 (46 to 98 percent) and in Newport Canyon from
1985 through 1989 (66 to 97 percent) (Maurer et al. 1994; SAIC 2000) This is expected,
as Newport Canyon serves as a sediment trap, accumulating fine-grained sediments
(Maurer et al. 1994; SAIC 2000).
b. LA-2
Sediments in the LA-2 site and surrounding areas in summer 2000 were composed
primarily of silt and sand, lesser amounts of clay, and relatively small gravel fractions
(Figure 3.2-7) (Chambers Group 2001). Sediments within and adjacent to the LA-2 site
boundary differed from those collected at the reference area in that the reference area
sediments were composed of smaller amounts of fines and larger fractions of sand.
Differences in sediment composition between disposal sites and the reference area may
be attributed to disposal activities (Chambers Group 2001).
Overall, sediment characteristics at LA-2 in summer 2000 were similar to those recorded
in 1983 and 1984 (Tetra Tech and MBC 1985). In 1983 and 1984, LA-2 disposal site
stations contained higher percentages of clay than reference areas, and were more poorly
sorted (indicating a grain size distribution composed of multiple size intervals) than
reference areas. In summer 2000 and in 1983 and 1984 sediment composition within and
in the vicinity of the disposal site boundary was highly variable, with less variability
exhibited at reference stations (the reference sediments analyzed in 1983-1984 and in
2000 were collected from the same area). Sediment composition at the disposal and
reference areas in 2000 was less variable than in 1983 and 1984, however. Long-term
surface sediment sampling on the slope off Palos Verdes revealed that in the latter half of
the 1990s, percent sand on the slope decreased while percent silt, and to a lesser degree
percent clay, increased (LACSD 2000).
3.2.5.2 Mineralogy
Basement rock throughout the SCB is mostly Mesozoic or pre-Cambrian schist, while
overlying sediments are composed of medium gray sandstone, dark to white
porcellaneous shales, dark olive-green limestone, and friable sandstone (Stevenson et al.
1959). From Point Fermin to Newport Beach the San Pedro Shelf is characterized by a
central area of Miocene shales and sandstones with smaller outcrops of Pliocene shales
near the western shore and along the edge of the outer shelf (Emery 1952). Off
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-39
-------
~ Clay ~ Silt ~Sand ¦ Gravel
LA-3
100%
n m
c
o
M
o
a
E
o
u
+*
c
ft)
o
w
ft>
CL
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
I
Q
CC
I

CM CO
O Q
i
TT
Q
cr

I
I

I
t— CVJ CO
Q Q Q Q
X I X X
I
l


'-WOT
CO CO CO CO
I
I
I
CM CO
a: cr
i
cr
Recent
Disoosal
Historic
Disoosal
Within
LA-3 Site
Reference
Site
LA-2
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

o
<

1
f




¦

i
H
1 P
i p
¦ r

-





















tU








*
















A











3 i
1 i
J E
] I
3
s

§
\
T
v s
i t
i E
i L
i E
CM CO T ifi CO

CM
CM CO ** CM CO T
Q Q D Q O


co co co cr cr cr cr
< < < < <
U)
W







Adjacent
Disoosal
Within
LA-2 Site
Site and replicate
Reference
Site
SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (by weight) AT LA-2
AND LA-3 SAMPLING SITES, SUMMER 2000.
Data from Chambers Group (2001) and COE (2002)
A

|H1

VI \JOBS2\3646\env\graphics\fig3 2-7 ai 08/06/04
V

|jVJ
Figure 3.2-7
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Huntington Beach, sedimentary deposits up to 3,800 m (12,470 ft) thick overlie the
basement schist (CSLC 1982). The coarser sediments on the San Pedro Shelf (sands and
gravels) in the vicinity of both the LA-2 and LA-3 study areas are composed of rock
fragment sand nearshore and grade into quartz feldspar sand offshore (Stevenson et al.
1959). Rock fragment sands are essentially preexisting rocks, while quartz-feldspar sands
are detrital sediments. On the San Pedro Shelf in the vicinity of LA-2, bottom sediments
are generally fine to very fine olive-green sand that grades into silty sand at the basin
slope (Stevenson et al. 1959; LACSD 2000).
3.2.5.3 Sediment Organic Content
Off southern California, higher concentrations of organic matter are usually associated
with fine-grained sediments in depositional areas, while lower concentrations are usually
found in areas with coarser sediments and in erosional areas (Emery 1960). Chemical
indicators of sediment organic content include total organic carbon (TOC), total volatile
solids (TVS), and total sulfides. Total volatile solids (as a percent of total solids)
represent the total amount of organic material in sediments.
a. LA-3
TOC values at the LA-3 recent and historical disposal sites (1.2 to 4.3 percent) were
similar to TOC values at the LA-2 adjacent disposal area (0.4 to 2.1 percent), though a
few values were higher at LA-3 (e.g. 3.5 percent at RD3 and 4.3 percent at HD4)
(Chambers Group 2001). Aside from these two relatively higher values, all other TOC
concentrations were similar to or less than those found at the reference site (2.1 to 2.5
percent). Volatile solids were noticeably higher at recent and historical disposal sites at
LA-3 compared with concentrations measured within the interim site boundary, though
mean values were similar to or less than reference area percentages. Overall, TVS in
sediments ranged from 3.54 to 9.98 percent, while total sulfides ranged from 2.2 to 57.3
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (dry weight) at the LA-3 study area.
Mean sulfide concentrations were higher at the historic disposal area (32.8 mg/kg) and
within the interim site boundary (29.7 mg/kg) than the reference area (14.9 mg/kg), while
the mean concentration at the recent disposal area (16.2 mg/kg) was similar to the
reference area value (14.9 mg/kg). Overall, TOC, TVS, and total sulfide concentrations
measured at the interim LA-3 site and surrounding areas were slightly higher than
concentrations measured off Orange County in slightly shallower water and in coarser
sediments (Maurer et al. 1994; CSDOC 1998; OCSD 2000). TOC was slightly higher at
LA-3 than throughout the shelf of the SCB (mean = 0.75%, maximum = 5.1%) (Schiff
and Gossett 1998).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-41
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
b. LA-2
TOC values at the LA-2 study area ranged from 0.4 to 6.0 percent, with the highest value
(6.01%) recorded at a reference site (Chambers Group 2001). TOC percentages within
the LA-2 site boundary (0.9 to 1.5%) were similar to values recorded at the adjacent
disposal site (0.4 to 2.1%). Volatile solids in sediments ranged from 2.22 to 8.39 percent
at LA-2. The highest TVS concentration was reported from a station in the adjacent
disposal area; all other concentrations at the adjacent disposal area and site boundary
stations resembled those from the reference area.
Total sulfides ranged from 0.8 to 278.0 mg/kg at LA-2, though 14 of 15 samples had
relatively similar concentrations (0.8 to 6.1 mg/kg). One anomalously high sulfide
concentration (278 mg/kg) was reported from a station within the LA-2 site boundary
(Station S2). TOC concentrations in sediments off Palos Verdes in 2000 were similar to
those measured historically inshore of the disposal site (LACSD 2000).
3.2.5.4 Metals
Measurement of sediment metals in the SCB has been extensive, particularly around
wastewater outfalls. Throughout the mainland shelf of the SCB, elevated levels of
sediment metals have been found in approximately one-half of the sediments (Schiff and
Gossett 1998). Metal levels are often higher in fine-grained sediments due to the greater
surface area available (Ackermann 1980; de Groot et al. 1982). As a result, under
conditions of equal supply, fine sediments often contain more metals per gram of
sediment than coarse sediments. Highest sediment metal concentrations in the SCB are
also generally detected in fine-grained sediments near areas of known input, particularly
wastewater outfalls (Bascom 1982; Brown et al. 1986). In Santa Monica Bay, a heavily
monitored portion of the SCB, concentrations of metals in sediments rose sharply after
the 1900 time stratum and reached maximum values in the 1970s and/or 1980s (Zeng et
al. 2001). Conversely, from 1971 to 1996, the combined mass emissions of trace metals
by the four largest wastewater dischargers in southern California decreased 95 percent
(Raco-Rands 1999). This is attributed to improvements in wastewater treatment and
disposal practices. However, other significant sources of trace metals in southern
California still exist, including urban runoff and atmospheric deposition.
a. LA-3
In general, distribution of sediment metals in 2000 was similar among the reference,
recent disposal, historical disposal, and interim LA-3 boundary sites (Chambers Group
2001). Highest mean concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc were recorded
within the site boundaries. Sediment metals from one station within the interim site
boundary (Station S2) were particularly high, while concentrations from the other three
stations more closely resembled levels at the other sites. Sediments at Station S2 were
composed of a higher percentage of clay than sediments from the other stations within the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-42
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
interim LA-3 site, likely resulting in the higher metal levels at that station. Strongest
correlations (for all stations combined) between percent fines (silt and clay combined)
and metal concentrations were recorded for chromium (R2=0.73) and nickel (R2=0.72).
Highest levels of chromium, copper, nickel, and selenium were detected at areas of recent
disposal. Highest silver concentration was recorded at the area of historic disposal, while
mean mercury concentrations were similar among all sites. Comparisons of metal
concentrations among station groups were highly insignificant, indicating that differences
were likely due to random variability, though sediment grain size did account for some
differences in sediment metal concentrations. Trends of increasing metal concentrations
with increasing fines fractions were reported for seven of the ten metals analyzed.
Overall, sediment metal concentrations at all LA-3 sampling sites ranged as follows, with
all concentrations reported as dry weight: arsenic (4.6 to 13.7 mg/kg); cadmium (0.41 to
1.08 mg/kg); chromium (20.0 to 47.9 mg/kg); copper (17.4 to 26.0 mg/kg); lead (8.97 to
19.9 mg/kg); mercury (0.04 to 0.13 mg/kg); nickel (11.4 to 26.1 mg/kg); selenium (<0.50
to 1.43 mg/kg); silver (0.11 to 1.16 mg/kg); and zinc (57.2 to 101 mg/kg). Of the metals
analyzed, only mercury has been shown to biomagnify through the food web (Anderson
et al. 1993). Overall, sediment metal levels at LA-3 in summer 2000 were comparable to
concentrations detected in other studies in the same area, with many differences likely
attributed to relative grain sizes (SCCWRP 1983; MITECH 1990; Maurer et al. 1994;
SAIC, MEC, and CRG 2001 cited in Chambers Group 2001).
b. LA-2
The range of sediment metal concentrations in 2000 at LA-2 was similar to that recorded
at LA-3, with variability within and among the three sampling strata (Chambers Group
2001). Highest mean concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc
were recorded within the site boundary. Mean arsenic concentration was highest at the
reference area, while mean chromium, mercury, and silver concentrations were highest at
the adjacent disposal area. Variability of sediment metal concentrations within the sites is
illustrated in the relatively higher values at Station AD1 at the adjacent disposal area and
at Station R2 at the reference area. Sediments at Station AD1 were the finest of all the
stations sampled, likely accounting for the higher values there. However, sediments at
Station R2 were composed of a similar percentage of silt and clay compared to other
stations. Strongest correlations between percent fines and metal concentrations were
recorded for mercury (R2=0.80), lead (R2=0.69), silver (R2=0.67), and zinc (R2=0.65)
Overall, sediment metal concentrations at the LA-2 sampling sites ranged as follows,
with all concentrations reported as dry weight: arsenic (3.3 to 12.6 mg/kg); cadmium
(0.11 to 1.29 mg/kg); chromium (20.1 to 69.4 mg/kg); copper (7.58 to 38.3 mg/kg); lead
(6.5 to 31.6 mg/kg); mercury (0.03 to 0.22 mg/kg); nickel (7.95 to 30.2 mg/kg); selenium
(<0.47 to 1.1 mg/kg); silver (0.08 to 0.94 mg/kg); and zinc (31.1 to 87.3 mg/kg). Of the
metals analyzed, only mercury has been shown to biomagnify through the food web
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-43
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
(Anderson et al. 1993). Comparatively, mercury values at LA-2 were much lower than
values detected on the Palos Verdes Shelf in the 1970s and 1980s (NOAA 1991). Overall,
sediment metal levels at LA-2 in summer 2000 were comparable to concentrations
detected in other studies in the same area (Tetra Tech and MBC 1985; LACSD 2000;
Chambers Group 2001) and on the mainland shelf of the SCB (Schiff and Gossett 1998).
Most metal concentrations recorded in summer 2000 were similar to values recorded off
Palos Verdes in another study (LACSD 2000), with lower concentrations in sediments in
and around LA-2 than further inshore near the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
(JWPCP) wastewater discharge. Metal concentrations within the LA-2 site boundary
appear to have decreased since 1984, but are still slightly elevated in comparison to other
sediments offshore of southern California (Chambers Group 2001).
3.2.5.5 Organic Contaminants of Concern
Hydrocarbons detected in sediments off southern California include polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and oil
and grease. Many hydrocarbons are produced naturally (from oil seeps, for example)
while others are anthropogenic in nature. Aromatic hydrocarbons are one of several
groups of hydrocarbons found in fossil fuels and their refined and combusted products,
and many are potent carcinogens or mutagens. Documented sources of PAHs to the SCB
include wastewater discharge, stormwater run-off, and oil spills, while suspected but little
studied sources include aerial fallout, drilling fluid discharges, hydrothermal seeps, and
petroleum refinery wastes (NOAA 1991).
Unlike PAHs, chlorinated pesticides and PCBs are solely anthropogenic in nature. A
variety of chlorinated pesticides have been used in southern California for many years,
though dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is probably the most familiar of the
organochlorine pesticides. Acutely toxic and resistant to degradation, the toxic effects of
this pesticide to animals and humans are well documented (NOAA 1991). Elevated levels
of DDT are found in sediments and animal tissues throughout the SCB; total DDT (i.e.,
the sum of all DDT isomers and metabolites [e.g., DDDs, DDEs, and DDTs]) was
detected in 82 percent of sampled sediments from throughout the Bight in 1994 (Schiff
and Gossett 1998). The major source of DDT contamination in the SCB was the
Montrose Chemical Company, which manufactured DDT from 1947 to 1982, producing
two-thirds of the chemical sold worldwide in 1970. Monitoring in 1970 indicated that
about 290 kg (640 lb) of DDT compounds were entering the Los Angeles County waste
system on a daily basis. These compounds were subsequently discharged onto the Palos
Verdes Shelf. In addition, Montrose dumped DDT wastes into the San Pedro Channel
between Los Angeles and Santa Catalina Island (NOAA 1991). In 1983, the EPA issued
Cleanup and Abatement Orders to Montrose, and the company began site cleanup and
source control measures.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-44
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
As a class of compounds, PCBs include 209 synthetically halogenated aromatic
hydrocarbons. PCBs were manufactured in the U.S. from 1929 to 1977 by Monsanto
Industrial Chemicals Company under the trade name Aroclor. They are among the most
stable chemicals known, and degradation rates of PCBs are thought to be low (NOAA
1991). Oil and grease in sediments are derived from a variety of sources, including
petrochemical waste and household cooking fats.
a. LA-3
Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations were relatively similar
among stations within the interim LA-3 boundary, areas with recent disposal mounds,
and the reference area (Chambers Group 2001). Higher total PAH concentrations at the
historical disposal mound area resulted from comparatively high levels of benzo(a)pyrene
and pyrene at one station within that area (HD1). Benzo(a)pyrene is found in coal tar,
cigarette smoke, and is a product of incomplete combustion, while pyrene is derived from
coal tar; both are carcinogens. There were no statistically significant differences (p<0.05)
among total PAH values between the different sampling stations.
Concentrations of most pesticides in sediments were undetectable at most locations at the
LA-3 study area (Chambers Group 2001). Mean levels of all pesticides except 2,4'-
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (2,4*-DDD; a DDT congener), 2,4'-DDT and toxaphene
were elevated at the recent disposal mound stations due to anomalously high values at
one station within that area (Station RD4). Pesticide concentrations at the other sampling
sites were comparatively low, though concentration of 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyl-
dichloroethylene (4,4'-DDE; a DDT congener) ranged from 3 to 43 |Ug/kg (dry weight) at
the historical disposal site, interim disposal site, and reference areas. There were no
statistically significant differences (p<0:05) among 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDT
values between the different sampling stations.
Highest mean total PCB values were recorded at the recent disposal and historic disposal
areas. Mean total PCB concentrations were slightly higher at the reference area than
within the interim LA-3 disposal site. There were no statistically significant differences
(p<0.05) among total PCB values between the different sampling stations.
Oil and grease measured at LA-3 ranged from <50 mg/kg (dry weight) to 250 mg/kg,
with highest values measured within the interim site boundary. Concentrations measured
at the recent and historical disposal sites and at the reference area were relatively low
(<50 mg/kg to 90 mg/kg).
In general, hydrocarbon concentrations at the interim LA-3 site and surrounding areas in
summer 2000 were comparable to those measured in previous surveys at LA-3 and off
Orange County (SCCWRP 1983; MITECH 1990; Schiff and Gossett 1998; OCSD 2000;
SAIC, MEC, and CRG 2001 cited in Chambers Group 2001). Percent fines in sediments
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-45
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
did not correlate strongly with hydrocarbon concentrations. Measurement of PAHs in
southern California marine sediments has been limited compared to other hydrocarbons.
Most PAH concentrations from the 2000 sampling at LA-3 were relatively low, though
sediments from one of the historical disposal stations had relatively high values that
exceeded values measured in the zone of initial dilution (ZID) of the OCSD wastewater
discharge in recent years (OCSD 2000).
The low DDT values recorded during the 1988 surveys (MITECH 1990) likely resulted
from the coarseness of the sediments. Total PCB concentrations in 2000 were similar to
or lower than values recorded off Orange County in separate surveys (SCCWRP 1983;
OCSD 2000) and throughout the shelf of the SCB (Schiff and Gossett 1998).
b. LA-2
Individual sediment PAH compound concentrations differed among locations at the LA-2
study area, though total PAH concentrations were relatively similar among the three LA-
2 sampling areas (Chambers Group 2001). Highest mean total PAH concentrations were
recorded at the stations adjacent to the LA-2 disposal site, and mean values were slightly
higher at the reference site than within the disposal site. Two stations had particularly
high total PAH values: one adjacent disposal station and one reference station. At
adjacent disposal station AD3, the relatively high total PAH value resulted largely from a
high pyrene concentration. At reference station R3, the high total PAH value resulted
from high pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, and acenaphthene concentrations. Acenaphthene is
found in fungicides, insecticides, and plastics. There were no statistically significant
differences (p<0.05) among total PAH values between the different sampling stations.
Pesticides were detected at all stations at LA-2, and the DDT congeners were most
commonly detected (Chambers Group 2001). Highest DDT levels were found at the
adjacent disposal stations, with particularly high values at one of the six stations (AD1-
1). Station AD1 was the deepest station in the area (water depth was approximately 500
m [1,640 ft]), and sediments at this station were the finest in the study area. This could
partially explain the relatively high DDT values at that station. Except for the detection of
beta-benzene hexachloride (beta-BHC) at one adjacent disposal station (AD4),
concentrations of all other pesticides were undetected at the disposal and adjacent
disposal sites. At the reference area, however, several pesticides other than DDT and
DDT congeners were detected at Station R3. These included aldrin; alpha-, beta-, delta-,
and gamma-BHC (also known as lindane); heptachlor; and heptachlor epoxide.
Sediment PCB concentrations at LA-2 were variable among station groups and highest at
the adjacent disposal sites (Chambers Group 2001). In general, PCB concentrations were
lowest at the reference site, with higher values recorded at the disposal and adjacent
disposal sites. Mean total PCB values were 3.0 |ig/kg at the reference sites, 13.9 |ig/kg
within the disposal site, and 22.6 |ig/kg at the adjacent disposal area. Oil and grease
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-46
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
concentrations ranged from <50 mg/kg (dry weight) to 580 mg/kg, with values measured
within the site boundary and at the adjacent disposal area noticeably higher than values
recorded at the reference area (Chambers Group 2001). The highest mean value (322
mg/kg) was recorded within the LA-2 site boundary; however, the highest single value
(580 mg/kg) was recorded at the adjacent disposal site.
In 2000, correlations between grain size and hydrocarbon concentrations were relatively
weak, with the strongest between total PCBs and grain size (R2=0.66). There were some
noticeable differences among hydrocarbon concentrations within and surrounding LA-2
in summer 2000 and those measured in previous surveys at LA-2, surrounding areas, and
throughout the SCB (Tetra Tech and MBC 1985; Schiff and Gossett 1998; MEC 1998
cited in Chambers Group 2001; LACSD 2000). Total PAH concentrations from the 2000
sampling at LA-2 were very high compared with samples collected approximately 11.3
km (6.1 nmi) southeast of LA-2 in 1997 (Chambers Group 2001).
DDT concentrations within the LA-2 disposal site were similar to values reported at LA-
2 in 1983-1984 (EPA 1985) and throughout the SCB in 1994 (Schiff and Gossett 1998).
DDT values at LA-2 were much lower than those recorded further inshore near the
JWPCP wastewater discharge in 2000, where sediment concentrations exceeded 32,000
|ig/kg (LACSD 2000). Total PCBs in 2000 were lower than those recorded in 1983-1984
(EPA 1985) and further inshore in 2000 (LACSD 2000) and similar to those recorded on
the mainland shelf of the SCB (Schiff and Gossett 1998).
3.2.5.6	Ammonia-Nitrogen
Concentrations of ammonia (also known as ammonia-N) were variable among the
sampling sites at LA-2 and LA-3, but similar between the two study areas (Chambers
Group 2001). At the LA-3 study area, mean ammonia-N concentration was highest at the
recent disposal area (19.1 mg/kg dry weight) and historic disposal area (16.6 mg/kg), and
the mean concentration within the site boundary (14.3 mg/kg) was slightly less than the
mean value from the reference area (14.9 mg/kg). At LA-2, ammonia-N was highest at
the adjacent disposal area (mean of 20.0 mg/kg), and the mean value within the site
boundary (15.3 mg/kg) was less than that at the reference area (18.3 mg/kg). Ammonia-N
values were not strongly correlated with sediment particle size.
3.2.5.7	Summary of Sediment Parameters at LA-2 and LA-3
Sediments at the interim LA-3 disposal site and surrounding areas were finer than those
at the LA-2 site and surrounding areas in 2000. The LA-3 study area is located in deeper
water than LA-2, a primary reason for the difference in grain sizes. Concentrations of
many sediment constituents were similar among regions sampled at LA-2 and LA-3, with
two general differences being 1) slightly higher mean concentrations of most sediment
metals at LA-3, and 2) higher mean PCB concentrations in sediments at LA-2. Higher
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-47
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
total DDT concentrations at LA-2 resulted from high concentrations of DDT congeners in
sediments at one station adjacent to the site boundary.
3.3 Biological Environment
3.3.1 Plankton
Plankton refers to organisms that drift passively with ocean currents or are only weakly
motile. Phytoplankton are tiny unicellular or colonial algae species such as diatoms and
dinoflagellates. These plants convert inorganic carbon and nutrients, through the process
of photosynthesis, into cellular material and form the base of the marine food web.
Zooplankton are slightly motile animals. Holoplankton are those animals that spend their
entire lives in the plankton and include small crustaceans, cheatognaths (arrowworms),
salps, and larger forms such as swimming mollusks and jellyfish. Meroplankton are those
animals that generally spend larval or juvenile phases in the plankton, including many
invertebrate and fish species, and are generally most abundant in nearshore waters.
Ichthyoplankton refers to the planktonic stages of fish species, including drifting eggs
and larval stages. Plankton distributions tend to be patchy, and individual stations
sampled more than once exhibit great variation. In general, greatest concentrations of
plankton are found in the SCB in early fall and spring months, and abundances are lowest
in late fall and winter months (AHF1959).
3.3.1.1 Phytoplankton
The phytoplankton of the SCB consists of a great variety of species covering a wide size
range. Surveys conducted for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) during
the late 1950s at 800 stations from Point Conception to San Diego identified at least 81
phytoplankton taxa (species; AHF 1959). Of the individuals counted, 54 percent were
diatoms and 41 percent were dinoflagellates, with ciliates and miscellaneous forms
accounting for the remainder (AHF 1965). The abundance of phytoplankton in the SCB
varies. Populations are more abundant in spring and, to a lesser degree, fall months
(Hardy 1993). Phytoplankton are restricted to the upper photic (light-penetrating) zone of
the water column. In general, abundances are greatest subsurface, near the bottom of the
surface-mixed layer, corresponding to depths with a favorable balance of light energy and
nutrients to promote growth. Phytoplankton abundance tends to decrease below the
thermocline and with distance from shore. Chlorophyll-a, an indicator of phytoplankton
productivity (measured indirectly as fluorescence), is regularly determined in situ in local
marine monitoring programs.
The success of phytoplankton species depends on water currents, zooplankton grazing,
competition, and available light and nutrient levels (Hardy 1993). In the SCB,
productivity is intermediate when compared to other areas of the world's oceans, with
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-48
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
more productivity than central gyres, but less than estuarine or nutrient-rich upwelling
areas. However, abundant grows, or blooms, dominated by dinoflagellates, occur
frequently. Red tide blooms are associated with stable water conditions and warm
temperatures and may significantly reduce dissolved oxygen levels in an area.
a.	LA-3
Surveys in the Newport Coast area, north of the LA-3 disposal area, in the late 1950s
found elevated phytoplankton abundances in association with the Newport Harbor
entrance, but concentrations were generally low in the waters between the entrance and
Newport Canyon (AHF 1959). More recently, Orange County Sanitation District's
monitoring of the marine environment provides data on phytoplankton levels inshore of
the LA-3 disposal area. Phytoplankton concentrations in the area are highest in spring and
summer, particularly at the depth of the thermocline (CSDOC 1998; OCSD 2000). In
summer, high chlorophyll-a levels are associated with DO maxima, indicating that the
phytoplankton standing crop can produce significant levels of excess oxygen. Relatively
high levels of chlorophyll-a in the area have been associated with upwelling near
Newport Canyon and freshwater runoff, as well as anthropogenic nutrient sources such as
ammonium from wastewater discharges. In the 1997 monitoring year, background
concentration of chlorophyll-a in the area were approximately 0.1 (xg/1, with the highest
values north of LA-3 ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 (.tg/1 (CSDOC 1998). During the 1999-2000
monitoring, typical chlorophyll-a ranges were 2 to 10 (xg/1, with peaks of 20 to 40 fxg/1
during the summer (OCSD 2000).
b.	LA-2
In 2000, low to moderate levels of phytoplankton (as inferred from chlorophyll-a
concentrations) were present throughout the LACSD marine monitoring area, inshore and
upcoast of LA-2 (LACSD 2000). Phytoplankton were distributed in a 10-to-20-m (33-to-
66-ft) thick layer near the base of the thermocline over much of the area in all sampling
quarters. In summer, this layer is associated with DO maxima depths. In 2000, high
levels of chlorophyll-a were found south of the LA/Long Beach Harbor complex during
each quarter.
3.3.1.2 Zooplankton
The zooplankton of the SCB consists of a large and diverse group of organisms. The SCB
is a transition zone between subarctic, central and equatorial species assemblages, and
zooplankton assemblages and ecology are related to oceanic variability (Dawson and
Pieper 1993). Zooplankton abundances tend to be patchy and highly variable (Thrailkill
1956; Dawson and Pieper 1993). Zooplankton in the near shore waters of the SCB show
seasonal trends, with highest abundances occurring from April to June, and lowest
abundances from December to February. Peak abundances may be found seasonally
inshore to mid-depths, but generally decrease with distance from shore. Unlike
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-49
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
phytoplankton, zooplankton are found throughout the water column, but are generally
most abundant in the euphotic zone (the light-penetrating zone where photosynthesis
occurs), which in the Southern California Bight is the upper 30 to 40 m (98 to 131 ft) of
water. Zooplankton tend to be strongly diurnal, with vertical migrations into surface
waters at dusk and back to deeper water at dawn. Calanoid copepods dominate the
nearshore zooplankton fauna of the SCB, with Accirtia, Paracalanus, Lcibidocera, and
Calanus the most commonly collected genera (Dawson and Pieper 1993).
a.	LA-3
In June 1982, SCCWRP (1983) took tows for epibenthic and demersal zooplankton on
the Orange County slope. The study area was adjacent and to and west of the interim LA-
3 disposal site, with similar depth ranges. In eight tows, at least 100 zooplankton taxa of
eight phyla (groups) were collected, although the tows were highly dominated by
calanoid copepods. Both abundance and biomass of zooplankton were notably greater in
the epibenthic tows, and there was little variation in the epibenthic zooplankton
assemblages over a depth of about 300 to 600 m (984 to 1,969 ft).
MITECH (1990) conducted seasonal midwater trawls at the interim LA-3 disposal site
and a near-by reference site in August 1988 and January 1989. At least 37 taxa of eight
phyla were collected, with 27 taxa in seven phyla in summer and 26 taxa in six phyla in
winter (MITECH 1990). The tows were also highly dominated by calanoid copepods,
which, for the most part, were not differentiated into species. Chaetognaths of the genus
Saggita were also abundant. The top three taxa were the same within the interim LA-3
site and at the reference site during both seasons. While percentage of abundance varied,
together these three taxa accounted for at least 75 percent of the total abundance collected
during each tow.
b.	LA-2
Zooplankton concentrations in the vicinity of the LA-2 disposal site are expected to be
similar in composition and abundance to the LA-3 disposal site and the SCB in general.
Small crustaceans, especially calanoid copepods, should dominate the fauna, although the
faunal assemblage in the area is likely large. In the nearby LA/Long Beach Harbor
complex, the zooplankton fauna is dominated by the calanoid copepods Acartia tonsa
Complex and Paracalanus parvus, which together account for almost 70 percent of the
zooplankton abundance in the harbor (Dawson and Pieper 1993). Zooplankton
abundances in the SCB tend to be patchy and highly variable, but peak abundances in the
LA-2 vicinity are expected in spring and early fall, with minimum values in winter.
3.3.1.3 Ichthyoplankton
Most fish release eggs and sperm to the environment for external fertilization. Both eggs
and newly hatched larvae are usually pelagic, subject to dispersion by ocean currents.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-50
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Ichthyoplankton are generally well known in the SCB, due in large part to the California
Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) program, which has been
investigating oceanic and biological aspects of the California Current system since the
late 1940s. More than 150 ichthyoplankton taxa have been identified from within a few
kilometers (miles) of the coast in the SCB (Cross and Allen 1993). The ichthyoplankton
is dominated by northern anchovy (Engrciulis mordax), accounting for 80-83 percent of
the larval taxa collected in the SCB. Other common larval taxa within a few kilometers
(miles) of the coast include rockfish (Sebastes spp.) with about 4-6 percent of the
abundance, California smoothtongue (Leuroglossus stilbius) with 4 percent, and Pacific
hake (Merluccius product us) with 2-3 percent of the abundance. Other frequent
contributors to the ichthyoplankton assemblage are northern lampfish (Stenobrachius
leucopsarus), Mexican lampfish (Triphoturus mexicanus), croakers (Family Scianidae),
sanddabs (Citharichthys spp.), and popeye blacksmelt (Bathylagus ochotensis).
Ichthyoplankton mortality is extremely high and the number of individuals declines
precipitously between the egg and juvenile stages. However, mortality stabilizes during
late larval and early juvenile stages (Cross and Allen 1993). Ichthyoplankton abundances
are spatially and temporally variable in the SCB, and distribution of some common
species, such as northern anchovy and jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), are
usually patchy.
Ichthyoplankton abundance in the SCB has two peaks (Cross and Allen 1993). In the
winter-spring peak, 69 percent of the nearshore ichthyoplankton assemblage is comprised
of the larvae of fish with a northern range limit of Oregon to Canada. During the
summer-fall abundance peak, 91 percent of larvae are fish species with a northern range
from Pt. Conception to Monterey.
Geographical distribution of larval fish is related to habitat preference of the adult fish
(Cross and Allen 1993). Larval stages of jack mackerel, Pacific hake and epipelagic
species are most abundant 10-100 km (5.4 to 54 nmi) from the coast. California halibut
and turbot (Pleuronichthys spp.), sea bass (Paralabrax spp.), and blennies
(Hypsoblennius spp.) larvae are most abundant within 10 km (5.4 nmi) of the coast.
White croaker (Genyonomus lineatus) larvae are abundant within 4 km (2.2 nmi) of the
shore, while the larvae of nearshore associates such as queenfish (Seriphus politus),
gobies (family Gobiidae), and silversides (family Atherinidae) are most common within 2
km (1.1 nmi) of the coast. Nearshore species tend to develop faster and recruit at a
smaller size than epibenthic species, minimizing offshore transport. Northern anchovy,
rockfish and sanddab larvae show no apparent geographical distribution patterns in the
SCB.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-51
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
a.	LA-3
SCCWRP (1983) took epibenthic and demersal tows in an area adjacent to and east of the
interim LA-3 disposal site on the Orange County slope. Only a few fish and larvae were
collected. Species collected included sanddab, bristtlemouth (Cyclothone spp.), California
headlightfish (Diciphus theta), northern lampfish, thornyheads (Sebastolobus spp.), and
unidentified fish, larvae, and eggs.
Midwater trawls at the interim LA-3 disposal site and a near-by reference site in August
1988 and January 1989 collected an estimated 2,400 eggs or larvae, 256 from five
identified fish taxa. Species represented included northern anchovy, Pacific blacksmelt
(Bathylagus pcicificus), sanddab, northern lampfish, and Pacific argentine (Argentina
sialis), species common in the SCB (MITECH 1990). Of the unidentified eggs and larvae
collected, most were tentatively assigned to the herring family, Clupeidae. These latter
individuals dominated the summer ichthyoplankton assemblage at both the disposal and
reference sites, indicating a recent recruitment. Large dilution factors from splitting
during sample processing make it difficult to identify other trends related to seasonality
or location.
b.	LA-2
Ichthyoplankton assemblages, abundances and ecological trends in the vicinity of the LA-
2 disposal site are expected to be similar to those throughout the SCB (see section
3.3.1.3). Northern anchovy, rockfish, halibut, turbot, sea bass, blennie and white croaker
are likely to dominate the ichthyoplankton.
3.3.2 Invertebrates
3.3.2.1 Benthic Infauna
Benthic invertebrates are small organisms, or fauna, that live within the sediments on the
sea floor. These infaunal organisms are highly dependent on the sediments in which they
live for food and protection. They belong to a variety of invertebrate phyla (groups),
although annelids, arthropods, and mollusks are the most abundant phyla in the southern
California bight (SCAMIT 2001). These organisms employ a wide range of survival and
feeding methods (burrowing in the sediment or building tubes in or on the surface of the
sediment; subsurface or surface deposit feeding, filter feeding, and predation). In turn,
they are prey for other invertebrates and fish. The benthic infauna have been monitored
by a number of agencies because of their close relationship to the sediments (these
organisms generally have limited mobility) and because of their importance as food for
higher trophic ("food chain") levels (LACSD 2000). This community includes a wide
variety of functional groups and of responses to environmental conditions. Benthic
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 3-52
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
organisms are reliable indicators of environmental stress and are used worldwide for
assessment of marine sediment conditions (Smith et al. 1998).
Communities of infaunal organisms can be characterized by their compositions (species
present), abundance or density (number of individuals per unit area or volume, usually
per square meter), species richness (number of species), and species diversity (number of
different species relative to the total number of individuals). Various additional indices
(evenness, dominance, Benthic Response, and Infaunal Trophic Index) have also been
applied. Some of these are suitable for documenting pollutant impacts, but controversy
continues over the best approach, and new methods are still being developed (OCSD
2000). Indices of species diversity have still proven useful for assessing community
structure. Generally, a greater number of species represents a healthier, more stable
environment, and studies suggest that decreasing diversity is one of the first indications
of a stressed community.
Typically in the SCB, polychaete annelids are the most abundant and diverse phylum
(major taxonomic group), followed by arthropods and mollusks. A number of minor
phyla also occur and may occasionally be abundant. The dominant species or taxa
(species which are most abundant) and community assemblage patterns (which species
are usually found together, or how similar areas are to each other) are also used for
comparisons of infaunal communities. Habitat type is an important determinant of
community composition, particularly water depth and sediment characteristics, such as
coarseness and heterogeneity. Because of this, natural variability is difficult to separate
from the anthropogenic effects (LACSD 2000).
Since the first systematic studies of the benthic infauna of the SCB, the patchy
distribution of these organisms, even the dominant species, has been noted. Attempts to
define infaunal assemblages and discern the basis for their distributions have continued.
Some community parameters follow gradients of environmental variables, both physical
and chemical. Abundance and species richness generally decline with increasing water
depth, but these relationships have been shown to derive from decreases in sediment
grain size and increase in organic content with depth (Gray 1974). Natural factors,
including physical disturbance, bioturbation, competition for space, and predation, have
also been shown to play a role (Brenchley 1981; CSDOC 1996). Anthropogenic inputs,
such as ocean discharges, affect community abundance and composition as well (Bergen
et al. 1998b; OCSD 2000; LACSD 2000; Zmarzly et al. 1994).
Comparison of the infaunal communities at the interim LA-3 and LA-2 disposal sites
with those at reference areas or the SCB in general is complicated by the different
sampling and processing methods employed. Density and species richness were greater at
the LA-2 disposal site than at the interim LA-3 disposal site because of depth and
sediment differences.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-53
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
9
At the LA-2 study area, density per station ranged from 743 indivuduals/m" at an
adjacent disposal area station (ADI) to 3,363 individuals/m2at another adjacent disposal
area station (AD6; USACE 2002). Species richness per station (at the LA-2 study area)
ranged from 48 to 167 species, with both values recorded at adjacent disposal sites.
Shannon-Wiener species diversity ranged from 2.69 at an adjacent disposal area station to
4.23 at a reference area station.
At the LA-3 study area, density per station ranged from 193 individuals/m" at a station
within the interim site boundary to 623 indivuduals/m2 at a recent disposal site (USACE
2002). Species richness at the LA-3 study area ranged from 22 species (at stations within
the interim site boundary and historic disposal areas) to 52 species at a recent disposal
area station. Species diversity at LA-3 ranged from 2.43 within the interim site boundary
to 3.46 at a historic disposal area.
a. LA-3
A total of 136 species was collected in the LA-3 study area. On average, polychaetes
comprised a greater proportion of the community at the reference site (R; 52%) and a
smaller proportion at the recent disposal site (RD; 39%) (Table 3.3-1). Crustaceans were
most abundant at the historic disposal site (HD; 29%) and least so at the interim LA-3
disposal site (S; 19%). The other taxonomic groups were more consistent in their
contribution to the community. A slightly different suite of species dominated each site.
The most abundant species, the polychaete Malcicme sarsi, was very abundant at the
reference site but was virtually absent from the interim disposal site. This species was
moderately abundant at the recent and historic disposal sites. Maldane sarsi is a large
tube-dwelling worm usually found in compact sediments and may be sensitive to dredge
material disposal (MITECH 1990). The amphipod Ampelisca unsocalae and the
polychaete Prionospio ehlersi were about half as abundant, on average, as Maldcine sarsi,
and were more evenly distributed, although they both were more abundant at the interim
disposal site than elsewhere. Several other abundant species, including the clam
Cyclocardia ventricosa, the amphipod Harpiniopsis epistomata and the cumacean
Eudorella pacifica were absent from the interim disposal site, but of these only
Cyclocardia appeared to prefer another site, being most abundant at the recent disposal
site. Cyclocardia is a common species on the southern California slope (Thompson and
Jones 1987, Thompson et al. 1984).
Cluster analysis was performed to determine which infaunal communities were most
similar in terms of their species assemblages (Chambers 2001). The most similar were the
two shallowest reference site stations, while Station HD3 (historical disposal site) was
most unlike any other station. One major cluster consisted of all of the interim disposal
site stations and the two shallowest historic disposal mound stations. The other major
cluster included all of the reference site and recent disposal mound stations, as well as
Station HD4. With the exception of the two shallowest reference stations, this second
cluster included the deeper stations, while the first cluster included the shallower stations.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-54
-------
TABLE 3.3-1
BENTHIC INFAUNA COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND PARAMETERS AT LA-3
	Stations	
Recent Disposal Historical Disposal Site
Interim LA-3 Site	Site

Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Density (number/m3)
322
193-447
545
410-623
377
237-523
Total Number of Species
30
22-39
45
36-52
35
22-50
Number of Species/Replicate
15
10-24
24
13-30
18
10-34
Station Species Diversity
2.79
2.43-3.16
3.24
2.94-3.42
3.06
2.68-3.46
Replicate Species Diversity
2.39
1.78-2.94
2.86
2.43-3.21
2.60
1.93-3.28
% Polychaetes
49
41-59
39
28-45
42
23-52
% Crustaceans
19
10-25
24
21-28
29
20-36
% Molluscs
19
17-21
20
15-22
16
8-23
% Echinoderms
2
0-3
5
3-9
4
0-4
% Others
3
2-4
12
7-19
9
3-18
Five Most Abundant Species at Each Area
Ampelisca unsoccilae	18%	6%
Prionospio elder.li	14%
Heteromastus filobranchus	7%
Nephtys comuta	5%
Arhyncliite califoivicus	4%
Cyclocardio ventricosa	16%	6%
Harpiniopsis epistomata	8%	6%
Maldcine sarsi	7%	12%
Endorella pacifica	5%
Chaetodennatidae	4%
Yoldiella nana 6%
Peciinaria califoniiensis	
Reference Site
Mean
Range
391
213-507
31
25-37
17
12-23
2.66
2.46-2.78
2.31
1.77-2.86
52
40-62
25
14-30
14
7-18
2
0-4
8
0-12
4%
30%
4%
4%
4%
SOURCE: USACE 2002
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
That the interim disposal site stations did not form a unique cluster suggests that
conditions are not uniform throughout the site.
Chambers (2001) concluded that since the interim disposal site stations did not form a
unique cluster, the infaunal communities at the site had not been profoundly altered.
However, it more likely confirms that conditions are not uniform throughout the interim
disposal site, with some locations more altered than others. None of the interim disposal
site stations clustered with reference site stations, and the characteristic upper slope
polychaete Maldane sarsi was not abundant at the interim disposal site. Physical and
chemical characteristics of the recent disposal (RD) stations do not explain why there
should be more species there than at the other sites. The mean percentage of total organic
carbon at the RD stations was higher than at the other sites, but in pair comparison, the
difference was only statistically significant between the RD stations and the S stations
(Chambers 2001). Regression analysis was done to examine the relationship between
number of species at a station and grain size, total organic carbon, total sulfides, and
water depth. This analysis did not find significant relationship between number of species
and any of these physical variables.
The greater species richness and diversity at the recent disposal and historic disposal sites
than at the reference site is probably due to the nature of the developing communities
there. Continual inundation by dredge material at the interim LA-3 disposal site appears
to depress both density and species richness of the community, particularly of sensitive
species, probably through smothering but also due to changes in the physical
characteristics of the sediment. However, at areas near the interim disposal site, episodic
disposal may enhance these parameters by maintaining transitional communities.
Opportunistic species are favored under these conditions because of their ability to
disperse and reproduce both rapidly and abundantly. A Sediment Profile Image (SPI)
survey done by SAIC in 1999 showed the presence of pioneering and higher order
successional stage infaunal communities near the interim LA-3 disposal site, while
communities at the center of the interim disposal site appeared to be at early successional
stages (SAIC 1999 in SAIC, MEC, and CRG 2001 in Chambers 2001). Disposal material
was easily detectable in the images as distinct depositional layers. The natural
sedimentation rate is so low that sediments in unaffected areas appear uniform in the
images. An SPI survey conducted by EVS in summer 2000 found evidence of both recent
and historical disposal both within the interim LA-3 disposal site and outside the interim
site boundary (USACE 2002). Both within and outside the interim disposal site, some
material appeared to have been deposited within the year prior to the survey, and may
have come from either of the two sites dredged in Newport Bay. At other locations
outside the interim disposal site, depositional material was detected, but the disposal
apparently occurred long enough in the past for the sediments to have been re-worked by
the infaunal organisms and the community appeared to have recovered. Depositional
material was not detected at stations within the reference site.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-56
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
b. LA-2
The infaunal community at the LA-2 study area was dominated by polychaete worms,
arthropods crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms (in this case, ophiuroids or brittle
stars) (Table 3.3-2). The polychaete Chloeia pinnata was the most abundant species at
the disposal site, followed by the ostracod Euphilomedes producta, the polychaete
Spiophcmes fimbriatei, the sipunculid or acornworm Apionsoma misakiamim, and the
polychaete Notomastus tenuis. These five species occurred at all of the disposal site
stations, although they were more abundant at some than at others. Another relatively
abundant species, the polychaete Aphelochaeta glandaria, was very abundant at disposal
site Station S2 but was absent from two other disposal site stations. The polychaete
Maldane sarsi was the most abundant species at the adjacent disposal area, followed by
Chloeia pinnata, the polychaetes Paraprionospio pinnata, Myriochele gracilis, and
Melinna heterodonta. Four additional species were abundant at one station each:
Euphilomedes producta at adjacent disposal Station AD4, the polychaetes Paradiopatra
parva and Pseudofabriciola californica at Stations AD5 and AD6, respectively, and the
clam Saxicavella pacifica at Station AD1. The top species at the reference site were
Spiophanes fimbriata, unidentified amphiurid brittlestars, Euphilomedes producta, the
brittlestar Amphiodia digitata, and the polychaete Phisidia sanctaemariae (formerly
Lanassa sp. D). The amphipod Metatiron tropakis (formerly Tiron tropakis) and the
ostracod Euphilomedes charcharodonta were also abundant at reference station Rl, and
the amphipod Ampelisca unsocalae was abundant at Station R4.
Data from the LA-2 study area was also evaluated using cluster analysis (Chambers
2001). None of the stations clustered tightly together, indicating low similarity, probably
due to the high species richness and the low degree of dominance of the communities.
The shallowest stations within each area clustered most closely, while the next order of
clustering included stations from more than one area. The deepest station, AD1, did not
cluster with any of the other stations. These results suggest that clustering was generally,
but not strictly, related to depth. That disposal site stations did not cluster tightly together
suggests that the infaunal community has not been altered profoundly by dredged
material disposal. However, the two shallowest stations at the disposal site did not cluster
with the other shallow stations, indicating that something other than depth affected the
infaunal community at those stations.
3.3.2.2 Epibenthic and Pelagic Invertebrates
a. LA-3
This section describes the epibenthic invertebrates found in the LA-3 study area;
specifically, information is presented on dominant species, abundance, species richness,
and commercially caught species within the study area. Data for this study was collected
by Chambers Group (2001) in August 2000 and January 2001. Previous trawl studies
have been conducted in the LA-3 study area in August 1988 and January 1989 by
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-57
-------
TABLE 3.3-2
BENTHIC INFAUNA COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND PARAMETERS AT LA-2
Stations
	LA-2 Site	 	Adjacent Sites		Reference Area
Mean Range	Mean	Range	Mean	Range
Density (number/nr1)	1.731 903-	2,120 743-3.363	2.440 1.433-3.093
3.000
Total Number of Species 83 65-109	97	48-167	125	108-148
Number of	48 34-70	54	25-98	75	59-90
Species/Replicate
Station Species Diversity 3.45 3.19-3.67	3.30 2.69-4.23	3.60	3.19-4.23
Replicate Species	3.15 2.86-3.47	3.04 2.41-3.96	3.76	3.62-3.97
Diversity
% Polychaetes	67 61-74	55	42-67	50	44-53
% Crustaceans	17 13-20	23	16-35	29	28-30
% Molluscs	6	5-8	II	4-23	7	4-12
% Echinoderms	5	5-7	5	3-10	8	5-10
% Others	4	2-7	7	4-10	6	5-8
Five Most Abundant Species at Each Area
Cliloeia pinnata	14%	10%
Enpliilomedes producta	8%	4%
Spiophanes fimbriate!	1%	8%
Apionsoma misakianum	7%
Nolomcistus tenuis	6%
Mcildane sarsi	13%
Paraprionospio pinnata	5%
Myriochele gracilis	5%
Melinna heterodonta	4%
Amphiuridae juv.	5%
Amphiodia digitata	4%
Phisidia sanctamariae	3%
SOURCE. USACE 2002
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
MITECH (1990), and in nearby areas by SCCWRP (1983) and extended surveys by
Cross (1987).
Two replicate five-minute otter trawls were conducted at four sites (Figures 3.3-1 and
3.3-2): inside the interim disposal site (sampling locations identified as "S" in the
sampling reports and "TS" on Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2), at a reference location (sampling
locations identified as "R" in the sampling reports and "TR" on Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2),
at a recent disposal area (sampling locations identified as "RD" in the sampling reports
and "TD" on Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2), and at a historical disposal area (sampling
locations identified as "HD" in the sampling reports and "THD" on Figures 3.3-1 and
3.3-2), with depths ranging from 401 to 485 m (1,316 to 1,591 ft). During these surveys
at least 43 species of epibenthic invertebrates, represented by seven phlya and 14 classes,
were collected with at least 31 species taken in August and at least 28 species taken in
January. The most diverse phlya were represented by at least 18 species each of
echinoderms, at least 11 species of cnidaria, and at least 7 species of arthropods (all
crustaceans). These are the historically dominant phyla collected during trawl surveys at
this depth (Word and Mearns 1977; Cross 1987; MITECH 1990; Thompson, Tsukada, et
al. 1993).
Dominant species. The epibenthic invertebrate communities offshore of southern
California show a pattern differentiated by depth or depth-related factors, with major
changes occurring about 300 m (984 ft) and again about 737 m (2,418 ft), with
intermediate depths composed of overlapping assemblages (Thompson, Tsukada, et al.
1993). The species compositions at the LA-3 study area were typical of those seen on the
slope at the depth range sampled (Word and Mearns 1977; Thompson, Tsukada, et al.
1993). The five most abundant species at all sites surveyed in 2000-2001 were a complex
of the Pacific heart urchin (Brissopsis pacifica) and the California heart urchin
(,Spatangus californicus), the northern heart urchin (Brisaster latifrons), the fragile sea
urchin (Allocentrotus frcigilis), and the sea star Zoroaster evermanni. The
Pacific/California heart urchin complex (difficult to distinguish in the field) comprised
over 80 percent of the individuals collected. The top five species comprised over 98
percent of the total abundance, and occurred at all four locations during both seasons.
Three of the urchin species were among the most common species in the prior survey at
the interim LA-3 site; in 1988-1989 California heart urchin was not taken, and the sea
star Myxoderma platyocanthum was among the dominant species (MITECH 1990). These
top species in 2000-2001, with the exception of Zoroaster evermanni, are considered a
mid-slope assemblage (Thompson, Tsukada, et al. 1993), and were collected at depths of
150 m (492 ft) and deeper in surveys throughout the SCB (Thompson et al. 1987;
Thompson, Tsukada, et al. 1993; Allen et al. 1998). Relative abundance of the four
dominant urchin species changes with depth on the shelf slope, and was summarized
from trawl data collected between 1971 and 1985; California heart urchin was most
abundant at 300 m (984 ft), and was collected in lower abundances out to 600 m (1,968
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-59
-------
'.17*58'
nr-56
117JE4
lt7"5Z'
117"5>0
33'"M
33*32
S3"30'
PROPOSED LA-3
33° 34'
33° 3?'
33"30'
117 J&8
117"56
1>7°54
11r52"
I »7-"50'
Source: USACE, 2003b
Mote: Locations are approximate
AUGUST 2000 TRAWL LOCATIONS AT LA-3
TS = Interim LA-3 Disposal Site
THD = Historic Disposal Site
TD = Recent Disposal Site
R = Reference Site
» Tra*4 Oiracron
» Triirt, S;»it ano li»v3 Net i oc3tioa»
Disposal Site Baurxteiy
Contour# of R*1t*»l«r *
Rftihirietry rrtett? -3b0
Sbo -300
v : 300 -250
:-m -250 - -2W
am 200 -i&o
H-<50 -1M
jflB *00-50
¦¦ -50 - 0
L No Ofil*
N
1 0 1
Kilometers
M:\JOBS2\3646\env\graphics\fig3.3-1.ai
08/23/04
Figure 3.3-1
-------
1 0 1
Kilometers
33u34'
33°^'
Trawl Start and End Locations
Contours of Bathmetry - riders
Bathmelry - meters
[ -600- -560
-550 - -500
-500 - -450
-450 - -400
-400 - -350
-350 - -300
-300--250
-2&0 - -200
Mi -200--150
¦1 -150 - -100
HI -100 - -50
No Data
TS = Interim LA-3 Disposal Site
THD = Historic Disposal Site
TD = Recent Disposal Site
TR = Reference Site
= Trawl Direction
117CW
117*52
I (7°50'
117*56'
11 ?':56
n/°y
1I7°5?'
117°5C
Source: USACE, 2003b
JANUARY 2001 TRAWL LOCATIONS AT LA-3
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
ft; Thompson, Dixon, et al. 1993). Zoroaster evermanni occurs at depths from 398 to 940
m (1,306 ft to 3,084 ft) off of the southern California coast (Fisher 1928). The factors that
affect the distribution of urchins and sea stars on the slope is not known, but all of the
species have been noted to have patchy distributions, and variations in abundance over
time (Thompson, Tsukada, et al. 1993).
Abundance. During the August 2000 survey 22,481 individuals were taken, while
14,900 individuals were taken in January 2001. During the summer survey, abundance
was greater at the interim disposal, recent disposal, and reference sites than in winter;
only the historical disposal site had greater abundance in winter. This seasonality in
urchin abundances was also seen in the 1988-1989 surveys (MITECH 1990). SCCWRP
(1983) noted an increase in northern and California heart urchins in their summer
samples, although statistically they found no temporal differences in catch parameters.
CSDOC (1996) and Thompson et al. (1987) did not detect any seasonal changes in
abundance over long time periods, although distribution was not uniform, with some
urchins aggregating in "herds" (Thompson, Tsukada, et al. 1993). Overall abundances
were lower at the interim LA-3 site compared to these other surveys; urchin abundance in
particular was noticeably lower at the interim LA-3 site compared to the reference site in
both surveys (MITECH 1990; USACE 2002). At the LA-2 disposal site, it was postulated
that decreases in urchin populations may have been caused by smothering, a change in
sediment characteristics, or a change in food supply (EPA 1987a).
Species richness. The 2000-2001 surveys show very similar species richness at each of
the comparable sites compared to surveys in 1988-1989 (MITECH 1990). All of the
2000-2001 sites had fewer species compared to the nearby surveys conducted by
SCCWRP (1983), but were similar to those seen in a 460 m (1,509 ft) survey conducted
in 1976 and 1977 (Word and Mearns 1977). In addition, although lower than the
reference stations, species richness at LA-3 is similar to that seen in other deep-water
surveys.
Commercial fishery. Commercial fish catches are reported by CDFG Catch Blocks,
which are 18.52 km by 18.52 km (10 nmi by 10 nmi) statistical blocks. The proposed
LA-3 site is located within Catch Block 738 (see Figure 3.3-3).
Commercial fisheries for invertebrates between 1999 and 2001 in Catch Block 738
(CDFG unpubl. data 2002), which includes the LA-3 study area, showed market squid
(Loligo opalescens), California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus), rock crabs (Cancer
sp.), red urchin (Strongylocentrocus franciscanus), and spot prawn (Pandalus platyceros)
to be the top five species taken. None of these species was collected during trawl surveys.
Additional information on commercial fisheries is discussed in Section 3.4.1.
Market squid. Market squid are fished by roundhaul nets in depths ranging from 15 to
45 m (50 to 150 ft). Approximately one million kg (2,015,230 lbs) total were landed from
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-62
-------
33°40"
H°M>'
I18°20'	118°10"	Ii 8°00'	1I7°50'
Commercial Fish Catch Blocks

A

ivnvi

M \|Obs2\3646\gis\lig3 3-3 mxd 08/18/04
'"«.h*'

I'V'l
Figure 3.3-3

ImJ
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Catch Block 738 between 1999 and 2001; the total landings in California in 1999 were 90
million kg (200 million lbs) (Leet et al. 2001). The entire fishery for market squid occurs
in the surface waters.
California spiny lobster. The California spiny lobster fishery occurs only in southern
California, and is active between Point Conception and the Mexican border. The fishery
is composed exclusively of trap fishing, bringing lobsters in alive. Between 1999 and
2001 in Catch Block 738, 38,000 kg (84,518 lbs) were landed; the total landings in
California in 1999 were about 227,000 kg (500,000 lbs). Most of the traps are set near
rocky reefs, in depths ranging from about 10 to 100 m (32.8 to 328 ft; Leet et al. 2001).
There is a sport fishery for lobster, using hoop nets from piers, or bare hand by skin or
scuba diving. Both of these fisheries are nearshore, with divers typically restricted to 40
m (131 ft) or less.
Rock crab. Rock crabs are fished along the entire California coastline, but over 85
percent of the rock crab fishery is active in southern California. The fishery is composed
exclusively of trap fishing, bringing most crabs in alive. Between 1999 and 2001 in Catch
Block 738, 8,800 kg (19,477 lbs) were landed; the total landings in California in 1999
were 358,000 kg (790,000 lbs). Most of the traps are set on open sandy areas, or near
rocky reefs, in depths ranging from 25 to 75 m (82 to 246 ft; Leet et al. 2001).
Red urchin. The red urchin fishery occurs along the entire California coastline, and about
70 percent of the urchin fishery is taken in southern California. The fishery is composed
exclusively of divers collecting the urchins in nearshore waters. Between 1999 and 2001
in Catch Block 738, 2,200 kg (4,887 lbs) were landed; the total landings in California in
1999 were 4.9 million kg (10.9 million lbs). Most of the fishery is concentrated around
the offshore islands and San Diego, where algae and rock reefs provide an excellent
habitat (Leet et al. 2001).
Spot prawn. The spot prawn fishery in southern California is composed of both trap and
trawl components, with fishing occurring at depths of 1,100 to 2,000 m (3,600 to 6,560
ft). In Catch Block 738 between 1999 and 2001, 1,900 kg (4,300 lbs) of spot prawn were
landed. In 1999, the total catch for California was about 270,000 kg (600,000 lbs) (Leet
et al. 2001). The entire fishery is in depths greater than the LA-3 study area.
b. LA-2
This section describes the epibenthic invertebrates found in the study area of the LA-2
ODMDS. Specifically, information is presented on dominant species, abundance, species
richness, and commercially caught species within the study area. Data for this study were
collected by Chambers Group (2001) in August 2000 and January 2001. Previous trawl
studies have been conducted in the LA-2 area by IEC (1982) and Tetra Tech and MBC
(1985).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-64
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
In 2000-2001 two replicate five-minute otter trawls were conducted at three sites (Figures
3.3-4 and 3.3-5): inside the disposal site (sampling locations identified as "S" in the
sampling reports and "TS" on Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5), at a reference location (sampling
locations identified as "R" in the sampling reports and "TR" on Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5),
at an adjacent disposal area (sampling locations identified as "AD" in the sampling
reports and "TD" on Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5), with depths ranging from 127 to 242 m
(417 to 794 ft). During these surveys at least 48 species of epibenthic invertebrates,
represented by eight phlya and 14 classes, were collected with at least 34 species taken in
August and at least 27 species taken in January. The most diverse phlya were represented
by at least 16 species each of echinoderms, at least 11 species of arthropods (all
crustaceans), and at least 10 species of molluscs. These are the historically dominant
phyla collected during trawl surveys at this depth (IEC 1982; Tetra Tech and MBC 1985;
Thompson, Tsukada, et al. 1993; Allen et al. 1998).
Dominant species. The species composition at the LA-2 site was typical of that seen on
the outer shelf - upper slope at the depth range sampled (Thompson et al. 1987;
Thompson, Tsukada, et al. 1993). The five most abundant species at all sites surveyed in
2000-2001 were the fragile sea urchin, northern heart urchin, Pacific heart urchin,
California heart urchin, and the Pacific/California heart urchin complex. The fragile sea
urchin comprised over 75 percent of the individuals collected; the top five species
comprised over 93 percent of the total abundance. The fragile sea urchin was the only
species that occurred at all six locations and was also the most abundant species in the
two prior surveys at the LA-2 site (EEC 1982; Tetra Tech and MBC 1985). Other
abundant species in the IEC (1982) survey were the shrimp Neocrangon resima, the sand
star Astropectin verrilli, and the Pacific heart urchin. Other abundant species in the Tetra
Tech and MBC (1985) survey were the white urchin (Lytechinus pictus), highly abundant
in only a few trawls, and the ridgeback rock shrimp (Sicyonia ingentis). All of these
previously abundant species were collected during the 2000-2001 surveys, in similar
abundances as in 1982, but in lesser abundances than collected in 1985. The most
abundant species in 2000-2001 were a mixture of the shelf and mid-slope assemblages
described by Thompson, Tsukada et al. (1993), and were collected at and below 150 m
(492 ft) in surveys throughout the SCB (Thompson et al. 1987; Thompson, Tsukada, et
al. 1993; Allen etal. 1998).
Abundance. During the August 2000 survey 934 individuals were taken, while 3,299
individuals were taken in January 2001. Winter was characterized by higher abundance at
the disposal and adjacent disposal sites; there was no seasonal difference at the reference
site. Abundance of epibenthic invertebrate is highly variable among the various surveys,
with the abundance at the disposal site near the median of the range of values shown.
Most of the comparison data were collected with trawls of 10-minute duration, which
would increase the overall abundance of the catch. Most of the individuals collected at
these depths are urchins, and their distribution is patchy throughout the SCB (Thompson,
Tsukada, et al. 1993).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-65
-------
118'?0'
1T8°15'
33°35
S4C0C
6600ft
33*35'
65200
118-PO
Source: USACE, 2003b
AUGUST 2000 TRAWL LOCATIONS AT LA-2
TS = LA-2 Disposal Site
TD = Adjacent Disposal Site
TR = Reference Site
= Trawl Direction
L—Pull II I
a
• Trawl Stan aid End Locations
Contours of Bathmetry - meters
Balhmeliy * meters
-900 - -800
-800 - -700
-TOO - -600
g| -600 - -500
-500 - -400
-400 -300
-300 -200
•200 - -100
-100-0
No Data
1 0
Kilometers
M:\JOBS2\3646\env\graphics\fig3.3-4.ai	08/23/04
Figure 3.3-4
-------
t ir?o'
118°15'
118° 10'
33 J35'
33"35
IIS^ZO'
Source: USACE, 2003b
118°t5'	118° 10'
JANUARY 2001 TRAWL LOCATIONS AT LA-2
M:\JOBS2\3646\env\graphicstfig3.3-5.ai	08/23/04
TS = LA-2 Disposal Site
TD = Adjacent Disposal Site
TR = Reference Site
—= Trawl Direction
• Trawl Start and Fnd Locations
Contours of Bathmetry - meters
Bathmetry - meters
¦i -900 - -800
Hi -800 - -700
| 700 600
g -600 - -500
-500 - -400
-400 - -300
-300--200
-200 - -100
-100-0
No Data
• 1i
Figure 3.3-5
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Species richness. Species richness was very similar during the two more intensive
surveys at LA-2 (Tetra Tech and MBC 1985; USACE 2002). In addition, although it was
lower than the reference stations, species richness was similar to that seen in SCB-wide
surveys. The lower species richness seen at the disposal site may indicate disposal-related
effects, possibly a result of smothering, a change in sediment characteristics, or a change
in food supply (EPA 1987a)
Commercial fishery. Commercial fish catches are reported by CDFG Catch Blocks,
which are 18.52 km by 18.52 km (10 nmi by 10 nmi) statistical blocks. The LA-2 site is
located within Catch Block 740 (see Figure 3.3-3).
Commercial fisheries for invertebrates between 1999 and 2001 in Catch Block 740
(CDFG unpubl. data 2002), which includes the LA-2 ODMDS, showed market squid, red
urchin, ridgeback rock shrimp (also known as ridgeback prawn), California spiny lobster,
and unspecified sea cucumber (likely Parcistichopus sp.) to be the top five species taken.
Additional information is discussed in Section 3.4.1.
Market squid, red urchin, and California spiny lobster are discussed in Section3.4.1.
Compared to landings in Catch Block 738, the market squid fishery in Catch Block 740 is
similar in size, the red urchin fishery is larger, taking about 193,000 kg (429,207 lbs),
while the California spiny lobster fishery is smaller, taking 11,800 kg (26,303 lbs).
Ridgeback rock shrimp. Between 1999 and 2001, ridgeback rock shrimp landings from
Catch Block 740 totaled about 14,500 kg (31,501 lbs). The minimum depth allowed for
trawling is 45 m (147 ft), and generally occurs in depths shallower than 160 m (525 ft;
Leet et al. 2001). The fishery is concentrated in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa
Monica Bay, with the total landings in 1999 equal to over 630,000 kg (1,391,000 lbs)
(Leet et al. 2001).
Sea cucumber. The fishery for sea cucumbers began in 1978, and at this time, is
conducted by diver and trawler methodologies, with total landings in Catch Block 740
between 1999 and 2001 approximately 9,100 kg (20,000 lbs). The main abundance of
Parcistichopus occurs in less than 100 m (328 ft), and the fishery is concentrated at these
depths (Leet et al. 2001). In 1999, over 270,000 kg (600,000 lbs) of sea cucumbers were
landed commercially in California; there is no known sport fishery (Leet et al. 2001).
3.3.3 Fish Community
3.3.3.1 LA-3
This section describes the demersal fishes found in the LA-3 study area. Specifically,
information is presented on dominant species, abundance, species richness, and biomass
within the study area. Data are summarized in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 and Figure 3.3-6.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-68
-------
TABLE 3.3-3
NUMBER OF SPECIES, TOTAL ABUNDANCE, AND FIVE MOST ABUNDANT FISH SPECIES COLLECTED
WITHIN THE LA-3 STUDY AREA BY STATION. COMBINED SUMMER AND WINTER TOTALS

No. of


Reported Depth

Station
Species
Total Abundance
Species
Range
Abundance
S


Dover sole
27 to 914 m
42
LA-3


longspine thornyhead
332 to 1,524 m
26
Disposal Site
8
111
dogface witch eel
to >914 ni
22



California rattail
61 to >610 m
10



shortspine thornyhead
26 to >1.524 m
8
R


longspine thornyhead
332 to 1.524 m
1 11
Reference


splitnose rockfish
213 to 475 m
24
Area
12
204
shortspine thornyhead
26 to >1,524 m
13



Dover sole
27 to 914 ni
12



bigfin eelpout
91 to 620 in
12
RD


longspine thornyhead
332 to 1.524 m
239
Recent Disposal


dogface witch eel
to >914 m
49
Site
12
356
shortspine thornyhead
26 to > 1.524 m
24



Dover sole
27 to 914 m
21



California rattail
61 to >610 m
8
HD


longspine thornyhead
332 to 1,524 m
46
Historic


shortspine thornyhead
26 to >1,524 ni
40
Disposal
12
170
dogface witch eel
to >914 m
29
Site


Dover sole
27 to 914 in
16



rex sole
18 to 640 m
15
SOURCES: Chambers Group (2001) and COE (2002): reported depth range from Miller and Lea (1972)
-------
TABLE 3.3-4
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ABUNDANCE AND SPECIES RICHNESS FOR 5 TRAWL SURVEYS
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT (SCB) AREA AT DEPTH SIMILAR TO LA-3
Survey Year(s)
2000-20011


1988-19892

1981
-I9833

198I-19824

1976-
1977s
Survey Area

LA-3


LA-3

CSDOC/Pt. Dume

CSDOC

SCB
Station ID
S R
RD
HD
DT
AD
CT


E
G
K


Av. Depth (m)
450 445
465
410
436.5
452
437
370
408
304
382.5
482
300
460
No. of Samples
4 4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
4
4
4
2
7
Fish













Abundance
27.8 51
88.8
42.5
26
41
69
20-200*
30-360*
105
80
148.5
200
121
Species
5.5 9
7.3
7.5
3.8
5.5
5.8
6-10"
5-10*
11
8
6
7
4
Epibenthic Invertebrates












Abundance
737 5,041.3
1.712.5
1,853.3
1.703.3
5.181
1 1.631
NA
NA
1.450
3.400
6.400
300
3.500
Species 9.8 12.3 15.3	10	10.3 14 11.3	14 14.5 18	14
SOURCES
'Chambers (2000) and COE (2002) 5-mimite trawls.
2M1TECH (1990). 10-minute trawls.
"Cross (1987) 10-minute trawls (includes data from SCCWRP [ 1983]J.
JSCCWRP (1983). 10-minute trawls.
'Alien and Mearns (1977) and Word and Mearns (1977) 20- to 30-minule trawls.
NOTES-
* ranges reported
Simevs conducted from 1977 to 2001 at depths of 300 to 480 meters
Station ID codes:
S. DT = disposal
R. CT = refeience
RD = recent disposal
HD = historical disposal
AD = adjacent disposal
E. G. and K = depth isobaths
-------
Species Richness
¦ Summer
~ Winter
.2	16
u	14
8"	12
¦5	10
«Enli dli
.e.	rz
#	
c®
ve°
¦ Summer
~ Winter
150
100
50

V"
Cnx	rV	(<3	pr
^ 
Oc
r®
v®°
%
¦J- 

.O3 ^0
v0




rv-7

cS
„c?
Location
FISH ABUNDANCE, SPECIES RICHNESS, AND BIOMASS (kg)
TAKEN DURING AUGUST 2000 AND JANUARY 2001
TRAWLS AT INTERIM LA-3 AND LA-2 ODMDS
M VJOBS2\3646\env\graphics\fig3 3-6 ai
08/27/04
A
rwi.
V
I'V'I
Figure 3.3-6
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
During the 2000-2001 surveys (see Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2) a combined fourteen species
of Fish, represented by three classes and nine families, were collected, with 14 species
taken in August 2000 and 12 species taken in January 2001; only spotted ratfish
(Hydrolagus colliei) and black eelpout (Lycodes diapterus) were not taken in January.
The most diverse families were represented by three species each of righteye flounders
(Family Pleuronectidae) and scorpionfish (Family Scorpaenidae) (including rockfish and
thornyheads), and two species of eelpouts (Family Zoarcidae). These are the historically
dominant families found in trawl surveys at this depth (Allen and Mearns 1977; Cross
1987; MITECH 1990; EPA 1993).
a.	Dominant Species
The fish populations that occur on the California coast are generally differentiated by
depth or depth-related factors (Allen and Mearns 1977). The species composition at the
LA-3 study area was typical of that seen in demersal fish communities on the slope at the
depth range sampled (Allen and Mearns 1977; Cross 1987). During the 2000-2001
surveys, the most abundant species taken were longspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus
altivelis), dogface witch-eel (Facciolella gilberti), Dover sole, and shortspine thornyhead
(Sebastolobus cilascanus). These four species occurred at all four locations during both
seasons, and together comprised over 83 percent of the total abundance. MITECH's
(1990) survey at the interim LA-3 site sampled a similar fish community, except dogface
witch-eel was not taken. Thornyheads were the dominant species in the lower slope
(>400 m [>1,312 ft]), with Dover sole also in high abundance, and dogface witch-eel
present in much lower abundances in surveys by SCCWRP (1983) and expanded surveys
by Cross (1987). The dogface witch-eel was more abundant in 2000-2001 than in other
surveys. It is a deep-water species of the Family Nettastomidae, with a population center
south of California (Fitch and Lavenberg 1968). The reason for its relatively high
abundance in these surveys is not known, although it is possibly related to recent El Nino
conditions. During an El Nino southern species have become more abundant in the SCB
(Mearns 1988). The splitnose rockfish was among the most abundant species found by
Cross (1987); it was present in low abundance in this survey, but was found at the interim
LA-3 site in greater abundance by MITECH (1990). As indicated in Table 3.3-3, the
dominant species collected in the trawl surveys range widely across the shelf and slope.
b.	Abundance and Species Richness
During the August 2000 survey 503 individuals were taken, while 338 individuals were
taken in January 2001. Abundance and species richness was lower at the interim disposal
site during the 2000-2001 surveys compared to the three other sites sampled. In summer
it had lower biomass, and in winter higher biomass, compared to the three other sites. The
2000-2001 surveys show an increase in species richness and abundance at the interim
disposal and adjacent areas compared to surveys in 1988-1989, with the reference area
showing a greater number of species with slightly lower abundance (MITECH 1990).
The reference, recent disposal, and historical disposal sampling sites had similar, or
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-72
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
slightly lower, abundances and species richness compared to the surveys conducted by
SCCWRP (1983). However, the number of species and abundances taken at all stations
was the same or higher for these depths than those seen in a 460 m (1,509 ft) survey
conducted in 1976 and 1977 (Allen and Mearns 1977).
The lower abundance and diversity within the interim disposal site compared to the
reference may indicate disposal-related effects, possibly a result of a decrease in food
resources. MITECH (1990) collected more juvenile thornyhead individuals at the interim
disposal site and suggested irregularities in the sediment surface due to deposition of
dredged material might allow for greater protection from predation for smaller fishes.
The greater abundance and species richness at the recent disposal and historical disposal
sites (compared to within the interim site boundary) indicate that the fish populations, if
they are affected by disposal, have recovered to values seen in areas not affected by
disposal activities. There were no apparent seasonal trends in abundance, species
richness, or biomass between the summer or winter surveys. During the MITECH (1990)
surveys there were also no trends, although in SCCWRP (1983) the abundance and
species richness were both higher in winter. Seasonality is attributed to oceanographic
conditions related to temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations, reproduction,
depth-related age progression, and feeding (Cross 1987; Cross and Allen 1993).
c. Pelagic Species
Mid-water pelagic species in the area were only sampled in the surveys by MITECH
(1990), which used an Isaac-Kidd mid-water trawl. None of the species collected was
among the list of commercial species, and the catch was dominated by bristlemouths
(Family Gonostomidae), hatchetfish (Family Sternoptychidae), and lanternfishes (Family
Myctophidae). All of these are typical in southern California (Fitch and Lavenberg 1968).
One pelagic species was observed on the surface during trawls, the ocean sunfish (Mola
mold), which is found worldwide in tropical to temperate seas (Eschmeyer et al. 1983).
3.3.3.2 LA-2
This section describes the demersal fishes found in the study area of LA-2 ODMDS.
During these surveys (see Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5) a combined 27 species of fish,
represented by two classes and 12 families, were collected with 18 species taken in
August 2000 and 21 species taken in January 2001; 12 species were common to both
seasons. The most diverse families were represented by nine species of scorpionfish
(Family Scorpaenidae; including rockfish and thornyhead), four species of righteye
flounders (Family Pleuronectidae), and three species of lefteye flounders (Family
Bothidae). These are the historically dominant families noted at these depths in other
trawl surveys (IEC 1982; Tetra Tech and MBC 1985; SCCWRP 1983; CSDOC 1996).
Cross (1987) noted fewer Bothidae, but much of the surveys were in deeper water where
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-73
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Bothidae are less common. In one study off of San Francisco all of the Bothidae collected
occurred in water less than 100 m (328 ft; EPA 1993).
a.	Dominant Species
The species composition at the LA-2 site was typical of that seen in demersal fish
communities on the slope at the depth range sampled (EC 1982; Tetra Tech and MBC
1985; SCCWRP 1983; CSDOC 1996; Allen et al. 1998). Because of the shallower depth,
a different species assemblage was seen compared to that at the LA-3 study area, with
only seven species occurring at both locations. During the combined surveys, the most
abundant species taken at LA-2 were Pacific sanddab, slender sole (Lyopsetta exilis), and
shortspine combfish (Zaniolepis frenata). These three species occurred in at least five of
the six locations during both seasons. Table 3.3-5 compares the five most abundant
species at each site during the combined seasons, with total abundance and species
richness. Surveys in 1983-1984 at the LA-2 site collected a similar fish assemblage (Tetra
Tech and MBC 1985). IEC (1982) did a single trawl in the disposal site in 1980;
dominant species were Dover sole, blacktip poacher (Xeneretmus latifrons), rex sole, and
splitnose rockfish. Compared to a comprehensive SCB-wide survey in 1994, all of the top
five species collected in 2000-2001, with the exception of longfin sanddab, were among
the recurrent groups, species clusters, and depth clusters derived from the 22 trawls
conducted between 101 and 200 m (331 and 656 ft; Allen et al. 1998). As indicated in
Table 3.3-5, the dominant species collected in the trawl surveys range widely across the
shelf and slope.
b.	Abundance and Species Richness
During the August 2000 survey 249 individuals were taken, while 427 individuals were
taken in January 2001. Comparison of abundance and species richness during the 2000-
2001 surveys shows lower values at the disposal site compared to the other sites sampled.
Table 3.3-5 shows a comparison between the three locations sampled. The 2000-2001
surveys show lower species richness and abundance at the disposal and adjacent areas
compared to surveys in 1983-1984; however, the earlier surveys were more heavily
sampled, which likely contributed to the higher species richness and abundance seen at
each site and overall. Both the recent and prior surveys at LA-2 indicated there were
fewer species and individuals at the disposal site compared to the reference site. Similar
to the LA-3 study area, the adjacent disposal site indicates that the fish abundance and
species richness resemble those seen in areas not affected by disposal activities. There
were no apparent seasonal trends in species richness, abundance, and biomass between
the summer or winter surveys. During the Tetra Tech and MBC (1985) surveys there
were also no trends, although in other surveys the abundance and species richness were
both higher in winter (SCCWRP 1983; Cross 1987). No persistent trends in seasonal
abundance were detected in a 10-year monitoring program by CSDOC (1996). A
comparison of abundance and species richness during other surveys is shown in
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-74
-------
TABLE 3.3-5
NUMBER OF SPECIES, TOTAL ABUNDANCE, AND FIVE MOST ABUNDANT FISH SPECIES COLLECTED
WITHIN LA-2 STUDY AREA BY STATION
COMBINED SUMMER AND WINTER TOTALS
Number
of	Total
Station
Species
Abundance
Species
Reported Depth Range
Abundance
S


shortspine combfish
shallow to 366 m
34
LA-2


slender sole
76 to 518 m
19
Disposal
12
88
greenstriped rockfish
61 to 402 m
9
Site


Dover sole
27 to 914 m
6



greenblotched rockfish
61 to 396 in
6
R


Pacific sanddab
9 to 549 m
127
Reference


longfin sanddab
2 to 135 m
62
Area
16
258
slender sole
76 to 518 in
23



English sole
18 to 305 m
20



Dover sole
27 to 914 m
6
AD


Pacific sanddab
9 to 549 m
136
Adjacent


slender sole
76 to 518 m
92
Disposal
17
330
shortspine combfish
shallow to 366 in
40
Site


halfbanded rockfish
59 to 402 m
26



greenspotted rockfish
49 to 201 m
8
SOURCES: Chambers Group (2001) and COE (2002): reported depth range from Miller and Lea (1972).
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Table 3.3-6. Abundance is lower at the LA-2 site compared to other locations in the SCB,
but the species richness is similar at all locations with similar depths.
c. Pelagic Species
No mid-water pelagic surveys have been conducted in the vicinity of LA-2, but the
bristlemouths, hatchetfishes, and lanternfishes taken at LA-3 are common throughout the
worlds oceans (Fitch and Lavenberg 1968; Hart 1973), and are likely similarly present at
LA-2. Two epipelagic species were observed on the surface during trawls in summer: the
bonito shark (or shortfin mako [Isiirus oxyrinchus]), which is found world wide in warm
seas and sought by sportfishermen (Eschmeyer et al. 1983), and the ocean sunfish,
mentioned in Section 3.3.3.I.e.
3.3.4 Tissue Bioaccumulation
Historical impacts of contaminants, particularly the chlorinated hydrocarbons DDT and
PCBs, have been of regional concern in the SCB since the 1970s. While sources of
contamination have been reduced significantly in the last several decades, many
substances are bound to sediments and are available to organisms through direct uptake
from sediments or accumulation through prey items. In the SCB, the most contaminated
areas occur in harbors and bays and offshore of the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Mearns et al.
1991; Anderson et al. 1993). SCB-wide surveys of bioaccumulation in tissues are limited.
Tissue monitoring programs tend to be localized, particularly near municipal wastewater
discharges, to assess point-source impacts and local historical trends (Allen et al. 1998).
Mearns et al. (1991) analyzed sediments and invertebrate and fish tissues throughout the
SCB for a variety of contaminants including PAH compounds, 17 metals, PCBs and
historically important pesticides such as DDT. This study concluded that there was no
evidence that levels of chemical pollution were increasing. The only contaminants found
to biomagnify in the food web were mercury, PCBs, and the pesticides DDT and
chlordane. With the exception of tin in San Diego Harbor, metal levels in fish tissues
were within expected ranges. Metal levels tended to be higher in the tissues of fish
remote from major contaminant sources (such as outfalls or harbors). High levels of
organic contaminants may depress uptake of some metals in fish muscle, which suggests
that continued reductions in PCBs and DDT levels may lead to increased levels of some
metals in fish tissues. With the exception of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, highest tissue
contamination levels in the SCB were found in harbors.
As part of the 1994 SCB Pilot Project (SCBPP), SCCWRP conducted fish tissue
investigations on flatfishes from throughout the mainland shelf of the SCB to identify any
regional contamination trends. Tissue contamination on the mainland shelf was
widespread, with nearly 100 percent of the Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus) and
longfin sanddab (Citharichthys xcinthostigma) from throughout the SCB testing positive
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 3-76
-------
TABLE 3.3-6
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ABUNDANCE AND SPECIES RICHNESS FOR 7 TRAWL SURVEYS
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT (SCB) AREA AT DEPTH SIMILAR TO LA-2
Survey Year(s)

2000-2001'

1994"
1990''
19854


1983-
1984s


1982"
1977-19827
Survey Area

LA-2

SCB
SCB
SCB

LA-2


Reference

LA-2
SCB
Station ID
S
R
AD



Sh
Mid
Deep
Sh
Mid
Deep


Av. Depth (m)
143/242
139/221
127/216
101-200
150
150
129
198
312
129
198
312
184
200-627
No. of Samples
4
4
4
31
7
13
8
24
8
8
8
8
1
19
Fish (average values)
Abundance 44.0
129.0
165.0
259
443.6
334.4
59
266.8
34.5
201
142.5
48.8
82
NA
Species
12.5
11.0
14.5
12.8
15.3
14.1
10.75
14.8
5.5
14.25
9.5
8.5
10
1 1.3
Gpibenthic invertebrates (average values)
Abundance 444.5 380 1.292
793
540.3
994.2
146.5
1,063.8
192.5
1.065.5
213.8
138.8
-241
NA
Species
13
22.5
25
15.4
12.8
14.1
13.75
25.5
11.3
14.75
10.0
12.5
7
17.5
SOURCES'
'Chambers (2001) and COE (2002) 5-minute trawls.
"Allen et al. (1998). 10-minute trawls.
'SCCWRP (1993), 10-minute trawls.
JThonipson et al. (1987). 10-minute trawls.
sTetra-Tech/MBC (1985) 16 of 64 trawls at 10 minutes. 48 of 64 at 5 minutes.
6IEC (. 1982) One 10-minute trawl.
7Moore et al (1983) 10-nunute trawls.
NOTES:
Surveys conducted from 1977 to 2001 at depths of 101 to 627 meters
Station ID codes:
S = disposal
R = reference
AD = adjacent disposal
LA-2 Sh. Mid. Deep = disposal site isobaths
Reference Sh. Mid. Deep = reference isobaths
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
for DDT and PCBS (Allen et al. 1998). While DDT levels were similarly high in Dover
sole, only 16 percent of the population was contaminated with PCBs. Twelve other
pesticides were undetected in flatfish liver tissue samples from the SCB. SCCWRP found
that while DDT and PCB contamination was widespread in the SCB, substantial
reductions in DDT and PCB concentrations from reference areas had occurred in the last
10 to 20 years, with reductions of up to two orders of magnitude in contaminant levels in
some fish tissues (Table 3.3-7).
3.3.4.1 LA-3
The OCSD conducts annual marine monitoring, including tissue contaminant analysis, in
waters to the northwest and inshore of the interim LA-3 disposal site. Analysis of ten
years of monitoring fish and macroinvertebrate tissues in relation to the OCSD municipal
wastewater discharge found contaminant levels that were consistent with values reported
in other areas of the SCB (CSDOC 1996). There were no long-term trends in tissue metal
concentrations, including mercury, in the area off Orange County. Elevated
organochlorine contaminants, including DDT and PCBs, occurred sporadically in fish
tissues from the area. No patterns of distribution were evident, although some declines in
organochlorine levels in fish tissues were apparent during the 10-year period. Later
studies have recorded a spatial pattern relative to the outfall for PCB levels in the livers
of some flatfish species, with higher levels nearest the outfall (CSDOC 1998; OCSD
2000). No spatial patterns for DDT contamination relative to the outfall have been
observed. Contaminant levels in edible portions of fish were found to be below human
health advisory limits.
SCCWRP (1983) collected individuals of six species of fish from the Orange County
slope for tissue contamination analysis. The study area was adjacent to and west of the
interim LA-3 disposal site, at depths similar to the disposal site. In muscle tissues, only
zinc and copper were routinely measurable, although occasionally low levels of cadmium
and chromium were detected. Silver, nickel and lead were undetected in muscle tissue.
Metal concentrations were much higher in liver tissues, though nickel and lead were
again undetected. The levels of metals in tissues were within the expected ranges for the
SCB. Tissue analysis for PCBs and DDT showed no trends with depth in the study area,
and all samples contained higher levels of DDT than PCBs. The levels detected were
similar to concentrations found in the tissues of fish collected in areas distant from major
contaminant sources. Concentrations of DDT in fish muscle tissues on the Orange
County Slope were found to be up to 16 times less than concentrations measured near the
Palos Verdes White's Point municipal wastewater outfall, while concentrations of
organic contaminants in Dover sole livers were about eight times less.
In 1988, tissues from fragile sea urchins collected at the interim LA-3 disposal site, an
adjacent site, and a reference site were analyzed for levels of nine metals and 4,4'-DDE
(a DDT congener). There was no evidence of elevated contaminant levels in urchin tissue
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-78
-------
TABLE 3.3-7
COMPARISON OF MEANS OF TOTAL DDT AND TOTAL PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN LIVERS OF PACIFIC SANDDAB, LONGFIN
SANDDAB, AND DOVER SOLE


Pacific Sanddab
Longfin Sanddab
Dover Sole

Depth
DDT
PCB
DDT
PCB
DDT
PCB
Year
(m)
(Hg/wet g)
(Hg/wet g)
(Hg/wet g)
(Hg/wet g)
(jig/wet g)
(,ug/wet g)
1977
60
-
-
-
-
0.76
1.44
1985
60
4.33
5.82
6.21
7.81
0.42
0.35

150
5.57
5.50
2.83
3.02
0.47
0.39
1994
50-70
0.14
<0.01
0.22
0.07
<0.01
<0.01

130-170
0.16
0.03
-
-
0.13
0.04
SOURCE: Allen et al. (1998)
NOTES.
Data collected at various depths in reference areas on the mainland shelf of Southern California.
DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
PCB = polychlorinated biplienyls
- = not analyzed
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
at the disposal site when compared to the other sites (MITECH 1990). Longspine
thornyheads were collected at the three aforementioned sites in 1988-1989, and muscle
tissue was analyzed for the same contaminants as the urchin tissue. The only apparent
difference among stations were the levels of DDE, which were at least three times higher
at the adjacent site than at either the disposal or reference sites.
Fish and invertebrate tissue samples were collected in summer 2000 and winter 2001 (see
Figures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2) in and around the interim LA-3 disposal site (Chambers Group
2001). The total PCB concentration in sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea) collected at LA-3
and the surrounding area in August 2000 was 0.45 ppb (Table 3.3-8). In January 2001,
PCB levels ranged from 0.46 ppb in sea cucumbers from a reference area to 1.18 ppb for
those collected within the boundary of the interim LA-3 site. The concentrations of PCBs
were much lower than human health action limits, and well below the maximum of 36
ppb previously collected in the area in 1995 during marine monitoring studies conducted
by OCSD (Chambers Group 2001).
DDT concentrations of 4.7 ppb were found in sea cucumber tissue in August 2000
(Table 3.3-8). In January 2001, DDT concentrations of 11.6 ppb were found in sea
cucumbers collected from within the interim LA-3 site, which exceeded concentrations at
both the adjacent and reference sites. DDT concentrations in sea cucumbers from LA-3
were found at the high range of concentrations previously collected inshore of the area.
None of the sea cucumber tissue samples exceeded human health action limits for
mercury. In August 2000, concentrations of chromium and selenium exceeded the
median international standards for contaminants. In January 2001, sea cucumber samples
from the adjacent site, an area of recent disposal, exceeded the median international
standard for arsenic, and sea cucumber tissues from both the interim LA-3 disposal site
and the reference site exceeded the median international standard for chromium.
Contaminant levels from throughout the area suggest that sea cucumbers may be
accumulating cadmium from sediments within the interim LA-3 disposal site.
Dover sole was the target species for fish tissue analysis in summer 2000 and winter 2001
(Chambers Group 2001). Total PCB concentration was 21.4 ppb in Dover sole collected
at the interim LA-3 site and surrounding area in August 2000 (Table 3.3-8). In January
2001, PCB levels ranged from 11.6 ppb in Dover sole collected within the boundary of
the interim LA-3 site to 57.5 ppb for those at an adjacent site, an area of recent disposal.
The concentrations of PCBs were much lower than the previously mentioned action
limits. The PCB levels in Dover sole were similar to levels found previously in the area,
and well below PCB levels found in Dover sole tissue from the Palos Verdes area. Total
DDT concentrations in flatfish from the LA-3 area were at the higher end of the range of
values from Orange County inshore of LA-3, but well below levels found in Dover sole
from the Palos Verdes area. None of the Dover sole samples exceeded FDA action limits
or median international standards for DDT. Concentrations of mercury in Dover sole
tissue from LA-3 were well below human health action levels. All Dover sole samples
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-80
-------
TABLE 3.3-8
INVERTEBRATE (SEA CUCUMBER) AND FISH (DOVER SOLE) TISSUE CONTAMINATION CONCENTRATIONS FROM SAMPLES
COLLECTED IN AND AROUND THE LA-2 AND INTERIM LA-3 DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES, INCLUDING FDA AND
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN HEALTH LIMITS
LA-3 Samples
LA-2 Samples

FDA1
MIS2

Sea Cucumber


Dover Sole

Sea Cucumber

Dover Sole
LA-31
S4
R4
Dl4
LA-3'
S4
R4
Dl4
LA-2'
S4
Rl4
LA-2-'
S4
R4
Total DDTs
5000
5000
4.7
11.6
4.4
6.1
317.9
71.5
143.2
431.1
166.2
41.4
34
1278.3
167.3
123.4
(ppb)
















Total PCBs
2000
2000
0.45
1.18
0.46
0.51
21.4
11.61
21.21
57.49
2.93
3.80
2.17
266
23.45
16.83
(ppb)
















Metals (ppm)
















Arsenic
-
1.4
1.24
1.27
1.06
1.58
3.33
2.58
2.57
5.98
0.728
1.24
1.18
2.27
1.42
3.39
Cadmium
-
1.0
0.763
0.211
0.143
0.216
0.022
0.015
0.011
0.015
0.041
0.039
0.035
0.052
0.037
0.003
Chromium
-
1.0
4.10
4.42
3.61
0.519
0.848
0.207
0.198
0.275
4.29
2.78
2.53
0.718
0.712
0.155
Copper
-
20
2.48
4.41
2.51
16.7
1.29
0.829
0.975
1.16
6.10
4.82
2.14
1.84
2.81
1.79
Lead
-
2.0
0.910
1.14
0.832
0.893
0.126
0.088
0.087
0.109
0.262
0.554
0.366
0.171
0.171
0.081
Mercury
1.0
0.5
0.023
0.010
0.008
0.011
0.041
0.046
0.032
0.050
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.014
0.288
0.033
Nickel
-
-
2.06
1.65
1.49
1.52
0.425
0.259
0.231
0.257
1.64
1.33
1.13
0.941
0.545
0.199
Selenium
-
0.3
0.339
0.267
0.216
0.224
0.408
0.345
0.343
0.398
0.300
0.477
0.683
1.05
0.481
0.447
Silver
-
-
0.164
0.169
0.053
0.244
0.008
0.004
0.007
0.008
0.005
0.009
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.005
Zinc
-
70
7.78
8.94
8.52
9.00
6.52
5.58
6.13
5.63
3.46
4.53
4.42
8.32
9.79
6.45
SOURCE Chambers Group 2001.
NOTES:
DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls: results reported in parts per billion (ppb)
Results for metals reported in parts per million (ppm).
All concentrations reported in wet weight.
Results presented with The Food and Drag Administration (FDA) and Median International Standards (MIS) human health limits
1	= FDA Action Limits Values that meet or exceed FDA and/or MIS human health limits in bold.
2	= MIS for Contamination in Shellfish. Values that meet or exceed FDA and/or MIS human health limits in bold
3	= Sampled August 2000. Samples Composited from Stations In and Neai Disposal Site.
4	= Sampled January 2001
Station ID codes:
S = within disposal site boundary
R = reference slation
Dl = adjacent area of recent disposal
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
exceeded the median international standards for arsenic and selenium. Dover sole
collected from LA-3 appear to have somewhat elevated levels of chromium, copper and
nickel compared to flatfish in other areas of the SCB. Concentrations of other metals
were similar to concentrations of metals in flatfish tissue from Santa Monica Bay and the
Orange County shelf.
3.3.4.2 LA-2
The Palos Verdes Shelf, approximately 9 km (5 nmi) north of the LA-2 disposal site, is
historically one of the most contaminated sites in the SCB, particularly with respect to
DDTs and PCBs. Until 1971, Montrose Chemical Corporation discharged DDT waste
through the Los Angeles County's ocean outfall offshore of Palos Verdes (Schiff and
Gossett 1998). An estimated 1,800 metric tons (approximately 4 million pounds) of total
DDT were discharged per year by Montrose prior to 1971. Current discharges of DDT
and PCB are extremely low; however, historical discharges of contaminants have
accumulated in the sediments in the Palos Verdes area and may remain there for decades.
DDT and PCB levels have decreased markedly in fish and invertebrate tissue from the
area since the 1970s (LACSD 2000), however, concentrations are still among the highest
ever found in tissues in the SCB. Due to prevailing currents, sediment concentrations of
DDT have remained uniformly low to the south of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, in the
direction of the LA-2 disposal site. However, the proximity of the disposal site to the
Palos Verdes Shelf suggests the possibility that contamination levels determined from
tissues collected in the LA-2 area may reflect influences from both areas, particularly in
highly mobile fish species.
Fish and invertebrate tissue samples were collected in summer 2000 and winter 2001 (see
Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5) in and around the LA-2 disposal site and at a reference area
(Chambers Group 2001). Total PCB concentrations in sea cucumbers (Parcistichopus
califomicus) collected at LA-2 ranged from 2.2 ppb in the reference area in January 2001
to 3.8 ppb at the LA-2 disposal site in January 2001 (see Table 3.3-8). PCB levels in
tissues collected in and around the LA-2 site were elevated in comparison to the reference
site and to the SCB in general. While it appeared that sea cucumbers at the LA-2 disposal
site were accumulating PCBs from the sediments, total PCB concentrations in sea
cucumbers from LA-2 were below action limits.
DDT levels in sea cucumber tissues were elevated in and around the LA-2 disposal site
when compared to the reference site. DDT levels were also higher in tissues from the LA-
2 site in August 2000 (166 ppb) than in January 2001 (41.4 ppb), which was only slightly
higher than the reference station level of 34 ppb (see Table 3.3-8). Although DDT levels
in sea cucumber tissues from the LA-2 area were higher than levels recorded from the
Orange County shelf, DDT concentrations did not exceed human health standards.
Copper concentrations in tissues were consistently higher in and around the LA-2
disposal site compared to the reference site, and sea cucumbers appeared to be
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-82
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
accumulating copper from dredged sediments. Chromium and selenium exceeded the
median international standards in all sea cucumber samples, while mercury was well
below human health standards.
Total PCB concentrations in Dover sole collected at LA-2 and the surrounding area
ranged from 16.8 ppb at the reference site in January 2001 to 266 ppb from in and around
LA-2 in August 2000 (see Table 3.3-8). The concentrations of PCBs in Dover sole tissue
were generally higher than in flatfishes elsewhere in the SCB, with the exception of the
Palos Verdes Shelf (Chambers Group 2001). It appeared likely that Dover sole were
accumulating PCBs while foraging in the LA-2 area. Still, concentrations of PCBs in
tissues at LA-2 did not exceed human health standards.
Total DDT levels in the area ranged from 123 ppb in Dover sole tissues from the
reference site in January 2001 to 1,278 ppb in tissues collected in and around LA-2 in
August 2000 (see Table 3.3-8). The lower values are similar to those found in flatfish
tissues from other areas with historic DDT contamination, such as Santa Monica Bay and
the Orange County shelf, but higher than values from areas with no history of DDT
exposure (Chambers Group 2001). DDT concentrations found in tissues in January 2001
were higher than elsewhere in the SCB with the exception of Palos Verdes. DDT levels in
and around the LA-2 disposal site did not exceed human health standards. In general,
metal concentrations in Dover sole tissues were higher at the LA-2 disposal site than at
the reference site. Arsenic and selenium exceeded the median international standards in
all Dover sole tissue samples, while mercury was well below human health standards.
3.3.5 Marine Birds
Seabirds are those species that obtain most of their food from the ocean and are found
over water for more than half of the year (Briggs et al. 1987). A diversity of seabirds and
other water-associated birds occurs in the SCB, with more than 106 species recorded.
Some of these species are common, nesting in the area and remaining year-round, while
others are occasional winter visitors, summer strays or vagrants, or spring or fall migrants
passing through to faraway locations. A total of 43 species of seabirds are found in the
SCB, with about 25 predominant species (Table 3.3-9; Baird 1993). Of the seabirds, the
shearwaters, storm-petrels, phalaropes, gulls, terns, and auklets are the most numerous in
the SCB. All seabirds that breed in the SCB, with the exception of terns and skimmers,
nest on the Channel Islands. Some of the common seabird species, such as California
brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and black storm-petrel (Oceanodroma melania),
are southern species and breed only as far north as the Channel Islands (Baird 1993).
Others, such as cormorants, are more numerous north of Point Conception, with their
southern limit extending into the SCB.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-83
-------
TABLE 3.3-9
NUMBER OF BIRD OBSERVATIONS BY SPECIES AT LA-3 AND LA-2
DURING SUMMER 2000 FIELD SURVEYS AND SEABIRD SPECIES COMMON IN
THE SCB
Number observed
Common Name
Scientific Name
LA-3
LA-2
Cassin's auklet
Ptychoramphus aleuticus
1
-
double-crested cormorant
Pluilacrocorax auritus
1
1
Western gull (adult)
Larus occidentalis
79
28
Western gull (immature)
Larus occidentalis
60
43
Heermann's gull
Larits heermannii
15
1
Pomeraine jaeger
Stcrcorarius pomarinus
1
-
California brown pelican
Pclccanus occidentalis
33
10
ashy storm petrel
Oceanodroma honwehroma
1
-
black storm petrel
Oceanodroma melania
3
-
red-necked phalarope
Phalaropus lobatus
32
-
black-vented shearwater
Puffhuts opislhomelas
2
-
pink-footed shearwater
Puffinus creatopus
5
1
sooty shearwater
Puffinus griseus
63
19
black skimmer
Rvnchops niger
2
-
barn swallow
Hirimdo rustica
6
-
elegant tern
Sterna elegans
59
-


363
103
Other Common Seabird Species (from
Baird [1993])

Pacific Loon
Gavia pacifica


Western grebe
Aechmophorus occidentalis


Clark's grebe
Aechmophorusclarkii


scoters
Melanitta spp.


Northern fulmar
Fulmarus glacialis


Leach's storm petrel
Oceanodroma leucorhoa


Least storm petrel
Oceanodroma microsoma


red phalarope
Phalaropus fulicaria


Bonaparte's gull
Laws Philadelphia


Other Common Seabird Species (from Baird [1993]) (cont.)
Common Name
Scientific Name


California gull
Larus argentatus


herring gull
Larus argentatus


black-legged kittiwake
Rissa tridactvla


common tern
Sterna hirundo


arctic tern
Sterna paradisea


common murre
Uria aalge


rhinoceros auklet
Cerorhinca monocerata


SOURCE: ACOE 2002
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
3.3.5.1	LA-3
Seabirds were observed during a six-day environmental study at the interim LA-3
disposal site in August 2000 (Table 3.3-9; USACE 2002). No other observations of
seabirds have been made specifically for the disposal site. Sixteen species were observed
during the LA-3 surveys, though abundance was dominated by three species: Western
gull (Larus occidentalis), sooty shearwater (Puff inns griseus), and elegant tern (Sterna
elegans). Western gulls are the most abundant gull in the SCB, and the only one that
nests on the Channel Islands. The other two species are common in the SCB. Elegant
terns nest at Bolsa Chica and occasionally in small numbers in Los Angeles Harbor
(Keane pers. comm. 2002) as well as in south San- Diego Bay and the Gulf of California.
Numbers of nesting pairs has increased recently at some sites (Baird 1993). Overall, there
were more than three times as many bird observations at LA-3 than at LA-2. All other
species observed are considered common in the SCB. Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) is
a terrestrial species that is occasionally found miles from shore.
3.3.5.2	LA-2
Seabirds were observed during a four-day environmental study at the LA-2 disposal site
in August 2000 (Table 3.3-9; USACE 2002). No other observations of seabirds have been
made specifically for the disposal site. Seven species of birds were observed during the
LA-2 surveys, and abundance was dominated by two species: Western gull and sooty
shearwater, both of which were also abundant at LA-3. All other species observed are
considered common in the SCB. Western gulls are the most abundant, and is the only
one that nests on the Channel Islands.
3.3.6 Marine Mammals
There are a variety of marine mammals that occur in the SCB. While some are year-
round residents, others are only seasonal visitors or transients. Marine mammals known
to occur in the SCB include baleen whales, toothed whales, seals, sea lions, and one
species of sea otter. Baleen whales do not have teeth; instead, they have a series of plates
in the roof of their mouth containing bristles that are used like a sieve or mat for feeding.
Toothed whales, a group that includes sperm and killer whales, dolphins, and porpoises,
have no baleen. Pinnipeds include eared seals (fur seals and sea lions) and earless seals
(including the harbor seal). Marine mammals that occur and their potential for occurrence
at the ODMDSs are listed in Table 3.3-10.
3.3.6.1 LA-3
Three species of marine mammals were observed at LA-3 during summer 2000: common
dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens),
and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Common dolphin was the most
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-85
-------
TABLE 3.3-10
MARINE MAMMALS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT


Potential for Occurrence at
Endangered, Threatened, or
Common Name
Scientific Name
LA-2 and LA-3 Areas'
Other Special Status"
Mysticeti (Baleen Whales)
blue whale
Balacnoptera niusculiis
L
federal: endangered
Bryde's whale
Balacnoptera edenii
U
-
fin whale
Balacnoptera pliysalus
L
federal: endangered
gray whale
Eschrichtius robustus
H
-
humpback whale
Megaptera novaeangliae
L
federal: endangered
Minke whale
Balaenoptera acuiorostrata
L

Northern right whale
Balciena glacialis
U
federal: endangered
sei whale
Balacnoptera borealis
U
federal: endangered
Odontoceti (Toothed Whales)
Blainville's beaked whale
Mesoplodon densirostris
U
-
bottlenose dolphin
Tursiops spp.
H
-
common dolphin
Delphinus delphis
H
-
Cuvier's beaked whale
Ziphius cavirostris
U
-
Dall's porpoise
Phocoenoides dalli
M
-
false killer whale
Psudorca crassidens
U
-
Ginko-toothed whale
Mesoplodon gingkodens
u
-
harbor poipoise
Pliocoena phocoena
L
-
Hector's beaked whale
Mesoplodon hectori
U
-
Hubb's beaked whale
Mesoplodon carlhubbsi
u
-
killer whale
Orcliiiuis orca
L
-
Northern right whale dolphin
Lissodepliis borealis
L
-
Pacific white-sided dolphin
Lagenorhynchus obliquidens
H
-
pilot whale
Globicephala spp.
M
-
pygmy sperm whale
Kogia breviceps
U
-
Risso's dolphin
Grampus griseus
M
-
sperm whale
Physeter macrocephahts
L
-
Stejneger's beaked whale
Mesoplodon stejnegeri
U
-
-------
TABLE 3.3-10
MARINE MAMMALS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT
(cont.)


Potential for Occurrence at
Endangered. Threatened, or
Common Name
Scientific Name
LA-2 and LA-3 Areas'
Other Special Status"
Odontoceti (Toothed Whales)(continued)
striped dolphin
Stenella coeruleoalba
U
-
Pinnipedia (Seals and Sea Lions)
California sea lion
Zalophus califomiamts
H
-
Guadalupe fur seal
Arctocephalus lowns
U
state: threatened
Northern elephant seal
Mirounga angustiroslris
L
-
Pacific harbor seal
Plioca vitulina
M
-
Northern fur seal
Callorhinns ursinu.s
U
-
Steller's sea lion
Eumetopias jubatus
U
federal: threatened
Mustelidae (Sea otter)
Southern sea otter
Enhvdra lutris nereis
U
state: threatened
NOTES:
'Potential for occurrence on known mnges. estimated population numbers, and sightings:
H = High potential for occurrence (likely to occur during certain seasons or throughout the year).
M = Moderate potential for occurrence.
L = Low potential for occurrence.
U = Unlikely to occur (considered rare in study area or not within known range).
2 All mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (as amended).
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
abundant species observed, and this species is one of the most common cetaceans in the
SCB (Dohl et al. 1981). Sightings of this species in marine mammal surveys have
generally been outside of the SCB (Hill and Barlow 1992; Mangels and Gerrodette 1994),
though some animals have been recorded in the San Pedro Channel (Dohl et al. 1981).
California sea lion is common in the nearshore waters of the SCB.
3.3.6.2 LA-2
Two species of marine mammals were observed at LA-2 in summer 2000: bottlenose
dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lion. Bottlenose dolphin is present in the
SCB year-round, though large seasonal variation in abundance suggests some portion of
the population migrates through the SCB (Dohl et al. 1981).
3.3.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status
Species
One species occurs, or has a high potential to occur, in the LA-2 and LA-3 study areas
that is listed by the federal government as threatened or endangered: California brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentcilis califomicus). Additional species are listed by
government agencies and other entities as being "species of concern" for specific reasons.
Elegant tern (Sterna elegans) is a state and federal species of concern, and was observed
at LA-3 in summer 2000. All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), certain migratory birds crossing state lines are protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and endangered plants and animals by the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Table 3.3-11 presents state and federally endangered,
threatened, and special status species and their potential for occurrence in the vicinity of
the LA-2 or LA-3 ODMDSs.
3.3.7.1 California Brown Pelican
The California brown pelican was originally listed as endangered in 1970 because of its
low reproductive success, attributed to eggshell thinning as a consequence of pesticide
contamination. Following the prohibition on the use of DDT, the population largely
recovered. Brown pelicans occur along the coasts from California to Chile and from
North Carolina through the Caribbean to South America (Cogswell 1977). The current
breeding distribution of the California subspecies of the brown pelican ranges from the
Channel Islands of southern California southward (including the Baja California coast
and the Gulf of California) to Isla Isabela and Islas Tres Marias off Nayarit, Mexico and
Isla Ixtapa off Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico. The U.S. colonies are currently the only
colonies, which are protected from human disturbance. Between breeding seasons,
pelicans may range from as far north as Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and south to
Central America.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-88
-------
TABLE 3.3-11
SENSITIVE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING AT LA-2 AND LA-3 DISPOSAL SITES
Potential for Occurrence2
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status1
LA-2
LA-3
Birds
American peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus anatiwi
SE
U
U
bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephcilits
FT, SE
u
U
black skimmer
Rhynchops niger
CSC
L
L
black tern
Chlidonias niger
FSC, CSC
L
L
California brown pelican
Pelecanus occidentalis califomicus
FE.SE
H
H
California gull
Lams califomicus
CSC
M
M
California least tern
Sterna antillarum browni
FE.SE
L
L
common loon
Gavia immer
CSC
M
M
double-crested cormorant
Phalacrocorci.x amitus
CSC
H
H
elegant tern
Sterna e/egans
FSC, CSC
H
H
marbled murrelet
Brachyramphus mannoratus
FE, SE
U
U
osprey
Pandion haliaetus
CSC
U
U
Xantus' murrelet
Synthlibommphus hypoleucus
CSC
U
U
Cetaceans
blue whale
Balaenoptera musculus
FE
L
L
fin whale
Balaenoptera physalus
FE
L
L
humpback whale
Megaptera novaeanliae
FE
L
L
Northern right whale
Eubalaena glacialis
FE
U
U
sei whale
Balaenoptera borealis
FE
U
u
sperm whale
Physeter macrocephahis
FE
L
L
-------
TABLE 3.3-11
SENSITIVE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING AT LA-2 AND LA-3 DISPOSAL SITES
(CONT.)
Potential for Occurrence"
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status'
LA-2
LA-3
Pinnipeds
Guadalupe fur seal
A rctocephalus townseiidi
ST. FT
U
U
Steller's sea lion
Eumetopicis jubcitus
FT
U
U
Fissiped
Southern sea otter
Enlivdra lutris nereis
FT
U
u
Reptiles
green sea turtle
Chelonia mydas
FE, FT
L
L
leatherback sea turtle
Dennochelys coricicea
FE
L
L
loggerhead sea turtle
Caret to caretta
FT
L
L
olive ridley sea turtle
Lepidochelys olivacea
FT
U
U
1 Status
FE = Listed as endangered by ihe federal government
FT = Listed as tlueatened by the federal government
SE = Listed as endangered by the State of California
ST = Listed as threatened by the State of California
FSC = Listed as species of concent by the federal government
CSC = Listed as species of concern by the State of California (CDFG)
"Estimated potential for occurrence
U = Unlikely to occur within the project area
L = Low potential to occur within the project area
M = Moderate potential to occur within the project area
H = High potential to occur within the project area
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Brown pelicans are plunge divers, feeding primarily on fish in open waters nearshore and
in harbors. Because of its feeding habit, the pelican requires relatively clear water to
visibly locate prey, therefore restricting its distribution to tropical and subtropical waters.
Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordcix) comprises a significant portion of their diet.
Feeding flocks generally include 10-50 birds and occur within 20 km (10.8 nmi) of shore
in waters less than 100 m (328 ft) depth, although feeding pelicans have been sighted at
sea off southern California as far as Cortes Bank (about 130 km [70.2 nmi] west of San
Diego) and 88 km (47.5 nmi) offshore off central California. California brown pelicans
nest on some of the offshore islands and in Mexico. They occur along the coast all year,
but their numbers increase with the influx of post-breeding birds in summer. This species
is currently listed by the federal government as endangered.
The major SCB colonies have been on West Anacapa Island and Santa Barbara Island,
California, and Isla Coronado Norte, Baja California. In 1997, about 6,400 pairs of
California brown pelicans nested on West Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, with all
but about 500 of these on West Anacapa Island (CDFG 2000). Recently the number of
nesting pairs on these two islands has increased from 4,200 pairs in 1993 to the 6,400
pairs noted in 1997. The Recovery Plan for the California brown pelican concluded that
yearly variations in historical colony size throughout the SCB have most likely been
related to food availability. During the summer 2000 surveys, 33 California brown
pelicans were observed at the LA-3 study area, and 10 were observed at LA-2 (USACE
2002).
3.3.7.2 Elegant Tern
Elegant tern is classified as a federal and state species of concern. Elegant terns nest with
California least terns at Bolsa Chica, and occasionally in small numbers at Terminal
Island (K. Keane pers. comm. 2002). This species prefers inshore coastal waters, and
rarely occurs far offshore. While they forage in relatively shallow waters with least terns,
elegant terns also forage in slightly deeper waters and take larger fish (Massey and
Atwood 1981). During the summer 2000 surveys, 59 elegant terns were observed at the
LA-3 study area (USACE 2002). No elegant terns were observed at LA-2.
3.3.8 Marine Protected Areas
There are twenty-two Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the general vicinity of the LA-2
and proposed LA-3 sites (see Figure 3.3-7). A marine protected area is (McArdle 1997):
Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and
associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved
by law or other effective means to protect part of all of the enclosed environment.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-91
-------
/
i.
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
—~
Long
*->n	,
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
These twenty-two MPAs include:
•	Six State Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS);
•	Three State Ecological Reserves;
•	One State Reserve
•	Ten State Refuges (Clam, Fish, Game, Marine Life); and
•	Two State Parks (Beaches, Historic Parks, Natural Preserves, Parks, Reserves,
Underwater Parks);
In addition to these twenty-two MPAs, all state waters out to 5.6 km (3 nmi) are
designated as a California Coastal Sanctuary.
3.3.8.1	Areas of Special Biological Significance
Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) were established with California State
Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 74-28 to provide protection to species or
communities in these areas from degradations in water quality. The California
Department of Fish and Game is responsible for the management of marine resources in
these ASBSs. In general, regulations in ASBSs pertain to thermal discharges, sewage and
industrial discharges, and non-point discharges (McArdle 1997). Regulations
accompanying the ASBS designation are not applicable to vessel wastes, the control of
dredging, or the disposal of dredging spoil.
3.3.8.2	Reserves and Ecological Reserves
The Fish and Game Commission has the legal authority to designate reserves. Proposals
for reserves may be submitted by any person or agency, after which time public hearings
may be held and solicitations for comment may be elicited. There are no general rules
that apply to reserves, as regulations are site-specific. Lover's Cove Reserve, on Santa
Catalina Island, is the only reserve in the vicinity. No form of marine life may be taken
for recreation in this reserve. Commercial take of lobster, abalone, and crab is allowed
within 305 m (1,000 ft) from shore, and finfish may be taken in the area as well.
The Ecological Reserve Act of 1968 authorized the California Department of Fish and
Game to create ecological reserves. Ecological Reserves are designed to protect
threatened and endangered native plants, wildlife, or aquatic organisms or their habitat
types (terrestrial and aquatic), or large, heterogeneous natural gene pools for the future of
mankind (McArdle 1997). In general, regulations in these areas prohibit human
disturbance (e.g. collecting specimens, fishing, swimming, boating, and so on).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-93
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
3.3.8.3	Marine Life Refuges
Similar to reserves, marine life refuges may be proposed by any person or agency for
sponsor by one or more representatives of the state legislature. The bill then goes before
Senate and/or Assembly committees for approval prior to being submitted to the floor of
the full Senate for a final vote. Generally, regulations in marine life refuges prohibit the
taking of marine invertebrates and marine plant life, and commercial and recreational
fishing is usually allowed, but limited.
3.3.8.4	State Parks and Beaches
State parks consist of areas designated to preserve outstanding examples of indigenous
flora and fauna, natural, scenic, and cultural values, and the most significant examples of
such ecological regions. State beaches consist of areas with frontage on bays and oceans
and are designated to provide beach-oriented activities such as swimming, boating, and
fishing (McArdle 1997).
3.3.8.5	Seabird and Shorebird Nesting Areas and Rookeries
In addition to the MPAs, there are several areas of importance to seabirds and shorebirds
along the coasts of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. In Los Angeles County, a black-
crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) rookery exists at Gull Park on the Navy
Mole in Long Beach Harbor (MBC 2001). Though not threatened or endangered, black-
crowned night heron is considered a rare resource (CDFG 1991). The rookery was
translocated to Gull Park from the former Long Beach Naval Station in 1998.
Flat Rock Point, located just upcoast of Palos Verdes Point, and Abalone Cove
Ecological Reserve (an MPA; see Figure 3.3-7), just downcoast of Palos Verdes Point,
are important overwintering areas for a variety of shorebirds including willets, marbled
godwit (Limosci fedoa), turnstones, plovers, and yellowlegs (FWS 1981). Several bird
species also overwinter at Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge in Orange County
including loons, grebes, dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and sea ducks (FWS 1981).
Lastly, a nesting site for the state and federally endangered California least tern (Sterna
antillarum browni) is established at the mouth of the Santa Ana River in Orange County.
3.4 Socioeconomic Environment
3.4.1 Commercial Fishing and Mariculture
There are currently no known registered mariculture operations on the southern
California coast between Palos Verdes Point and Dana Point (M. Fluharty pers. comm.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-94
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
2002). There are, however, a variety of commercial fisheries in the LA-2 and LA-3 study
areas.
3.4.1.1 Existing Fisheries
Statewide, the commercial catch in California between 1970 and 1985 was dominated by
both wetfish (e.g., northern anchovy [Engraulis mordax], jack mackerel [Trachurus
symmetricus], and Pacific mackerel [Scomber japonicus]) and invertebrates, such as
market squid (Loligo opalescens) (MBC 1989). California commercial fisheries utilize a
variety of gear types including trawl nets, set nets, drift nets, and set gear (including
lobster/crab traps, deep-water fish traps, and hook-and-line gear). Other gear types
include troll gear, harpoons, diver-collections, and beach seines.
The LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites are located in the CDFG San Pedro Region catch-
reporting area, which extends from Point Dume to the U.S./Mexico border. Along this
region, the continental shelf is relatively wide, extending nearly 370 km (200 nmi)
offshore. Three of the Channel Islands (Santa Catalina, San Clemente, and San Nicolas
Islands) and several offshore banks interrupt the otherwise gently sloping seafloor. The
six harbors in this region (two in San Pedro and one each in Long Beach, Dana Point,
Oceanside, and San Diego) provided approximately 780 commercial berths in 1984
(CSCC 1984). As indicated previously, commercial fish catches are reported by CDFG
Catch Blocks, which are 18.52 km by 18.52 km (10 nmi by 10 nmi) statistical blocks.
The LA-2 site is located within Catch Block 740 and the proposed LA-3 site is located
within Catch Block 738 (see Figure 3.3-3). Surrounding catch blocks are examined for
regionwide fishery trends. CDFG Catch Block data refer to landings by weight and
estimated market value and are reported by area where fish are taken, which is difficult to
verify. These data do not take into account fishing effort, fishing seasons or fishery
regulations (e.g., closures or limited fisheries).
Commercial fishing in the San Pedro region consists predominantly of purse-seining,
crab and lobster trapping, and set-netting (MBC 1989). The principal market species in
this region include Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagcix), market squid, Pacific mackerel,
jack mackerel, northern anchovy, red urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus),
California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), California barracuda (Sphyraena
argentea), California spiny lobster (Panulinis interruptus), and swordfish (Xiphias
gladius) (MBC 1989; CDFG unpubl. data 2002).
Though ports of origin for most landings from the region are reported from San Pedro,
Terminal Island, and Newport Beach, some are reported from as far away as San Diego
and San Francisco. Primary gear types include set longline, set and drift gillnet, purse and
drum seine, trawl, hook and line, and crab and lobster trap. For the three years of analysis
(1999, 2000, and 2001), the top three landings by weight for the seven catch blocks
analyzed (738, 739, 740, 741, 758, 759, and 760) were from Catch Block 738 (extending
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-95
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
offshore from Newport Harbor and including the proposed LA-3 site), Catch Block 739
(west of Catch Block 738 and offshore of Huntington Beach), and Catch Block 740
(offshore Catch Block 739, south of Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, and including the
LA-2 site). Landings for these three blocks were generally substantially higher than
those from surrounding blocks (with the exception of landings from Block 738 in 1999,
which were lower than those from most surrounding blocks). From 1999 through 2001,
annual reported landings ranged from 363 to 7,167 metric tons (400 to 7,900 tons) in
Block 738, from 6,713 to 8,800 metric tons (7,400 to 9,700 tons) in Block 739, and from
1,497 to 3,629 metric tons (1,650 to 4,000 tons) in Block 740. In the surrounding Catch
Blocks (741, 758, 759, and 760) annual reported landings from 1999-2001 ranged from
63.5 metric tons (70 tons; Catch Block 759 in 2000) to 1,315 metric tons (1,450 tons;
Catch Block 758 in 1999), with all other reported catches between 109 to 590 metric tons
(120 to 650 tons).
A setline dory fishery off Newport Beach has existed since 1891, one of the few
traditional dory fisheries remaining on the west coast (Cross 1984). Fisherman use dories
launched from the shores of Newport to fish on the continental shelf and slope with
setlines at depths of about 100 to 600 m (328 to 1,968 ft). Principle species landed in this
localized fishery include sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), thornyhead (Sebastolobus
spp.), and rockfish (Sebastes spp.). While dory landings of these species pale in
comparison to overall commercial landings, they represent a fishery that has changed
little in over 110 years.
The top three analyzed catch blocks (738, 739, and 740) are discussed below,
a. LA-3 (Catch Block 738)
The proposed LA-3 site is located within CDFG Catch Block 738, which extends
offshore from the Newport Beach shoreline (see Figure 3.3-3). From 1999 through 2001
three-year-combined top commercial landings in Block 738 included Pacific sardine
(10,840 metric tons [11,950 tons]), market squid, Pacific mackerel, northern anchovy,
California spiny lobster, and jack mackerel (27.2 metric tons [30 tons]). The pelagic
species (Pacific sardine, market squid, Pacific mackerel, northern anchovy, and jack
mackerel) are generally caught by purse seine, drum seine, and long-line, while
California spiny lobster are collected by crab/lobster trap. Landings of Pacific sardine
ranked first economically ($13.3 million for 1999-2001 combined), followed by Pacific
mackerel ($1.0 million), market squid ($0.5 million), and northern anchovy ($0.39
million).
From 1975 to 1981, the annual commercial catch in Catch Block 738 was fairly stable,
ranging from 590 to 1,179 metric tons (650 to 1,300 tons), then increased to over 3,175
metric tons (3,500 tons) in 1982 due to a large increase in northern anchovy landings
(MITECH 1990). From 1983 to 1986, landings in Block 738 declined significantly
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-96
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
ranging from 31.8 to 81.6 metric tons (from 35 to 90 tons) during those years. From 1999
through 2001, landings in Block 738 ranged from 372 to 7,167 metric tons (410 to 7,900
tons) per year.
b.	LA-2 (Catch Block 740)
The LA-2 site is located within CDFG Catch Block 740, which is located south of Los
Angeles-Long Beach Harbor and extends offshore more than one-half the distance to
Santa Catalina Island (see Figure 3.3-3). From 1999 through 2001 three-year-combined
top commercial landings in this block included Pacific sardine (4,082 metric tons [4,500
tons]), Pacific mackerel, market squid, red urchin, northern anchovy, and California
halibut (95.3 metric tons [105 tons]). The pelagic species (Pacific sardine, Pacific
mackerel, market squid, and northern anchovy) are generally caught by purse seine, drum
seine, and lampara net (and squid by large dip-net [brail]). California halibut are caught
by a variety of gear including trawl, drift and set gill net, and hook and line, while red
urchin are collected by divers. Though landings of California halibut ranked sixth by
weight, this species ranked first economically, with market value of landings (1999
through 2001 combined) reported at over $948,000. Other economically important
species from 1999 through 2001 included Pacific sardine ($410,050), red urchin
($336,888), Pacific mackerel ($273,449), and market squid ($255,378). Other important
landings by weight included: white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus; 95.3 metric tons [105
tons]), yellowfin tuna (Thunmts albacarus; 63.5 metric tons [70 tons]), jack mackerel
(45.4 metric tons [50 tons]), and California barracuda (36.3 metric tons [40 tons]).
c.	Catch Block 739
CDFG Catch Block 739 is located in between Catch Blocks 738 and 740, and is located
directly offshore Huntington Beach. From 1999 through 2001, top commercial landings
in this block exceeded those in Blocks 738 and 740 and included Pacific sardine (19,190
metric tons [21,150 tons]), Pacific mackerel, market squid, northern anchovy, jack
mackerel, and California halibut (68.0 metric tons [75 tons]). Jack mackerel are caught
primarily by purse seine, Pacific sardine, market squid, and northern anchovy by purse
seine and drum seine, Pacific mackerel by purse seine, set gillnet and set longline, and
California halibut by gillnet and trawl. Economically important landings included Pacific
sardine ($1.8 million from 1999-2001), California halibut ($0.49 million), Pacific
mackerel ($0.33 million), and market squid ($0.26 million).
d.	Important Commercial Species
Information on important commercial species is presented in the following text.
Pelagic fish. The pelagic species targeted by commercial fishermen in the San Pedro
region are those which spend all or part of their life in the water column and include
Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, and northern anchovy. All species are
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-97
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
considered common in nearshore waters of the SCB and can generally be found in large
schools in the SCB (Fitch and Lavenberg 1971; Miller and Lea 1972).
Pacific sardine are distributed from Guaymas, Mexico to Kamchatka, Russia and are
common in the epipelagic zone (Miller and Lea 1972). A sustained fishery for this
species developed during World War I, with effort and landings increasing from 1916 to
1936. The Pacific sardine fishery was the largest in the western hemisphere in the 1930s
and 1940s, but the fishery collapsed in the 1940s and continued declining into the 1950s
(Wolf and Smith 1992). However, statewide landings of this species increased from
1,164 metric tons (1,283 tons) in 1986 to 7,750 metric tons (8,543 tons) in 1991 (Wolf
and Smith 1992). In the SCB, sardines have been used commercially for fish meal, oil,
canned for human consumption, live bait, and animal food. Based on landings in the San
Pedro Region, highest landings occurred in Blocks 738, 739, and 740.
Pacific mackerel, also referred to as chub mackerel and blue mackerel, have a trans-
Pacific distribution, occurring in the eastern Pacific from Chile to the Gulf of Alaska
(Miller and Lea 1972). Pacific mackerel supported one of California's major fisheries in
the 1930s and 1940s, and again in the 1980s (Konno and Wolf 1992). A moratorium was
placed on the fishery after the stock collapsed in 1970. In 1972, a landing quota based on
spawning biomass was initiated, and a series of successful spawnings in the late 1970s
initiated a recovery. From 1984 through 1991, Pacific mackerel ranked first in volume
landings of finfish in California (Konno and Wolf 1992). Pacific mackerel have been
used commercially for fresh fish, human consumption, pet food, and live and dead bait.
Northern anchovy occur from Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, to Queen Charlotte Islands,
British Columbia, and are the most abundant anchovy off California (Miller and Lea
1972). Northern anchovy are used for meal, oil, bait, anchovy paste, and soluble protein
products that are sold primarily as protein supplements for poultry food and as feed for
farmed fish and other animals (Jacobsen 1992). Following the collapse of the Pacific
sardine fishery in the 1940s, statewide anchovy landings increased to nearly 39,010
metric tons (43,000 tons) in 1953, but declined due to low demand and remained low
through 1964. In the mid-1970s, landings peaked at over 136,000 metric tons. Landings
fluctuated from 1964 through 1982, but landings were relatively low from 1979 through
1982, averaging 46,470 metric tons (51,223 tons; Jacobsen 1992).
Market squid. Market squid range from southeastern Alaska to Bahia Asuncion, Baja
California (Dickerson and Leos 1992). In southern California, fisherman target schools in
shallow water spawning areas (15 to 30 m [49 to 98 ft]). Most boats use powerful lights
to attract squid to the water surface where they capture them using roundhaul nets or
brails (Dickerson and Leos 1992). The fishery for this species began in 1863, and from
1947 to 1967 annual statewide landings fluctuated greatly. More recently, statewide
landings fluctuated from a low of 564 metric tons (622 tons) in 1984 to a record high of
40,892 metric tons (45,076 tons) in 1989 (Dickerson and Leos 1992). Large-scale
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-98
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
fluctuations are characteristic of this fishery and may be due, in part, to the short life span
of the squid along with fishing pressure from the previous year. Climatological changes
also play a large part in squid landings.
California spiny lobster. California spiny lobster range from Monterey Bay, California,
to Manzanillo, Mexico (Parker 1992). This species is usually fished commercially using
box-like traps of wire mesh or plastic baited with whole or cut fish and weighted with
bricks, cement, or steel, and at depths usually shallower than 27 m (88.6 ft; Parker 1992).
Commercial statewide landings increased following World War II, then declined for the
next 25 years, reaching a low of 68.9 metric tons (76 tons) in 1974-75. Since then,
landings increased to 330.7 metric tons (364.5 tons) in 1989-90.
Red urchin. Red urchin is the largest of four sea urchin species offshore California and
supports a commercial urchin fishery (Parker and Kalvass 1992). The southern California
commercial fishery for red urchin is relatively new, originating in southern California in
1971 as part of a NMFS program to develop fisheries for underutilized species. From
1973 to 1981, statewide red urchin landings increased from 1,588 metric tons (1,750
tons) to almost 11,340 metric tons (12,500 tons). In 1990, whole urchin landings were
estimated at $14 million, with most landings reported from the northern Channel Islands
off Santa Barbara (Parker and Kalvass 1992).
3.4.1.2 Potential Fisheries
The LA-2 and LA-3 sites are areas currently utilized for the ocean disposal of dredged
material and, as such, no undeveloped fisheries exist within either the LA-2 or proposed
LA-3 site boundaries. No undeveloped fisheries have been identified in the immediate
vicnity of the LA-2 or proposed LA-3 sites that would be impacted by the continued use
of these sites for ocean disposal of dredged material.
3.4.2 Commercial Shipping
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach comprise one of the most important shipping
complexes in the nation. In 2002 the Port of Long Beach ranked 8th in the nation in terms
of total tonnage handled (61.6 million metric tons [67.9 million short tons]) while the
Port of Los Angeles ranked 12th in the nation with 47.4 million metric tons (52.2 million
short tons) handled (USACE 2003c). Table 3.4-1 shows the total tonnage handled at the
Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors for the 10-year period from 1993 through 2002.
As seen in this table, the total tonnage handled by these harbors was almost 109 million
metric tons (120 million short tons) in 2002.
The harbors handle all types of commercial cargo including coal, petroleum and
petroleum products, crude materials (inedible materials not including fuels), primary
manufactured goods, food and farm products, manufactured equipment, machinery and
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-99
-------
TABLE 3.4-1
WATERBORNE FREIGHT TRAFFIC
1994 - 2002
(thousand metric tons [thousand short tons])
Year
Los Angeles Harbor
Long Beach Harbor
Total
1993
39574 [43,623]
49,279 [54,321]
88,853 [97,944]
1994
39,136
[43,140]
51,276 [56,522]
90,412 [99,662]
1995
42,165
[46,479]
48,287 [53,227]
90,452 [99,706]
1996
41,448
[45,689]
52,975 [58,395]
94,423 [104,084]
1997
37,897
[41,774]
51,941 [57,255]
89,838 [99,029]
1998
40,047
[44,144]
52,385 [57,745]
92,432 [101,889]
1999
38,344
[42,267]
55,232 [60,883]
93,576 [103,150]
2000
43,661
[48,128]
63,367 [69,850]
107,028 [117,978]
2001
46,626
[51,396]
61,366 [67,644]
107991 [119,040]
2002
47,370
[52,216]
61,572 [67,872]
108,942 [120,088]
SOURCE. USACE 2004a.
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
products, and other miscellaneous cargos. Table 3.4-2 provides a summary of the
commodity tonnages handeled at the two ports in 2002.
Approximately 77 percent of the tonnage handled at the Long Beach Harbor was foreign
traffic, while approximately 87 percent of the tonnage handled at the Los Angeles Harbor
was due to foreign traffic (USACE 2003c). As such these two ports are very important to
the nation's foreign trade. As seen in Table 3.4-3, with the exception of liquid bulk cargo
all forms of commercial cargo are expected to have annual growth rates ranging from 1.2
to 7.5 percent between the years 2000 and 2020. To accommodate this growth in traffic,
additional acreage within the harbors is required to construct terminals, storage areas, and
transporation facilities. Additionally, channel deepening will be required to
accommodate larger cargo vessels. Projections for capital improvement projects within
the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors indicate that approximately 16.28 million yd3
(12.45 million m3) of material could be dredged in the next 20 to 25 years (USACE
2003a).
Table 3.4-4 shows the number of commercial vessesl trips recorded at the Los Angeles
and Long Beach Harbors in 2002. As seen from this table, a total of 55,754 combined
inbound and outbound trips were recorded in 2002. This equates to approximately 153
vessels entering or leaving the harbor complex each day.
Vessel traffic within the San Pedro Channel traveling to and from the harbors must
follow a system of traffic separation schemes (TSS) and port access routes (PAR;
Figure 3.4-1). The TSS consists of a northbound coastwise traffic lane and a southbound
coastwise traffic lane separated by a separation zone. Additionally, the area directly
outside of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is designated a Regulated
Navigation Area (RNA). Vessels within the RNA are subject to strict navigation
regulations designed to ensure safe vessel separations and operating conditions.
Powered vessels over a certain size including tugboats transporting disposal barges are
required to participate in the Los Angeles-Long Beach Vessel Traffic Service (VTS; see
USCG/Marine Exchange Vessel Traffic Center 2001 for additional information). The
VTS for the Harbors and approaches was established to "monitor traffic and provide
mariners with timely, relevant and accurate information for the purpose of enhancing
safe, environmentally sound and efficient maritime transportation" (USCG/Marine
Exchange Vessel Traffic Center 2001). The VTS area extends out to a distance of
46.3 km (25 nmi) from Point Fermin. As such, LA-2 and the proposed LA-3 sites lie
within the VTS monitoring area.
In their report California's Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future, the Resources
Agency of California indicates that (Resources Agency of California 1997):
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-101
-------
TABLE 3.4-2
2002 COMMODITY TRAFFIC
(thousand metric tons [thousand short tons])
Commodity
Los Angeles Harbor
Long Beach Harbor
Total
Coal
1,198 [1,321]
1 [1]
1,199 [1,322]
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
11,791 [12,997]
30,419 [33,531]
42,209 [46,528]
Chemicals and Related Products
3,966 [4,372]
4,755 [5,241]
8,721 [9,613]
Crude Materials, Inedible Except Fuels
4,257 [4,693]
3,630 [4,001]
7,887 [8,694]
Primary Manufactured Goods
6,981 [7,695]
6,182 [6,815]
13,163 [14,510]
Food and Farm Products
4,942 [5,448]
4,215 [4,646]
9,157 [10,094]
All Manufactured Equipment, Machinery, and Products
12,966 [14,293]
11,183 [12,327]
24,149 [26,620]
Unknown or Not Elsewhere Classified
1,267 [1,397]
1,189 [1,31 1]
2,457 [2,708]
TOTAL
47,370 [52,216]
61,573 [67,873]
108,943 [120,089]
SOURCE USACE 2004a
-------
TABLE 3.4-3
SAN PEDRO BAY CARGO FORECAST ANNUAL GROWTH RATES
2000 - 2020
Commodity
Low Forecast
(%)
High Forecast
(%)
Containerized Cargo
5.0
6.6
Automobile Cargo
2.3
4.1
Neo-Bulk and Break-Bulk Cargo
6.1
7.5
Liquid Bulk Cargo
-0.89
-0.38
Dry Bulk Cargo
1.2
2.2
SOURCE: Port of Long Beach 2004.
-------
TABLE 3.4-4
2002 COMBINED INBOUND AND OUTBOUND COMMERCIAL TRIPS
Los Angeles Long Beach
Vessel Type	Harbor	Harbor	Total
Self Propelled
Passenger & Dry Cargo
8,964
29,707
38,67
Tanker
531
16
547
Tow or Tug
7,901
2,530
10,43
Non-Self Propelled
Dry Cargo	2,173	707	2,880
Tanker	2,937	288	3,225
TOTAL	22,506 33,248 55,754
SOURCE: USACE 2004a.
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Results of the VTIS [s/'c; Vessel Traffic Information System] are impressive. Close
quarters incidents (ships passing within one quarter nautical mile of one another)
are down by over 50 percent, and appear to be falling each month. There have
been no collisions (ship to ship contact), groundings, or allisions (ship contact
with a stationary object such as a pier) in the VTIS "area of responsibility" since
March 1, 1994 . . .
The proposed LA-3 site is approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) east of the northbound
coastwise traffic lane of the southern TSS and approximately 24 km (13 nmi) southeast of
the RNA (see Figure 3.4-1). The LA-2 site is located within the separation zone between
the northbound and southbound coastwise traffic lanes of the northern TSS and is
partially contained within the designated RNA (see Figure 3.4-1).
3.4.3	Military Usage
The coastal waters between San Diego and the Los Angeles Harbor are heavily utilized
by the military. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, located approximately 32 km (17
nmi) southeast of the proposed LA-3 site, is home to the largest amphibious marine
training base on the west coast. Training activities at this base include beach landings
and assaults, hydroplane maneuvers, low altitude bombing runs, rocket and gunnery
practice, and helicopter takeoffs and landings. Many of these activities require
unencumbered maneuvering space for surface vessels, submarines, and aircraft. These
exercises are conducted throughout the year.
In addition to the exercises at Camp Pendleton, the Navy maintains a weapons station at
Seal Beach (NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach). As a major provisioner of weapons and
ammunition for the U.S. Navy on the west coast, the primary activity at NAVWPNSTA
Seal Beach is the receipt, segregation, storage, and issuing of conventional ammunition,
surface-launched missiles, air-launched missiles, and torpedoes. These munitions are
loaded into cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and medium-sized amphibious ships from the
facility's 305-meter-long (1,000-foot-long) wharf located in Anaheim Bay. The Navy
wharf at Anaheim Bay facilitates the transfer of ordnance onto ships capable of entering
the harbor, including barges which transport ordnance to larger ships at the Navy
anchorages off the coast of Long Beach. Anaheim Bay is approximately 22 km (11.9
nmi) northeast of LA-2 and approximately 30 km (16.2 nmi) northwest of the proposed
LA-3 site. Munitions barges accessing the Navy anchorages would remain nearshore,
outside of the likely transporation routes utilized by the ocean disposal barges.
3.4.4	Oil and Natural Gas Development
The Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (POCS) contains large reserves of oil and natural
gas. At the end of 1998, proved reserves of oil and gas in the POCS were estimated to be
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-105
-------
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Northern traffic
separation scheme
Huntington ^
Harbor
los Angeles
Harbor:
North Bound
Coastwise
Traffic Lane
South Bound
Coastwise
Traffic Lane
Southern traffic
separation scheme
ORANGE COUNTY
0 Kilometers 8
Pacific
Ocean
Santa Cataitna
Island
South Bound
Coastwise
Traffic Lane
	USCG/Marine Exchange Vessel Traffic Center 2001
North Bound
- Coastwise
Traffic Lane
O Proposed
LA-3
Son Pedro Channel
E
Regulated navigation area
l:::::::: I Separation zone
TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEME
AND REGULATED NAVIGATION AREA
M:\jobs2\3646\env\env.apr\fig3.4-1 08/18/04
Figure 3.4-1
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
408 million barrels and 36.4 billion cubic meters (1,286 billion cubic feet), respectively
(Minerals Management Service [MMS] 2004a). These proved reserved are attributed to
13 fields. For these fields the original recoverable reserves were estimated to be 1,323
million barrels of oil and 61.1 billion cubic meters (2,159 billion cubic feet) of gas.
Unproved reserves contained within 25 fields were estimated to be 1,316 million barrels
of oil and 26.1 billion cubic meters (922 billion cubic feet) of gas (MMS 2004a).
State and Federal agencies regulate offshore oil and gas activities in Orange and Los
Angeles Counties. The State governs oil and gas development from the mean high tide
line seaward to the 5.6-km (3-nmi) limit. Beyond the 5.6-km (3-nmi) limit, oil and gas
development activities are regulated by the Minerals Management Service of the federal
government.
In the vicinity of LA-2 and LA-3 there currently are 12 lease tracts within the jurisdiction
of the State (Figure 3.4-2). Of these twelve tracts, ten are producing, one is used for
water injection, and one is not producing (CSLS 2004a). Currently, four artificial islands
in Long Beach Harbor and three platforms are located within State waters (see Figure
3.4-2). All of the facilities in State waters are within 3.3 km (1.8 nmi) of the coast.
There are 4 lease tracts located in federal waters in the vicinity of LA-2 and LA-3
(Figure 3.4-3). There are four platforms located within three of these tracts, however, all
four tracts have been developed. These platforms lie approximately 14 to 17 km (7.5 to 9
nmi) to the east of the LA-2 site. The distance from the proposed LA-3 site to these
platforms ranges from approximately 22 to 25 km (12 to 13.5 nmi).
No new oil or gas development has been proposed in the immediate vicinity of the LA-2
or proposed LA-3 sites.
3.4.5 Recreational Activities
The southern California coastal areas are heavily used for recreational activities. Those
recreational activities include sportfishing, recreational boating including whale
watching, sailing, and fishing, surfing, diving, sunbathing, beachcombing, swimming,
snorkeling, sightseeing and picnicking. This section briefly describes the existing
recreational acititivies in the vicinities of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites.
3.4.5.1 Sportfishing
Recreational ocean fishing (sportfishing) is common in southern California and consists
of pier fishing, surf fishing, private boat fishing, partyboat/charter fishing, and
SCUBA/skin diving. Due to the depth and location of the proposed LA-3 and LA-2
ODMDSs, partyboat fishing is the type of fishing most likely to occur in the vicinity of
both sites. In southern California, partyboat operations are based out of Santa Barbara
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-107
-------
MAP SOURCE: CSLS 2003
LONG BEACH
8c?
HUNTINGTON
BEACH
PRC 91
42SX Aemem
Aera / \ /
X
~ Belmont Island (Removal Completed January 2002)
O Islands
¦ Platforms	STATE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES
Shadedleasesarecurrentlyproducing
M:\JOBS2\3646\env\graphics\fig3.4-2.ai
08/24/04
111 «l|
Figure 3.4-2
-------
Torrance
Los Angeles
County
SWEPI/Carsoo
ARCO/Carson ||
TEXACO,'Wilmington || .
San Pedro
San Pedro
Bay
Bolmont
Huntington
'Beach
3413
EMMY
Newport Harbor
Anaheim
Pacific
Ocean
0 Kilometers 6
SOURCE: MMS 2004b
Orange
County
P!_ Fevmin 1
Slate
Waters
Boundary
EDITH\ ,
&T\
?9f>

ELLY ti
V - - |
ELLEN

EUREKA
w
! :300
301

I30C	! j
Proposed
LA-3 Site
•	s
Santa Ana
SAN PEDRO BAY OCS OPERATIONS
M:\jobs2\3646\env\env.apr\fig3.4-3 OB/18/04
nri


Figure 3.4-3
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
Harbor, Channel Islands Harbor, Port Hueneme, Marina Del Rey, King Harbor, Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, Rainbow Harbor, Alamitos Bay, Newport Harbor,
Dana Harbor, Oceanside Harbor, Mission Bay, and San Diego Bay. Partyboat fishing off
Los Angeles and Orange Counties usually occurs in relatively shallow waters (less than
100 m [328 ft]) at reefs (natural or man-made) and kelp beds, areas where fish aggregate.
During the summer, additional fishing occurs further offshore for coastal pelagic species
such as yellowtail and tunas.
The most popular fish species targeted by sportfishers in southern California are rockfish
(Sebastes spp.), California barracuda (Sphyraena argentea), barred sand bass
(.Paralabrax nebulifer), kelp bass (Pctralabrcix clcithratus), and Pacific bonito (Sarda
chiliensis) (EPA 1997). Of these species, California barracuda and Pacific bonito are
most likely to be caught near the water surface, kelp bass are caught throughout the water
column, and barred sand bass and rockfish are most likely to be caught near bottom.
3.4.5.2	Recreational Boating
In addition to sportfishing, recreational boating could be affected by vessel traffic related
to disposal operations. Recreational boating generally is not restricted to specified travel
areas although most areas of concentrated private boating activitiy occur in areas with
suitable harbors and marinas. Within Los Angeles and Orange Counties harbors that
contain marinas include Los Angeles Harbor, Long Beach Harbor, Long Beach Marina,
Huntington Harbor, Alamitos Bay, Newport Beach Harbor, and Dana Point Harbor.
Additionally, Avalon Bay and Two Harbors are areas of concentrated boating activity on
Santa Catalina Island.
Offshore islands are one of the major attractants to ocean going recreational boating.
Santa Catalina Island is approximately 35 to 50 km (18.9 to 27 nmi) from the major
harbors. Because of these relatively short distances, combined with the relatively
unrestricted and major anchorages at the island, most pleasure boat traffic visting the
offshore islands travels between the mainland harbors and the harbors on Santa Catalina
Island. The boats generally follow a straight path between the island and mainland, and
these routes often come close to the LA-2 and LA-3 sites. In addition to privately owned
pleasure boats, regular ferry service operates between Santa Catalina Island and the
Harbors at Los Angeles, Long Beach, Newport Beach, and Dana Point.
3.4.5.3	Other Recreational Activities
Most of the recreational activities other than offshore fishing and boating occur at the
beaches or in the nearshore areas. Those activities include surf fishing, surfing, diving,
sunbathing, beachcombing, swimming, snorkeling, sightseeing and picnicking.
Figure 3.4-4 shows some of the coastal parks and beaches in the vicinity of the LA-2 and
proposed LA-3 sites.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-110
-------
*
LOS ANGELES	^ x	.
COUNTY	^	f
/
Long	.. i
^ir
Rancho Palos
Verdes

W3
I
i;	'iCi;. Hunfington
Los Angeles	Harbor
Harbor
'y^\	Huntington
Beach
K©
Pacific
Ocean
©^
\
k©
N'~©
%
\
\
\
\
Santa
Ana
ORANGE COUNTY
o
LA-2
Coastal
Mesa
X©~
Newport
Harbor
Irvine

14)
Santa Catalina
Island
San Pedro Channel
1. Cabrillo Beach
10. Huntington State Beach
2. Long Beach City Beach
11. Newport Beach
3. Alamitos Bay
12 Balboa Beach
4. Seal Beach
13 Corona del Mar State Beach
5 Sunset Beach
14. Crystal Cove State Park
6. Huntington Harbor
15. Main Beach
7. Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve
16. Aliso Beach County Park
8. Bolsa Chica State Beach
17. Niguel Beach County Park
9. Huntington City Beach
18. Dana Point Harbor
Proposed
LA-3
o

\
Laguna
Niguel
Dana Point
San
Clemente
X
N
k
/
	/
0 KilomotorB \ 8 /
COASTAL PARKS AND BEACHES
IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
M \jobs2\3646\en\Aenv aprtfig3.4-4 08/18/04


Figure 3.4-4
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
• In addition to the coastal parks and beaches, other areas used by recreationists include
marine protected areas (MPAs), which are discussed above in Section 3.3.8 of this
EIS.
Figure 3.3-7 shows the MPAs in the vicinity of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites. As
discussed in Section 3.3.8 of this EIS, some MPAs restrict fishing and other human
activities. MPAs that allow recreational fishing are draws for recreational activities. Due
to the favorable climate of southern California, the beach and coastal areas are frequented
by large numbers of people throughout the year.
3.4.6	Archeological, Historical, and Cultural
Resources
The southern California coast has had a long period of human occupation, both
prehistoric and historic. As a result the coast of the mainland and Channel Islands
contain numerous archaeological, historical, and cultural resources. The offshore regions
are also thought to contain a number of these resources. Submerged cultural resources
could include aboriginal remains, shipwrecks, and downed aircraft. Extensive dredging
and construction projects in the harbor areas have likely destroyed most submerged
cultural resources in those areas. In the vicinity of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites the
most likely cultural resources to be found are shipwrecks.
Figure 3.4-5 shows the approximate locations of shipwrecks as documented by the
California State Lands Commision. As seen in this figure there are no documented
shipwrecks within 5 km (2.7 nmi) of either the proposed LA-3 or LA-2 sites. The nearest
known shipwreck to the proposed LA-3 site, identified as the Yankee Boy that sank in
1950, is approximately 6.3 km (3.4 nmi) to the east of the site boundary. Another
shipwreck identified as the Silver Wave (sunk in 1936) lies approximately 6.6 km (3.6
nmi) north of the proposed LA-3 site boundary. The nearest shipwreck to the LA-2 site
is unknown wreckage approximately 5.9 km (3.2 nmi) to the east of the site boundary
(see Figure 3.4-5)
3.4.7	Public Health and Welfare
The effect of ocean disposal on human health and welfare is an issue of primary concern
for the USACE and EPA. A potential health hazard associated with ocean disposal of
dredged material is bioaccumulation of toxic substances in marine organisms, including
fish and shellfish, which are then harvested for human consumption. As discussed in
Chapter 1, dredged sediments that are proposed for ocean disposal are subject to strict
testing requirements prior to their disposal. On-going sediment testing will be conducted
on the material proposed for disposal and will be compared to sediment taken from the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-112
-------
5-km radius
Listed shipwreck
SHIPWRECKS IN THE VICINITY
OF THE LA-2 AND LA-3 SITES
M:\jobs2\3646\env\env.apr\fig3.4-5 08/18/04
PHI


Figure 3.4-5
ImhI
-------
3.0 Affected Environment
reference sites. Should the testing indicate that the accumulation of contaminants in the
disposal area(s) represents an unacceptable risk to the marine environment or to human
health, management actions would be taken to reduce or mitigate these impacts. This
could include determining that dredged material is unsuitable for ocean disposal.
A second concern relating to the ocean disposal of dredged material is the potential for
mounding of the disposed material causing a navigation hazard in the vicinity of the
disposal sites. However, mounding within the disposal site is not expected to pose a
hazard due to water depths at the two sites and the relatively low mounds expected to
result from continued operation of the sites.
A further concern would be the interference of the disposal barges with shipping traffic as
they travel to and from the disposal sites. As discussed in Section 3.4.2 above, traffic in
the San Pedro Basin is heavy and, as a result, strict navigation regulations including
traffic separation lanes and a Regulated Navigation Area have been instituted to monitor
and control shipping traffic. Navy traffic as well as a large number of fishing and
recreational boats also utilize the area. While the Navy traffic generally would be subject
to the navigation rules outlined above, the smaller private craft are relatively free to move
about.
Safety issues also include the potential for disposal barge traffic to interfere with present
or future offshore oil and gas developments. There are developed offshore oil and gas
facilities in the general vicinity of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 disposal sites. However,
the existing developed offshore sites are either within approximately 3.3 km (1.8 nmi) of
the shore or are located more than 14 km (7.5 nmi) from either the LA-2 or proposed LA-
3 sites. Additionally, neither LA-2 nor the proposed LA-3 site lie in areas currently
proposed for future oil or gas development.
Finally, there is potential concern that dredged material that is deposited at the disposal
sites could affect the aesthetics of the area. The LA-2 side is located approximately 16.7
km (9 nmi) from the breakwaters at San Pedro. This is an area heavily utilized by
sportfishers and recreational boaters. The proposed LA-3 site is located over 6.5 km (3.5
nmi) from the nearest shoreline. Furthermore, it is located over 5.5 km (3.0 nmi) from
the primary route utilized by recreational boaters traveling from the Newport Beach area
to Avalon Bay on Santa Catalina Island.
Potential impacts and mitigation measures related to public health and safety are
discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
3-114
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
CHAPTER 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Introduction
This chapter evaluates the significance of potential effects of the proposed action on the
physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources at the proposed project sites. The
potential impacts are evaluated for the Preferred Alternative (Section 4.2), the No Action
Alternative (Section 4.3), and other ocean disposal alternatives (Section 4.4). A summary
and comparison of the site-specific impacts associated with the disposal of dredged
material under each alternative according to the five general and eleven specific criteria
are also provided in Chapter 2.
The significance of the potential environmental effects is evaluated according to the
following criteria (outlined in EPA 1988):
•	Class I - Significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to
insignificance. No measures can be taken to avoid or reduce the adverse
impacts to insignificant levels.
•	Class II - Significant adverse impacts that can be mitigated to insignificance.
The impacts are potentially similar in significance to Class I impacts, but can
be reduced or avoided by implementation of mitigation measures.
•	Class IH - Adverse but insignificant impacts or no anticipated impacts. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
•	Class IV - Beneficial effects. These effects could result in improved
conditions relative to pre-project conditions.
The adjective "significant" is used to describe the level of severity of impacts resulting
from the proposed action. In the following sections, significant is defined as a substantial
Drafi EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-1
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
(or potentially substantial) change to resources in the vicinity of the proposed project
sites. Along with significance, the spatial (localized versus widespread) and temporal
(short-term versus long-term) extent of the impacts is discussed. Mitigation measures are
discussed as appropriate.
In evaluating the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives it is noted that
both the permanent LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites have been subject to previous physical
disturbance and alteration. Site selection and implementation are designed to ensure that
future physical disturbance to the ocean bottom will generally be confined to areas of
previous disturbance and will be contained within the designated site boundaries.
Consequently, physical impacts that are anticipated to occur within the boundary of the
disposal site generally are not considered significant. Significant impacts could occur if
substantial physical disturbance and impacts were to occur outside of the designated site
boundaries.
In addition to the impact analysis discussed here, verification that significant impacts do
not occur outside of the site boundaries will be demonstrated through implementation of
the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) being developed as part of the
proposed action. The SMMP will include physical monitoring to confirm that the
material that is deposited is landing where it is supposed to land, as well as monitoring to
confirm that the sediment chemistry conforms to the pre-disposal testing requirements.
The SMMP is discussed in more detail in Section 4.5.2 and is included as Appendix A of
this EIS.
The individual impacts and assessment of the significance of those impacts are discussed
in detail in the following sections.
Table 4.1-1 provides a summary of the potential impacts on the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic environments for each of the alternatives. Additional comparisons and
evaluation of the alternatives relative to the EPA's specific site selection criteria are
presented in Table 2.2-1.
4.2 Preferred Alternative
A description of the potential impacts of the proposed action on the physical, biological,
and socioeconomic environments of the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3, is provided
in this section.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-2
-------
TABLE 4.1-1
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES



Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3)


No Action Alternative (Alternative I)



LA-3


LA-2



LA-3


LA-2

Impact
Spatial
Temporal
Impact
Spatial
Temporal

Impact
Spatial
Temporal
Impact
Spatial
Tempoial
Description
r-i ">
Class
Extent'"
„ (3)
Extent
Comment Class'"
(2)
Extent
C!>
Extent
Comment
Class'1'
r-
Extent
r-
Extent
Comment'4' Class"1
Extent'"
Extent'31 Comment
Physical Envnonment






(5)



l6) 11

E (6>
Air Quality
II
R
E
(5) l(
R
E
III
R
E
R
Physical Oceanography
III
L
E
HI
L
E

III
R
E
III
R
E
Water Quality













- Turbidity
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S
III
L
S
Dissolved Oxygen
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S
III
L
S
- Pollutants
III
L
S
III
L
s

III
L
S
III
L
S
Geology and Sediments













Sediment Grain Size
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Sediment Quality
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Biological Envnonment













Plankton
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S
III
L
S
Benthtc Infauna
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Benthic Epifauna
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Fish
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Birds
III
L
S
III
L
s

III
L
S
III
L
S
Mammals
III
L
S
III
L
s

III
L
S
III
L
S
Threatened/Endangered
III
L
S
III
L
s

III
L
S
III
L
s
Socioeconomic Environment













Fisheries













- Commercial
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
- Recreational
HI
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Commercial Shipping
III
R
E
III
R
E

III
R
E
III
R
E
Military Usage
III
R
E
III
R
E

III
R
E
III
R
E
Oil and Natural Gas













Development













- Present
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Future
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Recreational Usage













- Sportfishing
III
L
S
III
L
s

III
L
S
III
L
s
- Boating
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S
III
L
S
- Other Recreation
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
s
III
L
S
Cultural/Historical
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E
III
L
E
Public Health/Welfare













- Health
III
R
E
III
R
E

III
R
E
III
R
E
- Safety
III
L
S
III
L
S

111
L
S
111
L
S
-------
TABLE 4.1-1
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
(continued)



Maximize use of LA-2 (Alternative 2)


Maximize use of LA-3 (Alternative 4)



LA-3


LA-2



LA-3
LA-2
Description
Impact
(h
Class
Spatial
(2)
Extent
Temporal
Extent1'1 Comment'""
Impact
(I)
Class
Spatial
Extent'"
Temporal
(3)
Extent
Comment
Impact
Class"1
Spatial
Extent'"
Tempoial Impact Spatial
Extent'3' Comment class'" Extent'2'
Tempoial
Extent'3' Comment
Physical Environment











Air Quality
III
R
p (7)
I
R
E
(7)
I
R
E (8» I R
E (8>
Physical Oceanography
Water Quality
- Turbidity
Dissolved Oxygen
III
III
III
L
L
L
E
S
S
III
III
III
L
L
L
E
S
S

III
III
III
L
L
L
E III L
S III L
S III L
E
S
S
- Pollutants
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S III L
s
Geology and Sediments











Sediment Giain Size
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E III L
E
Sediment Quality
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E III L
E
Biological Environment











Plankton
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S III L
S
Benthic Infauna
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E III L
E
Benthic Epifauna
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E 111 L
E
Fish
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E III L
E
Birds
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S III L
S
Mammals
III
L
S
111
L
S

III
L
S III L
S
Threatened/Endangered
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S III L
S
Socioeconomic Environment











Fisheries











Commercial
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E III L
E
- Recreational
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E III L
E
Commercial Shipping
III
R
E
III
R
E

III
L
E II L
E
Military Usage
III
R
E
III
R
E

III
L
E III L
E
Oil and Natural Gas











Development
Present
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E III L
E
Future
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E ,7> III L
E
Recreational Usage











- Sportfishing
Boating
III
III
L
L
S
S
III
III
L
L
S
S

III
III
L
L
S III L
S III L
S
S
- Other Recreation
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S III L
S
Cultural/Historical
III
L
E
III
L
E

III
L
E III L
E
Public Health/Welfare











- Health
111
R
E
HI
R
E

111
R
E III R
E
- Safety
III
L
S
III
L
S

III
L
S III L
S
-------
TABLE 4.1-1
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
Notes:
(1)	Impact Class: I = significant; II = significant but can be reduced by mitigation; III = insignificant or none; IV = beneficial.
(2)	Spatial Extent: S = confined within site boundaries; L = localized (up to 1 nmi outside of site boundaries); R = regional (beyond 1 nmi from site boundaries).
(3)	Temporal Extent: S = short term (less than or equal to 5 hours); E = extended (greater than 5 hours).
(4)	No disposal at LA-3; consequently, no adverse impacts to LA-3 site.
(5)	Air impacts to the air basin are a result of emissions resulting from hauling activities to both LA-2 and LA-3 sites combined. Worst-case impacts to air quality may be
mitigated through the dredging permitting process.
(6)	No hauling activities to LA-3. Air impacts to the air basin are a result of emissions resulting from hauling activities to LA-2 site. Worst-case impacts to air quality may
be mitigated through the dredging permitting process.
(7)	No hauling activities to LA-3. Air impacts to the air basin are a result of emissions resulting from hauling activities to LA-2 site. Average-year impacts to air quality are
projected to be significant and not mitigable.
(8)	Air impacts to the air basin are. a result of emissions resulting from hauling activities to both LA-2 and LA 3 sites combined. Average year impacts to air quality arc
projected to be significant and not mitigable.
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.2.1 Effects on the Physical Environment
The following sections examine the potential effects of dredged material disposal on local
and regional air quality, physical oceanography, water quality, geology, and sediment
quality.
The transport and fate of dredged material proposed for disposal at both LA-2 and LA-3
was modeled to better determine potential effects to water and sediment quality and
biological communities in the vicinity of the disposal sites. Methodologies and results of
these numerical simulations are detailed in the Fate of Dredged Material Disposed at LA-
3 and LA-2 report (USACE 2004b). The simulations used the following data for both
sites: (1) hourly current profiles, (2) water quality profiles, (3) wave characteristics, and
(4) sediment characteristics of dredged material. Both the STFATE and LTFATE models
were employed to determine the short-term and long-term impacts, respectively, of the
settling sediments.
4.2.1.1 Air Quality
As discussed in Chapter 3, the proposed action (the designation of an ODMDS) does not
permit the actual disposal of dredged material. However, because the federal Clean Air
Act and the SCAQMD rules and regulations are applicable to the proposed action, a basic
air quality evaluation of the potential impacts to air quality resulting from future use of
the disposal sites is presented here. Subsequent projects that would generate material to
be disposed of at LA-2 or LA-3 would be subject to individual environmental review and
would require assessment of the potential direct and cumulative air quality impacts
resulting from those individual projects.
The site(s) chosen for ocean disposal of dredged material will ultimately affect the
emissions resulting from hauling the material to that site(s) due to the varying haul
distances resulting from each alternative. Consequently, for the purposes of assessing the
potential air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the alternatives presented
in this analysis, the projected hauling emissions for each of the alternatives are compared
to Clean Air Act Conformity Demonstration thresholds and to SCAQMD significance
thresholds.
Additionally, because the air emissions due to hauling the dredged material to the
disposal site are directly a function of the total dredged material amount and the hauling
distances between the various dredging projects and the site, the air emissions estimates
presented here assume the projected dredging projects and material volumes identified in
the Final Draft Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) Study (USACE 2003a). The intent of
this air quality analysis is to present a basis for comparing the relative impacts to air
quality that could result due to implementation of each of the proposed alternatives.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-6
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Dredging operations that would produce material to be disposed of at an ODMDS could
involve a number of alternative dredging procedures. Typically these would involve a
combination of hopper, clamshell, or hydraulic techniques. The amount, frequency, and
methods of dredging used would be the same irrespective of which alternative ocean
disposal site is utilized. Consequently, the effects on air quality resulting from the
dredging operations are not evaluated in this EIS. Air quality effects for each individual
dredging project will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for each dredging permit
application. Thus, the following analysis focuses on the potential air emissions resulting
from the hauling activities.
The dredged material to be disposed of is normally transported to the disposal site on a
split-hulled barge or disposal scow towed by diesel-powered tugboats or tenders.
Available disposal scows and barges typically range in capacity from 800 to 4,000 yd'
(612 to 3,058 nr3; USACE 2003a). For the purposes of this assessment an average
capacity of 2,000 yd3 (1,529 m3) was assumed. The variation in potential air quality
effects resulting from the different ocean disposal alternatives is principally due to the
variation in the transportation distance from the individual dredge sites to the ODMDS.
Table 4.2-1 shows the approximate distance between the various dredge material source
sites and the proposed LA-3 and permanent LA-2 ODMDS sites. The tugboats or tenders
hauling the dredged material are assumed to have one diesel engine producing 1,640
kilowatts (kW; 2,200 horsepower [hp]), two 75-kW (100 hp) generators that operate
continuously while the vessel is in operation, and a cruising speed of 15.7 km/hr (8.5
knots). In addition to the cruising time to and from the ODMDS, it is assumed that each
round trip includes one additional hour at idle speed for hookup, disposal, unhook, and
other maneuvering. Hauling operations are assumed to occur for 10 hours a day, 6 days
per week. A discussion of the potential dredging projects and their timing and frequency
is presented in the Final Draft ZSF Study (USACE 2003a).
As discussed in Chapter 2, the worst-case number of daily and yearly trips occurs
assuming that all of the projects identified in the ZSF Study were to occur
simultaneously. Using these assumptions the worst-case total daily trips and the worst-
case total yearly trips between each of the source and disposal sites for each of the
alternatives are shown in Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3, respectively. Table 4.2-4 shows the
average number of yearly trips over the 10-year period of assessment that are anticipated
for each of the alternatives. These worst-case yearly and average yearly trips correspond
to the worst-case yearly and average yearly disposal volumes discussed in Chapter 2 and
shown in Tables 2.1-1 through 2.1 -4.
Using these assumptions and information on marine vessel emission factors from the
EPA (EPA 2000), air emissions due to the hauling operations were projected for each of
the alternatives. The detailed air emissions calculations are included as Appendix B of
this EIS. Table 4.2-5 shows the worst-case daily emissions, Table 4.2-6 shows the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-7
-------
TABLE 4.2-1
ONE-WAY TRIP DISTANCES
One-Way Trip Distance	One-Way Trip Distance
(km)	(nmi)
Harbor/Facility
LA-2
LA-3
LA-2
LA-3
Los Angeles River Estuary
21
40
11
22
Los Angeles Harbor
14
42
8
23
Long Beach Harbor
18
40
10
22
Marina del Rey
47
85
25
46
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
27
37
15
20
Newport Harbor
43
11
23
6
Dana Point Harbor
61
23
33
12
Upper Newport Bay
43
11
23
6
Anaheim Bay
23
34
12
18
-------
TABLE 4.2-2
WORST-CASE DAY TOTAL NUMBER OF BARGE ROUND TRIPS
Alternative 1 - No Action	Alternative 2	Alternative 3	Alternative 4
Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case
Harbor/Facility	Day LA-2 Day LA-3	Day LA-2 Day LA-3	Day LA-2 Day LA-3	Day LA-2 Day LA-3
Regular Maintenance








Los Angeles River Estuary
2
NA
2
NA
2
0
2
0
Los Angeles Harbor
3
NA
3
NA
3
0
0
1
Long Beach Harbor
3
NA
3
NA
3
0
0
1
Marina del Rey
1
NA
1
NA
1
0
1
0
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
2
NA
2
NA
0
1
0
1
Newport Harbor
0
NA
1
NA
0
4
0
4
Dana Point Harbor
0
NA
1
NA
0
2
0
2
Upper Newport Bay
0
NA
1
NA
0
4
0
4
Anaheim Bay
2
NA
2
NA
2
0
2
0
Total Regular Maintenance
13
NA
16
NA
11
11
5
13
Capital Improvement








Los Angeles Harbor
3
NA
3
NA
3
0
0
1
Long Beach Harbor
3
NA
3
NA
3
0
0
I
Upper Newport Bay*
0
NA
3
NA
0
4
0
4
Total Capital Improvement
6
NA
9
NA
6
4
0
6
TOTAL
19
NA
25
NA
17
15
5
19
* Upper Newport Bay capital improvement ptoject occurs over two years (worst-case year assumes 1.060.000 cubic yaids for capital improvement).
-------
TABLE 4.2-3
WORST-CASE YEAR TOTAL NUMBER OF BARGE ROUND TRIPS
Alternative 1 - No Action	Alternative 2	Alternative 3	Alternative 4
Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case Worst-Case
Harbor/Facility	Year LA-2 Year LA-3	Year LA-2 Year LA-3	YearLA-2 YearLA-3	Year LA-2 Year LA-3
Regular Maintenance








Los Angeles River Estuary
57
NA
57
NA
57
0
57
0
Los Angeles Harbor
8
NA
8
NA
8
0
0
8
Long Beach Harbor
29
NA
29
NA
29
0
0
29
Marina del Rey
51
NA
51
NA
51
0
51
0
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
75
NA
75
NA
0
75
0
75
Newport Harbor
0
NA
188
NA
0
188
0
188
Dana Point Harbor
0
NA
38
NA
0
38
0
38
Upper Newport Bay
0
NA
75
NA
0
75
0
75
Anaheim Bay
113
NA
113
NA
113
0
113
0
Total Regular Maintenance
333
NA
634
NA
258
376
221
413
Capital Improvement








Los Angeles Harbor
198
NA
198
NA
198
0
0
198
Long Beach Harbor
198
NA
198
NA
198
0
0
198
Upper Newport Bay*
0
NA
795
NA
0
795
0
795
Total Capital Improvement
396
NA
1,191
NA
396
795
0
1.191
TOTAL
729
NA
1,825
NA
654
1.171
221
1.604
* Upper Newport Bay capital improvement project occurs over two years (worst-case year assumes 1.060.000 cubic yards for capital improvement).
-------
¦•'era:
ir L/
0
5
19
0
5
5
4
5
0
43
7
7
106
120
163
TABLE 4.2-4
AVERAGE YEAR TOTAL NUMBER OF BARGE ROUND TRIPS
Alternative 1 - No Action	Alternative 2	Alternative 3
Average Average	Average Average	Average Average
Year LA-2 Year LA-3 Year LA-2 YearLA-3 Year LA-2 YearLA-3
10
NA
10
NA
10
0
5
NA
5
NA
5
0
19
NA
19
NA
19
0
17
NA
17
NA
17
0
5
NA
5
NA
0
5
0
NA
5
NA
0
5
0
NA
4
NA
0
4
0
NA
5
NA
0
5
8
NA
8
NA
8
0
64
NA
78
NA
59
19
7
NA
7
NA
7
0
7
NA
7
NA
7
0
0
NA
106
NA
0
106
14	NA	120	NA	14	106
78	NA	198	NA	73	125
-------
TABLE 4.2-5
WORST-CASE YEAR MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS
(kg per day)
Pollutant
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
SCAQMD
Thresholds
PM
21
36
31
29
68.0'"
NOx
857
1,439
1,249
1,148
24.9
NO:
1,273
2,138
1,855
1,705
NA
SO:
642
1,076
937
860
68.0':>
CO
101
163
152
134
249.5
HC
11
17
17
15
24.9°1
CO:
57,183
95,862
83,459
76,565
NA
NOTE Emissions assume 10-hour day. 313-work-day year. Bold type indicates that emissions exceed threshold
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
PM =
NO\ =
NO; —
so2=
co =
HC =
CO; =
Particulate matter
Nitrogen oxides
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Carbon dioxide
" 'Threshold is for PM 10.
^Threshold is for SO.\.
"Threshold is for reactive organic compounds (ROCs).
NA. not applicable - no threshold specified
-------
TABLE 4.2-6
WORST-CASE YEAR AVERAGE DAILY EMISSIONS
(kg per day)
jllutant
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
SCAQMD
Thresholds
PM
2
9
5
6
68.0'"
NOx
93
370
182
240
24.9
NO;
138
551
271
357
NA
SO:
70
277
137
180
68.0<2)
CO
11
41
22
28
249.5
HC
1
4
3
3
24.9(3)
co2
6,204
24,645
12,200
16,045
NA
NOTE Emissions assume 10-hour day. 313 work-day year. Bold type indicates thai emissions exceed threshold.
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
PM =	Paniculate matter
NOx =	Nitrogen oxides
NOi=	Nitrogen dioxide
SO;=	Sulfur dioxide
CO =	Carbon monoxide
HC =	Hydrocarbons
CO;=	Carbon dioxide
"Threshold is for PMIO.
i:Threshold is for SOx.
"Threshold is for reactive organic compounds (ROCs).
NA: not applicable -110 threshold specified
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
average daily emissions averaged over a worst-case year, and Table 4.2-7 shows the
average daily emissions averaged over an average year. Table 4.2-8 shows the worst-
case yearly emissions while Table 4.2-9 shows the average yearly emissions.
Also shown in Tables 4.2-5 through 4.2-7 are the SCAQMD air emission significance
thresholds for evaluating projects occurring within the SCAB. As seen in Table 4.2-5 and
Table 4.2-6, for Alternative 3 both worst-case daily emissions and average daily
emissions for a worst-case year are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOx
and SO2. All other emissions are projected to be below significance thresholds.
Additionally, as seen in Table 4.2-7, all average daily emissions for an average year are
projected to be below SCAQMD thresholds.
Likewise, Tables 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 include the CAA de minimis thresholds for evaluating
the air emissions resulting from federal actions. As seen in Table 4.2-8, for Alternative 3
the worst-case yearly emissions of NOx and NO2 exceed the de minimis thresholds.
However, as seen in Table 4.2-9 all of the projected emissions resulting from the hauling
activities associated with Alternative 3 for an average year are below the de minimis
thresholds.
Consequently, the potential exists for significant air quality emissions to occur under
Alternative 3 in the unlikely event that all of the dredging activities identified were to
occur simultaneously in any given year. However, assuming more realistic hauling
activities for an average year results in air emissions that are less than the identified
thresholds. Because the actual individual dredging and hauling activities are subject to
additional environmental review and permitting, air quality impacts are considered Class
II as air emissions could be mitigated, for example, by limiting the hauling activities
allowed under the individual permits.
It is also noted that the EPA has recently adopted new emissions standards for new
marine diesel engines that went into effect in January of 2004. These standards apply to
new manufactured marine engines and existing engines that are installed in new vessels
or converted from land-based to marine engines. Consequently, as the existing tug fleet is
retired, future emissions are anticipated to be less than those presented here.
4.2.1.2 Physical Oceanography
The proposed use of both the LA-2 and/or LA-3 ODMDSs is not expected to affect the
waves, currents, or tides in the vicinity of these locations (Class HI). It is these
parameters that will largely affect the dispersal and transport of dredged material
Changes in seafloor topography can potentially result in changes in near-bottom current
patterns. Substantial accumulations of dredged material deposited at either of the disposal
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-14
-------
TABLE 4.2-7
AVERAGE DAILY EMISSIONS FOR 10-YEAR PROJECT ASSESSMENT PERIOD
(kg per day)
Alternative 1	SCAQMD
Pollutant (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Thresholds
PM
0.3
1.0
0.5
0.7
68.0(11
NOx
11.7
42.1
21.3
26.3
24.9
NO:
17.4
62.6
31.7
39.1
NA
SO:
8.8
31.4
16.0
19.7
68.0':)
CO
1.3
4.6
2.6
3.1
249.5
HC
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.3
24.9(3>
CO:
781.9
2,800.0
1,426.7
1,753.6
NA
NOTE: Emissions assume 10-hour day. 313 work-day year Bold type indicates that emissions exceed threshold
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
PM =	Particulate matter
NOx =	Nitrogen oxides
NO;=	Nitrogen dioxide
SO;=	Sulfur dioxide
CO =	Carbon monoxide
HC =	Hydrocarbons
CO; =	Carbon dioxide
'"Threshold is for PM 10
':Threshold is for SOx
'""Threshold is for Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC).
NA: not applicable - no threshold specified
-------
TABLE 4.2-8
WORST-CASE YEARLY EMISSIONS
(metric tons per year)
Pollutant
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Federal de
Minimis
Thresholds
PM
0.8
3.4
1.7
2.2
63.5*11
NOx
33.9
135.2
66.6
87.8
9.1
no2
50.4
201.0
98.9
130.4
90.7
SO,
25.4
101.0
50.0
65.7
NA
CO
4.0
14.8
8.2
10.3
90.7
HC
0.4
1.5
0.9
1.1
9. r:i
CO:
2,264.3
8,995.5
4.453.0
5,856.3
NA
NOTE Emissions assume 10-hour day. 313 work-dav year. Bold type indicates that emissions exceed threshold.
PM =	Particulate matter
NOx = Nitrogen oxides
NO; -	Nitrogen dioxide
SO> =	Sulfur dioxide
CO =	Carbon monoxide
HC =	Hydrocarbons
C02 =	Carbon dioxide
"Threshold is for PMio.
,2Threshold is for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
NA: not applicable - no threshold specified
-------
TABLE 4.2-9
AVERAGE YEARLY EMISSIONS FOR 10-YEAR PROJECT ASSESSMENT PERIOD
(metric tons per year)
Pollutant
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Federal cle
Minimis
Thresholds
PM
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
63.5("
NOx
4.3
15.4
7.8
9.6
9.1
NO:
6.4
22.8
11.6
14.3
90.7
so2
3.2
11.5
5.8
7.2
NA
CO
0.5
1.7
0.9
1.1
90.7
HC
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
9.1<2)
CO;
285.4
102.2
520.7
640.1
NA
NOTE: Emissions assume 10-hour clay. 313 work-day year Bold type indicates lhai emissions exceed threshold.
PM =	Paniculate matter
NOx =	Nitrogen oxides
NO:=	Nitrogen dioxide
SO;=	Sulfur dioxide
CO =	Carbon monoxide
HC =	Hydrocarbons
CO:=	Carbon dioxide
"Threshold is for PMio
'"Threshold is for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
NA: not applicable - no threshold specified
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
sites could affect the direction and magnitude of seafloor currents. However, it is these
currents that will also act to disperse dredged material. Near-bottom currents at LA-3 are
low (usually less than 6 cm per second [cm/sec]; [0.2 feet per second {ft/sec}] and
always less than 16 cm/sec [0.53 ft/sec]) compared with those at LA-2 (usually less than
12 cm/sec [0.4 ft/sec] and always less than 40 cm/sec [1.3 ft/sec]). The potential for
erosion of disposed sediments is therefore greater at LA-2 than at LA-3. Essentially no
erosion is predicted for the LA-3 site (USACE 2004b).
Under Alternative 3, the LA-3 site would be permanently designated at an annual
maximum disposal quantity of 2,500,000 yd3 (1,911,000 m3), and the LA-2 site would be
managed at an annual maximum disposal volume of 1,000,000 yd3 (765,000 m3). Effects
to physical oceanography are not expected to be significant at either site (Class IH).
4.2.1.3 Water Quality
The disposal of dredged material at the LA-2 and LA-3 sites will result in short-term,
localized effects to water quality parameters. Short-term water column effects were
predicted based on numerical modeling of dredged material transport and fate. The
STFATE model and a particle trajectory model were used to predict the maximum
concentrations of the slowly settling sediment after the initial discharge (USACE 2004b).
Upon release from the disposal barge, the dredged material descends to the seafloor by
gravity. Coarser sediments and silt-clay clasts settle more rapidly and accumulate close to
the disposal point, whereas slower settling sediments decelerate with increasing depth as
the sediments entrain surrounding waters and, if water depths are sufficiently deep,
eventually reach neutral buoyancy. This is the point of dynamic collapse where material
is no longer influenced by its bulk properties, but only as a collection of sediment
particles. After this point the disposed material is subject to passive diffusion, which is
dependent on the prevailing currents.
The discharge of dredged material will result in a localized, turbid plume that will
dissipate with distance from the disposal site. Transparency within the plume will be
reduced from ambient levels. Heavier sediments, such as coarse particles and silt-clay
clasts, will descend more rapidly than finer sediments. Finer sediments, such as silt and
clay particles, will descend more slowly, but will be subject to dispersal and dilution.
Depending on the characteristics of the sediments, dissolved oxygen concentrations may
be decreased within the plume. If sediment contaminants are present within the plume
(e.g. metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides, etc.), this may result in temporarily elevated levels
in the affected water column. Results of numerical modeling indicate that within four
hours of disposal, sediment constituents are well diluted as they settle and disperse within
the site boundary and over the entire water column until settling on the seafloor (USACE
2004b).
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-18
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
The U.S. EPA's Green Book (EPA and USACE 1991) specifies two criteria related to
dilution of dredged material:
•	Criterion I - The maximum concentration of a constituent outside the disposal
site boundary during the first four-hour period after discharge must satisfy
applicable water quality standards; and
•	Criterion II - The maximum concentration of a constituent anywhere in the
marine environment four hours after discharge must satisfy the water quality
standards. The final concentration of a conservative constituent after mixing is
expressed as the initial concentration divided by the dilution factor, assuming
an ambient concentration of the constituent of zero.
Water quality criteria for the ocean disposal of dredged material are specified in 40 CFR
227.
The dredged material proposed for ocean disposal will be tested for contaminants as part
of the dredged material screening process. The dilutions determined through the
numerical modeling process will be used with the initial contaminant concentrations
determined from the sediment testing to project the resulting concentrations of those
contaminants after the initial dilution. The diluted concentrations will be compared to the
criteria specified in 40 CFR 227 to determine if the water criteria would be met if the
material were disposed of in the ocean. If the criteria would be met then the material is
deemed acceptable for ocean disposal and no significant water quality impacts would
occur. If the criteria would not be met, then the dredged material would not be suitable
for ocean disposal and would have to be disposed of through some other means.
Consequently, screening of the dredged material will ensure that no significant impacts to
water quality would result from the ocean disposal of the dredged material at either site.
Effects to water quality parameters from disposal operations are predicted to be localized
and temporary. Field studies performed at the LA-2 and LA-5 (the LA-5 ODMDS is
located in approximately 146 to 201 m (479 to 659 ft) of water about 10 km (5.4 nmi)
southwest of San Diego, California) disposal sites indicated that the disposal plume
diluted to background concentrations within two to five hours (EPA 1987a, b). Effects on
water quality parameters from disposal operations at both LA-3 and LA-2 are classified
as adverse but insignificant (Class HI) assuming only dredged material of suitable quality
is permitted for disposal.
4.2.1.4 Geology and Sediments
The disposal of dredged material at the LA-2 and LA-3 ODMDSs will result in sediment
accumulation at each site. The accumulation of sediments in the vicinity of each site was
modeled based on predicted sediment and water column parameters. The STFATE model
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-19
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
was used to determine the effect of instantaneous disposal events on local sediments
using repeated runs to simulate continuing disposal (USACE 2004b). The LTFATE
model was used to determine the long-term fate of settled dredge material at each site.
The LTFATE model simulates the movement of sediments on the seafloor due to near-
bottom currents and oscillatory currents resulting from wind waves.
Based on results of Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI) surveys at both sites, the disposal
sediments will likely be "reworked" by benthic organisms and, over time, the
depositional layer will more closely resemble those sediments upon which they were
deposited. Reworking includes excavating, burrowing, and ingestion and ejection of
sediments as a method of feeding for many benthic and epibenthic organisms.
In some cases disposal mounds will accumulate on the seafloor. Bathymetric surveys at
LA-3 and LA-2 in 1998 identified disposal mounds at both sites from past disposal
operations; however, the vertical relief of all mounds was less than 30 cm (1 ft; Gardener
et al. 1998a, b).
As discussed, materials proposed for disposal at the LA-2 and LA-3 sites will be screened
according to federal regulations to prevent the occurrence of adverse effects to marine
organisms resulting from sediment contamination. The screening process is designed to
detect and quantify sediment contaminants prior to disposal to evaluate the proper
disposal options for each project. In short, sediments that may result in adverse effects or
toxicity to marine organisms due to chemical contaminants will not be qualified for ocean
disposal at either of the sites. To verify the effectiveness of the screening process, the Site
Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) will ensure that the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the site are not being adversely affected due to disposal
operations.
Numerical Modeling
The STFATE and LTFATE models were used to determine the fate and accumulation of
dredged material disposed of at LA-2 and LA-3. Detailed methodologies can be found in
the fate of the dredged material modeling report (USACE 2004b). However, it is
important to note that the modeling performed assumes that all material disposal occurs
within a circle of 305 m (1,000 ft) radius about the site center irrespective of which site is
utilized.
a. LA-3
Under Alternative 3, the proposed LA-3 site would be permanently designated at a
-3	T
maximum annual disposal volume of 2,500,000 yd (1,911,000 m ). Consequently, the
maximum annual disposal volume modeled for this alternative at LA-3 was 2,500,000
yd3 (1,911,000 m3), with all of the dredged material derived from Upper Newport Bay
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-20
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Basins II and III (Scenario I in the dredged material fate modeling report; USACE
2004b).
Results indicate that greater than 99 percent of the material in the sediment computations
(gravel to very fine sand) settled within a 3,050-m by 3,050-m (10,000-ft by 10,000-ft)
square grid including and surrounding the site boundary. As seen in Figure 4.2-1 he 30-
cm (1 -ft) contour resulting from the maximum annual disposal volume of 2,500,000 yd
(1,911,000 m3) lies well within the proposed site boundary (USACE 2004b).
Long-term accumulation was also assessed assuming that the sediment characteristics
match Scenario I of the dredged material fate modeling report (USACE 2004b). Long-
term (10-year) accumulations assuming a maximum disposal volume of 2,483,000 yd3
(1,898,000 m3) over the 10-year period (based on an annual average disposal volume of
248,000 yd3 [190,000 m3]; see Table 2.1-3) range from 4.19 m (13.75 ft) within 305 m
(1,000 ft) of the site center to 0.02 m (0.05 ft) between 1,219 m (4,000 ft) and 1,524 m
(5,000 ft) from the site center. These accumulation impacts are considered localized and
not significant (Class III).
Bathymetric surveys performed in 1998 at LA-3 detected discrete marine disposal
mounds (MDMs) adjacent to, and southeast of, the LA-3 ODMDS (Gardner et al. 1998b).
Continued use of LA-3 will result in the presence of more of these MDMs, though they
will be worked through with time. Dredge sediments detected at a station north of the
LA-3 boundary in 1988 were not detected during the 2000 surveys (USACE 2002).
Though dredged material was detected at several stations south of the disposal site in
2000, the infauna had recovered completely and the sediments had been reworked and
resembled the native bottom.
There are differences in certain sediment parameters among stations (1) within the
interim LA-3 disposal site, (2) at reference sites, (3) at sites where sediments from the
1998-1999 Upper Newport Bay project were present, and (4) at sites where sediments
from historical disposal operations were present (Chambers Group 2001). Many of these
are likely the result of past dredge disposal operations. Within the interim LA-3 site
boundary, total organic carbon, total volatile solids, and percentage of silt were lower
than at locations surrounding LA-3 and at reference locations. Oil and grease were higher
within the site compared with the other sites, as well. Continued use of LA-3 will result
in continued alterations in sediment characteristics including elevated levels of some
contaminants.
The concentrations of some sediment contaminants, such as the metals cadmium and
silver, were higher within the interim LA-3 site boundary compared with adjacent and
reference areas in 2000. Levels of most contaminants in 2000 were lower at LA-3 than
those measured in 1999, suggesting the sediments are being reworked.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 4-21
-------
Y-AXIS
Distance from
the center in feet
5000-
4000
3000-
2000
1000
-1000-
-2000-
-3000-
-4000
-5000
LA-3 SITE
BOUNDARY
X-AXIS Distance from the center in feet
i	i	i	i
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000
NOTE: Contours in feet
~i	i	i	r	1	
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-3
for an Annual Disposal Volume of 2,500,000 yd3
M \JOBS2\3646\env\grapbicstfig4 2-1.at	12/16/04

Figure 4.2-1
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
As previously discussed, only suitable material that has been screened according to EPA
protocols will be deemed acceptable for future ocean disposal. Therefore, effects to
sediment chemical quality are considered adverse but insignificant (Class III). Changes in
sediment particle size distribution at LA-3 will likely continue as a result of dredged
material disposal. This effect is considered locally not significant (Class HI) and is
expected to continue for the duration of site use. Since accumulations outside the site
boundary are less than 30 cm (1 ft), effects to the physical environment due to deposition
of dredged material are considered insignificant (Class HI), limited to area within the site
and immediately adjacent to the site, and will extend for the duration of site use.
b. LA-2
Under Alternative 3, the LA-2 site would be managed at a maximum annual disposal
volume of 1,000,000 yd3 (765,000 m3). Consequently, the maximum annual disposal
volume modeled for this alternative at LA-2 was 1,000,000 yd3 (765,000 m3), with all of
the dredged material derived in Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors (75%), the Los
Angeles River Estuary (15%), and Marina del Rey (10%; Scenario IV in the dredged
material fate modeling report (USACE 2004b).
Results indicate that over 94 percent of the material in the sediment computations (gravel
to very fine sand) settled within the 3,050-m by 3,050-m grid (10,000-ft by 10,000-ft)
including and surrounding the site boundary. As seen in Figure 4.2-2, the 30-cm (1 -ft)
contour resulting from the maximum annual disposal volume of 1,000,000 yd3 (765,000
m3) lies well within the LA-2 site boundary (USACE 2004b).
Long-term accumulations were assessed also assuming that the sediment characteristics
match Scenario IV of the dredged material fate modeling report (USACE 2004b). Long-
term (10-year) accumulations assuming a maximum disposal volume of 1,416,000 yd3
(1,083,000 m3) over the 10-year period (based on an annual average disposal volume of
142,000 yd3 [109,000 m3]; see Table 2.1-3) range from 2.71 m (8.91 ft) within 305 m
(1,000 ft) from the site center to 0.02 m (0.07 ft) between 1,219 m (4,000 ft) and 1,524 m
(5,000 ft) from the site center. These accumulation impacts are considered localized and
not significant (Class m).
Bathymetric surveys performed in 1998 at LA-2 detected discrete marine disposal
mounds (MDMs) within the and in the area surrounding the LA-2 ODMDS, particularly
east and west of the site (Gardner et al. 1998a). Continued use of LA-2 will result in the
presence of more of these MDMs, though they will be worked through with time.
Sediment profile surveys at LA-2 in 2000 indicated that dredged material was not
detected outside the site boundary, suggesting the material had been reworked and
resembled the native bottom (USACE 2002).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-23
-------
Y-AXIS
Distance from
the center in feet
5000-
4000-
3000-
2000
1000-
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000-
-5000
LA-2 SITE
BOUNDARY
X-AXIS Distance from the center in feet
	1	1	i	i
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000
NOTE: Contours in feet
i	i	i	i	
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-2
	for an Annual Disposal Volume of 1,000,000 yd3
M \JOBS2\3646\envVjraphics\fig4.2-2.ai	12/16/04
Figure 4.2-2
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
There are differences in certain sediment parameters among stations (1) at reference sites,
(2) within the LA-2 disposal site, and (3) adjacent to the LA-2 disposal site, and many of
these are likely the result of past dredge disposal operations (Chambers Group 2001).
However, these differences between and among station groupings were not statistically
significant (p<0.05). The greatest difference was between concentrations of oil and
grease within the LA-2 site and at the reference stations. The concentrations of some
sediment metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and the pesticide DDT within LA-2 were higher in 2000 compared to sediments
from a reference area. These higher concentrations likely resulted from the past disposal
of dredged material.
As discussed previously only suitable material that has been screened according to EPA
protocols will be deemed acceptable for ocean disposal. Therefore, effects to sediment
chemical quality are considered adverse but insignificant (Class EI). Changes in sediment
particle size distribution at LA-2 will likely continue as a result of dredged material
disposal, with finer sediments accumulating within and immediately adjacent to the LA-2
site compared with natural conditions. Since accumulations outside the site boundary are
less than 30 cm (1 ft), effects to the physical environment due to deposition of dredged
material are considered insignificant (Class HI), limited to the area within and
immediately adjacent to the site, and will extend for the duration of site use.
4.2.2 Effects on the Biological Environment
The following section describes the potential effects of the proposed action and
alternatives on the biological communities in the vicinity of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3
sites.
4.2.2.1 Plankton
Potential effects to planktonic organisms will result from contact with the disposal plume,
especially the slower-settling particles (silt and clay). Coarser particles will fall more
rapidly to the bottom and the parcel of water affected by their discharge will be much
smaller than for the finer particles. Previous monitoring performed at the LA-2 and LA-5
ODMDSs indicated that the disposal plume would dissipate within two to five hours after
discharge (U.S. EPA 1987a, b; the LA-5 ODMDS is located in approximately 146 to 201
m (479 to 659 ft) of water about 10 km (5.4 nmi) southwest of San Diego, California.)
Some of the potential adverse effects of ocean disposal of dredged material on planktonic
organisms are the direct loss of organisms, inhibition of phytoplankton photosynthesis
due to increased turbidity, interference with feeding (e.g. filter-feeding zooplankton), and
uptake and potential bioaccumulation of contaminants (e.g. metals, pesticides, etc.).
Some phytoplankton will be entrained in the discharge plume, while photosynthesis will
be temporarily inhibited after discharge. However, the sediments should fall rapidly upon
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-25
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
initial disposal and slow as surrounding water is entrained. Phytoplankton concentrations
are highest in the euphotic zone (the light-penetrating zone where photosynthesis occurs),
which in the Southern California Bight is the upper 30 to 40 m (98 to 131 ft) of water.
Therefore, direct loss of organisms will be localized and temporary. Inhibition of
photosynthesis will also be limited in space and duration.
Due to the limited area of impact (in the immediate vicinity of disposal operations), the
short duration of impact (few to several hours), and the ability of phytoplankton and
zooplankton to reproduce rapidly, direct losses of phytoplankton, zooplankton and
ichthyoplankton are classified as insignificant (Class HI).
4.2.2.2 Infauna
Infauna communities are influenced by the sediments in which they live. Sediment grain
size affects the infauna through its effect on the stability and cohesiveness of the
sediments. Coarser sediments, for example, allow more rapid diffusion of oxygen into the
sediment because of the larger pore spaces. However, coarse sediments lack the cohesive
properties of sediments that are rich in clay-size particles. Potential effects to the benthic
infauna as a result of disposal operations include burial, inhibition of filter-feeding, and
bioaccumulation of contaminants. The magnitude of effects at each disposal site will
depend on the affected organisms, the extent and rate of deposition, and the quality of
accumulated sediments.
Impacts to infauna from deposition of dredged material can range from negligible to total
mortality of the infauna. Some organisms may be able to excavate certain accumulations,
while others may be buried indefinitely, in which case recolonization of the affected area
becomes important. Predictions on the effect of burial are difficult because they depend
on the infaunal species, rate of deposition, burial depth, properties of the disposed
sediments, water temperature, and so on. Estimates of critical burial depths (the depth at
which infauna cannot excavate out of and are lost) range widely from about 5 to 50 cm
(0.16 to 1.6 ft) depending on sediment type and species examined (Kranz 1974; Maurer et
al. 1981; Nichols et al. 1978). Most studies that examined burial, excavation, and/or
colonization of infauna have focused on estuarine and nearshore species and may not
directly apply to the dominant organisms and communities at LA-2 and LA-3. For the
purposes of this analysis, accumulation rates greater than 30 cm (1 ft) per year are
assumed to result in loss of the existing infauna community (until the area is
recolonized).
The extent to which infauna will be smothered is estimated from disposal modeling,
which calculates the maximum annual accumulation (USACE 2004b). The short-term
deposit heights from individual disposal events are unknown. Marine disposal mounds
were identified at both the LA-3 and LA-2 sites, and the vertical relief of all mounds was
less than the resolution of the multibeam mapping system (30 cm [1 ft]) (Gardner et al.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-26
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
1998a, 1998b). Annual and long-term (10-year) estimates of sediment deposition
resulting from disposal of dredged material vary with location and alternative. Effects on
the infauna from past dredging operations are discussed in the following text.
a.	LA-3
Based on site monitoring results, areas with evidence of recent disposal activity were
biologically dissimilar to surrounding areas at LA-3 in 2000 (Chambers Group 2001).
Notable differences included: (1) increased species richness, density, and species
diversity compared with surrounding areas; (2) decreased percentage of polychaetes
comprising the infaunal community compared with surrounding areas; and (3) slightly
higher percentage of mollusks, echinoderms, and lesser taxa (e.g. phoronids) compared
with surrounding areas.
The polychaete Maldanc sarsi dominated reference areas in 2000 and was common at
areas of historic dredge disposal in the vicinity of the LA-3 site (Chambers Group 2001).
However, it was uncommon in areas of recent dredge disposal and within the interim LA-
3 site boundary. Differences among these areas were highly significant, indicating the
presence of dredged material has reduced the density of this organism at LA-3. These
results are similar to those reported by MITECH (1990). Continued disposal at LA-3 will
likely reduce the density of Maldane sarsi and other organisms that are likely adversely
affected by the deposition of dredged material.
Sediment accumulation modeling results indicate that the maximum deposition height at
LA-3 will be 4.22 m (13.84 ft) within 305 m (1,000 ft) from the site center, 2.93 m (9.60
ft) within 610 m (2,000 ft), and 0.19 m (0.62 ft) within 914 m (3,000 ft). Therefore,
assuming worst-case disposal volumes, the infauna will likely be buried beyond the depth
at which they could excavate out of at some point between 610 to 914 m (2,000 to 3,000
ft) from the site center. Beyond 914 m (3,000 ft), outside of the site boundary, the rate of
accumulation is predicted to be low enough to allow some portion of the infauna to
excavate and survive. This impact is considered insignificant (Class III) and is localized
and long-term (as long as disposal operations continue). Recolonization of the affected
area is expected to begin almost immediately upon cessation of disposal activities. If
accumulations are more gradual, it can be assumed that maximum deposition height in an
average year will be 0.42 m (1.37 ft) within 305 m (1,000 ft) from the site center, 0.29 m
(0.95 ft) within 610 m (2,000 ft), and 0.02 m (0.06 ft) within 914 m (3,000 ft). Therefore,
using this scenario, only the infauna within about 610 m (2,000 ft) from the site center
would be lost. As this is within the proposed site boundary, this impact is still considered
insignificant (Class III).
b.	LA-2
Based on site monitoring results, areas within the LA-2 site boundary and areas with
evidence of recent disposal activity were biologically dissimilar to reference areas
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-27
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
(Chambers Group 2001). Notable differences included: (I) decreased species richness
and density compared with reference areas; (2) decreased percentage of polychaetes,
crustaceans, and echinoderms comprising the infaunal community compared with
reference areas; and (3) slightly higher percentage of mollusks and lesser taxa compared
with reference areas. However, some of these differences may be due to depth differences
among sampling locations.
Similar to results from LA-3, the polychaete Maldane sarsi was less abundant at LA-2
compared with surrounding areas (Chambers Group 2001). Site monitoring results
indicate the abundances of stress-tolerant species were elevated at LA-2, whereas
suspension feeders representative of undisturbed areas (e.g. the brittle star Amphiodia
urtica) were less abundant at LA-2 than at other upper slope/outer shelf habitats within
the SCB (EPA 1997). Continued disposal at LA-2 will likely reduce the density of
Maldane sarsi and other organisms that are likely adversely affected by the deposition of
dredged material. Site monitoring also indicated that most of the area surrounding LA-2
that received dredged material in the past had infaunal assemblages in 1990 that were
similar to assemblages in unaffected sediments (EPA 1997).
Sediment accumulation modeling results indicate that the maximum deposition height at
LA-2 will be 1.92 m (6.29 ft) within 305 m (1,000 ft) from the site center, 1.19 m (3.90
ft) within 610 m (2,000 ft), and 0.14 m (0.46 ft) within 914 m (3,000 ft). Therefore,
assuming worst-case disposal volumes, the infauna will likely be buried beyond the depth
at which they could excavate out of at some point between 610 to 914 m (2,000 to 3,000
ft) from the site center. Beyond 914 m (3,000 ft), outside of the site boundary, the rate of
accumulation is predicted to be low enough to allow some portion of the infauna to
excavate and survive. This impact is considered insignificant (Class III) and is localized
and long-term (as long as disposal operations continue). Recolonization of the affected
area is expected to begin almost immediately upon cessation of disposal activities. If
accumulations are more gradual, it can be assumed that maximum deposition height in an
average year will be 0.27 m (0.89 ft) within 305 m (1,000 ft) from the site center, 0.17 m
(0.55 ft) within 610 m (2,000 ft), and 0.02 m (0.07 ft) within 914 m (3,000 ft). Therefore,
using this scenario only some, if any, of the infauna within about 305 m (1,000 ft) from
the site center would be lost. As this is within the site boundary, this impact is still
considered insignificant (Class III).
4.2.2.3 Epifauna
Effects to epifauna at the disposal sites from disposal of dredged material are similar to
those of benthic infauna and include burial, inhibition of feeding, and bioaccumulation of
contaminants. The magnitude of effects at each disposal site will depend on the affected
organisms, the extent and rate of deposition, and the quality of accumulated sediments.
Short of complete burial, the degree to which smaller sediment accumulations or intense
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-28
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
turbidity will affect the epifauna is largely dependent on the mobility of organisms and
their ability to escape the affected area.
a.	LA-3
The epifauna at LA-3 and surrounding disposal areas is dominated by relatively slow-
moving species including the urchins Brissopis pacifica, Spatangus califomicus,
Allocentrotus fragilis, and Brissaster latifrons, and the sea star Zoraster evermanni.
These same species are also abundant at reference locations suggesting dredged material
disposal has not altered the epifaunal community composition. Continued disposal at LA-
3 is not likely to alter the epifaunal community composition at the disposal site and
surrounding area; however, the abundance of epifaunal organisms at the disposal site is
expected to be reduced compared to surrounding areas. Effects from disposal operations
at LA-3 will likely lead to the loss of some epifaunal organisms. However, the dominant
organisms at LA-3 are common on the outer shelf and upper slope of the SCB and losses
are not expected to lead to notable decreases in the stocks of these organisms. Impacts to
marine epifauna are designated adverse but insignificant (Class III) and limited to the
area within the site boundaries where sediment accumulations are predicted to be highest.
Effects will persist for the duration of use.
Sea cucumbers (Parastichopus ccilifomicus) at LA-3 were analyzed for bioaccumulation
of a wide variety of contaminants including metals, pesticides, and PCBs. Sea cucumbers
feed on small benthic organisms and detritus by ingesting sediments. No contaminants
were measured above levels likely to pose human health hazards. Therefore, effects
related to tissue bioaccumulation from disposal at LA-3 are considered Class III.
b.	LA-2
The epifauna at LA-2 and surrounding disposal areas is dominated by relatively slow-
moving species including the urchins Allocentrotus fragilis, Brissopsis pacifica,
Spatangus californicus, and Brissaster latifrons. It is unclear whether disposal activities
have led to decreased species richness within the site boundary (Chambers Group 2001).
Surveys in August 2000 and January 2001 within the site collected about two-thirds the
species found at reference locations. However, the highest species richness was recorded
at disposal mound sites outside the site boundary. Abundance within the site was low
compared with reference sites in August 2000, but more than twice the density at
reference sites in January 2001. Site monitoring surveys indicate Allocentrotus fragilis is
much more abundant at stations characterized by dredged material than at stations
without dredged material (EPA 1997). Continued disposal at LA-2 may perpetuate small-
scale community changes, such as increased abundance of the urchin Allocentrotus
fragilis, as well as differences in density (higher or lower) compared with reference areas.
Effects from disposal operations at LA-2 will likely lead to the loss of some epifaunal
organisms. However, the dominant organisms at LA-2 are common on the outer shelf and
upper slope of the SCB and losses are not expected to lead to notable decreases in the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 4-29
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
stocks of these organisms. Impacts to marine epifauna are designated adverse but
insignificant (Class III) and limited to the area within the site boundaries where sediment
accumulations are predicted to be highest. Effects will persist for the duration of use.
Sea cucumbers (Parastichopus califomicus) at LA-2 were analyzed for bioaccumulation
of a wide variety of contaminants including metals, pesticides, and PCBs. Sea cucumbers
feed on small benthic organisms and detritus by ingesting sediments. No contaminants
were measured above levels likely to pose human health hazards. Therefore, effects
related to tissue bioaccumulation from disposal at LA-2 are considered Class III.
4.2.2.4 Fishes
Potential effects to fishes from disposal operations include contact with the disposal
plume, altered seafloor habitat, impaired visibility and/or feeding, a reduction and/or
change in prey items, and bioaccumulation of contaminants. Information on effects of
dredged material disposal on nearshore fishes is limited. Northern anchovy, one of the
most abundant pelagic species in southern California, actively avoided clouds of
sediments from Los Angeles Harbor in laboratory experiments (Brewer 1976) and would
presumably avoid a turbid disposal plume if possible. This is likely true of other coastal
pelagic species including jack mackerel, Pacific mackerel, and Pacific sardine, which are
commonly landed by the commercial fishery in areas surrounding both LA-3 and LA-2.
a.	LA-3
The fish community at LA-3 (both within the interim site boundary and at areas of past
disposal activity) resembled that of reference areas in 2000-2001, though slightly fewer
species and individuals were collected within the site than at surrounding areas
(Chambers Group 2001). Lower species richness and abundance within LA-3 was also
recorded during surveys in 1988-1989 (MITECH 1990). The reason(s) for these
differences are unknown but may be related to availability of prey items or differences in
seafloor habitat. Some of the dominant fish species at LA-3, such as longspine
thornyhead and shortspine thornyhead, are relatively mobile and may be able to avoid the
disposed sediments. However, fish species that are not as mobile, such as Dover sole and
dogface witch-eel, may be more prone to effects from sedimentation and high turbidity.
These effects are classified as Class EI (insignificant), localized to the area affected by
disposal operations, and will persist for the duration of site use. As with epifauna, there is
no evidence of bioaccumulation in fishes at LA-3, so effects due to disposal operations
are classified as Class III as well.
b.	LA-2
The fish community at LA-2 (both within the site boundary and at areas of past disposal
activity) resembled that of reference areas in 2000-2001, though fewer individuals were
collected within the site than at surrounding areas suggesting site use by demersal fish
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-30
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
may be reduced as a result of dredged material disposal (Chambers Group 2001). Surveys
in 1983-1984 recorded lower species richness and abundance within LA-2 compared with
reference areas, differences considered to be potentially related to dredged material
disposal (EPA 1988). However, species richness at LA-2 in 2000-2001 was similar to
that of a reference area.
Some of the dominant fish species at LA-2, such as shortspine combfish and rockfish, are
relatively mobile and may be able to avoid the disposed sediments. However, fish species
that are not as mobile, such as slender sole and Pacific sanddab, may be more prone to
effects from sedimentation and high turbidity. These effects are classified as Class III
(insignificant), localized to the area affected by disposal operations, and will persist for
the duration of site use. As with epifauna, there is no evidence of bioaccumulation in
fishes at LA-2, so effects due to disposal operations are classified as Class III as well.
c. Essential Fish Habitat
In accordance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management
and Conservation Act, an assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been conducted
for the proposed project. The project is located within an area designated as EFH for two
Fishery Management Plans (FMPs): Coastal Pelagics Plan and Pacific Groundfish
Management Plan. Many of the 86 species federally managed under these plans are
known to occur in the area and could be affected by the proposed project. The USACE
has determined that the proposed project will not result in any significant, adverse
impacts to any species on the Fishery Management Plans or their habitat.
4.2.2.5 Birds
Disposal of dredged sediments at the LA-3 and LA-2 ODMDSs is expected to have
negligible effects on birds. Both the LA-3 and LA-2 ODMDSs are several kilometers
(miles) from known bird breeding, nesting, and roosting areas. Potential effects to birds
include the temporary reduction in foraging in the vicinity of the discharge plume due to
increased turbidity and possibly a reduction in prey items. The noise and activity from the
disposal tug and barge will temporarily disturb birds that might otherwise be in the area
of disposal operations. However, this effect is very localized and temporary as birds will
be able to return to the disposal area immediately after disposal activities. Disposal
operations at both sites will result in temporary increases in surface turbidity, potentially
reducing the ability of marine birds in the area to successfully forage. However, due to
the patchy distribution of prey species near the ocean surface (such as northern anchovy,
market squid, zooplankton, etc.), and the abundance of similar foraging habitat
surrounding both sites, this effect is considered localized as well as temporary. All
potential effects to birds from disposal activities are considered adverse but insignificant
(Class ITI).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-31
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.2.2.6	Marine Mammals
Marine mammals in the vicinity of the LA-3 and LA-2 ODMDSs during disposal
operations will potentially be disturbed by the noise and activity of the disposal tug and
barge, and by the turbid plume from the disposed sediments. Disposal operations at both
the LA-3 and LA-2 ODMDSs are not expected to affect breeding or nursing of any
marine mammal species. The migratory path of gray whales may be temporarily
deflected; industrial sounds have been found to result in slight changes in swimming
speed and course in gray whales (Malme et al. 1984). However, gray whales are fairly
tolerant of noise from ships and are likely to deviate their migratory course just enough to
avoid ships (Lecky 1992). The California sea lion population is growing, though vessel
collisions with this species are unlikely; in 1998 there were only three mortalities of this
species resulting from vessel collisions off the Pacific coast of the United States (Forney
et al. 2000). Similar to birds (See Section 4.2.2.5), foraging may be temporarily hindered
in the vicinity of disposal operations due to a decrease in water clarity, and there may be
a potential reduction in prey items. This potential effect is likely to be localized and
temporary, and is considered adverse but insignificant (Class EI).
4.2.2.7	Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species
As discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIS, Table 3.3-11 presents the endangered, threatened,
and special status species as listed by the state or federal government and their potential
for occurrence in the vicinity of the LA-2 or LA-3 ODMDSs. As seen in this table, the
only federally listed or special status species that have a high probability of occurrence in
the vicinity of the LA-3 and LA-2 disposal sites are the California brown pelican and
elegant tern. Potential effects to these two bird species include the temporary reduction in
foraging in the vicinity of the discharge plume due to increased turbidity and possibly a
reduction in prey items. California brown pelican was more abundant at LA-3 than LA-2
in 2000-2001, and elegant tern was only observed at LA-3. However, due to the
abundance of surrounding foraging habitat and the very localized and temporary nature of
disturbance from disposal activities, impacts to these two species are designated as
insignificant (Class ELI).
4.2.3 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
4.2.3.1 Commercial Fishing and Mariculture
There are no known mariculture operations near the LA-3 and LA-2 sites that could
potentially be affected by dredge disposal operations. Analysis of commercial fishery
landing data from the catch blocks in the vicinity of the two disposal sites indicate that
the areas are important to the commercial fisheries of southern California, though
landings vary greatly between sites and among years. Major variability among years is
likely the result of market demand for particular species or migratory/population
fluctuations resulting from climatic variation. Trends observed at LA-3 and LA-2
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-32
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
reflected region-wide fishery trends not attributed to dredged material disposal (EPA
1997).
a.	LA-3
The majority of the landings (both by weight and dollar value) in the vicinity of the LA-3
ODMDS are from coastal pelagic species including Pacific sardine, northern anchovy,
Pacific mackerel, and jack mackerel. These species are not likely to be affected by
disposal operations as they could likely avoid a disposal plume. California spiny lobster
are usually fished in waters shallower than about 91 m (300 ft; Barsky 2001) and are,
therefore, not likely to be affected by sediments from ocean disposal at LA-3. Analysis of
commercial catch data from 1970 through 1995 determined there were no detectable
effects from dredged material disposal at LA-3 on commercial catch statistics (EPA
1997). Potential effects to commercial fishing from the use of LA-3 are insignificant
(Class III).
b.	LA-2
The majority of the landings (both by weight and dollar value) in the vicinity of the LA-2
ODMDS are from coastal pelagic species including Pacific sardine, northern anchovy,
and Pacific mackerel. These species are not likely to be affected by disposal operations as
they could likely avoid a disposal plume. California spiny lobster are usually fished in
waters shallower than about 91 m (300 ft; Barsky 2001) and are, therefore, not likely to
be affected by sediments from ocean disposal at LA-3. Benthic species such as red urchin
and California halibut are more likely to be affected by dredged material disposal.
However, analysis of commercial catch data from 1970 through 1995 determined there
were no detectable effects from dredged material disposal at LA-2 on commercial catch
statistics (EPA 1997). Potential effects to commercial fishing from the use of LA-2 are
insignificant (Class III).
4.2.3.2 Commercial Shipping
As discussed in Chapter 3, large amounts of both national and foreign trade cargo are
handled at the major commercial ports at Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors
(Harbors). The transport of dredged material to the disposal site could present one
potential hazard to navigation: conflicts between the disposal barges and commercial
vessel traffic. Mounding within the disposal site is not expected to pose a hazard due to
water depths at the two sites and the relatively low mounds expected to result from
continued operation of the sites.
a. LA-3
As described in Chapter 3, vessels traffic within the San Pedro Channel traveling to and
from the harbors must follow a system of traffic separation schemes (TSS), port access
routes (PAR), and Restricted Navigation Areas (RNA). The proposed LA-3 site is
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-33
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) east of the northbound coastwise traffic lane of the
southern TSS and approximately 24 km (13 nmi) southeast of the RNA (see Figure
3.4-1). Powered vessels over a certain size including tugboats transporting disposal
barges are required to participate in the Los Angeles-Long Beach Vessel Traffic Service
(VTS). The VTS for the Harbors and approaches was established to "monitor traffic and
provide mariners with timely, relevant and accurate information for the purpose of
enhancing safe, environmentally sound and efficient maritime transportation"
(USCG/Marine Exchange Vessel Traffic Center 2001). The VTS area extends out to a
distance of 46.3 km (25 nmi) from Point Fermin. As such the proposed LA-3 site lies
within the VTS monitoring area.
Although on a worst-case day this alternative could generate up to 15 barge trips to and
from the proposed LA-3 site (see Table 4.2-2), because of the vessel monitoring and
traffic separation schemes in place, no substantial conflicts with commercial traffic are
anticipated. Additionally, as all dredged material destined for disposal at LA-3 would
come from the Orange County area, the transport barges would not have to cross any of
the TSS lanes. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected to occur to commercial
shipping from the transportation of dredged material to the proposed disposal site by
barges (Class III).
b. LA-2
The LA-2 site is located within the separation zone between the northbound and
southbound coastwise traffic lanes of the northern TSS and is partially contained within
the designated RNA (see Figure 3.4-1). Consequently all barge traffic to and from LA-2
will likely operate within the RNA and could cross the northbound coastwise traffic lane
resulting in the potential for some conflicts between the disposal traffic and other
commercial traffic. However, the USACE has incorporated a special condition into all
permits for use of the LA-2 site that requires disposal of materials "...as far from the Gulf
of Catalina Traffic Separation Scheme as is practical" (EPA 1988).
As with LA-3 all vessel traffic to and from LA-2 would be within the Los Angeles-Long
Beach VTS area. Traffic within the RNA must comply with navigational regulations.
Although on a worst-case day this alternative could generate up to 17 barge trips to and
from the LA-2 site (2 of which would originate from Anaheim Bay in Orange County;
see Table 4.2-2), because of the vessel monitoring and traffic separation schemes in
place, no substantial conflicts with commercial traffic are anticipated. Therefore, no
significant effects are expected to occur to commercial shipping from the transportation
of dredged material to the proposed disposal site by barges (Class ID).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-34
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.2.3.3	Military Usage
a.	LA-3
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, a major amphibious marine training base, is located
approximately 32 km (17 nmi) southeast of the proposed LA-3 site. Given this large
separation, no conflicts between disposal barges and military operations at Camp
Pendleton are anticipated (Class III).
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach) is located
approximately 30 km (16.2 nmi) northwest of the proposed LA-3 site. Munitions barges
accessing the Navy anchorages would remain nearshore. Furthermore, under the
Preferred Alternative dredged material disposal barges utilizing LA-3 would originate
primarily from the Newport Beach and Dana Point area. Consequently, no conflicts are
anticipated with military operations at NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach (Class III).
b.	LA-2
The primary naval military operations in the vicinity of the LA-2 site are those associated
with NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach. In the waters surrounding LA-2, as with the barge
traffic, naval vessels are strictly monitored within the RNA and are required to utilize the
TSS lanes and participate in the VTS. Consequently, no interference with military
operations is anticipated with the continued use of the LA-2 site (Class III).
4.2.3.4	Oil and Natural Gas Development
As discussed in Section 3.4.4, no new oil or gas development has been proposed in the
immediate vicinity of the LA-2 or LA-3 sites. The final designation of the proposed LA-3
site and continued use of the LA-2 site are not anticipated to cause any significant
impacts to the existing oil and gas facilities in the adjacent areas (Class III).
Existing developed oil and gas facilities are either within 3.3 km (1.8 nmi) of the coast in
the State of California waters or are in federal waters more than 14 km (7.5 nmi) from
either the LA-2 or proposed LA-3 sites. The federal sites are located within tracts that
could be subject to additional development. If future oil and gas development were to
occur, the potential for interactions between vessels associated with production
operations and disposal barges could increase. However, when traveling to and from Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, large vessel traffic is required to utilize the
transportation separation schemes described above. Consequently, minimal vessel
interactions would be expected occur and would not be considered significant (Class HI).
Should future development be proposed, potential conflicts could be lessened if oil and
gas production facilities were placed as far from the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites as
possible. Further, should additional oil and gas structures and operations be developed,
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-35
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
disposal barges would be required to adopt operating practices to avoid conflicts with
those operations and structures. These effects are not significant (Class III).
4.2.3.5 Recreational Activities
Sportfishing
As indicated in Section 3.4.5.1 of this EIS, most partyboat sportfishing in the vicinity of
LA-2 and LA-3 generally takes place in relatively shallow water of 100 m (328 ft) or
less. Additionally, most of the important sportfish are pelagic, which are not expected to
be adversely impacted by the ongoing ocean disposal of dredged material (Class III).
a.	LA-3
Given the depth of the proposed LA-3 site of over 460 m (1,500 ft), very little
sportfishing is anticipated to occur within the LA-3 site boundaries. Additionally, there
are no reefs or rocky bottoms to attract fish and there are no kelp beds in the vicinity. As
indicated, some fishing of pelagic fish could occur. However, these would be minimally
affected by the disposal operations because the dredged material settles out of the water
column relatively quickly and as the pelagic fish are highly mobile, they can easily avoid
the disposal operations.
The 100 m (328 ft) contour is approximately 4.6 km (2.5 nmi) away from the proposed
LA-3 site boundary. Consequently, there are no important sportfishing grounds within the
proposed LA-3 disposal site. As discussed above, dredged material disposal could have
an adverse effect on demersal fish. However, those effects would be localized and are not
anticipated to significantly impact the demersal fish populations.
While the potential for accidents between disposal barges and fishing boats does exist,
given the maneuverability of the fishing boats and the size and slow speed of the disposal
barges, the probability of an accident is very low. No significant impacts to sportfishing
activities are anticipated on a regional level (Class EI).
b.	LA-2
The depths of the LA-2 site range from approximately 110 (360 ft) to 340 m (1,115 ft).
Consequently, although unlikely, some sportfishing activity could occur within the LA-2
site boundaries. Given the relatively deep waters and the site's location within the RNA
and outer harbor waters, sportfishing activity in the area is rare.
The demersal fish within the LA-2 site are somewhat diminished and could be adversely
affected by on-going disposal activities at the site. However, this effect would be
localized and is not expected to affect the populations of demersal fish in other more
favorable fishing locations. As with the LA-3 site, disposal operations are not anticipated
to significantly affect pelagic fish species.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-36
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
While the potential for accidents between disposal barges and fishing boats does exist,
given the maneuverability of the fishing boats and the size and slow speed of the disposal
barges, the probability of an accident is very low. Consequently, the continued use of the
LA-2 site for the ocean disposal of dredged material is not anticipated to significantly
impact sportfishing on a regional level. (Class III).
Boating
The recreational activity most likely to be impacted by ocean disposal operations at either
LA-2 or LA-3 is pleasure boating. Large numbers of pleasure boats utilize the marinas
and harbors in Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
a.	LA-3
The proposed LA-3 site is located over 6.5 km (3.5 nmi) from the nearest coast.
Furthermore, much of the pleasure boating activity out of Newport Harbor travels
between the harbor and Avalon Bay on Santa Catalina Island. Generally these boats
travel a straight path that takes them over 5.5 km (3.0 nmi) to the north of the proposed
LA-3 site. Pleasure craft traveling between Dana Point Harbor and Avalon would pass
over 8.5 km (4.5 nmi) to the south of the site. Although in a worst-case year barge
activity is assumed to occur 6 days per week, given the separations between the site and
the paths most traveled by pleasure boats, the potential for conflicts is considered
minimal (Class III).
b.	LA-2
As with boating traffic from Newport Harbor, a substantial number of pleasure boats
travel from the Harbors to Santa Catalina Island. Vessels traveling from the Los Angeles
and Long Beach Harbors generally travel a path that is almost identical to that taken by
the disposal barges accessing the LA-2 site. Consequently, the potential for conflicts
between the disposal barges and pleasure craft does exist. However, given that the
disposal barges would be traveling under the regulations imposed in the RNA, and given
the relatively slow speed of the barges even when cruising (assumed to be approximately
15.7 km/hr [8.5 knots]), the potential for conflicts is considered very low. Additionally,
pleasure craft are highly maneuverable and would be able to avoid the large, slow
moving barges. As such the potential for conflicts between the disposal barges and
pleasure craft is considered minimal (Class HI).
Other Recreational Activities
Most of the recreational activities other than offshore fishing and boating occur at the
beaches or in the nearshore areas. Those activities include surf fishing, surfing, diving,
sunbathing, beachcombing, swimming, snorkeling, sightseeing and picnicking.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-37
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
a.	LA-3
As indicated above, there would be a short-term impact to water clarity in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed LA-3 site immediately following the disposal of dredged
material. However, the proposed LA-3 site boundary lies over 6.5 km (3.5 nmi) from the
nearest coast. Consequently, no impacts to the aesthetics of beach visitors are anticipated
due to the continued use of LA-3 (Class III).
b.	LA-2
As indicated above, there would be a short-term impact to water clarity in the immediate
vicinity of the LA-2 site immediately following the disposal of dredged material.
However, the LA-2 site boundary lies over 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) from the nearest coast.
Consequently, no impacts to the aesthetics of beach visitors are anticipated due to the
continued use of LA-2 (Class HI).
4.2.3.6	Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources
As indicated in Section 3.4.6, there no known shipwrecks within 5 km (2.7 nmi) of either
the LA-2 or proposed LA-3 sites. As such there are no known cultural resources within
either of the disposal sites. Furthermore, the Preferred Alternative involves the continued
disposal of dredged material at these two existing disposal sites. Consequently, no
impacts to archaeological, historical, or cultural resources are anticipated (Class HI).
4.2.3.7	Public Health and Welfare
If toxic substances were to accumulate in the tissues of marine organism as the result of
the disposal of contaminated dredged material, adverse impacts to human health could
occur if those organisms were subsequently consumed. The USACE and EPA require
strict testing of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal as part of the permitting
process. This testing includes sediment analyses, bioassays, and bioaccumulation testing.
If toxic or hazardous materials are found above acceptable levels, then the material may
not be discharged in the ocean. As such, the potential impacts to public health are not
considered significant (Class III).
As discussed above, human safety could also be impacted due to collisions between
ocean going vessels and the dredged material disposal barges. Impacts could also occur
if disposal barges were to interfere or collide with oil and gas development facilities in
the San Pedro Bay. These impacts have been addressed in Sections 4.2.3.1 through
4.2.3.5 above and are determined to not be significant (Class HI).
Given the minimal mounding anticipated for the long-term disposal of dredged material
and the depth of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites, potential impacts to navigation
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-38
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
resulting from material mounding within the disposal sites is considered insignificant
(Class III).
4.3 No Action Alternative
If the No Action Alternative (Alternative I) were selected then the EPA would not
designate an appropriate ODMDS for disposal of suitable dredged material from the
Newport Harbor and general Orange County area. The interim status designation of the
LA-3 site would remain expired prohibiting future disposal at this site. LA-2 would
remain available for disposal of suitable dredged material and managed at historical
levels evaluated in the original site designation EIS (an average of 200,000 yd3 [153,000
m3] per year).
As stated in Chapter I, the purpose of the proposed action is to ensure that adequate,
environmentally acceptable ocean disposal site capacity is available for suitable dredged
material generated in the greater Los Angeles-Orange County area in conjunction with
other management options including upland disposal and beneficial reuse.
By not permanently designating LA-3, the No Action Alternative could limit future
maintenance and improvement projects in the LA/Newport area by limiting the amount of
dredged material that could be deposited at a designated ocean disposal site. This in turn
could result in a negative impact on future maritime operations in the area (Class I
impact).
If LA-3 were not designated as a permanent ODMDS, the limited capacity of the existing
LA-2 ODMDS and associated increased hauling distances, in combination with lack of
other management options, would likely either eliminate or sharply reduce regular
dredging activities within the Upper Newport Bay reserve. It is anticipated that if
dredging activities within the reserve were eliminated, the bay eventually would fill with
sediment from San Diego Creek and ultimately would become upland habitat (Class I
impact; Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends 2004).
Consequently, the No Action Alternative does not meet the goals and objectives of the
proposed action (Class I).
4.3.1 Effects on the Physical Environment
4.3.1.1 Air Quality
As discussed previously, for the No Action Alternative the LA-3 ODMDS is not
designated and all dredged material for which it is economically feasible is disposed of at
the LA-2 site. Because it is assumed that some projects within Orange County would not
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-39
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
be able to utilize ocean disposal due to economic considerations, the total amount of
material disposed of is less for the No Action Alternative than for the Preferred
Alternative (Alternative 3; total of material disposed at both LA-2 and LA-3 under
Alternative 3). Consequently, the total number of miles traveled under the No Action
Alternative is less than those under the Preferred Alternative.
Air quality impacts associated with the No Action Alternative were evaluated using the
same assumptions as summarized in Section 4.2.1.1 for the Preferred Alternative. The
detailed air emissions calculations are included as Appendix B of this EIS. Table 4.2-5
shows the worst-case daily emissions, Table 4.2-6 shows the average daily emissions
averaged over a worst-case year, and Table 4.2-7 shows the average daily emissions
averaged over an average year for the No Action Alternative. Table 4.2-8 shows the
worst-case yearly emissions while Table 4.2-9 shows the average yearly emissions.
Also shown in Tables 4.2-5 through 4.2-7 are the SCAQMD air emission significance
thresholds for evaluating projects occurring within the SCAB. As seen in Table 4.2-5 and
Table 4.2-6, for the No Action Alternative both worst-case daily emissions and average
daily emissions for a worst-case year are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds
for NOx and SO2. All other emissions are projected to be below significance thresholds.
Additionally, as seen in Table 4.2-7, all average daily emissions for an average year are
projected to be below SCAQMD thresholds.
Likewise, Tables 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 include the CAA de minimis thresholds for evaluating
the air emissions resulting from federal actions. As seen in Table 4.2-8, for the No Action
Alternative the worst-case yearly emissions of NOx exceed the de minimis thresholds.
However, as seen in Table 4.2-9 all of the projected emissions resulting from the hauling
activities associated with the No Action Alternative for an average year are below the de
minimis thresholds.
Consequently, even for the No Action Alternative the potential exists for significant air
quality emissions to occur in the unlikely event that all of the dredging activities
identified were to occur simultaneously in any given year. However, assuming more
realistic hauling activities for an average year results in air emissions that are less than
the identified thresholds. Because the actual individual dredging and hauling activities are
subject to additional environmental review and permitting, air quality impacts are
considered Class II as air emissions could be mitigated, for example, by limiting the
hauling activities allowed under the individual permits.
It is also noted that the EPA has recently adopted new emissions standards for new
marine diesel engines that went into effect in January of 2004. These standards apply to
new manufactured marine engines and existing engines that are installed in new vessels
or converted from land-based to marine engines. Consequently, as the existing tug fleet
is retired, future emissions are anticipated to be less than those presented here.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-40
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Comparison of the results shown for the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 (the
Preferred Alternative) in Table 4.2-5, Table 4.2-6 and Table 4.2-7 indicate that overall
the air emissions resulting from implementation of the No Action Alternative are less
than those that would occur with implementation of Alternative 3. This is primarily due
to the reduced amount of total dredge material hauled and disposed between the two
alternatives.
4.3.1.2	Physical Oceanography
The proposed use of the LA-2 ODMDS is not expected to affect the waves, currents, or
tides in the vicinity of this location (Class HI). It is these parameters that will largely
affect the dispersal and transport of dredged material
Under the No Action Alternative, the interim designation of the LA-3 site would expire
and there would be no further disposal beyond that approved or permitted at the time of
expiration. Infaunal organisms would gradually rework seafloor sediments at LA-3 so
that they eventually resembled pre-disposal sediments. Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI)
surveys in summer 2000 indicated that areas with detectable dredged material in 1988
showed no signature of dredged material 12 years later (USACE 2002). There are no
anticipated impacts to physical oceanography at LA-3 from this alternative.
LA-2 would continue to be used and managed for an average annual disposal volume of
200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Without the designation of LA-3, disposal volumes at LA-2
would likely increase compared with those from the recent past. However, the total
disposal volume for the No Action Alternative is anticipated to be similar to that for the
Preferred Alternative (see discussion in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3.1). As such, effects to
physical oceanography are not expected to be significant (Class III; Refer to Section
4.3.1.4 for a summary of sediment effects from the No Action Alternative). Bathymetric
surveys performed in 1993 did not record any mounding of dredged material at LA-2
since the last surveys performed in 1990 (EPA 1997). However, the depth resolution of
these surveys was approximately 1.8 m (6 ft).
4.3.1.3	Water Quality
Under the No Action Alternative, the interim designation of the LA-3 site would expire
and there would be no further disposal beyond that approved or permitted at the time of
expiration. There are no anticipated impacts to physical or chemical water column
parameters at LA-3 resulting from this alternative. LA-2 would continue to be used and
managed for an average annual disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Without
the designation of LA-3, disposal volumes at LA-2 would likely increase compared with
those from the recent past. Still, effects to physical and chemical water column
parameters are not expected to be significant (Class III) because material is disposed of
one barge at a time as with all other alternatives. (See Section 4.2.1.3 for a summary of
water quality effects from dredged material disposal).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-41
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.3.1.4 Geology and Sediments
a.	LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, the interim designation of the LA-3 site would expire
and there would be no further disposal beyond that approved or permitted at the time of
expiration. Sediments at and in the vicinity of the LA-3 site would continue to be
reworked by benthic organisms so that sediment characteristics (such as texture and
redox profile) would eventually resemble those from pre-disposal periods. This return of
sediment characteristics to pre-disposal conditions is not considered an adverse effect
(Class IH).
b.	LA-2
The LA-2 site would continue to be managed at an average annual disposal volume of
3	3
200,000 yd (153,000 m ), the volume modeled during the LA-2 site designation process
(EPA 1988). However, without the designation of LA-3, worst-case maximum annual
dredged volumes requiring disposal at LA-2 could be greater than 200,000 yd3 (153,000
m ). Based on potential dredging projects in Los Angeles and Orange Counties requiring
ocean disposal as determined using the ZSF study, an annual maximum of 1,451,000 yd3
(1,109,000 m ) is projected for disposal at LA-2 under the No Action Alternative.
Consequently, dredged material fate modeling for this alternative was performed for an
annual disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3) and was also assessed for a worst-
case annual maximum of 1,451,000 yd3 (1,109,000 m3). The results of the 200,000 yd3
(153,000 m3) modeling, which assume that 100 percent of the dredged material comes
from Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors (Scenario III in the dredged material fate
modeling report; USACE 2004b), are shown in Figure 4.3-1. Results indicate that 94
percent of the material in the sediment computations (gravel to very fine sand) settled
within the 3,050-m-by-3,050-m (10,000-ft-by-10,000-ft) grid including and surrounding
the site boundary; and as can be seen from Figure 4.3-1 the 30-cm (1 -ft) contour lies well
within the LA-2 site boundary (USACE 2004b).
For a worst-case annual disposal volume of 1,451,000 yd3 (1,109,000 m3), the modeling
results were assessed assuming that Scenario IV in the dredged material fate modeling
report is applicable (75% sediment from Los Angels and Long Beach Harbors, 15% from
the Los Angeles River Estuary, and 10% from Marina del Rey; USACE 2004b). The
results of the modeling indicate that the 30-cm (1 -ft) contour lies well within the LA-2
site boundary (USACE 2004b).
Long-term accumulation was assessed also assuming that the sediment characteristics
match Scenario IV of the dredged material fate modeling report (USACE 2004b). Long-
term (10-year) accumulations assuming a maximum disposal volume of 1,516,000 yd
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-42
-------
5000
Y-AXIS
Distance from
the center in feet 4000
3000
2000-
1000-
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000-
-5000-
LA-2 SITE
BOUNDARY
X-AXIS Distance from the center in feet
	1	1	1	I
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000
NOTE: Contours in feet
~i	l	i	I	i	
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-2
for an Annual Disposal Volume of 200,000 yd3
M UOBS2\3646\en\Agraphics\fig4 3-1 ai
12/16/04
Figure 4.3-1
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
(1,159,000 m3) over the 10-year period (based on an annual average disposal volume of
152,000 yd3 [116,000 nr']; see Table 2.1-1) range from 2.91 m (9.54 ft) within 305 m of
the site center to 0.02 m (0.08 ft) between 1,219 m (4,000 ft) and 1,524 m (5,000 ft) from
the site center. Effects to the physical environment due to these accumulation impacts are
considered localized and not significant (Class III).
Bathymetric surveys performed in 1998 at LA-2 detected discrete marine disposal
mounds (MDMs) within the LA-2 ODMDS and in the area surrounding the LA-2
ODMDS, particularly east and west of the site (Gardner et al. 1998a). Continued use of
LA-2 will result in the presence of more of these MDMs, though they will be worked
through with time. Sediment profile surveys at LA-2 in 2000 indicated that dredged
material was not detected outside the site boundary, suggesting the material had been
reworked and resembled the native bottom (USACE 2002).
There are differences in certain sediment parameters among stations (1) at reference sites,
(2) within the LA-2 disposal site, and (3) adjacent to the LA-2 disposal site, and many of
these are likely the result of past dredge disposal operations (Chambers Group 2001).
However, these differences between and among station groupings were not statistically
significant (p<0.05). The greatest difference was between concentrations of oil and
grease within the LA-2 site and at the reference stations. The concentrations of some
sediment metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and the pesticide DDT within LA-2 were higher in 2000 compared to sediments
from a reference area. These higher concentrations likely resulted from the past disposal
of dredged material.
As discussed previously, only suitable material that has been screened according to EPA
protocols will be deemed acceptable for ocean disposal. Therefore, effects to sediment
chemical quality are considered adverse but insignificant (Class III). Changes in sediment
particle size distribution at LA-2 will likely continue as a result of dredged material
disposal, with finer sediments accumulating within and immediately adjacent to the LA-2
site compared with natural conditions. Since accumulations outside the site boundary are
less than 30 cm (1 ft), effects to the physical environment due to deposition of dredged
material are considered insignificant (Class III), limited to the area within and
immediately adjacent to the site, and will extend for the duration of site use.
4.3.2 Effects on the Biological Environment
a. LA-3
Upon cessation of ocean disposal activities at LA-3, sediment conditions at the affected
areas within and surrounding the site would gradually begin to resemble those at
reference areas. Likewise, the infauna, epifaunal, and demersal fish communities would
begin to resemble those at unaffected areas, which is not considered an adverse effect
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-44
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
(Class III). Even though differences between or among areas in most cases were slight,
this process would likely take several years, depending on the method of recolonization.
Relatively mobile organisms, such as many of the fish species and perhaps even some of
the urchins, would migrate from the surrounding areas. Sedentary organisms, such as
anemones, would rely on larval recruitment for recolonization. There are no predicted
effects from the No Action Alternative on birds, marine mammals, or any special status
species in the vicinity of LA-3. Impacts are considered insignificant (Class III).
b. LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be managed at an
annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd1 (153,000 nr3). Assuming no alternative
ocean disposal sites for Orange County projects, the volume of material disposed of at
LA-2 would increase. Annual and cumulative (10-year) sediment accumulations within
914 m (3,000 ft) from the site center at LA-2 would increase by 7 to 46 percent relative to
the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to epifauna are considered to be adverse but not
significant (Class HI). Effects to fishes are also similar to those of the Preferred
Alternative and are considered insignificant (Class III). Effects to birds, special status
species (California brown pelican and elegant tern), and marine mammals would be
similar to those of the Preferred Alternative—adverse but insignificant (Class HI).
4.3.3 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
4.3.3.1	Commercial Fishing and Mariculture
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3 and there
would be no potential effects to commercial fishing in the area due to disposal operations.
The LA-2 ODMDS would still be used and managed at an annual average disposal
volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Based on the calculated disposal volumes that are
of the same magnitude as those assumed for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3), this
disposal is unlikely to result in any additional effect on commercial fishing in the vicinity
of the site. Therefore, impacts are considered insignificant (Class III).
4.3.3.2	Commercial Shipping
As discussed in Chapter 3, large amounts of both national and foreign trade cargo are
handled at the major commercial ports at Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors
(Harbors). The transport of dredged material to the disposal site could present two
potential hazards to navigation: conflicts between the disposal barges and commercial
vessel traffic and mounding within the disposal site.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-45
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
a.	LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3.
Consequently there would be no potential impacts to commercial shipping (Class III).
b.	LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be used and managed
at an annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd (153,000 m"). Up to 19 barge round
trips per day are anticipated under the No Action Alternative (4 of which would originate
in Anaheim Bay and Sunset/Huntington Harbor in Orange County) as compared to 17
round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). However, all shipping
traffic in the vicinity of LA-2 is strictly monitored, disposal operations would continue as
in the past, and no significant impacts to commercial shipping are anticipated (Class III).
4.3.3.3	Military Usage
a.	LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3.
Consequently there would be no potential impacts to military usage (Class HI).
b.	LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be used and managed
at an annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Up to 19 barge round
trips per day are anticipated under the No Action Alternative (4 of which would originate
in Anaheim Bay and Sunset/Huntington Harbor in Orange County) as compared to 17
round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). However, all shipping
traffic in the vicinity of LA-2 is strictly monitored, disposal operations would continue as
in the past, and no significant impacts to military usage are anticipated (Class III).
4.3.3.4	Oil and Natural Gas Development
a.	LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3.
Consequently, the interim LA-3 site and adjacent area could be made available for new
oil or gas development (Class HI). However, it is noted that no oil or gas development is
currently proposed for the LA-3 area.
b.	LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be used and managed
at an annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Disposal operations
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-46
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
would continue as in the past and no significant impacts to oil and gas development are
anticipated (Class III).
Should future development be proposed, potential conflicts could be lessened if oil and
gas production facilities were placed as far from the LA-2 site as possible. Further,
should additional oil and gas structures and operations be developed, disposal barges
would be required to adopt operating practices to avoid conflicts with those operations
and structures. These effects are not significant (Class HI).
4.3.3.5 Recreational Activities
Sportfishing
As indicated in Section 3.4.5.1 of this EIS, most partyboat sportfishing in the vicinity of
LA-2 and LA-3 generally takes place in relatively shallow water of 100 m (328 ft) or
less. Additionally, most of the important sportfish are pelagic, which are not expected to
be adversely impacted by the ongoing ocean disposal of dredged material (III).
a.	LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3.
Consequently, some recovery of sportfish species could occur within the interim LA-3
site and vicinity, which is not considered an adverse effect (Class III). However, given
the great depths at the LA-3 site, any benefits to sportfishing would be minimal.
b.	LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be used and managed
at an annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Up to 19 barge round
trips per day are anticipated under the No Action Alternative (4 of which would originate
in Anaheim Bay and Sunset/Huntington Harbor in Orange County) as compared to 17
round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). However, disposal
operations would continue as in the past and no significant impacts to sportfishing are
anticipated (Class III).
Boating
The recreational activity most likely to be impacted by ocean disposal operations at either
LA-2 or LA-3 is pleasure boating. Large numbers of pleasure boats utilize the marinas
and harbors in Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 4-47
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
a.	LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3.
Consequently, potential conflicts between disposal barges and pleasure boats would be
removed (Class III).
b.	LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be used and managed
at an annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Up to 19 barge round
trips per day are anticipated under the No Action Alternative (4 of which would originate
in Anaheim Bay and Sunset/Huntington Harbor in Orange County) as compared to 17
round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). However, disposal
operations would continue as in the past and no significant impacts to boating are
anticipated (Class III).
Other Recreational Activities
Most of the recreational activities other than offshore fishing and boating occur at the
beaches or in the nearshore areas. Those activities include surf fishing, surfing, diving,
sunbathing, beachcombing, swimming, snorkeling, sightseeing and picnicking.
a.	LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3.
Consequently there would be no potential impacts to other recreational activities
(Class IH).
b.	LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be used and managed
at an annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Disposal operations
would continue as in the past and no significant impacts to other recreational resources
are anticipated (Class m).
4.3.3.6 Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources
a. LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3. However,
the site has been disturbed by past disposal operations. This disturbance would remain
and is considered not significant (Class III).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-48
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
b. LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be used and managed
at an annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Disposal operations
would continue as in the past and no significant impacts to cultural resources are
anticipated (Class III).
4.3.3.7 Public Health and Welfare
a.	LA-3
Under the No Action Alternative, disposal operations would cease at LA-3.
Consequently there would be no potential impacts to public health and welfare
(Class III).
b.	LA-2
Under the No Action Alternative, the LA-2 site would continue to be used and managed
at an annual average disposal volume of 200,000 yd3 (153,000 m3). Disposal operations
would continue as in the past. Dredged material proposed for disposal would continue to
be subject to the USACE and EPA testing procedures. Given the minimal mounding
anticipated for the long-term disposal of dredged material and the depth of the LA-2 site,
potential impacts to navigation resulting from material mounding within the disposal sites
is considered insignificant (Class III). As such, no significant impacts to public health
and welfare are anticipated (Class III).
4.4 Other Ocean Disposal Alternatives
4.4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment
4.4.1.1 Air Quality
a. Alternative 2
As discussed previously, for Alternative 2 the LA-3 ODMDS is not designated and all
dredged material is disposed of at the LA-2 site. Because all dredged material is assumed
to be deposited at LA-2 irrespective of economics, this alternative results in the greatest
number of barge miles traveled.
Air quality impacts associated with Alternative 2 were evaluated using the same
assumptions as summarized in Section 4.2.1.1 for the Preferred Alternative. The detailed
air emissions calculations are included as Appendix B of this EIS. Table 4.2-5 shows the
worst-case daily emissions, Table 4.2-6 shows the average daily emissions averaged over
a worst-case year, and Table 4.2-7 shows the average daily emissions averaged over an
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-49
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
average year for Alternative 2. Table 4.2-8 shows the worst-case yearly emissions while
Table 4.2-9 shows the average yearly emissions.
Also shown in Tables 4.2-5 through 4.2-7 are the SCAQMD air emission significance
thresholds for evaluating projects occurring within the SCAB. As seen in Table 4.2-5 and
Table 4.2-6, for Alternative 2 both worst-case daily emissions and average daily
emissions for a worst-case year are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOx
and SO?. All other emissions are projected to be below significance thresholds.
Additionally, as seen in Table 4.2-7, the average daily emissions of NOx for an average
year also are projected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Likewise, Tables 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 include the CAA de minimis thresholds for evaluating
the air emissions resulting from federal actions. As seen in Table 4.2-8, for Alternative 2
the worst-case yearly emissions of NOx and N02 exceed the de minimis thresholds.
Additionally, as seen in Table 4.2-9, the projected average annual emissions of NOx
resulting from the hauling activities associated with Alternative 2 exceed the de minimis
thresholds.
Consequently, the potential exists for significant air quality emissions to occur under
Alternative 2 even assuming average yearly hauling activities. Although the actual
individual dredging and hauling activities are subject to additional review and permitting,
because average yearly emissions are anticipated to exceed identified thresholds, air
quality impacts are considered significant and Class I.
It is noted that the EPA has recently adopted new emissions standards for new marine
diesel engines that went into effect in January of 2004. These standards apply to new
manufactured marine engines and existing engines that are installed in new vessels or
converted from land-based to marine engines. Consequently, as the existing tug fleet is
retired, future emissions are anticipated to be less than those presented here.
Comparison of the results shown for Alternative 2 and the all other alternatives in Tables
4.2-5 through 4.2-9 indicates that Alternative 2 results in the greatest overall air
emissions relative to the other alternatives.
b. Alternative 4
As discussed previously, for Alternative 4 all dredged material is disposed of at the
proposed LA-3 site for which a positive economic benefit is determined. The remaining
material is disposed of at LA-2.
Air quality impacts associated with Alternative 4 were evaluated using the same
assumptions as summarized in Section 4.2.1.1 for the Preferred Alternative. The detailed
air emissions calculations are included as Appendix B of this EIS. Table 4.2-5 shows the
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-50
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
worst-case daily emissions, Table 4.2-6 shows the average daily emissions averaged over
a worst-case year, and Table 4.2-7 shows the average daily emissions averaged over an
average year for Alternative 4. Table 4.2-8 shows the worst-case yearly emissions while
Table 4.2-9 shows the average yearly emissions.
Also shown in Tables 4.2-5 through 4.2-7 are the SCAQMD air emission significance
thresholds for evaluating projects occurring within the SCAB. As seen in Table 4.2-5 and
Table 4.2-6, for Alternative 4 both worst-case daily emissions and average daily
emissions for a worst-case year are projected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOx
and SO2. All other emissions are projected to be below significance thresholds.
Additionally, as seen in Table 4.2-7, the average daily emissions of NOx for an average
year also are projected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Likewise, Tables 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 include the CAA de minimis thresholds for evaluating
the air emissions resulting from federal actions. As seen in Table 4.2-8, for Alternative 4
the worst-case yearly emissions of NOx and NO2 exceed the de minimis thresholds.
Additionally, as seen in Table 4.2-9, the projected average annual emissions of NOx
resulting from the hauling activities associated with Alternative 4 exceed the de minimis
thresholds.
Consequently, the potential exists for significant air quality emissions to occur under
Alternative 4 even assuming average yearly hauling activities. The actual individual
dredging and hauling activities are subject to additional review and permitting. However,
because average yearly emissions are anticipated to exceed identified thresholds, air
quality impacts are considered significant and Class I.
It is also noted that the EPA has recently adopted new emissions standards for new
marine diesel engines that went into effect in January of 2004. These standards apply to
new manufactured marine engines and existing engines that are installed in new vessels
or converted from land-based to marine engines. Consequently, as the existing tug fleet is
retired, future emissions are anticipated to be less than those presented here.
Comparison of the results shown for Alternative 4 and the other alternatives in Tables
4.2-5 through Table 4.2-9 indicates that Alternative 4 results in greater overall air
emissions than either Alternatives 1 (No Action) or 3 (Preferred Alternative), but less
than those projected under Alternative 2.
4.4.1.2 Physical Oceanography
a. Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, the interim status designation of the LA-3 site would remain expired
prohibiting future disposal at this site. There would be no further disposal at LA-3
beyond that approved or permitted at the time of expiration. Infaunal organisms would
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-51
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
gradually rework seafloor sediments at LA-3 so that they eventually resembled pre-
disposal sediments. Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI) surveys in summer 2000 indicated
that areas with detectable dredged material in 1988 showed no signature of dredged
material 12 years later (USACE 2002). As with the No Action Alternative, there are no
anticipated impacts to physical oceanography at LA-3 from this alternative.
The LA-2 site would continue to be used with an annual volume limit of 3,500,000 yd3
(2,676,000 m1), sufficient to account for the greater amounts of dredged material
generated in both Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Effects to physical oceanography
are not expected to be significant (Class HI). Bathymetric surveys performed in 1993 did
not record any mounding of dredged material at LA-2 since the last surveys performed in
1990 (EPA 1997). However, the depth resolution of these surveys was approximately
1.8 m (6 ft).
b. Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, the LA-3 site would be permanently designated at an annual
maximum disposal quantity of 3,500,000 yd3 (2,676,000 m3) and the LA-2 site would be
limited to an annual maximum disposal volume of 500,000 yd3 (382,000 m3). Effects to
physical oceanography are not expected to be significant at either site (Class III).
4.4.1.3 Water Quality
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, the interim designation of the LA-3 site would expire and there
would be no further disposal beyond that approved or permitted at the time of expiration.
Effects to water column parameters at the LA-3 site would not be significant (Class III).
The LA-2 site would continue to be used with an annual volume limit of 3,500,000 yd3
(2,676,000 m3), sufficient to account for the greater amounts of dredged material
generated in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Still, effects to water column parameters
are not expected to be significant (Class III) because material is disposed of one barge at
a time as with all other alternatives.
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, the LA-3 site would be permanently designated at an annual
maximum disposal quantity of 3,500,000 yd3 (2,676,000 m3) and the LA-2 site would be
limited to an annual maximum disposal volume of 500,000 yd3 (382,000 m3). Based on
the results of modeling efforts and the assumption that only suitable material is disposed
of at both sites, effects to water column parameters are not expected to be significant at
either site (Class HI), particularly since material is disposed of one barge at a time as with
all other alternatives.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-52
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.4.1.4 Geology and Sediments
a. Alternative 2
i.	LA-3
Effects to sediments at LA-3 from Alternative 2 are identical to those for the No Action
Alternative; the interim status designation of the LA-3 site would remain expired
prohibiting future disposal at this site. There would be no further disposal at LA-3
beyond that approved or permitted at the time of expiration. Sediments at and in the
vicinity of the LA-3 site would continue to be reworked by benthic organisms so that
sediment characteristics (such as texture and redox profile) would eventually resemble
those from pre-disposal periods. This return of sediment characteristics to pre-dredge
conditions is considered beneficial, which is not considered an adverse effect (Class III).
ii.	LA -2
Under Alternative 2, the LA-2 site would continue to be used. However, without the
designation of LA-3, LA-2 would be managed at a maximum annual disposal volume of
3,500,000 yd3 (2,676,000 ni3). Consequently, the maximum annual disposal volume
modeled at LA-2 for this alternative was 3,500,000 yd3 (2,676,000 m3), with the majority
of the material derived from Upper Newport Bay Basins D and III and the remaining
material from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors, the Los Angeles River Estuary, and
Marina del Rey (Scenario V in the dredged material fate modeling report; USACE
2004b).
Results indicate that greater than 98 percent of the material in the sediment computations
(gravel to very fine sand) settled within the 3,050-m by 3,050-m (10,000-ft by 10,000-ft)
grid including and surrounding the site boundary. As seen in Figure 4.4-1, the 30-cm
(1 -ft) contour resulting from the maximum annual disposal volume of 3,500,000 yd3
(2,676,000 m3) lies well within the LA-2 site boundary (USACE 2004b).
Long-term accumulation was assessed also assuming that the sediment characteristics
match Scenario V of the dredged material fate modeling report (USACE 2004b). Long-
term (10-year) accumulations assuming a maximum disposal volume of 3,898,000 yd3
(2,980,000 m3) over the 10-year period (based on an annual average disposal volume of
390,000 yd3 [298,000 m3]; see Table 2.1-2) range from 6.93 m (22.73 ft) within 305 m of
the site center to 0.03 m (0.10 ft) between 1,219 m (4,000 ft) and 1,524 m (5,000 ft) from
the site center. These accumulation impacts are considered localized and not significant
(Class ni).
Bathymetric surveys performed in 1998 at LA-2 detected discrete marine disposal
mounds (MDMs) within the LA-2 ODMDS and in the area surrounding the LA-2
ODMDS, particularly east and west of the site (Gardner et al. 1998a). Continued use of
LA-2 will result in the presence of more of these MDMs, though they will be worked
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-53
-------
v-axis
Distance from
the center in feet
5000-
4000-
3000-
2000-
1000
-1000-
-2000
-3000
-4000-
-5000
-5000
LA-2 SITE
BOUNDARY
X-AXIS Distance from the center in feet
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000
1000 2000
3000
NOTE: Contours in feet
4000
5000
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-2
for an Annual Disposal Volume of 3,500,000 yd3
M\JOBS2\3646\env\graphicstfig4 4-1 .ai
12/16/04
Figure 4.4-1
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
through with time. Sediment profile surveys at LA-2 in 2000 indicated that dredged
material was not detected outside the site boundary, suggesting the material had been
reworked and resembled the native bottom (USACE 2002).
There are differences in certain sediment parameters among stations (1) at reference sites,
(2) within the LA-2 disposal site, and (3) adjacent to the LA-2 disposal site, and many of
these are likely the result of past dredge disposal operations (Chambers Group 2001).
However, these differences between and among station groupings are not statistically
significant (p<0.05). The greatest difference was between concentrations of oil and
grease within the LA-2 site and at the reference stations. The concentrations of some
sediment metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and the pesticide DDT within LA-2 were higher in 2000 compared to sediments
from a reference area. These higher concentrations likely resulted from the past disposal
of dredged material.
As discussed previously, only suitable material that has been screened according to EPA
protocols will be deemed acceptable for ocean disposal. Therefore, effects to sediment
chemical quality are considered adverse but insignificant (Class HI). Changes in sediment
particle size distribution at LA-2 will likely continue as a result of dredged material
disposal, with finer sediments accumulating within and immediately adjacent to the LA-2
site compared with natural conditions. Since accumulations outside the site boundary are
less than 30 cm (1 ft), effects to the physical environment due to deposition of dredged
material are considered insignificant (Class III), limited to the area within and
immediately adjacent to the site, and will extend for the duration of site use.
b. Alternative 4
i. I A -3
Under Alternative 4, the LA-3 site would be permanently designated at a maximum
annual disposal quantity of 3,500,000 yd3 (2,676,000 m3). Consequently, the maximum
annual disposal volume modeled for this alternative at LA-3 was 3,500,000 yd
(2,676,000 m3), with 2,500,000 yd3 (1,911,000 m3) of the dredged material derived from
Upper Newport Bay Basins II and III, and 1,000,000 yd3 (765,000 m3) of the material
derived from Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors (75%), the Los Angeles River
Estuary (15%), and Marina del Rey (10%). This corresponds to the Scenario II sediment
characteristics in the fate modeling report (USACE 2004b).
Results indicate that greater than 55 percent of the material in the sediment computations
(gravel to very fine sand) settled within the 3,050-m-by-3,050-m (10,000-ft-by-10,000-ft)
grid including and surrounding the site boundary. As seen in Figure 4.4-2, the 30-cm (1-
ft) contour resulting from the maximum annual disposal volume of 3,500,000 yd
(2,676,000 m3) lies well within the proposed site boundary (USACE 2004b).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-55
-------
5000-
Y-AXIS
Distance from
the center in feet 4000 -
3000
LA-3 SITE
BOUNDARY
2000-
1000-
-1000-
-2000
-3000-
-4000-
0.05
-5000-
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0
Modeled Footprint of Sediment Accumulation at LA-3
for an Annual Disposal Volume of 3,500,000 yd3
X-AXIS Distance from the center in feet
i	i	i	1	
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
NOTE: Contours in feet
M \JOBS2\3646\env\graphics\fig4 4-2 ai	12/16/04
Figure 4.4-2
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Long-term accumulation was assessed also assuming that the sediment characteristics
match Scenario II of the dredged material fate modeling report (USACE 2004b). Long-
term (10-year) accumulations assuming a maximum disposal volume of 3,226,000 yd3
(2,466,000 m3) over the 10-year period (based on an annual average disposal volume of
322,000 yd3 [246,000 m3]; see Table 2.1-4) range from 4.91 m (16.12 ft) within 305 m
(1,000 ft) of the site center to 0.03 m (0.11 ft) between 1,219 m (4,000 ft) and 1,524 m
(5,000 ft) from the site center. These accumulation impacts are considered localized and
not significant (Class III).
Bathymetric surveys performed in 1998 at LA-3 detected discrete marine disposal
mounds (MDMs) adjacent to, and southeast of, the LA-3 ODMDS (Gardner et al. 1998b).
Continued use of LA-3 will result in the presence of more of these MDMs, though they
will be worked through with time. Dredge sediments detected at a station north of the
LA-3 boundary in 1988 were not detected during the 2000 surveys (USACE 2002).
Though dredged material was detected at several stations south of the disposal site in
2000, the infaunal recovery had recovered completely and the sediments had been
reworked and resembled the native bottom.
There are differences in certain sediment parameters among stations (1) within the
proposed LA-3 disposal site, (2) at reference sites, (3) at sites where sediments from the
1998-1999 Upper Newport Bay project were present, and (4) at sites where sediments
from historical disposal operations were present (Chambers Group 2001). Many of these
are likely the result of past dredge disposal operations. Within the interim LA-3 site
boundary, total organic carbon, total volatile solids, and percentage of silt were lower
than at locations surrounding LA-3 and at reference locations. Oil and grease were higher
within the site compared with the other sites, as well. Continued use of LA-3 will result
in continued alterations in sediment characteristics including elevated levels of some
contaminants.
The concentrations of some sediment contaminants, such as the metals cadmium and
silver, were higher within the interim LA-3 site boundary compared with adjacent and
reference areas in 2000. Levels of most contaminants in 2000 were lower at LA-3 than
those measured in 1999, suggesting the sediments are being reworked.
As discussed previously, only suitable material that has been screened according to EPA
protocols will be deemed acceptable for future ocean disposal. Therefore, effects to
sediment chemical quality are considered adverse but insignificant (Class III). Changes in
sediment particle size distribution at LA-3 will likely continue as a result of dredged
material disposal. This effect is considered locally not significant (Class HI) and is
expected to continue for the duration of site use. Since accumulations outside the site
boundary are less than 30 cm (1 ft), effects to the physical environment due to deposition
of dredged material are considered insignificant (Class III), limited to area within and
immediately adjacent to the site, and will extend for the duration of site use.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-57
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
ii. LA-2
Under this alternative the LA-2 site would be managed at a maximum disposal volume of
500,000 yd3 (382,000 m3). This volume was assessed assuming that the dredged sediment
is derived from Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors (75%), the Los Angeles River
Estuary (15%), and Marina del Rey (10%). This corresponds to the Scenario IV sediment
characteristics in the fate modeling report (USACE 2004b).
Results indicate that over 94 percent of the material in the sediment computations (gravel
to very fine sand) settled within the 3,050-m by 3,050-m (10,000-ft by 10,000-ft) grid
including and surrounding the site boundary. The results of the modeling indicate that the
30-cm (1 -ft) contour lies well within the LA-2 site boundary (USACE 2004b).
Long-term accumulation was assessed also assuming that the sediment characteristics
match Scenario IV of the dredged material fate modeling report (USACE 2004b). Long-
term (10-year) accumulations assuming a maximum disposal volume of 673,000 yd3
(515,000 m3) over the 10-year period (based on an annual average disposal volume of
68,000 yd3 [52,000 m3]; see Table 2.1-4) range from 1.29 m (4.23 ft) within 305 m (1,000
ft) of the site center to 0.01 m (0.03 ft) between 1,219 m (4,000 ft) and 1,524 m (5,000 ft)
from the site center. These accumulation impacts are considered localized and not
significant (Class III).
Bathymetric surveys performed in 1998 at LA-2 detected discrete marine disposal
mounds (MDMs) within and in the area surrounding the LA-2 ODMDS, particularly east
and west of the site (Gardner et al. 1998a). Continued use of LA-2 will result in the
presence of more of these MDMs, though they will be worked through with time.
Sediment profile surveys at LA-2 in 2000 indicated that dredged material was not
detected outside the site boundary, suggesting the material had been reworked and
resembled the native bottom (USACE 2002).
There are differences in certain sediment parameters among stations (1) at reference sites,
(2) within the LA-2 disposal site, and (3) adjacent to the LA-2 disposal site, and many of
these are likely the result of past dredge disposal operations (Chambers Group 2001).
However, these differences between and among station groupings were not statistically
significant (p<0.05). The greatest difference was between concentrations of oil and
grease within the LA-2 site and at the reference stations. The concentrations of some
sediment metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and the pesticide DDT within LA-2 were higher in 2000 compared to sediments
from a reference area. These higher concentrations likely resulted from the past disposal
of dredged material.
As discussed previously, only suitable material that has been screened according to EPA
protocols will be deemed acceptable for ocean disposal. Therefore, effects to sediment
chemical quality are considered adverse but insignificant (Class EI). Changes in sediment
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 4-58
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
particle size distribution at LA-2 will likely continue as a result of dredged material
disposal, with finer sediments accumulating within and immediately adjacent to the LA-2
site compared with natural conditions. Since accumulations outside the site boundary are
less than 30 cm (1 ft), effects to the physical environment due to deposition of dredged
material are considered insignificant (Class III), limited to the area within and
immediately adjacent to the site, and will extend for the duration of site use.
4.4.2 Effects on the Biological Environment
4.4.2.1	Plankton
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, ocean disposal at LA-2 would be maximized, while the interim
status designation of the LA-3 site would remain expired prohibiting future disposal at
this site. There would be no further disposal at LA-3 beyond that approved or permitted
at the time of expiration. Effects to marine phytoplankton, zooplankton, and
ichthyoplankton at LA-2 would be similar to effects of the No Action Alternative even
with a substantial increase in disposal volume. This is due to the localized and temporary
nature of water column impacts, as well as the overall abundance of these organisms.
Effects at LA-2 are considered insignificant (Class III). There would be no impacts to
plankton populations at LA-3 (Class III).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, ocean disposal at LA-3 would be maximized, while LA-2 would be
managed at a higher volume than currently permitted. Effects to marine phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton at LA-2 and LA-3 would still be insignificant (Class
III). This is due to the localized and temporary nature of water column impacts, as well as
the overall abundance of these organisms.
4.4.2.2	Infauna
a. Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, in a worst-case year sediment deposition at LA-2 would increase by
as much as approximately 3.2 times within 305 m (1,000 ft) of the site center compared
with the deposition rate of the Preferred Alternative. The extent of infauna burial would
thus increase and would cover a larger area. Impacts to infauna would be considered
insignificant (Class III) as deposition heights outside the site boundary would be less than
30 cm (1 ft). These impacts would persist for the duration of site use. Disposal of dredged
material at LA-3 would discontinue and the infauna would gradually shift to a
community resembling nearby, unaffected areas (Class III; a similar effect of the No
Action Alternative).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-59
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
b. Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, the sediment deposition rate at LA-2 would be equal to half the rate
of the Preferred Alternative. The extent of burial would be much less than that of the
Preferred Alternative and would be considered insignificant (Class III) since outside the
site boundary the maximum deposition height would be about 2 cm (0.07 ft). Conversely,
in a worst-case year the deposition rate at LA-3 would be slightly more than that of the
Preferred Alternative (by about 26%). Impacts to infauna would still be considered
insignificant (Class III), still limited to a localized area within the site boundary, and
would persist for the duration of site use.
4.4.2.3	Epifauna
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, in a worst-case year sediment deposition at LA-2 would increase by
approximately 3.2 times within 305 m (1,000 ft) of the site center compared with the
deposition rate of the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to seafloor epifauna (potentially
including decreased species richness and abundance) would thus increase and would
cover a larger area. Impacts to epifauna would still be considered insignificant (Class EI),
still limited to a localized area mostly within the site boundary, and would persist for the
duration of site use. Disposal of dredged material at LA-3 would discontinue and the
infauna would gradually shift to a community resembling nearby, unaffected areas (Class
HI; a similar effect of the No Action Alternative).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, the sediment deposition rate at LA-2 would be equal to half the rate
of the Preferred Alternative. The extent of deposition-related impacts, much less than that
of the Preferred Alternative, would be considered insignificant (Class III), limited to a
localized area mostly within the site boundary, and would persist for the duration of site
use.
Conversely, the deposition rate at LA-3 would be slightly more than that of the Preferred
Alternative (by about 26%). Impacts to epifauna would still be considered insignificant
(Class HI), still limited to a localized area mostly within the site boundary, and would
persist for the duration of site use.
4.4.2.4	Fishes
a. Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, in a worst-case year sediment deposition at LA-2 would increase by
approximately 3.2 times within 305 m (1,000 ft) of the site center compared with the
deposition rate of the Preferred Alternative. Effects to the demersal fish community,
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-60
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
potentially including decreased species richness and abundance at affected areas, would
be greater than those predicted with the Preferred Alternative, but still considered
insignificant as the effects are localized to the area affected by disposal (Class m).
Disposal of dredged material at LA-3 would discontinue and the fish community would
gradually shift to a community resembling nearby, unaffected areas (Class III; a similar
effect of the No Action Alternative).
b. Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, the sediment deposition rate at LA-2 would be equal to half the rate
of the Preferred Alternative. Still, effects to the demersal fish community may persist
(potentially including decreased species richness and abundance), but would still be
insignificant as the effects are localized to the area affected by disposal (Class HI).
The sediment deposition rate at LA-3 would increase compared to the Preferred
Alternative. Effects to the demersal fish community would also likely persist, but would
be considered insignificant as the effects are localized to the area affected by disposal
(Class III).
4.4.2.5	Birds
a.	Alternative 2
Continued disposal at LA-2, even at increased capacity, is not expected to result in any
significant impacts to birds. Therefore, effects to birds at LA-2 from Alternative 2 are
considered insignificant (Class HI). Once disposal operations at LA-3 cease there would
be no effects to birds in the vicinity of LA-3 (Class ID).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations at both sites would continue. Effects to bird
populations would be similar to those of the Preferred Alternative and are designated
insignificant (Class III).
4.4.2.6	Marine Mammals
a. Alternative 2
Continued disposal at LA-2, even at increased capacity, is not expected to result in any
significant impacts to marine mammals. Therefore, effects to these species at LA-2 from
Alternative 2 are considered insignificant (Class III). Once disposal operations at LA-3
cease there would be no further potential effects to marine mammals in the vicinity of
LA-3 (Class III).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-61
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
b. Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations at both sites would continue. Effects to marine
mammals would be similar to those of the Preferred Alternative and are designated
insignificant (Class III).
4.4.2.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, disposal capacity at LA-2 would increase compared with that of the
Preferred Alternative. However, there is no foreseeable incremental increase in potential
effects to California brown pelican or elegant tern resulting from this increase. Effects are
similar to those of the Preferred Alternative (e.g. temporary disturbance and a potential
reduction in foraging opportunities) and are designated insignificant (Class III). Disposal
of dredged material at LA-3 would discontinue and there would be no impacts to these
two species in the vicinity of the LA-3 ODMDS (Class HI).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal capacity at LA-2 would be much less than that for of the
Preferred Alternative. Impacts to California brown pelican and elegant tern would still be
insignificant (Class III). The disposal capacity at LA-3 would be more than that of the
Preferred Alternative. However, impacts to California brown pelican and elegant tern
would still be considered insignificant (Class III).
4.4.3 Effects on Socioeconomic Environment
4.4.3.1 Commercial Fishing and Mariculture
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, disposal operations would cease at LA-3 and there would be no
potential effects to commercial fishing in the LA-3 area due to disposal operations (Class
HI). The LA-2 ODMDS would still be used at a higher capacity; however, there is
unlikely to be any additional effect on commercial fishing in the vicinity of the site.
Therefore, as with the Preferred Alternative impacts are considered insignificant
(Class IH).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present. Still, there are unlikely to be any
significant impacts to commercial fishing in the vicinity of either of these sites.
Therefore, as with the Preferred Alternative impacts are considered insignificant
(Class m).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-62
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.4.3.2 Commercial Shipping
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, disposal operations would cease at LA-3 and there would be no
potential effects to commercial shipping in the area due to disposal operations (Class III).
The LA-2 ODMDS would still be used at a higher capacity. Up to 25 barge round trips
per day are anticipated under Alternative 2 as compared to 17 round trips per day for the
Preferred Alternative. Ten of these 25 barge round trips are anticipated to originate in the
Orange County area (see Table 4.2-2). Barge traffic utilizing the LA-2 site from the
Orange County area (Newport Harbor, Dana Point Harbor, and Anaheim Bay) would be
required to cross the northbound and possibly the southbound coastwise travel lanes of
the southern TSS depending on the exact route taken to LA-2. However, given the strict
vessel traffic control in the vicinity of the LA-2 site there is unlikely to be any additional
effect on commercial shipping in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, as with the Preferred
Alternative impacts are considered insignificant (Class ID).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present. Up to 5 barge round trips per
day at LA-2 are anticipated for Alternative 4 (2 of which would originate in Anaheim
Bay in Orange County) as compared to 17 round trips per day for the Preferred
Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). The reduced barge traffic to and from LA-2 under this
alternative would result in a reduction in the potential for conflicts between commercial
vessels and disposal barges in the congested Los Angeles/Long Beach Port area
(Class III).
Up to 19 barge round trips per day at LA-3 are anticipated for Alternative 4 as compared
to 15 round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). The proposed
LA-3 site lies approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) to the east of the northbound coastwise
travel lane of the southern TSS (see Figure 3.4-1). Consequently, barge traffic traveling
from the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor areas to the LA-3 site is not likely to
utilize the TSS lanes, but rather to travel relatively close to the coast. Because the
disposal barges are expected to travel outside of the designated commercial shipping
traffic lanes, impacts to commercial shipping are not considered significant (Class HI).
Additionally, it is noted that only 4 of the 19 disposal barge round trips per day are
anticipated to come from the Los Angeles/Long Beach area (see Table 4.2-2).
Drafl EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-63
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.4.3.3 Military Usage
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, disposal operations would cease at LA-3 and there would be no
potential effects to military operations in the area due to disposal operations (Class III).
The LA-2 ODMDS would still be used at a higher capacity. Up to 25 barge round trips
per day are anticipated under the Alternative 2 as compared to 17 round trips per day for
the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). Barge traffic utilizing the LA-2 site from the
Orange County area (Newport Harbor, Dana Point Harbor, and Anaheim Bay) would be
required to cross the northbound and possibly the southbound coastwise travel lanes of
the southern TSS depending on the exact route taken to LA-2. Ten of the 25 barge round
trips are anticipated to originate in the Orange County area. Consequently, the potential
exists to conflict with Naval vessel traffic associated with Naval Weapon Station Seal
Beach. Given the strict vessel traffic control in the vicinity of the LA-2 site there is
unlikely to be any additional effect on commercial shipping in the vicinity of the site.
Therefore, as with the Preferred Alternative impacts are considered insignificant (Class
HI).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present. Up to 5 barge round trips per
day at LA-2 are anticipated for Alternative 4 (2 of which would originate in Anaheim
Bay in Orange County) as compared to 17 round trips per day for the Preferred
Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). The reduced barge traffic to and from LA-2 under this
alternative would result in a reduction in the potential for conflicts between military
vessels and disposal barges in the congested Los Angeles/Long Beach Port area
(Class ID).
Up to 19 barge round trips per day at LA-3 are anticipated for Alternative 4 as compared
to 15 round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). The proposed
LA-3 site lies approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) to the east of the northbound coastwise
travel lane of the southern TSS (see Figure 3.4-1). Consequently, barge traffic traveling
from the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor areas to the LA-3 site is not likely to
utilize the TSS lanes, but rather to travel relatively close to the coast. Because the
disposal barges are expected to travel down the coast outside of the TSS lanes and could
come relatively close to the Naval anchorages off of Anaheim Bay, the potential exists
for conflicts between barge traffic and Naval vessels. However, it is noted that only 4 of
the 19 disposal barge round trips per day are anticipated to come from the Los
Angeles/Long Beach area (see Table 4.2-2). As noted, all vessel traffic in the area is
strictly monitored. Consequently, this potential impact is not considered significant
(Class III).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-64
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.4.3.4 Oil and Natural Gas Development
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2 disposal operations would cease at LA-3. Consequently, the interim
LA-3 site and adjacent area could be made available for new oil or gas development
(Class III). However, it is noted that no oil or gas development is currently proposed for
the LA-3 vicinity.
The LA-2 ODMDS would still be used at a higher capacity. Up to 25 barge round trips
per day are anticipated under the Alternative 2 as compared to 17 round trips per day for
the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). Barge traffic utilizing the LA-2 site from the
Orange County (Newport Harbor, Dana Point Harbor, and Anaheim Bay) area would be
required to cross the northbound and possibly the southbound coastwise travel lanes of
the southern TSS depending on the exact route taken to LA-2. It is noted that the
developed federal oil and gas tracts between LA-2 and LA-3 lie directly on a path
between Newport Harbor and the LA-2 site. Consequently, disposal barge traffic utilizing
the LA-2 site would be required to divert around the developed oil platforms.
Ten of the 25 barge round trips are anticipated to originate in the Orange County area.
Consequently, the potential exists for collisions between the disposal barges and the
developed oil and gas platforms. The potential for collisions with these facilities can be
avoided through strict navigation routes and by utilizing the VTS. Consequently, this
potential impact is not considered significant (Class III).
Should future development be proposed, potential conflicts could be lessened if oil and
gas production facilities were placed as far from the LA-2 site as possible. Further,
should additional oil and gas structures and operations be developed, disposal barges
would be required to adopt operating practices to avoid conflicts with those operations
and structures. These effects are not significant (Class HI).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present. Disposal operations would
continue at the LA-2 site as in the past, although at a reduced level with up to 5 barge
round trips per day at LA-2 (2 of which would originate in Anaheim Bay in Orange
County) as compared to 17 round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table
4.2-2). No significant impacts are anticipated (Class IH).
Up to 19 barge round trips per day at LA-3 are anticipated for Alternative 4 as compared
to 15 round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). The LA-3 site
lies approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) to the east of the northbound coastwise travel lane
of the southern TSS (see Figure 3.4-1). Consequently, barge traffic traveling from the Los
Drafl EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-65
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Angeles and Long Beach Harbor areas to the LA-3 site is not likely to utilize the TSS
lanes, but rather to travel relatively close to the coast. The developed federal oil and gas
facilities located between LA-2 and LA-3 lie within the separation zone of the southern
TSS. However, the developed state oil and gas facilities lie roughly 3.3 km (1.8 nmi) off
the coast between Seal Beach and Huntington Beach.
Consequently, the disposal barges traveling between the Los Angeles and Long Beach
areas would be required to travel in a corridor between these developed facilities. The
potential for collisions with these facilities can be avoided through strict navigation
routes. It is noted that only 4 of the 19 disposal barge round trips per day are anticipated
to come from the Los Angeles/Long Beach area (see Table 4.2-2). Consequently, these
potential impacts are not considered significant (Class EH).
Should future development be proposed, potential conflicts could be lessened if oil and
gas production facilities were placed as far from the LA-2 and LA-3 sites as
possible.Further, should additional oil and gas structures and operations be developed,
disposal barges would be required to adopt operating practices to avoid conflicts with
those operations and structures. These effects are not significant (Class III).
4.4.3.5 Recreational Activities
As indicated in Section 3.4.5.1 of this EIS, most partyboat sportfishing in the vicinity of
LA-2 and LA-3 generally takes place in relatively shallow water of 100 m (328 ft) or
less. Additionally, most of the important sportfish are pelagic, which are not expected to
be adversely impacted by the ongoing ocean disposal of dredged material (Class ID).
Sportfishing
a. Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2 disposal operations would cease at LA-3. Consequently, some
recovery of sportfish species could occur within the interim LA-3 site (Class III).
However, given the great depths at the LA-3 site, any benefits to sportfishing would be
minimal.
The LA-2 ODMDS would still be used at a higher capacity. Up to 25 barge round trips
per day are anticipated under the Alternative 2 as compared to 17 round trips per day for
the Preferred Alternative and 19 round trips per day for the No Action Alternative. Ten of
the 25 barge round trips are anticipated to originate in the Orange County area and thus
would be traveling along the coast (see Table 4.2-2). While the potential for accidents
between disposal barges and fishing boats does exist, given the maneuverability of the
fishing boats and the size and slow speed of the disposal barges, the probability of an
accident is very low and not considered significant (Class HI).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-66
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
The depths of the LA-2 site range from approximately 110 (360 ft) to 340 m (1,115 ft).
Consequently, although unlikely some sportfishing activity could occur within the LA-2
site boundaries. Given the relatively deep waters and the site's location within the RNA
and outer harbor waters, sportfishing activity in the area is rare.
The demersal fish within the LA-2 site are somewhat diminished and could be adversely
affected by on-going disposal activities at the site. As this alternative would result in the
maximum amount of dredged material disposed at LA-2 compared to the other
alternatives, this potential adverse effect would be greatest at LA-2 under this alternative.
However, this effect would be localized and is not expected to affect the populations of
demersal fish in other more favorable fishing locations.
Consequently, the continued use of the LA-2 site for the ocean disposal of dredged
material is not anticipated to significantly impact sportfishing on a regional level. (Class
HI).
b. Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present. Disposal operations would
continue at the LA-2 site as in the past, although at a reduce level with up to 5 barge
round trips per day at LA-2 as compared to 17 round trips per day for the Preferred
Alternative. Up to 19 barge round trips per day at LA-3 are anticipated for Alternative 4
as compared to 15 round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative. Four of the nineteen
disposal barge round trips per day are anticipated to come from the Los Angeles/Long
Beach area and thus would be traveling along the coast (see Table 4.2-2).
While the potential for accidents between disposal barges and fishing boats does exist,
given the maneuverability of the fishing boats and the size and slow speed of the disposal
barges, the probability of an accident is very low and not considered significant (Class
HI).
The depths of the LA-2 site range from approximately 110 (360 ft) to 340 m (1,115 ft).
Consequently, although unlikely some sportfishing activity could occur within the LA-2
site boundaries. Given the relatively deep waters and the site's location within the RNA
and outer harbor waters, sportfishing activity in the area is rare.
The demersal fish within the LA-2 site are somewhat diminished and could be adversely
affected by on-going disposal activities at the site. As this alternative would result in the
minimum amount of dredged material disposed at LA-2 compared to the other
alternatives, this potential adverse effect would be lowest at LA-2 under this alternative.
Nevertheless, this adverse effect would be localized and is not expected to affect the
populations of demersal fish in other more favorable fishing locations.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-67
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
As discussed previously in Section 4.2.3.5a of this EIS, there are no important
sportfishing grounds within the LA-3 disposal site. Although the effect of dredged
material disposal could have an adverse effect on demersal fish, those effects would be
localized and are not anticipated to significantly impact the demersal fish populations.
Consequently, the continued use of the LA-2 and LA-3 sites for the ocean disposal of
dredged material is not anticipated to significantly impact sportfishing on a regional
level. (Class III).
Boating
The recreational activity most likely to be impacted by ocean disposal operations at either
LA-2 or LA-3 is pleasure boating. Large numbers of pleasure boats utilize the marinas
and harbors in Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2 disposal operations would cease at LA-3. Consequently, potential
conflicts between disposal barges and pleasure boats would be removed (Class III).
The LA-2 ODMDS would still be used at a higher capacity. Up to 25 barge round trips
per day are anticipated under Alternative 2 as compared to 17 round trips per day for the
Preferred Alternative and 19 round trips per day for the No Action Alternative (see Table
4.2-2). Additionally, 10 of these 25 barge round trips are anticipated to originate in the
Orange County area and thus would be traveling along the coast. These 10 barge trips
would cross the paths utilized by pleasure boats traveling between the mainland and
Santa Catalina Island. While the potential for accidents between disposal barges and
pleasure boats does exist, this increase in barge trips is not considered substantial. The
disposal barges traveling in the LA-2 vicinity will be operating under the regulations
within the RNA and VTS and, given the maneuverability of the pleasure boats and the
size and slow speed of the disposal barges, the probability of an accident is very low and
not significant (Class III).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present. Disposal operations would
continue at the LA-2 site as in the past, although at a reduce level with up to 5 barge
round trips per day at LA-2 as compared to 17 round trips per day for the Preferred
Alternative. The reduced number of barges traveling to and from the LA-2 site would
reduce the potential for conflicts with pleasure boats (Class EH).
Up to 19 barge round trips per day at LA-3 are anticipated for Alternative 4 as compared
to 15 round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative. Four of the nineteen disposal
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-68
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
barge round trips per day are anticipated to originate from the Los Angeles/Long Beach
area and thus would be traveling along the coast (see Table 4.2-2). These four barge trips
would cross the paths utilized by pleasure boats traveling between the mainland and
Santa Catalina Island. However, this is not considered a substantial increase in boating
traffic.
While the potential for accidents between disposal barges and pleasure boats does exist,
given the maneuverability of the pleasure boats and the size and slow speed of the
disposal barges, the probability of an accident is very low and not considered significant
(Class III).
Other Recreational Activities
Most of the recreational activities other than offshore fishing and boating occur at the
beaches or in the nearshore areas. Those activities include surf fishing, surfing, diving,
sunbathing, beachcombing, swimming, snorkeling, sightseeing and picnicking.
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2 disposal operations would cease at LA-3. Consequently, there would
be no impacts to other recreational activities in the LA-2 area (Class III).
The LA-2 ODMDS would still be used at a higher capacity. As indicated above, there
would be a short-term impact to water clarity in the immediate vicinity of the LA-2 site
immediately following the disposal of dredged material. However, the LA-2 site
boundary lies over 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) from the nearest coast. Consequently, no impacts to
the aesthetics of beach visitors are anticipated due to the continued use of LA-2
(Class IU)
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present.
As indicated above, there would be a short-term impact to water clarity in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed LA-3 site immediately following the disposal of dredged
material. However, the proposed LA-3 site boundary lies over 6.5 km (3.5 nmi) from the
nearest coast. Consequently, no impacts to the aesthetics of beach visitors are anticipated
due to the continued use of LA-3 (Class III).
There would also be a short-term impact to water clarity in the immediate vicinity of the
LA-2 site immediately following the disposal of dredged material. However, the LA-2
site boundary lies over 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) from the nearest coast. Consequently, no impacts
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-69
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
to the aesthetics of beach visitors are anticipated due to the continued use of LA-2
(Class III).
4.4.3.6	Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources
a.	Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2 disposal operations would cease at LA-3. However, the site has been
disturbed by past disposal operations. This disturbance would remain and is considered
not significant (Class III).
The LA-2 site would continue to be used although with an increased volume limit.
However, as indicated in Section 3.4.6, there are no known shipwrecks or other cultural
resources within 5 km (2.7 nmi) of the LA-2 site. Alternative 2 involves the continued
disposal of dredged material at an existing disposal site and, as such, no impacts to
archaeological, historical or cultural resources are anticipated (Class III).
b.	Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present. As such the ocean disposal of
dredged material would continue at these two sites. As indicated in Section 3.4.6, there
are no known shipwrecks or other cultural resources within 5 km (2.7 nmi) of either the
LA-2 or proposed LA-3 sites. Furthermore, Alternative 4 involves the continued disposal
of dredged material at areas already disturbed by past disposal operations. Consequently,
no impacts to archaeological, historical or cultural resources are anticipated (Class ID).
4.4.3.7	Public Health and Welfare
a. Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2 disposal operations would cease at LA-3. Consequently there would
be no potential impacts to public health and welfare (Class HI). The LA-2 site would
continue to be used although at an increased volume limit. Dredged material proposed
for disposal would continue to be subject to the USACE and EPA testing procedures. As
such, no significant impacts to public health and welfare are anticipated (Class III).
Human safety could also be impacted due to collisions between ocean going vessels and
the dredged material disposal barges. Impacts could also occur if disposal barges were to
interfere or collide with oil and gas development in the San Pedro Bay. Under Alternative
2 disposal operation would cease at LA-3. Consequently, disposal barge traffic traveling
to and from the LA-3 site would be eliminated (Class III).
Up to 25 barge round trips per day at LA-2 are anticipated under Alternative 2 as
compared to 17 round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative. Ten of these 25 barge
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-70
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
round trips are anticipated to originate in the Orange County area (see Table 4.2-2).
Consequently, the potential exists for collisions between the disposal barges and the
developed oil and gas platforms. These impacts have been discussed in Section 4.4.3.4
and may be avoided through strict navigation and vessel monitoring (Class III). The
remaining impacts have been addressed in Sections 4.4.3.2, 4.4.3.3, and 4.4.3.5 above
and are determined to not be significant (Class III).
Given the minimal mounding anticipated for the long-term disposal of dredged material
and the depth of the LA-2 site, potential impacts to navigation resulting from material
mounding within the disposal site are considered insignificant (Class III).
b. Alternative 4
Under Alternative 4, disposal operations would be maximized at LA-3, while LA-2
would be used at a much lower capacity than at present. Dredged material proposed for
disposal at these sites would continue to be subject to the USACE and EPA testing
procedures. As such, no significant impacts to public health and welfare are anticipated
(Class III).
Human safety could also be impacted due to collisions between ocean going vessels and
the dredged material disposal barges. Impacts could also occur if disposal barges were to
interfere or collide with oil and gas development in the San Pedro Bay. Disposal
operations would continue at the LA-2 site as in the past, although at a reduce level with
up to 5 barge round trips per day at LA-2 as compared to 17 round trips per day for the
Preferred Alternative and 19 round trips per day for the No Action Alternative (see Table
4.2-2). Consequently the potential for conflicts between ocean going vessels and disposal
barges traveling to and from the LA-2 site would be minimized under this alternative
(Class III).
Up to 19 barge round trips per day at LA-3 are anticipated for Alternative 4 as compared
to 15 round trips per day for the Preferred Alternative (see Table 4.2-2). The proposed
LA-3 site lies approximately 20 km (10.8 nmi) to the east of the northbound coastwise
travel lane of the southern TSS (see Figure 3.4-1). As such, barge traffic traveling from
the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor areas to the LA-3 site is not likely to utilize the
TSS lanes, but rather to travel relatively close to the coast. The developed federal oil and
gas facilities located between LA-2 and LA-3 lie within the separation zone of the
southern TSS. However, the developed state oil and gas facilities lie roughly 3.3 km (1.8
nmi) off the coast between Seal Beach and Huntington Beach.
Consequently, the disposal barges traveling between the Los Angeles and Long Beach
areas would be required to travel in a corridor between these developed facilities. The
potential for collisions with these facilities can be avoided through strict navigation
routes (Class III). Additionally, because the disposal barges are expected to travel down
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-71
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
the coast outside of the TSS lanes and could come relatively close to the Naval
anchorages off of Anaheim Bay, the potential exists for conflicts between barge traffic
and Naval vessels. Because of the strict vessel monitoring requirements in the area, this is
not considered a significant impact (Class III). It is noted that only 4 of the 19 disposal
barge round trips per day are anticipated to come from the Los Angeles/Long Beach area
(see Table 4.2-2).
Given the minimal mounding anticipated for the long-term disposal of dredged material
and the depth of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites, potential impacts to navigation
resulting from material mounding within the disposal sites are considered insignificant
(Class III).
The remaining impacts have been addressed in Sections 4.4.3.2 and 4.4.3.5 and are
determined to not be significant (Class III).
4.5 Management of the Disposal Site(s)
As discussed previously, verification that significant impacts do not occur outside of the
site boundaries will be demonstrated through implementation of the Site Management
and Monitoring Plan developed as part of the proposed action. The SMMP includes
physical monitoring to confirm that the material that is deposited is landing where it is
supposed to land as well as monitoring to confirm that the sediment chemistry conforms
to the pre-disposal testing requirements. An appropriately developed SMMP will be
implemented regardless of which alternative is selected for implementation.
The main purpose of the SMMP is to provide a structured framework for resource
agencies to ensure that dredged material disposal activities will not unreasonably degrade
or endanger human health, welfare, the marine environment, or economic potentialities
(Section 103(a) of the MPRSA). Three main objectives for management of both the LA-2
and proposed LA-3 ODMDSs are:
•	Protection of the marine environment;
•	Beneficial use of dredged material whenever practical; and
•	Documentation of disposal activities at the ODMDS.
The EPA and USACE Los Angeles District personnel will achieve these objectives by
jointly administering the following activities:
•	Regulation and administration of ocean disposal permits;
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-72
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
•	Development and maintenance of a site monitoring program;
•	Evaluation of permit compliance and monitoring results; and
•	Maintenance of an active database for dredged material testing and site
monitoring results to insure compliance with annual disposal volume targets
and to facilitate future revisions to the SMMP.
Other activities implemented through the SMMP to achieve these objectives include:
•	Regulating quantities and types of material to be disposed of, and the time,
rates, and methods of disposal; and
•	Recommending changes for site use, disposal amounts, or designation for a
limited time based on periodic evaluation of site monitoring results.
4.5.1 Ocean Disposal Permits
Dredging projects that propose disposal at an ODMDS require permits. Disposal of
materials into the ocean is only permitted if there are no practical alternatives.
Environmental risks, impacts, and costs of ocean disposal are some factors evaluated in
this process. As such, information required for permit applications must be consistent
with US ACE's Regulatory Program requirements (33 CFR 320-330), NEPA regulations
(33 CFR 230 and 325), and EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Parts 220, 225,
227, and 228), and may include the following:
•	Written documentation of the need to dispose of dredged material in the ocean;
•	Description of historical dredging and activities at or adjacent to the proposed
dredging site that may represent sources of contamination to the site;
•	Type and quantity of the dredged material proposed for disposal at the site;
•	Existing conditions of the proposed dredging area including the proposed
dredging depths, overdredge depths, and depths adjacent to the boundary of the
proposed dredging area;
•	Composition and characteristics of the proposed dredged material including the
results from physical, chemical, and biological testing. These data are used to
determine whether the proposed dredged material is suitable for disposal at the
site;
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-73
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
•	Estimate of the planned start and completion dates for the dredging operation; this
information is needed to avoid potential resource conflicts and may be used to
schedule inspections at the dredging site and/or the disposal site; and
•	Development of a debris management plan that addresses the disposal of
materials other than the dredged sediment (i.e., pilings or metal debris) to ensure
that these other materials are not discharged at the disposal site.
In accordance with the requirements and procedures defined in the EPA's Ocean
Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Parts 220, 225, 227, and 228), the suitability of dredged
material proposed for disposal at the ODMDS must be demonstrated through appropriate
physical, chemical, and biological testing. Ocean Dumping Regulation Section 227.6
prohibits the disposal of certain contaminants other than trace chemical constituents of
dredged material. Further, regulatory decisions rely on assessments of the potential for
unacceptable adverse impacts based on persistence, toxicity, and bioaccumulation of the
constituents instead of specific numerical limits (EPA and USACE 1991).
Determining the suitability of dredged material involves a four-tiered testing procedure.
Tiers I and n apply existing or easily obtained information and limited chemical testing
to predict effects. If it is predicted that the dredged material has any potential for
significant adverse effects, higher tiers are activated. Water column and benthic bioassay
and bioaccumulation tests are utilized in Tiers ID and IV to determine effects on
representative marine organisms.
The EPA Green Book (EPA and USACE 1991) protocols will be used when testing the
bioaccumulation potential of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal. The Green
Book protocols state that if testing results indicate that the bioaccumulation of
contaminants statistically exceeds that of reference material tests, the following eight
factors will be assessed to evaluate Limited Permissible Concentrations (LPC)
compliance (EPA and USACE 1991):
•	Number of species in which bioaccumulation from the dredged material is
statistically greater than bioaccumulation from the reference material;
•	Number of contaminants for which bioaccumulation from the dredged material is
statistically greater than the bioaccumulation from the reference material;
•	Magnitude by which bioaccumulation from the dredged material exceeds
bioaccumulation from the reference material;
•	Toxicological importance of the contaminants whose bioaccumulation from the
dredged material statistically exceeds bioaccumulation from the reference
material;
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-74
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
•	Phylogenetic diversity of the species in which bioaccumulation from the dredged
material statistically exceeds bioaccumulation from the reference material;
•	Tendency for contaminants with statistically significant bioaccumulation to
biomagnify within aquatic food webs (Biddinger and Gloss 1984; Kay 1984).
•	Magnitude of toxicity and number of phylogenetic diversity of species exhibiting
greater mortality in the dredged material than in the reference material; and
•	Magnitude by which contaminants whose bioaccumulation from the dredged
material exceeds that from the reference material also exceeds the concentrations
found in comparable species living in the vicinity of the proposed disposal site.
Decisions regarding the suitability of dredged material to be disposed of in the ocean will
be guided by the criteria contained in the MPRSA and EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria.
The USACE is authorized by the MPRSA to administer the permit program for dredged
material. The USACE, Los Angeles District will prepare the Public Notice concerning
the proposed disposal operation. EPA Region IX, as well as other Federal and state
agencies, will participate in the review of the application. EPA Region IX, in accordance
with 40 CFR 220.4(c), will approve, disapprove, or propose conditions on the MPRSA
Section 103 permit. EPA Region IX will not approve disposal of material into the ocean
that has the potential for significant adverse biological impacts.
Additional conditions on the disposal operations may be imposed for disposal permits
subsequently issued for individual projects in order to preclude or minimize potential
interference with other activities and/or uses of the ocean. There are several management
options for the permitting process including: limits on disposal volumes, seasonal
restrictions, full or partial approval of dredged material proposed for disposal, disposal
within a spatially-limited portion of the disposal site, or other requirements such as
dredged barge operators to stay within a specified transit path, utilize navigation
equipment for specified accuracy, and maintain appropriate ship logs.
EPA Region IX will work with the USACE Los Angeles District and the U.S. Coast
Guard to monitor, inspect, and conduct surveillance of disposal operations in the Los
Angeles-Orange County area. As authorized under MPRSA Section 105(a), EPA Region
IX may take appropriate enforcement actions if violations of the permit(s) are detected.
4.5.2 Site Management and Monitoring
In accordance with 40 CFR 228.3, the EPA is responsible for management of ocean
disposal sites, including Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. Additionally, in
accordance with 40 CFR 228.9(c) the EPA requires full participation of the permittees
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-75
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
and encourages participation by state, federal, and local agencies in the development and
implementation of monitoring programs for disposal sites. The EPA will involve the
USACE in site monitoring and management since the USACE is a major dredger and
federal agency in the Los Angeles/Orange County region.
In concert with the implementation of this action, a detailed Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) has been developed by the EPA and USACE. The main
purpose of the SMMP is to provide a structured framework for resource agencies to
ensure that dredged material disposal activities will not unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health, welfare, the marine environment, or economic potentialities
(Section 103(a) of the MPRSA). It is the next step in the continuum of effective resource
management that starts with the site designation process.
The SMMP is also used to track all disposal activities in the region as well as to aid in the
verification of model predictions. Another key aspect of the SMMP is its inherent
flexibility to accommodate unforeseen needs and the associated ability to revise the plan,
if necessary, as changes arise or needs are identified in the future. While the basic
management and monitoring plan has been structured based on the experience to date at
LA-2 and LA-3, there is always the possibility that an unanticipated event or problem
will arise that will require accommodations to this current framework. To this end, EPA
Region IX and the USACE Los Angeles District will periodically review the SMMP to
discuss potential problems or address concerns of other state and federal regulatory
agencies or the public regarding disposal activities.
The SMMP, which is included as Appendix A of this EIS, will undergo final public
review as part of the proposed rule package for this action required by NEPA.
4.6 Cumulative Impacts as a Result of the
Project
4.6.1 Physical Environment
Disposal barge operations will result in air emissions that will contribute to the generally
poor air quality in the Los Angeles and Orange County regions. Because of the poor air
quality in the region, all air emissions are important. However, compared to all other
emission sources in the basins, of which automobiles are the greatest polluters, emissions
resulting from the individual barge hauling activities would generally be considered
adverse but insignificant.
Under worst-case assumptions all alternatives including the No Action Alternative could
result in both daily and yearly emissions that exceed applicable thresholds. However, on
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-76
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
an average yearly basis only Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in emissions that could
exceed both federal de minimis thresholds and SCAQMD thresholds.
Consequently, if the worst-case anticipated dredging operations were to occur in any
given year, emissions resulting from any of the alternatives could be cumulatively
significant. However, because the actual individual dredging and hauling activities are
subject to additional review and permitting, worst-case emissions could be controlled
through the permitting process. Consequently, it is anticipated that only those alternatives
for which the average yearly emissions are projected to exceed applicable standards
would be cumulatively significant.
As such, cumulative air emissions resulting from the No Action Alternative (Alternative
1) and from the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) would be considered adverse but
cumulatively not significant through the permitting process (Class II). However, because
average emissions for Alternatives 2 and 4 could exceed the applicable thresholds, air
emissions resulting from these alternatives would be considered cumulatively significant
(Class I).
Ongoing and future ocean discharges in the general vicinity of the LA-2 and LA-3
ODMDSs include the discharge of treated wastewater from six facilities: the Joint Water
Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Palos Verdes, the Terminal Island Treatment Plant
(TITP) in Long Beach, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) facility in Orange
County, the city of Avalon outfall on Santa Catalina Island, and the Aliso Water
Management Agency (AWMA) and Southeast Regional Reclamation Authority
(SERRA) facilities in south Orange County (refer to Figure 1.1-1).
The JWPCP discharge is approximately 8.5 km (4.6 nmi) NNW of LA-2 on the Palos
Verdes Shelf and approximately 45 km (24 nmi) NW of the proposed LA-3 site. The
TITP outfall is about 12.9 km (7.0 nmi) NNE of LA-2 in Outer Los Angeles Harbor and
approximately 40 km (21.6 nmi) NW of the proposed LA-3 site. The OCSD outfall is
approximately 13 km (7.0 nmi) WNW of the proposed LA-3 site at a depth of 60 m (197
ft), and approximately 26 km (14 nmi) WSW of the LA-2 site. The Avalon outfall is
approximately 30 km (16 nmi) south of the LA-2 site and approximately 42 km (22.4
nmi) WSW of the proposed LA-3 site. The AMWA and SERRA outfalls are about 12
and 20 km (6.5 and 11 nmi) ESE of the proposed LA-3 site, and approximately 51 and 59
km (27.5 and 32 nmi) ESE of the LA-2 site, respectively.
It is likely that solids discharged from the wastewater facilities sink to the bottom and are
redistributed by bottom currents, which are stronger at shallower depths than at the LA-2
and proposed LA-3 sites. Overall, cumulative impacts resulting from the Preferred
Alternative, as well as the other alternatives, are considered adverse but insignificant
(Class HI).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 4-77
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.6.2	Biological Environment
The discharge of treated wastewater has led to changes in the community structure of
benthic and epibenthic organisms in the vicinity of the JWPCP and OCSD outfalls
(LACSD 2000; OCSD 2000). Off Palos Verdes, reduced wastewater emissions have led
to improvements in sediment quality and subsequently the benthic infauna. The
community has shifted from one dominated by pollution-tolerant organisms to one that
more closely resembles an unaffected community. Off Orange County, outfall effects are
evident in the area surrounding the outfall, including increased abundance of pollution-
indicator species. However, there has also been a recorded decrease in pollution-tolerant
organisms near the outfall, most likely resulting from reduced mass emissions. The
discharge of treated wastewater from the OCSD has not led to any long-term changes in
the fish and epibenthic invertebrate assemblages off Orange County, though small-scale
differences in the area of the outfall have been recorded.
Overall, cumulative impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative, as well as the other
alternatives, are insignificant (Class III) for the biological resources in the vicinity of the
two ODMDSs.
4.6.3	Socioeconomic Environment
The continued ocean disposal of dredged material at the LA-2 and proposed LA-3
ODMDSs will contribute to limited cumulative impacts to the socioeconomic uses of the
San Pedro Basin in the vicinity of Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
The effects of nearshore wastewater discharge on commercial fishing off Palos Verdes
and Newport Beach are unknown, but landings in the commercial Catch Blocks in the
areas of the JWPCP and OCSD outfalls are among the highest in the central portion of
the Southern California Bight (between Point Dume and San Mateo Point; EPA 1997).
There has been a gradual loss of commercial fishing areas due to offshore oil
development, outsourcing of canning operations to southern Pacific islands (thus
removing a prime customer of the local fishing industry), and other conflicting uses of
the coastal area. Commercial catches have also been on the decline most likely due to
overfishing and possibly due to loss of habitat and stresses from pollutants. Nevertheless,
the continued disposal of dredged material at LA-2 and LA-3 will not cause any
permanent loss of additional fishing area. Consequently, the continued use of the LA-2
and proposed LA-3 sites as dredge material disposal sites is only anticipated to cause
temporary losses of fishing area during the time the disposal barges are actually on site
due to temporary vessel conflicts. The continued use of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3
sites for the ocean disposal of dredged material will have an adverse but insignificant
cumulative impact on fishing (Class III).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-78
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Impacts to demersal fish populations due to the continued use of the LA-2 and proposed
LA-3 sites would be extremely localized within the disposal site boundaries. Therefore,
the cumulative impact on fish populations due to the continued use of the LA-2 and
proposed LA-3 sites would be adverse but insignificant (Class III).
As discussed in Section 4.6.1, the continued disposal of dredged material at the LA-2 and
proposed LA-3 sites would contribute inputs of materials in the San Pedro Basin offshore
of the Los Angeles and Orange County areas that could be substantial. Consequently,
materials discharged at the ODMDSs would contribute to pollution stresses on fish
populations in the area. Ecological effects of pollution stresses on coastal fish populations
are not well understood. However, increased body burdens of pollutants associated with
the disposal activities were not detected in fishes sampled in the recent field surveys.
Therefore, the contribution to pollution stresses on fish populations due to the continued
use of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 sites is presumed to be adverse but insignificant
(Class 10).
Barge trips to and from the disposal sites would contribute to cumulative heavy vessel
(commercial and military) traffic in the San Pedro Basin. On a worst-case day the
Preferred Alternative could generate up to 15 barge trips to and from the LA-3 site, while
on a worst-case day the Preferred Alternative could generate up to 17 barge trips to and
from the LA-2 site. Consequently, the continued use of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3
disposal sites would cumulatively add to the potential for vessel conflicts within the
Basin. However, because of the vessel monitoring and traffic separation schemes in place
within the project area, the risk of conflicts with heavy vessel traffic is considered
adverse but cumulatively not significant (Class III).
Disposal operations take place away from shore and are not anticipated to cumulatively
impact recreational activities.
Further, the continued availability of the LA-2 and LA-3 sites for the ocean disposal of
dredged material would facilitate the improvement and maintenance of shipping lanes,
channels, and docking of the area ports. This is because the availability of these disposal
sites would provide flexibility in the management options for the disposal of dredged
material that is associated largely with channel deepening and port improvement projects.
The goal of these port improvement projects is to provide for the access and movement of
larger, more efficient commercial vessels that would result in transportation savings.
Consequently, the continued availability of the LA-2 and proposed LA-3 ODMDSs is
essential to the efficient operation of commercial shipping in the region (Class III)..
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-79
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.7	Relationship Between Short-Term
and Long-Term Resource Uses
The proposed action is not expected to produce significant, long-term adverse impacts to
resources including the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments within the
study region. Local adverse effects to sediments, benthic invertebrates, and demersal fish
may occur. Impacts will persist as long as the sites continue to be used for dredged
disposal. If disposal operations were discontinued at these sites, there would be a gradual
recovery of the benthic communities over time.
Both the LA-2 and LA-3 sites have been used for dredge disposal since the late 1970's,
respectively; continued use of these areas as ODMDSs is not expected to interfere with
the long-term use of any resource in the area. No significant effects to commercial fishing
or sportfishing have occurred because the sites represent a small percentage of total
fishing grounds in the San Pedro Channel. In addition, new oil and gas developments are
not expected in the area and if they do occur it is feasible that recovery of these resources
can be realized without significantly interfering with disposal activities. Therefore, no
adverse impact to utilization of these resources is expected.
The only effect to resources on-site expected as a result of the proposed action is a minor
reduction in biological productivity at the disposal sites, which is offset by the benefits of
maintaining the channels and waterways in the area for recreational and commercial
traffic and the subsequent disposal of dredged material at an environmentally suitable
location.
4.8	Irreversible or Irretrievable
Commitment of Resources
The irreversible or irretrievable resources committed to the proposed final designation of
the proposed LA-3 site or to the revised maximum managed disposal quantities at LA-2
will remain the same as those committed to the present sites. These commitments
include:
•	Energy resources used to dredge, transport, and dispose of the material;
•	Economic costs associated with ocean disposal activities; and
•	Benthic resources of the immediate disposal area degraded by the disposal of
dredged material.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-80
-------
4.0 Environmental Consequences
However, the commitments associated with the proposed action are less significant than
the environmental effects associated with alternative disposal methods.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
4-81
-------
5.0 Coordination
CHAPTER 5.0
COORDINATION
This chapter contains information on the public involvement and interagency activities
related to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for designation of the LA-3
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site off Newport Bay, Orange County, California
(Section 5.1), evidence of formal consultation with the appropriate agencies (Section
5.2), and the public distribution and requested review of the DEIS (Section 5.3).
5.1 Notice of Intent and Public Scoping
Meeting
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement related to the
designation of an ocean dredged material disposal site known as LA-3 was published in
the Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (Exhibit 1).
A total of four public scoping meetings were held on July 21 and July 22, 2003.
Meetings were held in the morning and afternoon of July 21, 2003 in Newport Beach,
California, and in the morning and afternoon of July 22, 2003 in Long Beach, California.
The purpose of these meetings was to identify affected public and agency concerns and to
define the issues and alternatives to be addressed in detail in the EIS. During the meetings
the EPA described the need for and the process of site designation and identified the four
alternatives to be considered. The alternatives include the No Action Alternative
(Alternative 1), the Maximize Use of LA-2 Alternative (Alternative 2), the Local Use of
LA-3 and LA-2 Alternative (Alternative 3), and the Maximize Use of LA-3 Alternative
(Alternative 4).
Comments made during the public scoping meetings covered the following general
topics:
• Concern regarding turbidity and pollution and potential for onshore drift of
sediments discharged at LA-3 to Newport Beach and Corona del Mar
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 5-1
-------
5.0 Coordination
•	Location of the LA-3 site: Closeness of the site location from shore; closeness of
state special designated area
•	Concern that LA-3 would act as another pollution source in Newport Canyon
•	Opposition to the shipping of sediments from the ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles to LA-3
5.2	Formal Consultation
Formal consultation with federal and state agencies is required by the Endangered
Species Act to identify any threatened, endangered, or special status species that may be
affected by the proposed action. The formal consultation process with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service was initiated on December 3,
2001 (Exhibits 2 and 3). Additional consultation documentation including responses from
these two agencies is shown in Exhibits 4 and 5.
Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is required by the
National Historic Preservation Act to identify any areas within the study region of
architectural, archeological, historic, or cultural value that are listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places.
5.3	Public Distribution of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Table 5.3-1 lists the agencies, organizations, and individuals to whom the DEIS was
distributed. The public distribution list of the draft Environmental Impact Statement
occurs as follows:
A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIS is published in the Federal Register and
local newspapers and sent to agencies, companies, organizations and individuals
identified on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Environmental
Resources Branch's mailing list for the project. A copy of the DEIS may be reviewed at
any of the locations shown in Table 5.3-2. Comments on the document will be accepted
throughout the 45-day public comment period initiated by the date of publication of the
NOA.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 5-2
-------
TABLE 5.3-1
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
Name
Organization
Federal Agencies
Joshua Burnam
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
R. Mikulskis
U.S. Coast Guard
Lisa Hans
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco
Steven John
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John Hanlon
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bob Hoffman
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
State Agencies
Larry Simon
California Coastal Commission
Marilyn Fluharty
California Department of Fish and Game
Michael Lyons
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Local Agencies
Tom Rossmiller
City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources
Joseph Chesler
County of Los Angles Department of Beaches and Harbors
Laurie Ames
County of Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors
Susan Brodeur
County Of Orange, Watershed and Coastal Resources
Dennis Eschen
Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine
Tom Johnson
Port of Long Beach
Kathryn Curtis
Port of Los Angeles
Independent Groups
Mitzi Taggert
Heal the Bay
Libraries
Lloyd Taber - Marina del Rey Library
Long Beach Public Library
Los Angeles Public Library - Central Library
Los Angeles Public Library - San Pedro Regional Branch Library
Newport Beach Public Library - Balboa Branch
Newport Beach Public Library - Central Library
Newport Beach Public Library - Corona del Mar Branch
Newport Beach Public Library - Mariners Branch
-------
TABLE 5.3-2
LOCATIONS WHERE THE DEIS CAN BE REVIEWED OR REQUESTED
Copies of this DEIS May Be Reviewed at the Following Locations
Lloyd Taber - Marina del Rey Library
4533 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Newport Beach Public Library
Corona del Mar Branch
420 Marigold Avenue
Corona del Mar. CA 92625
Long Beach Public Library
101 Pacific Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90822
Newport Beach Public Library
Mariners Branch
2005 Dover Drive
Newport Beach. CA 92660
Los Angeles Public Library
Central Library
630 West 5lh Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Library
75 Hawthorne Street
13lh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Los Angeles Public Library
San Pedro Regional Branch Library
931 South Gaffey Street
San Pedro. CA 90731
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Southern California Field Office
600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
Los Angeles. CA 90017
Newport Beach Public Library
Balboa Branch
100 East Balboa Boulevard
Balboa. CA 92661
EPA website:
www.epa.gov/region9/
Newport Beach Public Library
Central Library
1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' website:
www.spl.usace.army.mil
Copies of this DEIS may be requested by writing to the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch (W-7)
ATTN: Allan Ota
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94105
-------
EXHIBIT 1
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 128/Thursday, July 3, 2003/Notices	39941
Summary: EPA has no significant
concerns with the preferred alternative.
ERP No. D-BLM-K65250-NV Haling
LO, Black Rock Desert-High Rock
Canyon Emigrant Trails National
Conservation Area (NCA) and
Associated Wilderness and Other
Contiguous Lands Resource
Management Plan, Implementation,
Great Basin, NV.
Summary: EPA had no significant
concerns with the preferred alternative
ERP No. D-FHW-G40173-LA Rating
LO, 1—49 South Lafayette Regional
Airport to LA-88 Route U.S. 90 Project,
Upgrading Existing U.S. 90 from the
Lafayette Regional Airport to LA-88,
Funding, Iberia, Lafayette and St. Martin
Parishes, LA.
Summary: EPA has no objection to the
selection of the preferred alternative.
ERP No. D-FHW-H40179-MO Rating
LO, Missouri River Corridor Widening
and Improvements, New Four Lane
Expressway, Corridor consist of Four
Segments: Front Street, Chouteau
Trafticway, South Riverfront
Expressway (SRE) and Little Blue
Expressway (LBE), Funding, Jackson
and Clay Counties. MO.
Summary: EPA has no objections to
the proposed project. However, EPA
recommends that a chronological
evaluation of other planned actions
relative to the proposed implementation
schedule of the Missouri River Corridor
be utilized to derive the preferred
alternative.
ERP No D-NPS-CGW55-NJ Rating
LO, Morristown National Historical Park
General Management Plan,
Implementation, Morris and Somerset
Counties, NJ.
Summary: EPA has no objections with
the management plan and requests the
opportunity to review future NEPA
documents prepared for specific actions
outlined in the programmatic plan.
ERP No. DA-FHW-B40037-Ri Rating
EC2, Jamestown Bridge Replacement
Project, New Information Regarding the
Demolition of the Old Jamestown Bridge
(Bridge No. 400), Federal Aid Project
Number (BRF-0138(002), U.S. Coast
Guard Bridge, NPDES and U.S. Army
COE Section 404 Permits Issuance,
Towns of North Kingstown and
Jamestown, Washington and Newport
Counties, RI.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns and requested
additional information to more fully
describe flora and fauna to the project
area and the existing conditions at
candidate reef sites; to document the
impacts associated with both the
demolition and disposal phases of the
project; and to address air quality issues
associated with the work.
ERP No. DS-FTA-C40150-NY Rating
EC2, Second Avenue Subway Project,
Transit Access Improvements to
Manhattan's East Side and Excess
Crowd Reduction on the Lexington
Avenue Subway, Funding, Now York,
NY.
Summary: EPA has environmental
concerns with the proposed project's air
quality impacts, particularly carbon
monoxide (CO) and particulate matter,
as well as wetland impacts.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-AFS-F65032-MN Holmes/
Chipmunk Timber Sale Project,
Implementation, Superior National
Forest, LaCroix Ranger District, Saint
Louis County, MN.
Summar}': EPA determined that
previous environmental concerns have
been addressed in this Final E1S.
ERP No. F-AFS-K65245-AZ Kachina
Village Forest Health Project, Forest
Health Improvements and Potential
Wildfire Reductions on National Forest
System Land, Implementation,
Coconino National Forest, Mormon Lake
Ranger District, Coconino County, AZ.
Summary: No formal comment letter
was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-BLM-K09808-NV Ivanpah
Energy Center Project, 500 Megawatt
(MW) Gas-Fired Electric Power
Generating Station Construction and
Operation, Approval, Right-of-Way
Grant, BLM Temporary Use Permit,
FHWA Permit to Cross Federal Aid
Highway, U.S. Army COE Section 10
and 404 Permits and NPDES Permit
Issuance, Clark County, NV.
Summary No formal comment letter
was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-FHW-E40783-SC Dave
Lyle Boulevard Extension on New
Location, SC-161/Dave Lyle Boulevard
Intersection in York County to SC-75, at
the US-521/SC-75 Intersection, near the
South Carolina/North Carolina Border
in Lancaster, Funding, York and
Lancaster Counties, SC.
Summary EPA continues to have
environmental concerns with the
proposed project regarding impacts and
mitigation for endangered species,
wetlands, and traffic noise.
ERP No. F-FHW-F404 IO-IL Milan
Beltway Extension, Airport Road to
Blackhawk Road/John Deere
Expressway, Funding and Permits
Issuance, Rock River, Rock Island
County, IL.
Summary. EPA has no objections to
the preferred alternative, which we
believe will have minimal
environmental impacts, provided
mitigation is implemented, and which
meets the stated purpose of addressing
area traffic volume.
ERP No. F-FHW-K40247-CA CA-22/
West Orange County Connection
Project, Transportation Improvements
between 1-605 and CA-55, Funding,
Cities of Los Alamitos, Seal Beach,
Garden Grove, Westminster, Santa Ana
and Orange, Orange County, CA
Summary. EPA has no objections to
the proposed project. However, EPA
asked that FHWA's Record of Decision
clarify if the project disturbs or removes
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a
toxic substance, at facilities or
structures proposed for displacement.
ERP No. F-/US-K81028-CA Juvenile
Justice Facility and East County Hall of
Justice Development, Potential
Construction of Both Projects on the
Same Site or on Separate Sites,
Alamenda County, CA.
Summary. EPA expressed a lack of
objections to this project.
ERP No F-NPS-K65239-AZ Tonto
National Monument General
Management Plan, New Administrative
Facility Construction within the
Monument Boundaries,
Implementation. AZ.
Summary: No formal comment letter
was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. FS-AFS-L61199-lD Salmon
Wild and Scenic River Management
Plan, Timeline Change From December
31, 2002 to December 31, 2005 and
Clarification of Economic Impacts on
the Camps, Stub Creek, Arctic Creek and
Smith Gulch Creek, Salmon National
Forest, Salmon County, ID.
Summary. No formal comment letter
was sent to the preparing agency.
Dated. Juno 30, 2003.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office
of Federal Activities.
11-R Doc. 03-16848 Filed 7-2-03: 8 45 ami
BILLING CODE 6S60-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6641 -8]
Public Input Requested on the
Proposed Site Designation of the "LA-
S'' Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site off Newport Bay, Orange County,
California
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Intent to initiate the
scoping phase for public input in
advance of preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) to designate
"LA-3" as a permanent ocean dredged
material disposal site (ODMDS) off
Newport Bay, California.
-------
EXHIBIT 1
39942	Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 128/Thursday, July 3, 2003/Notices
purpose: EPA has the authority to
designate ODMDS under Section 102 of
the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972
(33USC 1401 et seq.). EPA's preparation
of this E1S is being carried out pursuant
to the October 29, 1998 Notice of Policy
and Procedures for Voluntary
Preparation of National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (63 FR 58045). Public
comments on the scope of the EIS
evaluation will be accepted for 45 days
from the date of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, TO SUBMIT
COMMENTS, AND TO BE PLACED ON A
PROJECT MAILING LIST, CONTACT: Mr.
Allan Ota, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, Dredging
and Sediment Management Team
(WTR-8), 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105-3901,
Telephone: (415) 972-3476 or FAX:
(415) 947-3537 or E-mail:
R9_LA3LA2disposal sites_scoping@
epa.gov.
SUMMARY: EPA intends to conduct
public meetings and collect public
comments in advance of preparing an
EIS to designate LA-3 as a permanent
ODMDS off Newport Bay. California.
The EIS will also re-evaluate an annual
disposal volume limit for the existing
LA-2 ODMDS, and how to minimize
cumulative environmental impacts from
two ODMDS in the region.
NEED FOR ACTION: Dredging is essential
for maintaining safe navigation in
harbors and marinas in the Los Angeles
County and Orange County region. Not
all dredged materials are suitable for
beneficial re-use (e.g., construction,
wetlands restoration), and it is not
feasible to use the existing LA-2
ODMDS for all projects in the region.
The LA-3 ODMDS has been used by
some Orange County projects in the
past, but its "interim" status has
expired. Therefore there is a need to
designate LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS.
ALTERNATIVES: The following proposed
alternatives have been tentatively
defined.
—"No Action"—Do not designate
LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS, and
continue to manage the existing LA-2
ODMDS without a designated maximum
annual disposal volume limit.
—"Maximize Use of LA-2"—Do not
designate LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS,
but establish a maximum annual
disposal volume limit for the LA-2 site
adequate to meet the ocean disposal
needs of all Los Angeles-Orange County
region projects.
—"Local Use of LA-3 and LA-2"—
Designate LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS
primarily for Orange County projects,
and establish a higher maximum annual
disposal volume limit for LA-2 to
accommodate most Los Angeles area
projects.
—"Maximize Use of LA-3"—
Designate LA-3 as a permanent ODMDS
with a maximum annual disposal limit
to meet the ocean disposal needs of all
Los Angeles-Orange County region
projects to the extent feasible, and
establish an annual disposal volume
limit for LA-2 to accommodate only
those projects that could not feasibly
use LA-3.
SCOPING: EPA is requesting written
comments from federal, state, and local
governments, industry, non-
governmental organizations, and the
general public on the need for action,
the range of alternatives considered, and
the potential impacts of the alternatives.
Scoping comments will be accepted for
45 days, beginning with the date of this
Notice. Public scoping meetings are
scheduled at two locations on the
following dates: 1. July 21, 2003, 2-4
p.m. and 7-9 p.m., in Orange County at
the Upper Newport Bay Peter and Mary
Muth Interpretive Center, 2301
University Drive, Newport Beach,
California 92660 (corner of University
Drive and Irvine Avenue). 2. July 22,
2003, 2-4 p.m. and 7-9 p.m., in Los
Angeles County at the Port of Long
Beach, 925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach,
California 90802, on the 5th Floor
Conference Room.
Estimated Date of Draft EIS Release:
February 2004.
Dated Juno 30, 2003.
Anne Norton Miller,
Director, Office of Federal Activities
|FR Doc. 03-16846 Filed 7-2-03; 8.45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-S0-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP—2003—0229; FRL-7315-4]
Pyridaben; Notice of Filing a Pesticide
Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a
Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on
Food
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
initial filing of a pesticide petition
proposing the establishment of
regulations for residues of a certain
pesticide chemical in or on various food
commodities.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket
ID number OPP-2003-0229, must be
received on or before August 4, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Follow
the detailed instructions as provided in
Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division
(7505C). Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW , Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-3194; e-mail address:
brothers.shaja@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A.	Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
•	Crop production (NAICS 111)
•	Animal production (NAICS 112)
•	Food manufacturer (NAICS 311)
•	Pesticide manufacturer (NAICS
32532)
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under for further
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B.	How Can I Get Copies of this
Document and Other Related
Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under docket identification (ID) number
OPP-2003-0229. The official public
docket consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action,
any public comments received, and
other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket,
the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the
Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (P1RIB), Rm. 119,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket
-------
EXHIBIT 2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, COOPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 532711
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
December 3, 2001
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Office of the Chief
Environmental Resources Branch
Mr. Bob Hoffman
National Marine Fisheries Service
501 West Ocean Blvd. Suite 4200
Long Beach, California 90802-4221
Dear Mr. Hoffinan:
The U.S. Array Corps of Engineers is preparing a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the preparation of
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site Permanent
Certification Project. We are conducting a study program for designating the LA-3 existing
interim site as a permanent site for the ocean disposal of dredged materials in Orange County,
California. Ths study area is located on the continental slope of the Newport Submarine Canyon
at a depth of about 450 meters, approximately 7.5 kilometers southwest of the entrance of
Newport Harbor in Orange County, California.
Please provide us your written comments for this project and provide a current list of any
endangered, threatened, proposed or candidate species, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, that may be affected by the proposed project. This letter also requests your review and
written comments for this project, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, as amended. Comments, and the species list, should be forwarded by
December 17, 2001 to:
Ms. Ruth Bajza Villalobos
Chief, Planning Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. Larry Smith
P.O.Box 532711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please contact
Mr. Larry Smith, Project Ecologist, at (213) 452-3846.
Sincerely,
Ruth Bajza Villalobos
Chief, Planning Division
-------
EXHIBIT 3
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. COUPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX S3Z711
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90C53-2325
December 3, 2001
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Office of the Chief
Environmental Resources Branch
Mr. John Hanion
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2493 Portola Road, Suite B
Ventura, California 93003
Dear Mr. Hanlon:
The U.S. Arniy Corps of Engineers is preparing a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the preparation of
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site Permanent
Certification Project. We are conducting a study program for designating the LA-3 existing
interim site as a permanent site for the ocean disposal of dredged materials in Orange County,
California. The study area is located on the continental slope of the Newport Submarine Canyon
at a depth of about 450 meters, approximately 7.5 kilometers southwest of the entrance of
Newport Harbor in Orange County, California.
Please prov ide us your written comments for this project and provide a current list of any
endangered, threatened, proposed or candidate species, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, that may be affected by the proposed project. Please include species of concern. This
letter also requests your review and written comments for this project. Comments, and the
species list, should be forwarded by December 17, 2001 to:
Ms. Ruth Bajza Villalobos
Chief, Planning Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. Larry Smith
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please contact
Mr. Larry Smith, Project Environmental Coordinator, at (213) 452-3846.
Sincerely,
Ruth Bajza Villalobos
Chief, Planning Division
-------
EXHIBIT 4
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southwest Region
501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200
Long Beach, California 90802-4213
FEB 12 2002
F/SWR4.-RSH
Ms. Ruth Bajza Villalobos
Chief, Planning Division
Los Angeles District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. Larry Smith, CESPL-PD-RN
P.O. Box 532:711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Dear Ms. Bajza Villalobos:
Thank you for providing the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) the opportunity
to provide comments relative to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site Permanent Certification Project.
This letter is provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and PL
94-265 - the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Per your request, NMFS believes that there are no endangered, threatened, proposed
or candidate species under the jurisdiction of NMFS that may be affected by the
proposed project. The DEIS should describe and consider impacts to Federally
managed fish species and other marine resources from the continued disposal of
material at this site. A description of past disposal practices and expected future
actions should also be included in the DEIS.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 562-980-4043 or email:
bob.hoffman@noaa.gov.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Hoffman
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator
for Habitat Conservation
cc:
USFWS - Carlsbad (Jack Fancher)
CDFG - San Diego (Marilyn Fluharty)
-------
EXHIBIT 5
f—^—"S
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-OR-2543.1
Ms. Ruth Bajz.a Villalobos
JAN 1 1 2002
Chief, Planning Division
U.S. Army Coips of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. Larry Smith
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Re: Request for Information on Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered Species for LA-3
Ocean Disposal Site Permanent Certification Project, Orange County, California
Dear Ms. Villalobos:
This is in response to your letter, received on December 14,2001, requesting information
concerning federally listed species that may be affected by the proposed certification of LA-3 as a
permanent ocean disposal site. LA-3 is located on the continental slope of the Newport
Submarine Canyon at a depth of about 450 meters, approximately 7.5 kilometers southwest of
Newport Harbor in Orange County, California. To assist you in evaluating the potential
occurrence of these species within the area of interest, we are providing the enclosed list, which
identifies federally listed endangered, threatened, and proposed species that occur in the general
region.
The area around the proposed disposal site may be used for foraging by the federally endangered
California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), which can forage a considerable distance
offshore. The Federally endangered California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) forages
adjacent to Newport Harbor during the breeding season (April 1 to September 15), but rarely
forages more than two miles from shore while breeding and rearing young (Jack Fancher, pers.
comm.). Therefore, it is unlikely that California least terns utilize the area around the ocean
disposal site.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
consult with us should it be determined that their actions may affect federally listed threatened or
endangered species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g., harm, harassment, pursuit,
injury, kill) of federally listed wildlife. "Harm" is further defined to include habitat modification
or degradation where it kills or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral patterns
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Take incidental to otherwise lawful activities can be
authorized under sections 7 (Federal consultations) and 10 (habitat conservation plans) of the
Act.
-------
EXHIBIT 5
Ruth Villalobos (FWS-OR-2543.1)
2
We share administration of the Act with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS
also administers the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and should be contacted regarding
potential impacts to marine species protected under these laws. We also recommend that you
contact the California Department of Fish and Game regarding potential impacts to state-listed or
state-sensitive species.
Should you have any questions regarding the species list provided, or your responsibilities under
the Act, please contact Fish and Wildlife Biologist Jonathan Snyder of my staff at (760) 431-
9440 with any questions.
Enclosure
References:
Fancher, Jack. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal Communication. January 2002.
Sincerely,
^AKaren A. Evans
Assistant Field Supervisor
-------
EXHIBIT 5
Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species
Which May Occur in the Project Area, LA-3 Ocean Disposal Site,
Orange County, California
Common Name	Scientific Name	Federal Status
Birds
California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Endangered
-------
6.0 Preparers and Contributors
CHAPTER 6.0
PREPARERS AND
CONTRIBUTORS
This chapter provides a list of the individuals involved in the preparation of the EIS
(Table 6-1).
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1
LIST OF PREPARERS
Name
Expertise
Experience
Responsibility
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Allan Ota, M.S.
Biological oceanography
20 years conducting research,
and preparation and review of
technical reports; regulatory
role in EPA marine protection
programs.
EIS review
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kathleen Stryker Anderson
Environmental science
16 years project management
and sediment remediation.
Project Manager
Lawrence J. Smith
Coastal ecology/marine
dredging
18 years
Environmental Coordinator
Contractor:
RECON Environmental Inc.
David M. Gottfredson, B.S.
NEPA documentation, air
quality, and acoustics
Over 10 years experience
preparing technical studies and
documents in support of
CEQA/NEPA environmental
review.
Project Manager, EIS
preparation
-------
TABLE 6-1
LIST OF PREPARERS
(continued)
Name	Expertise	Experience	Responsibility
Charles S. Bull, M.A.	NEPA compliance	Over 32 years experience	EIS review
preparing cultural resources,
acoustical technical studies and
other environmental
documents in support of
CEQA/NEPA environmental
review.
Paul Fromer, M.S.
NEPA documentation and
habitat conservation planning
Over 24 years experience
preparing biological technical
studies, habitat management
plans, and other environmental
documents in support of
CEQA/NEPA environmental
review.
EIS review
Loretta Gross
Technical editing
Over 25 years of document
Document production


production and copy editing



support.

Eija Blocker, B.A.
Technical editing
Over 20 years of
documentation, translation,
and copy editing support.
Document production
-------
TABLE 6-1
LIST OF PREPARERS
(continued)
Name
Expertise
Experience
Responsibility
Vince Martinez, B.A.
Graphics and cartography
4 years experience producing
graphics and cartography for
technical reports.
Graphics production
Rommel Reyes, B.S.
GIS analysis
Over 7 years of GIS/GPS
support work and data
analysis.
GIS and graphics production
Contractor:
MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, Inc.
Shane Beck, B.A.
Physical oceanography and
fisheries biology
Over 11 years conducting
ecological studies and
preparation of technical
reports.
Preparation and review of EIS
sections: Affected Environ-
ment and Environmental
Consequences. EIS Review.
David Vilas, B.A.
Physical oceanography and
sedimentology
Over 21 years conducting
physical and biological
research and preparation of
technical reports.
Preparation and review of EIS
sections: Affected Environ-
ment and Environmental
Consequences.
-------
TABLE 6-1
LIST OF PREPARERS
(continued)
Name
Expertise
Experience
Responsibility
Carol Paquette, B.S.
Benthic biology and ecology
Over 30 years researching
benthic environments and
preparation of technical
reports.
Preparation and review of EIS
sections: Affected Environ-
ment and Environmental
Consequences.
Name
Expertise
Experience
Responsibility
Robert Moore, B.A.
Fisheries biology
Over 24 years conducting
environmental studies and
preparation of technical
reports.
Preparation and review of EIS
sections: Affected Environ-
ment and Environmental
Consequences.
Contractor:
Noble Consultants, Inc.
Chia-Chi Lu, Ph.D., P.E.
Ocean/coastal engineering
Plan formulation and model
Simulations
Zone of Siting Feasibility
study and fate of dredged
material disposed at LA-3 and
LA-2
Mills Soldate, Ph.D.
Marine physics science
Model simulations
Fate of dredged material
disposed at LA-3 and LA-2
-------
TABLE 6-1
LIST OF PREPARERS
(continued)
Name
Expertise
Experience
Responsibility
David Altman, MS
Coastal engineering
Plan formulation
Zone of Siting Feasibility
study
Contractor:
Germano & Associates
Joseph D. Germano, Ph.D.
Marine biology, sediment
profile imagery
Over 20 years conducting
marine environmental studies
with emphasis on dredged
material disposal management
& impact assessment
Baseline sediment
characteristics; site
management and monitoring
plan
Peggy L. Myre, M.S.
Geochemistry
Over 15 years conducting
contaminated sediment
assessments and dredged
material disposal/management
studies
Baseline sediment
characteristics; site
management and monitoring
plan
Over 18 years of experience in Baseline sediment
marine environmental monitor- characteristics
ing and impact assessment with
emphasis on dredged material
disposal
Raymond M. Valente, M.S. Marine science, sediment
profile imagery
-------
TABLE 6-1
LIST OF PREPARERS
(continued)
Name
Expertise
Experience
Responsibility
Contractor:
Chambers Groups Inc.
Novel Davis, Ph.D.
Marine biology
Marine environment studies
and EIS preparation
Biological baseline survey and
statistic analysis
Todd A. Chapman
Marine biology
Marine and freshwater studies
Biological baseline survey
-------
7.0 References Cited
CHAPTER 7.0
REFERENCES CITED
Ackermann, F.
1980 A Procedure for Correcting the Grain Size Effect in Heavy Metal Analyses of
Estuarine and Coastal Sediments. Environmental Technology Letters 1:518-
527.
Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California (AHF)
1959 Oceanographic Survey of the Continental Shelf Area of Southern California.
Submitted to the California State Water Pollution Control Board. Publication
No. 20. October 1958.
1965 An Oceanographic and Biological Survey of the Southern California Mainland
Shelf. Submitted to the California State Water Quality Control Board.
Publication No. 27. December 1963.
Allen, M.J., and A.J. Mearns
1977 Bottom Fish Populations below 200 Meters. Pages 109-115 in Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report 1977.
Allen, M.J., S.L. Moore, K.C. Schiff, S.B. Weisberg, D. Diener, J.K. Stull, A. Groce,
J. Mubarak, C.L. Tang, and R. Gartman
1998 Southern California Bight 1994 Pilot Project: V. Demersal Fishes and
Megabenthic Invertebrates. Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project, Westminster, CA.
Anderson, J.W., D.J. Reish, R.B. Spies, M.E. Brady, and E.W. Segelhorst
1993 Human Impacts. Chapter 12 in Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson
(eds). Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation.
University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-1
-------
7.0 References Cited
Baird, P.H.
1993 Birds. Pages 541-603 in Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds).
Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation.
University of Califonia Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Barsky, K.
2001 California Spiny Lobster. Pp. 98-100 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R.
Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds.). California's Living Marine Resources: A
status report. California Department of Fish and Game. December 2001.
Bascom, W.
1982 The Effects of Waste Disposal on the Coastal Waters of Southern California.
Environmental. Science and Technology 16(4): 226-236A.
Bergen, M. S.B. Weisberg, R.W. Smith, D. Cadien, A. Dalkey, D. Montagne, J.K. Stull,
and R.G. Velarde
1998 Relationship between Depth, Latitude and Sediment and the Structure of
Benthic Infaunal Assemblages on the Mainland Shelf of Southern California. In
SCCWRP Annual Report 1997-1998. Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Biddinger, G.R., and S.P. Gloss
1984 The Importance of Trophic Transfer in the Bioaccumulation of Chemical
Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems. Residue Rev. 91: 104-130.
Brenchley, G.A.
1981 Disturbance and Community Structure: An Experimental Study of Bioturbation
in Marine Soft-Bottom Environments. Journal of Marine Research 39(4):767-
790.
Brewer, G.D.
1976 Resuspended Sediment Elutriate Studies on Northern Anchovy. Pp. 15-32 in
Soule, D.F. and M. Oguri (eds.). Marine Studies of San Pedro, California, Part
11: Potential effects of dredging on the biota of Outer Los Angeles Harbor —
Toxicity, Bioassay, and Recolonization Studies. Harbors Environmental
Projects, Allan Hancock Foundation, and University of Southern California Sea
Grant. June 1976.
Briggs, K.T., and E.W. Chu
1987 Trophic Relationships and Food Requirements of California Seabirds: Updating
Models of Trophic Impacts. In J.P. Croxall, ed. Seabirds: Feeding Ecology and
Role in Marine Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press. London.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-2
-------
7.0 References Cited
Brown, D.A., R.W. Gossett, G.P. Hershelman, C.F. Ward, A.M. Westcott, and J.N. Cross
1986 Municipal Wastewater Contamination in the Southern California Bight: Part I -
Metal and Organic Contaminants in Sediments and Organisms. Marine
Environmental Research 18:291-310.
California Department of Fish and Game
2000 The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals and Plants in
California, California Brown Pelican. California Department of Fish and Game,
Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. URL .
2002	Unpublished Catch Block Data, 1999-2001.
California, State of
2003	2002 California PM2.5 Monitoring Network Description. California Air
Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency. October.
Obtained from the California Air Resources Board Internet Site. URL
.
2004a California Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board Internet
Site. URL . April 1.
2004b Area Designations - 2003. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. URL
. April 2.
California State Coastal Conservancy (CSCC)
1984 Commercial Fishing Facilities in California. August 1984.
California State Lands Commission (CSLC)
1982 Final Environmental Impact Report. Platform Edith Project: Platform Edith,
Natural Gas Pipeline to Platform Eva, Crude Oil Pipeline to Platform Elly,
Power Cable to Shore. Beta Unit, San Pedro Bay, Offshore Southern California,
Lease OCS-P 0296. October 1982.
2003 State Offshore Oil and Gas Leases. Mineral Resources Management Division.
June. Obtained from the CSLC web site at .
2004a Lease Status, April 2004. Mineral Resources Management Division. Obtained
from the CSLC web site at  on April 22.
2004b Online Database of California Shipwrecks. Obtained from the California
Shipwrecks web site at  on April 22.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-3
-------
7.0 References Cited
Chambers Group
2001	Data Analysis of the Sediment and Biological Baseline Survey at LA-3 and
LA-2 for Dredged Material Ocean Disposal Site Designation. Draft report.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. November
2001.
Chan, K.
1974	Chemical Oceanography. Chapter 4 in Dailey, M.D., B. Hill, and N. Lansing
(eds). A Summary of Knowledge of the Southern California Coastal Zone and
Offshore Areas. Vol. I Physical Environment. Southern California Ocean
Studies Consortium. Prepared for the United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management.
1975	Coastal Data Information Program.
2002	Datawell Directional Buoy Data, 2000-2002.
Cogswell, H.L.
1977 Water Birds of California. California Natural History Guides: 40 University of
California Press.
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC)
1988 1988 Annual Report. Vol. 3. Marine Monitoring.
1996 Annual Report 1995. Including a Ten-Year Synthesis: 1985-1995. Marine
Monitoring Compliance Report.
1998 Annual Report 1997. Marine Monitoring Report.
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County and Environmental Protection Agency
1977 Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement.
CSDOC Wastewater Management Program. March draft.
Cross, J.
1984 The Newport Dory Fishery. Pages 68-80 in Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project Biennial Report, 1983-1984.
1987 Fishes of the Upper Slope off Southern California. CalCOFI Vol. 28: 155-167.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-4
-------
7.0 References Cited
Cross, J. N. and L. G. Allen
1993 Fishes. Chapter 9 in M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds).
Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation.
Berkley, CA. University of California Press.
Dailey, M.D., B. Hill, and N. Lansing
1974 A Summary of Knowledge of the Southern California Coastal Zone and
Offshore Areas. Vol. 1 - Physical Environment. Prepared by the Southern
California Ocean Studies Consortium for the United States Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Dailey, M.D., J.W. Anderson, D.J. Reish, and D.S. Gorsline
1993 The Southern California Bight: Background and Setting. Chapter 1 in Dailey,
M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds.), Ecology of the Southern California
Bight: /\ Synthesis and Interpretation. University of California Press, Los
Angeles, CA.
Dawson, J.K., and R.E. Pieper
1993 Zooplankton. Chapter 6 in M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds.),
Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation.
Berkley, CA. University of California Press.
de Groot, A.J., K.H. Zschuppe, and W. Salomons
1982 Standardization and Methods of Analysis for Heavy Metals in Sediments.
Hydrobiologia 92:689-695.
Dennis, J.G.
1976 1974Geological Features. Chapter I in Dailey, M.D., B. Hill, and N. Lansing
(eds.), A Summary of Knowledge of the Southern California Coastal Zone and
Offshore Areas. Vol. I. Physical environment. Prepared by the Southern
California Ocean Studies Consortium of California State Universities and
Colleges. Prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management.
Dickerson, T. and R. Leos
1992 Market Squid. Pages 37-39 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen
(eds.), California's Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization. California
Sea Grant Publication. UCSGEP-92-12.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-5
-------
7.0 References Cited
Dohl, T.P., K.S. Norris, R.C. Guess, J.D. Bryant, and M.W. Honig
1981 Summary of Marine Mammal and Seabird Surveys of the Southern California
Bight Area, 1975-1978, Final Report. Vol. Ill - Investigators' Reports. Part II -
Cetacea of the Southern California Bight. United States Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Managemnt. Pacific OCS Office. PB81-248189.
Contract AA550-CT7-36. Center for Coastal Marine Studies, University of
California, Santa Cruz, CA.
Emery, K.O.
1952 Continental Shelf Sediments of Southern California. Bull. The Geological
Society of America. 63:1105-1108.
1960 The Sea off Southern California: A Modem Habitat of Petroleum. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc. and Marine Biological Consultants
1973 Thermal Effect Study: Alamitos Generating Station and Haynes Generating
Station. Final Summary Report. Prepared for Southern California Edison
Company and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
EPA See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Eschmeyer, W.N., E.S. Herald, and H. Hammann
1983 A Field Guide to the Pacific Coast Fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston, MA.
Fischer, W.K.
1928 Asteroidea of the North Pacific and Adjacent Waters. Smithsonian Institution,
U.S. National Museum. Bulletin 76.
Fitch, J., and R. Lavenberg
1968 Deep-Water Teleostan Fishes of California. University of California Press, Los
Angeles, CA.
1971 California Marine Food and Game Fishes. University of California Press, Los
Angeles, CA.
Fluharty, M.
2002 Electronic Mail Transmission to Shane Beck, Senior Scientist, MBC Applied
Environmental Sciences. Marine Biologist, California Department of Fish and
Game. April 8.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-6
-------
7.0 References Cited
Forney, K.A., J. Barlow, M.M. Muto, M. Lowry, J. Baker, G. Cameron, J. Mobley,
C. Stinchcomb, and J.V. Caretta
2000 (DRAFT) U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2000. United
States Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SWFSC, La Jolla, CA.
January 2000.
Gardner, J.V., P. Dartnell, and M.E. Torresan
1998a LA-2 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site and Surrounding Area, Long
Beach, California: Bathymetry, Backscatter, and Volumes of Disposal
Materials. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey,
Admin. Report. July 1998.
1998b LA-3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site and Surrounding Area, Newport,
California: Bathymetry, Backscatter, and Volumes of Disposal Materials.
United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Admin.
Report. October 1998.
Gorsline, D.S., and K.O. Emery
1959 Turbidity-Current Deposits in San Pedro and Santa Monica Basins off Southern
California. Bull. Geological Society of America. 70:279-290.
Gorsline, D.S., R.S. Kolpack, H.A. Karl, D.E. Drake, P. Fleischer, S.E. Thornton, J.R.
Schwalbach, and C.E. Savrda
1984 Studies of Fine-Grained Sediment Transport Processes and Products of the
California Continental Borderland. Pages 395-415 in Stow, D.A.V. and D.J.W.
Piper (eds.), Fine-Grained Sediments: Deep Water Processes and Facies.
Published for Geological Society by Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford.
Gray, J.S.
1974 Animal-Sediment Relationships. Oceanogr. Marine Biology Annual Review.
12:223-261.
Hardy, J.T.
1993 Phytoplankton. Chapter 5 in M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson
(eds.), Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and
Interpretation. Berkley, CA. University of California Press.
Hart, J.L.
1973 Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin 180.
Hendricks, T.J.
1980 Currents in the Los Angeles area. In SCCWRP Biennial Report, 1979-1980.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-7
-------
7.0 References Cited
1987 A Study of Sediment Composition, Transport, and Deposition off Palos Verdes.
Final report to County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County from
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA.
1992	Orange County Currents. Phase II - SCCWRP Measurements. Report to County
Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California from Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach, CA.
Hickey, B.M.
1993	Physical Oceanography. Chapter 2 in Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W.
Anderson (eds.), Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and
Interpretation. 1993. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Hill, P.S. and J. Barlow
1992 Report of a Marine Mammal Survey of the California Coast Aboard the
Research Vessel McArthur, July 28 - November 5, 1991. July 1992. NOAA-
TM-NMFS-SWFSC-169.
ICF Consulting
2003 South Bay Cities Infrastructure and Services Capacity Assessment, Volume 1:
Key Findings. Prepared for the South Bay Cities Council of Governments and
the Southern California Association of Governments. June 30.
Interstate Electronics Corporation (IEC)
1982 Appendices to Los Angeles/Long Beach, California, Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Designation. Interstate Electronics Corporation. Oceanic
Engineering Operations-Anaheim, California. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
Jacobsen, L.D
1992 Northern Anchovy: Pages 81-83 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W.
Haugen (eds.), 1992. California's Living Marine Resources and Their
Utilization. California Sea Grant Publication. UCSGEP-92-12.
Jones, G.
1969 The Benthic Macrofauna of the Mainland Shelf of Southern California. Allan
Hancock Mon. in Marine Biology No. 4.
Jones, B.H., A. Bratkovich, T. Dickey, G. Kleppel, A. Steele, R. Iturriaga, and I.
Haydock
1990 Variability of Physical, Chemical, and Biological Parameters in the Vicinity of
an Ocean Outfall Plume. Pages 877-890 in List, E.J. and G.H. Jirka (eds.),
Stratified Flows: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-8
-------
7.0 References Cited
Stratified Flows, Feb. 3-5, 1987, Pasadena, CA. American Society Of Civil
Engineering, New York.
Kay, S.H.
1984 Potential for Biomagnification of Contaminants within Marine and Freshwater
Food Webs. Technical Report D-84-7 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Keane, K.
2002 Personal Communication with Carol Paquette, Senior Scientist, MBC Applied
Environmental Sciences. Consultant, Keane Biological Consulting. April 2002.
Konno, E.S., and P. Wolf
1992 Pacific Mackerel. Pages 91-93 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen
(eds.), 1992. California's Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization.
California Sea Grant Publication. UCSGEP-92-12.
Kranz, P.
1974 The Anastrophic Burial of Bivalves and Its Paleontological Significance.
Journal of Geology 82:237-265.
Lecky, J.
1992 Recovery of the Gray Whale. Pp. 219-223 in Conference Proceedings, Seventh
Annual Information Transfer Meeting. Our Changing Coastal Environment:
Research on Natural Processes and Man's Influence. Ventura, California, 12-15
May 1992. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region.
Leet, W.S., C.M. DeWees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson
2001 California's Living Marine Resources: a Status Report.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)
1981 Annual Report 1980-1981: Ocean Monitoring and Research.
2000 Annual Report 2000: Palos Verdes Ocean Monitoring.
2004 Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP). Information accessed from the
LACSD web site at http://www.lacsd.org/jwpcp/jwpcp.htm on July 11.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird
1984 Investigations of the Potential Effects of Underwater Noise from Petroleum
Industry Activities on Migrating Gray Whale Behavior. Phase II. January 1984
Migration. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-9
-------
7.0 References Cited
Management. Service, Alaska OCS Office. Contract No. 14-12-0001-29033.
August 1984.
Mangels, K.F., and T. Gerrodette
1994 Report of Cetacean Sightings during a Marine Mammal Survey in the Eastern
Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of California Aboard the NOAA Ships McArthur
and David Starr Jordan, July 28 - November 6, 1993. October 1994. NOAA-
TM-NMFS-SWFSC-0271.
Marine Biological Consultants
1980	Bioassay Investigations Relating to the Proposed Ocean Disposal of Dredged
Sediments from Berths 80-88 and Berths 62-67. Prepared for the Port of Long
Beach. May 1980.
Massey, B.W., and J.L. Atwood
1981	Second-Wave Nesting of the California Least Tern: Age Composition and
Reproductive Success. The Auk 98:596-605. July 1981.
Maurer, D., G. Robertson, and T. Gerlinger
1994 Trace Metals in the Newport Submarine Canyon, California and the Adjacent
Shelf. Water Environment Research 66(2): 110-118.
MBC Applied Environmental Sciences
1986a Quarterly Plume Verification Study THUMS Ocean Dumpsite. MBC Applied
Environmental Sciences, Costa Mesa, CA. Prepared for the THUMS Long
Beach Company, Long Beach, CA.
1986b Semi-Annual Water Quality Monitoring THUMS Ocean Dumpsite. . MBC
Applied Environmental Sciences, Costa Mesa, CA. Prepared for the THUMS
Long Beach Company, Long Beach, CA.
1986c Upper Newport Bay Dredge Bioassay. Prepared for Calififornia Department of
Fish and Game and The Irvine Company. Submitted July 1985, revised June
1986.
1989 Gray Whale Monitoring Study: Final report. Prepared for the Department of the
Interior, MMS, Pacific OCS Region, Los Angeles, CA. OCS Study MMS 88-
0075.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-10
-------
7.0 References Cited
McArdle, D.A., editor
1997	California Marine Protected Areas. Publication number T-039. California Sea
Grant College System, University of California, La Jolla.
Mearns, A.J.
1988 The "Odd Fish": Unusual Occurrences of Marine Life as Indicators of
Changing Ocean Conditions. Ch. 7 In Soule, D.F. and G.S. Kleppel (eds.).
Marine organisms as indicators. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Mearns, A.J., M. Matta, G. Shigenaka, D. MacDonald, M. Buchman, H. Harris, J. Golas,
and G. Lauenstein
1991 Contaminant Trends in the Southern California Bight: Inventory and
Assessment. NOAA Tech. Mem. NOS ORCA 62.
MEC Analytical Systems, Inc.
1998	Results of Physical, Chemical, and Bioassay Testing of Sediments Collected
from the Los Angeles River Estuary. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Miller, D.J., and R.N. Lea
1972 Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California. California Fish Bulletin. No.
157.
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
2004a Estimated Oil and Gas Reserves, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (as of
December 31, 1998). U.S. Department of the Interior. Obtained from the
MMS web site at  on
April 22.
2004b San Pedro Bay OCS Operations. U.S. Department of the Interior. Obtained
from the MMS web site at  on April 23.
MITECH
1990 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for LA-3 Dredged Material Ocean
Disposal Site Designation. January 1990. MITECH, Santa Ana, CA. Prepared
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Moore, M., W. Bascom, and H. Stubbs
1983 Trawl-Caught Fish and Invertebrates. Pages 85-89 in Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project biennial report for the years 1981-1982.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 7-11
-------
7.0 References Cited
National Ocean Service (NOS)
2002 NOAA/NOS National Water Level Observation Network: Relative Sea Level
Trends Water Level Database, .
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
1991	Contaminant Trends in the Southern California Bight: Inventory and
Assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 62.
Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends
2004 Restoration Projects - Dredging Accessed on the Newport Bay Naturalists and
Friends web site at  on March 12.
Nichols, J.A., G.T. Rowe, C.H.H. Clifford, and R.A. Young
1978 In Situ Experiments on the Burial of Marine Invertebrates. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 48(2): 419-425.
Orange County Sanitation District
2000 Marine Monitoring Annual Report. Compact disk.
2002 Submittal and Executive Summary of Application for the NPDES Permit.
Letter of Transmittal for 2003 NPDES Ocean Permit Renewal Application.
December 2.	Obtained from the OCSD web site at
 on July 11,
2004.
2004 2003 Ocean Monitoring Report. Obtained from the OCSD web site at
 on December 3.
Parker, D.
1992	California Spiny Lobster. Pages 22-25 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W.
Haugen (eds.), 1992. California's Living Marine Resources and Their
Utilization. California Sea Grant Publication. UCSGEP-92-12.
Parker, D. and P. Kalvass
1992 Sea Urchins. Pages 41-43 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen
(eds.), 1992. California's Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization.
California Sea Grant Publication. UCSGEP-92-12.
Port of Long Beach
2004 Facilities Master Plan. Accessed from the Port of Long Beach web site at
 on April 22.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 7-12
-------
7.0 References Cited
Raco-Rands, V.
1999 Characteristics of Effluents from Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities in 1996. Pages 2-17 in Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project Annual Report 1997-1998. Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project.
Resources Agency of California
1997	California's Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future. March 1997.
Accessed from the California Ocean Resources Management Program web site
at  on April 22, 2004.
Rice, R.M., D.S. Gorsline, and R.H. Osborne
1976 Relationships between Sand Input from Rivers and the Composition of Sands
from the Beaches of Southern California. Sediment. 23:689-703.
San Diego, County of
1999	Air Quality in San Diego County. 1998 Annual Report. San Diego Air Pollution
Control District.
SCBPP Steering Committee
1998	Southern California Bight 1994 Pilot Project: I. Executive summary. Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Schiff, K.C., and R.W. Gossett
1998 Southern California Bight 1994 Pilot Project: III. Sediment chemistry. Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
1992 Current Meter Studies and Analysis of Physical Oceanographic Information for
the LA-2 Dredged Material Disposal Site. Final report. Submitted to
Environmental Protection Agency.
2000	Strategic Process Study: Newport Canyon Sediments, Tier 1 Assessment. Draft
Final Report, Feb. 2000. Prepared for Orange County Sanitation District.
2001	Strategic Process Study #1: Plume Tracking - Ocean Currents. Final report.
Prepared for Orange County Sanitation District, Fountain Valley, CA.
SAIC, MEC Analytical Systems, and CRG Marine Laboratories
2001 Strategic Process Study: Bottom Conditions at LA-3 Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site. Draft report. Prepared for Orange County Sanitation District.
Draft E1S for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-13
-------
7.0 References Cited
Smith, R.W., M. Bergen, S.B. Weisberg, D. Cadien, A. Dalkey, D. Montagne, J.K. Stull,
and R.G. Velarde
1998 Benthic Response Index for Assessing Infaunal Communities on the Mainland
Shelf of Southern California. Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project, Annual Report 1997-1998.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November.
2002	CEQA Air Quality Handbook. February.
2003	Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. Adopted August 1.
South Orange County Water Authority (SOCWA)
2004	SOCWA website at  accessed on March
12.
Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists (SCAMIT)
2001	A Taxonomic Listing of Soft Bottom Macro- and Megainvertebrates from
Infaunal and Epibenthic Monitoring Programs in the Southern California Bight,
Ed. 4.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)
1973 The Ecology of the Southern California Bight: Implications for Water Quality
Management. Three-Year Report of the Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, El Segundo, CA.
1983 A Survey of the Slope off Orange County, California: First Year Report. A
Report to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, January 1983.
2002	Southern California Bight Pilot Project Data. Internet URL
.
2004 Characteristics of Effluents from Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Between 1998 and 2000. Obtained from SCCWRP web site at
 on July 14.
State Water Quality Control Board
1965 An Oceanographic and Biological Survey of the Southern California Mainland
Shelf. Publication No. 27.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-14
-------
7.0 References Cited
Stevenson, R.E., E. Uchupi, and D.S. Gorsline
1959 Some Characteristics of Sediments on the Mainland Shelf of Southern
California. Section II in Oceanographic Survey of the Continental Shelf Area of
Southern California. Prepared by Allan Hancock Foundation for the State
Water Pollution Control Board.
Tetra Tech and MBC Applied Environmental Sciences
1985 Environmental Assessment for Final Designation of LA 2 Ocean Dredge
Material Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los
Angeles District.
Thompson, B.E., J.N. Cross, J.D. Laughlin, G.P. Hershelman, R.W. Gossett, and D.T.
Tsukada
1984 Sediment and biological conditions on coastal slopes. Pages 37-67 in Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project, Biennial Report, 1983-1984.
Thompson, B.E. and G.F. Jones.
1987 Benthic macrofaunal assemblages of slope habitats in the southern California
borderland. Allan Hancock Foundation Occasional Papers, New Series No. 7.
Allan Hancock Foundation, Los Angeles, CA. C-219.
Thompson, B.E., J.D. Laughlin, D.T. Tsukada
1987 1985 Reference Site Survey. SCCWRP Technical Memorandum 221.
Thompson, B.E., D.T. Tsukada, and J.D. Laughlin
1993 Megabenthic Assemblages of Coastal Shelves, Slopes and Basins off Southern
California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences. Vol. 92:
25-42.
Thompson, B.E., J. Dixon, S. Schroeter, and D.J. Reish
1993 Benthic Invertebrates. Chapter in Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson
(eds.), 1993. Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and
Interpretation. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Thrailkill, J.R.
1956 Relative Areal Zooplankton Abundance off the Pacific Coast. USFWS, Special
Scientific Report Fisheries No. 188.
University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB)
2004 California Marine Protected Areas Database Homepage website at
 accessed on April 29.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-15
-------
7.0 References Cited
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
2002 Final Report. Summer Sediment and Biological Baseline Survey within LA-3
and LA-2 Study Areas for Dredged Material Ocean Disposal Site Designation.
January 2002.
2003a Final Draft Report, Zone of Siting Feasibility Study. Los Angeles District.
March.
2003b Final Data Analysis of the Sediment and Biological Baseline Survey at LA-3
and LA-2 for Dredged Material Ocean Disposal Site Designation. Los Angeles
District. May.
2003c The U.S. Waterway System - TRANSPORTATION FACTS. Navigation Data
Center. December.
2004a Waterbome Commerce of the United States, Calendar 2002, Part 4 -
Waterways and Harbors Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii. Institute for Water
Resources. IWR-WCUS-02-4. January 20.
2004b Fate of Dredged Material Disposed at LA-3 and LA-2. Final Draft Report. Los
Angeles District. February.
U.S. Coast Guard/Marine Exchange Vessel Traffic Center
2001 Los Angeles-Long Beach Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) User Manual. April 1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1987a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Los Angeles/Long Beach (LA-2)
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site: Site Designation.
1987b Environmental Impact Statement for San Diego (LA-5) Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site: Site Designation.
1988 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Los Angeles/Long Beach
(LA-2) Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. July.
1993 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Designation of a Deep Water Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site off San Francisco, California. August.
1997 Final Report: Site Management and Monitoring Results for the LA-2 Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site. Prepared by U.S. EPA, Battelle Ocean
Sciences, and MEC Analytical Systems. EPA/OCPD Contract No. 68-C2-
0134.January 1997.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation 7-16
-------
7.0 References Cited
2000	Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption
Data. EPA Report EPA420-R-00-002. February.
2004a Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas With Deferred
Effective Dates; Final Rule. Federal Register 69(84):23857-23951, April 30.
2004b Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard - Phase 1; Final Rule. Federal Register 69(84):23951-24000,
April 30.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1991	Evaluation of Dredged MateriaI Proposed for Ocean Disposal, Testing
Manual. EPA Report 503/8-91/001. Prepared by EPA through the Marine
Operations Division of the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and by
USACE through the Office of the Chief of Engineers and the Environmental
Laboratory of the Waterways Experiment Station. Washington, D.C. February.
Witherspoon, C.
2003	Letter to Mr. Jack Broadbent, Director, Air Division - Region IX, U.S. EPA.
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board. July 15.
2004	Letter to Mr. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region 9, U.S. EPA.
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board. February 11.
Wolf, P., and P.E. Smith
1992	Pacific Sardine. Pages 83-86 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen
(eds.), California's Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization. California
Sea Grant Publication. UCSGEP-92-12.
Word, J.Q., and A.J. Mearns
1977 Bottom Invertebrate Populations below 200 Meters. Pages 117-120 in Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project annual report 1977.
Zeng, E.Y., S.M. Bay, K. Tran, and C. Alexander
2001	Temporal and Spatial Distributions of Contaminants in Sediments of Santa
Monica Bay, California. Pages 96-113 in Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project Annual Report 1999-2000. Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-17
-------
7.0 References Cited
Zmarzly, D.L., T.D. Stebbins, D. Pasko, R,M. Duggan, K.L. Barwick
1994 Spatial Patterns and Temporal Succession in Soft-Bottom Macroinvertebrate
Assemblages Surrounding an Ocean Outfall on the Southern San Diego Shelf:
Relation to Anthropogenic and Natural Events. Marine Biology.
Draft EIS for the LA-3 ODMDS Designation
7-18
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
LA 2/ LA 3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Management &
Monitoring Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION	2
2.0 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN	3
2.1	Background	3
2.1.1	Objectives	4
2.1.2	Site Management Roles & Responsibilities	4
2.1.3	Funding	5
2.2	Baseline Assessment of Site Conditions	5
2.2.1	Disposal Site Characterization	5
2.2.1.1	Currents, Temperature, Salinity, and Dissolved Oxygen	6
2.2.1.1.1 LA-3	6
2.2.1.1.2. LA-2	7
2.2.1.2	Sediment Grain-Size, TOC, Metals, and Hydrocarbons	8
2.2.1.2.1	LA-3	8
2.2.1.2.2	LA-2	9
2.2.1.3	Biological Environment	10
2.2.1.3.1	Plankton	10
2.2.1.3.2	Benthos	10
2.2.1.3.3	Nekton	11
2.2.2	Disposal Site History	12
2.3	Special Management Conditions or Practices	12
2.4	Quantity of Material and Type of Material Allowed	15
2.5	Anticipated Site Use	16
2.6	Site Management Plan Review and Revision	16
3.0 SITE MONITORING PLAN	17
3.1	Physical/Biological Module	20
3.1.1	Tier 1 Physical Monitoring	21
3.1.2	Tier 2 Physical/Biological Monitoring	22
3.1.3	Tier 3 Physical/Biological Monitoring	25
3.2	Chemical/Bioeffects Module	26
3.2.1	Tier 1 Onsite Chemical Monitoring	26
3.2.2	Tier 2 Onsite Chemical/Bioeffects Monitoring	28
3.2.3	Tier 3 Offsite Monitoring	29
4.0 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS	30
5.0 REFERENCES	31
TABLES
1: Designation of Management Responsibilities	 5
2: Dimensions and Center Coordinates for the Southern California Disposal Sites	 14
3: A Summary of the Tiered Disposal Site Monitoring Design	 18
FIGURES
1: Tiered Site Monitoring Plan	20
2: Soft bottom benthic community response to disturbance (A) or organic enrichment (B)	25
1
-------
1.0 Introduction
The disposal of dredged material in ocean waters, including the territorial sea is regulated under
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. § 1401, ff.
The transportation of dredged material for disposal into ocean waters is permitted by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (or, in the case of federal projects, authorized for disposal
under MPRSA § 103(e)) only after environmental criteria established by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) are applied. The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA
92; Public Law 102-580) made a number of changes to the MPRSA. As amended by Section
506 of WRDA 92, Section 102 (c) of the MPRSA provides that, in the case of ocean dredged
material disposal sites (ODMDS), no site shall receive a final designation unless a management
plan has been developed. EPA and the USACE issued a joint guidance document in February
1996 for the development of ocean dredged material disposal site management plans
(EPA/US ACE, 1996).
MPRSA Section 102(c)(3), as amended by WRDA 92, sets forth a number of requirements
regarding the content and development of site management plans, including:
(A)	a baseline assessment of conditions at the site;
(B)	a program for monitoring the site;
(C)	special management conditions or practices to be implemented at each site
that are necessary for protection of the environment;
(D)	consideration of the quantity of the material to be disposed of at the site, and
the presence, nature, and bioavailability of the contaminants in the material;
(E)	consideration of the anticipated use of the site over the long term, including
the anticipated closure date for the site, if applicable, and any need for
management of the site after the closure of the site; and
(F)	a schedule for review and revision of the plan (which shall not be reviewed
and revised less frequently than 10 years after adoption of the plan, and every
10 years thereafter).
Similar ocean dredged material disposal sites receiving similar material may be combined into a
single management plan provided that all MPRSA Section 102 (c)(3) requirements are met for
each site (EPA/USACE, 1996). Both the LA-2 and LA-3 sites qualify under this criterion, and
disposal at these sites is coordinated jointly by the same EPA and USACE offices; therefore, this
management plan will fulfill the requirements for both the LA-2 and LA-3 sites.
?
-------
The requirements of this Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) (and the compliance
and enforcement provisions of the MPRSA regulations themselves) apply to all projects using
the LA-2 and LA-3 ODMDS, including both projects which have received an "ocean dumping
permit" issued by the US ACE under Section 103 of the MPRSA, and federal projects conducted
by or for the USACE. Throughout this SMMP, the term "permittee" is used generically to apply
to all these projects, even though the USACE does not issue a "permit" per se for its own
dredging projects.
2.0 Site Management Plan
This management plan has been developed jointly by the U.S. EPA Region IX and the USACE
Los Angeles District. Both the LA-2 and LA-3 sites have been in use since the mid-1970s; the
LA-2 site was officially designated as a permanent ocean dredged material disposal site in
February 1991, and the LA-3 site has remained in interim status until now. While a site
management plan for the LA-2 site was established previously, the current site designation EIS
provides the opportunity to re-examine both sites in light of historical data on the effects of three
decades of dredged material disposal and to design a coordinated management/monitoring plan
that will allow effective natural resource coordination by the EPA and USACE for both sites.
2.1 Background
This site management plan for the LA-2 and LA-3 ODMDS was developed with the advantage
of having more than 25 years of agency experience managing these two sites. A wealth of
previous data exists (see attached EIS), and the streamlined nature of the plan reflects many of
the lessons learned from past disposal projects and monitoring surveys at these two locations.
The main purpose of the management plan is to provide a structured framework for resource
agencies to ensure that dredged material disposal activities will not unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health, welfare, the marine environment, or economic potentialities (MPRSA
103 § [a]). It is the next step in the continuum of effective resource management that starts with
the site designation process.
Another key aspect of the management plan is the inherent flexibility to accommodate
unforeseen needs and the associated ability to revise the plan, if necessary, as changes arise or
needs are identified in the future. While the basic management and monitoring plan has been
structured based on the experience to date with these two locations, there is always the
possibility that an unanticipated event or problem will arise that will require accommodations to
this current framework. To this end, the SMMP will be reviewed periodically by EPA Region IX
and the USACE Los Angeles District to discuss potential problems or address concerns of other
state and federal regulatory agencies or of the public regarding disposal activities.
3
-------
2.1.1 Objectives
The three main objectives for management of both the LA-2 and LA-3 ODMDS are not different
than any other open-water disposal site:
•	Protection of the marine environment,
•	Beneficial use of dredged material whenever practical, and
•	Documentation of disposal activities at the ODMDS.
EPA and USACE Los Angeles District personnel will achieve these objectives by jointly
administering the following activities:
•	Regulation and administration of ocean disposal permits,
•	Development and maintenance of a site monitoring program,
•	Project-specific compliance tracking of disposal operations,
•	Evaluation of permit compliance and monitoring results, and
•	Maintenance of an active database for dredged material testing and site monitoring results
to insure compliance with annual disposal volume targets and to facilitate future revisions
to the SMMP.
2.1.2 Site Management Roles & Responsibilities
While EPA and the USACE work in coordination on all ODMDS in U.S. waters, they also have
separate authorities over these sites. The roles and responsibilities for managing both the LA-2
and LA-3 ODMDS are outlined in Table 1 below:
Table 1
Designation of Management Responsibilities
Site Management Task
Responsible Agency
ODMDS Site Designation
EPA Region IX
Disposal Project Evaluation & Permit Issuance
USACE Los Angeles District1 with EPA
Region K concurrence
' Issued by either the Planning/Operations or Regulatory Branch of the USACE Los Angeles District, as appropriate
4
-------
Table 1
Designation of Management Responsibilities (cont.)
Site Management Task
Responsible Agency
Project-specific Compliance Tracking of
Disposal Operations
USACE Los Angeles District and
EPA Region IX
Enforcement Actions for Permit Violations at
Dredging Site
USACE Los Angeles District (lead agency)
Enforcement Actions for Permit Violations for
Disposal Operations (primary) and Dredging
Site (secondary)
EPA Region IX
Disposal Site Monitoring
USACE Los Angeles District with periodic
assistance from EPA Region IX
Disposal Site Data Maintenance - Pre-disposal
and Confirmatory Testing
USACE Los Angeles District and
EPA Region IX
2.1.3 Funding
Funding for this site management plan was provided by USACE Los Angeles District; funds for
past disposal site monitoring have been provided by the USACE Los Angeles District and EPA.
Funding for future site monitoring will be provided by the USACE and other users; EPA will
provide periodic funding and/or EPA research vessel for site monitoring. A dredged material
testing database is currently under development by the regional Contaminated Sediment Task
Force and may be used for LA-3 as well.
2.2 Baseline Assessment of Site Conditions
A comprehensive description of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
sediments and water column can be found in the attached draft EIS; a brief summary of the site
conditions at LA-2 and LA-3 will be presented below.
2.2.1 Disposal Site Characterization
The historical interim LA-3 site is located on the continental slope of Newport Submarine
Canyon at a depth of about 450 meters (m; 1,475 feet [ft]), approximately 7.5 kilometers (km;
4.7 miles) southwest of the entrance of Newport Harbor. This region is characterized by a
relatively smooth continental slope (approximately two-degree slope) incised by a complicated
pattern of superimposed, meandering broad submarine canyons that can be up to 30 m (98 ft)
deep and 200-800 m (656-2,625 ft) wide. The interim site boundary was centered at 33031'42" N
and 117°54'48" W with a 915-meter (3,000-foot) radius. The new LA-3 site chosen as the
preferred alternative in the draft EIS is the same size but located 2.4 km to the southeast of the
current interim site and centered at 33°31'00" N and 117°53'30" W.
5
-------
In addition to the LA-3 ODMDS site, the LA-2 ODMDS site has been designated for the ocean
disposal of dredged material. The existing LA-2 ODMDS is located on the outer continental
shelf, margin, and upper southern wall of San Pedro Sea Valley at depths from 110 to 320 m
(360 to 1,050 ft), about 11 km (6.8 miles) south-southwest of the entrance to Long Beach
Harbor. The relatively flat continental shelf occurs in water depths to about 125 m (410 ft) with
a regional slope of 0.8 degree. The slope becomes steep at about 7 degrees seaward to the shelf
break. The southern wall of San Pedro Sea Valley drops away with slopes steeper than 9 degrees.
The site boundary is centered at 33°37'6" N and 118°17'24" W with a radius of 915 meters
(3,000 ft).
2.2.1.1 Currents, Temperature, Salinity, and Dissolved Oxygen
2.2.1.1.1 LA-3
SAIC (2001) found predominant currents to be longshore, though upcoast currents were more
prevalent below about 25 m (82 ft) depth, and downcoast currents prevailed above 25 m (82 ft).
Barotropic tidal currents (which are driven by pressure differentials) in the region were relatively
weak as compared to the background, lower frequency fluctuations. Strong, periodic current
fluctuations at exactly 24 hours (with a weaker but probably linked response at 12 hours) in the
study area likely resulted from the diurnal sea-breeze system in the study area. Currents driven
by local sea breezes forced a strong sheared flow in the upper third of the water column over the
outer shelf, with strongest winds and strongest currents recorded in summer.
Long-term water temperatures from monitoring in the area range from approximately 12-24°C
(54-75 °F) at the surface to 10-13°C (50-55 °F) at the bottom (CSDOC 1996, 1998). In 1994,
temperatures at depths of about 200 m (656 ft) in the area approached 9°C (48 °F; SCCWRP
2002). Seasonal temperature structures in the LA-3 area are typical of the southern California
bight (SCB). In winter, the water column is unstratified or weakly stratified, with temperature
difference of less than 2°C (3.6 °F) between the surface and 60 m (197 ft) depth (MITECH
1990).
Salinities over the Orange County Slope over a ten-year period ranged from 33-34 ppt at the
surface to 33.2-34 ppt to a depth of 100 m (328 ft; CSDOC 1996). Salinity increased gradually
with depth, with salinities of slightly more than 34 ppt found at depths of about 200 m (656 ft) in
1994. Seasonal changes in surface salinity can be pronounced, with salinity reductions of up to 4
to 5 ppt noted in the upper 10 m (32.8 ft) of the water column due to freshwater runoff during
winter (CSDOC 1996). Evaporation can cause slight salinity increases in surface waters, but
below the thermocline, water column salinities remain stable.
Seasonal patterns of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the LA-3 area are typical of the SCB.
Generally, higher concentrations are found in surface waters due to atmospheric mixing, with a
decrease in dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations with depth (CSDOC 1996, 1998). During
6
-------
winter, the DO reduction with depth is gradual, with typical reductions of about 2 mg/1 between
the surface and 60 m (197 ft; CSDOC 1998). Lowest concentrations in the area tend to occur at
depth in spring, when colder, oxygen-depleted water is upwelled into the area (SCCWRP 1983).
Developing in spring, and most evident during the summer, DO levels are characterized by a
subsurface DO maximum near the bottom of the surface-mixed layer, usually in the upper 10 to
40 m (32.8 to 131 ft), a rapid decline through the therniocline, then a more gradual reduction
with depth below the therniocline. In fall, as water column stratification decreases, differences in
DO concentrations throughout the water column are reduced and the DO maximum may be
found slightly deeper than in summer. The long-term range of DO concentrations in the LA-3
area is approximately 6-11 mg/1 at the surface and 3-7 mg/1 at a depth of 90 m (295 ft; CSDOC
1996).
2.2.1.1.2. LA-2
SAIC (1992) deployed three current meters in the vicinity of the LA-2 site in 1991. Surface
currents over the outer shelf at Mooring A were directed alongshore (within ±30°) 58 percent of
the time, split almost equally between upcoast and downcoast (SAIC 1992). The overall mean
speed was about 15 cm/sec (0.29 kn). At mid-depth, 54 percent of the current was directed north-
northwest to east-northeast, with average currents directed upcoast at 4.72 cm/sec (0.09 kn).
There was also a weak onshore flow at mid-depth (0.24 cm/sec [0.005 kn]). Near bottom, current
directions were oriented approximately 30° clockwise from the alongshore alignment (30° to
180° True) with the overall mean velocity downcoast at 0.4 cm/sec (0.008 kn) and offshore at
0.17 cm/sec (0.003 kn).
Seasonality in the area of LA-2 is similar to that throughout the SCB, with temperature structures
changing throughout the year. Water quality results from the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts (LACSD) monitoring inshore and upcoast of LA-2 showed limited vertical temperature
stratification in February 2000 with a temperature difference of about 3°C (5.4 °F) from the
surface to 100 m (328 ft; LACSD 2000). During winter, limited stratification or isothermal
conditions are typical in the area. In May 2000, upwelling processes brought cold water closer to
the surface and further inshore than during other times of the year. At the same time, surface
waters became warmer, forming a shallow thermocline (LACSD 2000). By August, a strong
thermocline had formed in the area, with temperatures mostly above 18°C (64 °F) in the upper
10 to 20 m (32.8 to 65.6 ft) of the water column, and peak surface temperatures over 21°C (70
°F). In November, a strong thermocline was still present. Surface water temperatures were lower
than their summer highs, but the depth of the thermocline had increased, suggesting that heat
energy was stored deeper in the water column.
Salinity in the LA-2 area is relatively stable, with a range between 31.5 and 34.7 ppt among
seasons and throughout the water column. Reduced surface salinities in the area are attributable
to freshwater runoff from the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor complex and the San Gabriel
River (LACSD 2000). This feature is apparent inshore of LA-2 throughout the year, but most
notable in the winter months. Highest salinities are found at depth in spring, when seasonal
7
-------
upwelling brings deeper water onto the Palos Verdes shelf. During the summer and fall,
evaporation tends to increase the salinity of the surface waters in the area of LA-2, leading to
salinity minimums below the thermocline.
Dissolved oxygen distributions in the area are primarily determined by vertical stratification
(LACSD 2000). Water in the upper 30 m (98 ft) of the water column tends to be at or close to
saturation year-round, with values as high as 12.3 mg/1 recorded. Dissolved oxygen levels tend to
be lowest below 30 m (98 ft) when upwelling brings oxygen-depleted deep water up onto the
shelf. At 100 m (328 ft) depth, DO levels are about one-half that of surface waters. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations as low as 1.5 mg/1 have been found near LA-2 at a depth of 380 m (1,247
ft; IEC 1982).
2.2.1.2 Sediment Grain-Size, TOC, Metals, and Hydrocarbons
2.2.1.2.1 LA-3
In summer 2000, sediments within the LA-3 interim site boundary had a larger proportion of
sand and gravel and a lower proportion of silt compared with sediments at stations surrounding
the site and at the reference site (Chambers Group 2001). The percentages of fines (silt and clay
combined) in sediments at LA-3 in 2000 (37 to 94%) were similar to, but in general slightly
lower than, the percentages of fines in sediments from Newport Canyon in 1999 (46 to 98%) and
in Newport Canyon from 1985 through 1989 (66 to 97%) (Maurer et al. 1994; SAIC 2000) This
is expected, as Newport Canyon serves as a sediment trap, accumulating fine-grained sediments
(Maurer et al. 1994; SAIC 2000). TOC values at the LA-3 recent and historical disposal sites
(1.2 to 4.3%; Chambers Group, 2001) were slightly higher than those found throughout the shelf
of the SCB (mean = 0.75%, maximum = 5.1%) (Schiff and Gossett 1998).
In general, distribution of sediment metals in 2000 was similar among the reference, recent
disposal, historical disposal, and LA-3 boundary sites (Chambers Group 2001). Overall,
sediment metal concentrations at all LA-3 sampling sites ranged as follows, with all
concentrations reported as dry weight: arsenic (4.6 to 13.7 mg/kg), cadmium (0.41 to 1.08
mg/kg), chromium (20.0 to 47.9 mg/kg), copper (17.4 to 26.0 mg/kg), lead (8.97 to 19.9 mg/kg),
mercury (0.04 to 0.13 mg/kg), nickel (11.4 to 26.1 mg/kg), selenium (<0.50 to 1.43 mg/kg),
silver (0.11 to 1.16 mg/kg), and zinc (57.2 to 101 mg/kg).
Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations were relatively similar among
stations within the interim LA-3 boundary, areas with recent disposal mounds, and the reference
area (Chambers Group 2001). Higher total PAH concentrations at the historical disposal mound
area resulted from comparatively high levels of benzo(a)pyrene and pyrene at one station within
that area (HD1). However, no PAH concentration exceeded prescribed ERL levels.
Concentrations of most pesticides in sediments were undetectable at most locations at LA-3
(Chambers Group 2001). Mean levels of all pesticides except 2,4'-DDD, 2,4'-DDT, and
toxaphene were elevated at the recent disposal mound stations due to anomalously high values at
8
-------
one station within that area (Station RD4). Pesticide concentrations at the other sampling sites
were comparatively low, though concentration of 4,4'-DDE ranged from 3 to 43 |ig/kg (dry
weight) at the historical disposal site, disposal site, and reference areas. Sediment
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) concentrations at LA-3 were all relatively low, and the ERL for
total PCBs was not exceeded at any location (Chambers Group 2001). In general, hydrocarbon
concentrations at LA-3 and surrounding areas in summer 2000 were comparable to those
measured in previous surveys at LA-3 and off Orange County (SCCWRP 1983; MITECH 1990;
Schiff and Gossett 1998; OCSD 2000; SAIC, MEC, and CRG 2001 cited in Chambers Group
2001).
2.2.1.2.2 LA-2
Sediments in the LA-2 site and surrounding areas in summer 2000 were composed primarily of
silt and sand, lesser amounts of clay, and relatively small gravel fractions (Chambers Group
2001). Sediments within and adjacent to the LA-2 site boundary differed from those collected at
the reference area in that the reference area sediments were composed of smaller amounts of
fines and larger fractions of sand. Sediments averaged 5 to 9 percent clay, 22 to 40 percent silt,
and 50 to 73 percent sand and gravel combined (Chambers Group 2001). Total organic carbon
(TOC) values at LA-2 ranged from 0.4 to 6.0 percent, with the highest value (6.01%) recorded at
a reference site (Chambers Group 2001). TOC percentages within the LA-2 site boundary (0.9 to
1.5%) were similar to values recorded at the adjacent disposal site (0.4 to 2.1 %).
The range of sediment metal concentrations in 2000 at LA-2 was similar to that recorded at LA-
3, with variability within and among the three sampling strata (Chambers Group 2001). Overall,
sediment metal concentrations at the LA-2 sampling sites ranged as follows, with all
concentrations reported as dry weight: arsenic (3.3 to 12.6 mg/kg), cadmium (0. II to 1.29
mg/kg), chromium (20.1 to 69.4 mg/kg), copper (7.58 to 38.3 mg/kg), lead (6.5 to 31.6 mg/kg),
mercury (0.03 to 0.22 mg/kg), nickel (7.95 to 30.2 mg/kg), selenium (<0.47 to 1.1 mg/kg), silver
(0.08 to 0.94 mg/kg), and zinc (31.1 to 87.3 mg/kg).
Individual sediment PAH compound concentrations differed among locations at LA-2, though
total PAH concentrations were relatively similar among the three LA-2 sampling areas
(Chambers Group 2001). Highest mean total PAH concentrations were recorded at the stations
adjacent to the LA-2 disposal site, and mean values were slightly higher at the reference site than
within the disposal site. Pesticides were detected at all stations at LA-2, and the DDT congeners
were most commonly detected (Chambers Group 2001). Sediment PCB concentrations at LA-2
were variable among station groups and highest at the adjacent disposal sites (Chambers Group
2001). In general, PCB concentrations were lowest at the reference site, with higher values
recorded at the disposal and adjacent disposal sites. Mean total PCB values were 3.0 |ig/kg at the
reference sites, 13.9 |ig/kg within the disposal site, and 22.6 jag/kg at the adjacent disposal area.
DDT concentrations within the LA-2 disposal site were similar to values reported at LA-2 in
1983-1984 (EPA 1987) and throughout the SCB in 1994 (Schiff and Gossett 1998). DDT values
9
-------
at LA-2 were much lower than those recorded further inshore near the JWPCP wastewater
discharge in 2000, where sediment concentrations exceeded 32,000 (ig/kg (LACSD 2000). Total
PCBs in 2000 were lower than those recorded in 1983-1984 (EPA 1987) and further inshore in
2000 (LACSD 2000) and similar to those recorded on the mainland shelf of the SCB (Schiff and
Gossett 1998).
2.2.1.3 Biological Environment
2.2.1.3.1	Plankton
Plankton distributions tend to be patchy, and individual stations sampled more than once exhibit
great variation; the overall plankton patterns are similar at both the LA-2 and LA-3 disposal
sites. In general, greatest concentrations of plankton are found in the SCB in early fall and spring
months, and abundances are lowest in late fall and winter months (AHF1959). The
phytoplankton of the SCB consists of a great variety of species covering a wide size range.
Surveys conducted for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) during the late 1950s
at 800 stations from Point Conception to San Diego identified at least 81 phytoplankton taxa
(AHF 1959). Of the individuals counted, 54 percent were diatoms and 41 percent were
dinoflagellates, with ciliates and miscellaneous forms accounting for the remainder (AHF 1965).
The abundance of phytoplankton in the SCB varies. Populations are more abundant in spring,
and to a lesser degree so in fall (Hardy 1993). Phytoplankton are restricted to the upper photic
zone of the water column. In general, abundances are greatest in subsurface, near the bottom of
the surface-mixed layer, corresponding to depths with a favorable balance of light energy and
nutrients to promote growth.
The zooplankton of the SCB consists of a large and diverse group of organisms. The SCB is a
transition zone between subarctic, central, and equatorial species assemblages, and zooplankton
assemblages and ecology are related to oceanic variability (Dawson and Pieper 1993).
Zooplankton abundances tend to be patchy and highly variable (Thrailkill 1956; Dawson and
Pieper 1993). Zooplankton in the near shore waters of the SCB show seasonal trends, with
highest abundances occurring from April to June, and lowest abundances from December to
February. Peak abundances may be found seasonally inshore to mid-depths, but generally
decrease with distance from shore. Unlike phytoplankton, zooplankton are found throughout the
water column, but are generally most abundant in the euphotic zone. Zooplankton tend to be
strongly diurnal, with vertical migrations into surface waters at dusk and back to deeper water at
dawn. Calanoid copepods dominate the nearshore zooplankton fauna of the SCB, with Acartia,
Paracalanus, Labidocera, and Calanus the most commonly collected genera (Dawson and
Pieper 1993).
2.2.1.3.2	Benthos
Typically in the SCB, polychaete annelids are the most abundant and diverse phylum (major
taxonomic group), followed by arthropods and mollusks. A number of minor phyla also occur
10
-------
and may occasionally be abundant. The dominant species or taxa (species which are most
abundant) and community assemblage patterns (species which are usually found together, or how
much areas are similar to each other) are also used for comparisons of infaunal communities.
Habitat type is an important determinant of community composition, particularly water depth
and sediment characteristics, such as coarseness and heterogeneity. Because of this, natural
variability is difficult to separate from the anthropogenic effects (LACSD 2000).
Since the first systematic studies of the benthic infauna of the SCB, the patchy distribution of
these organisms, even the dominant species, has been noted. Attempts to define infaunal
assemblages and discern the basis for their distributions have continued. Some community
parameters follow gradients of environmental variables, both physical and chemical. Abundance
and species richness generally decline with increasing water depth, but these relationships have
been shown to derive from decreases in sediment grain size and increase in organic content with
depth (Gray 1974). Natural factors, including physical disturbance, bioturbation, competition for
space, and predation, have also been shown to play a role (Brenchley 1981; CSDOC 1996).
Comparison of the infaunal communities at the LA-3 and LA-2 disposal sites with those at
reference areas or the SCB in general is complicated by the different sampling and processing
methods employed. Density and species richness were greater at LA-2 disposal site than at the
LA-3 disposal site because of depth and sediment differences. At LA-2, mean density per study
ranged from 1,730 to 7,700 individuals/nr within the site boundary, from 2,120 to 11,125
individuals/nr at adjacent disposal areas, and 840 to 6,380 individuals/nr at reference sites and
other study areas of similar depth in the vicinity. This demonstrates considerable overlap
between areas. SCB-wide values for similar depths ranged from 1,550 to 4005 individuals/m2.
Mean species richness ranged from 27 species (in small samples) to 73 species at the disposal
site. Values ranged from 27 species (small samples) to 54 species at adjacent disposal areas, and
from 12 (small samples) to 87 species at reference sites and other study areas.
¦j
Mean density at the LA-3 site ranged from 322 to 545 individuals/m" (the last value from
samples washed on a finer screen than other samples). Historic and recent disposal site densities
ranged from 377 to 545 individuals/m", and adjacent sites ranged from 953 to 1,360
individuals/m2. Designated reference sites ranged from 391 to 954 individuals/m2, while regional
values for similar depths averaged 833 individuals/m2. Species richness ranged from 14 species
(small samples) to 29 species at the disposal site, 18 to 24 species at the recent and historic
disposal sites, 17 to 69 species at adjacent areas, and 16 to 20 species at reference sites.
2.2.1.3.3 Nekton
The fish populations that occur on the California coast are generally differentiated by depth or
depth-related factors (Allen and Mearns 1977). The species composition at the interim LA-3 site
was typical of that seen in demersal fish communities on the slope at the depth range sampled
(Allen and Mearns 1977; Cross 1987). During the 2000-2001 surveys, the most abundant species
taken were longspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis), dogface witch-eel (Facciolella
gilberti), Dover sole, and shortspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus alascamts). These four species
-------
occurred at all four locations during both seasons, and together comprised over 83 percent of the
total abundance (Chambers Group, 2001). Commercial fisheries between 1999 and 2001 in
Catch Block 738 (CDFG unpubl. data 2002) showed that fish catch was dominated by schooling
species that occurred in the surface waters, with Pacific sardine (Sardinops scigax), Pacific
mackerel (Scomber japonicus), northern anchovy (Engraitlis mordax), jack mackerel (Trachurus
symmeticus), and white croaker (Cenyonemus lineatus) comprising the top five species.
The species composition at the LA-2 site was typical of that seen in demersal fish communities
on the slope at the depth range sampled (IEC 1982; Tetra Tech and MBC 1985; SCCWRP 1983;
CSDOC 1996; Allen et al. 1998). Because of the shallower depth, a different species assemblage
was seen compared to that at the interim LA-3 site, with only seven species occurring at both
locations. During the combined surveys, the most abundant species taken at LA-2 were Pacific
sanddab, slender sole (Lyopsetta exilis), and shortspine combfish (Zcmiolepis frenata).
Commercial and sportfisheries in Catch Block 740 (CDFG unpublished data 2002) between 1999
and 2001 were dominated by three offshore schooling species that occur in the surface waters,
Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, and northern anchovy, and two species that are associated with
sandy bottom, California halibut (Paralichthys califomicus) and white croaker.
2.2.2 Disposal Site History
The present LA-3 site has been used for disposing sediment dredged from harbors and flood
channels within the County of Orange since 1976. A total of 2,969,178 yd3 of dredged material
has been disposed of at LA-3 since its first use more than 25 years ago (see Table 1.1-2, Draft
EIS).
The LA-2 ODMDS was designated as a permanent disposal site on February 15, 1991, with an
anticipated disposal volume of 200,000 yd" per year. This volume was developed during the EIS
study based upon the historical and predicted future maintenance dredging at Los Angeles, Long
Beach, and Marina del Rey Harbors. However, due to newly planned capital projects, the
disposal quantity has occasionally exceeded the annual limit. A total of 5,175,341 yd3 of dredged
material has been disposed of at LA-2 since its inception (see Table 1.1-3, Draft EIS).
2.3 Special Management Conditions or Practices
In addition to any project-specific site-use conditions, the following generic conditions on the
use of LA-2 or LA-3 include the following (as explained in section 1.0 Introduction, references
to "permit" and "permittee" are generic references to all projects or project sponsors):
A) Mandcitoiy conditions. All permits or federal project authorizations authorizing use of the
LA-2 or LA-3 shall include the following conditions, unless approval for an alternative permit
condition is sought and granted pursuant to paragraph (C) of this section:
12
-------
1)	Transportation of dredged material to the LA-2 or LA-3 shall only be allowed when
weather and sea state conditions will not interfere with safe transportation and will
not create risk of spillage, leak, or other loss of dredged material in transit to the LA-2
or LA-3.
2)	Dredged material shall not be leaked or spilled from disposal vessels during transit to
the LA-2 or LA-3 ODMDS.
3)	When dredged material is discharged within the LA-2 or LA-3 site, no portion of the
vessel from which the materials are to be released (e.g., hopper dredge or towed
barge) can be further than 200 meters (650 feet) from the center of the target area
designated in the permit. The center of the ODMDS (Table 2) is also the center of the
target area for disposal:
Table 2
Dimensions and Center Coordinates for the Southern California Disposal Sites

Dimensions
Center Coordinates

Diameter
Diameter of
Latitude (NAD
Longitude (NAD
ODMDS
of Surface
Target
Area
Disposal Site
(Seafloor
Target Area)
83)
83)
LA -2
610 m
1830 m
33°37'6" N
118°17'24" W
(2000 ft)
(6000 ft)


LA-3
610 m
1830 m
33°3rOO"N
117°53'30"W
(2000 ft)
(6000 ft)


4)	No more than one disposal vessel may be present within the permissible dumping
target area referred to in paragraph (3) of this section at any time.
5)	Disposal vessels shall use an appropriate primary navigation/tracking system capable
of indicating and recording the position of the vessel carrying dredged material (for
example, a hopper dredged vessel or towed barge) with a minimum accuracy and
precision of 30.5 meters (100 feet) during all disposal operations. The primary system
must also indicate the opening and closing of the doors of the vessel carrying the
dredged material. If the primary navigation/tracking system fails, all disposal
operations must cease, until the navigational capabilities are restored. If the primary
system fails during transit to the ODMDS, a back-up navigation/tracking system, with
all of the capabilities listed in this condition, may be used to complete the trip.
13
-------
6)	The permittee shall maintain daily records of the amount of material dredged and
loaded into barges for disposal; the times that disposal vessel depart for, arrive at, and
return from LA-2 or LA-3; the exact locations and times of disposal; and the volumes
of material disposed at LA-2 or LA-3 during each vessel trip. The permittee shall
further record wind and sea state observations at intervals to be established in the
permit.
7)	For each disposal vessel trip, the permittee shall maintain a computer printout from a
Global Positioning System or other acceptable navigation system showing transit
routes and disposal coordinates, including the time and position of the disposal vessel,
when dumping was commenced and completed.
8)	An authorized and responsible representative of the prime contractor or permittee (not
a subcontractor) shall inspect each disposal vessel prior to its departure for either
ODMDS. The authorized representative shall certify (along with the disposal vessel
captain), whether the specifications on the approved Scow Certification Checklist
have been met. The authorized representative shall promptly inform the permittee,
whether there are any inaccuracies or discrepancies concerning this information and
shall provide a summary for the calendar month in a report to EPA and USACE by
the 15th day of the following month. Space for a representative from EPA or the
USACE will be available on any disposal vessel should a federal regulator desire to
observe disposal operations on any specific trip.
9)	The permittee shall report any variances from mandatory or special conditions during
disposal operations to the District Engineer and the Regional Administrator within 24
hours. In addition, the permittee shall prepare and submit reports, including a cover
letter summarizing problems and corrective action(s) taken, certified accurate by the
designated authorized representative, on a frequency that shall be specified in
permits, to the District Engineer and the Regional Administrator setting forth the
information required by Mandatory Conditions in paragraphs (7) and (8) of this
section.
10) At the completion of short-term dredging projects, at least annually for ongoing
projects, and at any other time or interval requested by the District Engineer or
Regional Administrator, permittees shall prepare and submit to the District Engineer
and Regional Administrator a report that includes complete records of all dredging,
transport, and disposal activities, such as navigation logs, disposal coordinates, scow
certification checklists, and other information required by permit conditions.
Electronic data submittals may be required to conform to a format specified by the
agencies. Permittees shall include a report indicating whether any dredged material
was dredged outside the areas authorized for dredging or was dredged deeper than
authorized for dredging by their permits.
14
-------
B)	Project-specific conditions. Permits or federal project authorizations authorizing use of the
LA-2 or LA-3 may include additional conditions, if EPA or the USACE determines these
conditions are necessary to facilitate safe use of the LA-2 or LA-3, the prevention of potential
harm to the environment, or accurate monitoring of site use. These can include any conditions
that EPA or the Corps of Engineers determine to be necessary or appropriate to facilitate
compliance with the requirements of the MPRSA, such as timing of operations or methods of
transportation and disposal.
C)	Alternative permit/project conditions. Alternatives to the permit conditions specified in this
section in a permit or federal project authorization may be authorized if the permittee
demonstrates to the District Engineer and the Regional Administrator that the alternative
conditions are sufficient to accomplish the specific intended purpose of the permit condition in
issue and further demonstrates that the waiver will not increase the risk of harm to the
environment, the health or safety of persons, nor will impede monitoring of compliance with the
MPRSA, regulations promulgated under the MPRSA, or any permit issued under the MPRSA.
2.4 Quantity of Material and Type of Material Allowed
Both LA-2 and LA-3 are restricted to the disposal of dredged material only. Under the preferred
alternative, LA-3 would be permanently designated at an annual maximum quantity of 2,340,000
yd3, and the LA-2 site would be used for an annual maximum volume of 1,300,000 yd3.
Management decisions about the suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal are guided by
criteria in the MPRSA and EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations; guidance on specific aspects of
these regulations is provided in Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged
Material into Ocean Waters (the "Green Book"; EPA/USACE 1991). EPA Region IX in
coordination with USACE Los Angeles District may develop additional regional guidance in the
future for sediment testing which should be used in addition to the 1991 Green Book. The
USACE Los Angeles District has the authority to evaluate the suitability of projects for ocean
disposal and issue the required permits.
Regulatory decisions about dredged material proposed for ocean disposal will be based on the
following:
1.	Compliance with applicable criteria defined in the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations at
40 CFR Part 227.
2.	Requirements imposed on the permittee under the USACE Permitting Regulations at 33
CFR Parts 320-330 and 335-338.
3.	The potential for significant adverse environmental impacts at either LA-2 or LA-3 from
disposal of the proposed dredged material.
15
-------
Potential environmental impacts from dredged material disposal are considered significant when
such impacts pose an unacceptable risk to the marine environment or human health.
Determinations will be based on appropriate methods to evaluate differences between the
proposed dredged material and reference site sediments for chemicals of concern, acute toxicity
of the proposed dredged material, the magnitude of bioaccumulation, and potential ecological
impacts. The main concerns are that disposal of sediments may cause: 1) significant mortality or
bioaccumulation of contaminants within the disposal site or adjacent to the site boundaries and 2)
adverse ecological changes to either the ODMDS or the surrounding ocean floor. Changes in the
benthic community are expected, because different sediment-grain size and periodic disturbance
will promote colonization of the site by different benthic species that may be on the surrounding
bottom outside the site.
Management actions, involving the permit process or disposal site(s), are designed to reduce or
mitigate any adverse environmental impact (see Section 3, Site Monitoring Plan). Management
options for the permitting process include, but are not limited to: 1) full or partial approval of the
dredged material proposed for ocean disposal, 2) prohibition of sediments proposed for ocean
disposal, or 3) special management restrictions for ocean disposal of the suitable material (e.g.,
limits on disposal quantities, specification of frequency, timing, equipment, or disposal at
designated areas within either ODMDS). Management actions for the disposal site following
unfavorable monitoring results may include, but are not limited to: additional confirmatory
monitoring to delineate the extent of the problem, capping to isolate the sediments from potential
biological receptors, or closure of the site.
2.5 Anticipated Site Use
Both the LA-2 and LA-3 sites are permanent sites in deep water (110 - 450 meters; 360 - 1475
feet) where accumulation of material will never become a navigation hazard; therefore, no
closure is planned for either of these sites at this time.
2.6 Site Management Plan Review and Revision
Because this SMMP has been developed after almost 3 decades of dredged material disposal at
these two sites with no unreasonable or significant impacts to the marine environment, we feel
reasonably confident that the important site management and monitoring requirements are
known and covered in this document. However, there is always the possibility for unanticipated
problems or events, in which case modifications to the management or monitoring plan will be
decided jointly with EPA Region IX and USACE Los Angeles District personnel.
Absent any unforeseen or unanticipated problems with the management or monitoring of
dredged material disposal at either LA-2 or LA-3 ODMDS, this plan will be reviewed (and
revised if necessary) at 10-year intervals.
16
-------
3.0 Site Monitoring Plan
Site monitoring is a requirement for use of both the LA-2 and LA-3 disposal sites; disposal
operations will be prohibited if resources for implementing the SMMP are not available.
Routine monitoring surveys (described below) at either site will occur at least every 5 years or
more frequently as determined by EPA. The primary purpose of the environmental monitoring
plan is to verify the predictions in the DEIS of site conditions following disposal. Simply stated,
these predictions are that: a) only acceptable dredged material is disposed at the site, b) no
substantial amounts of dredged material will go outside the site, c) no substantial amount of
bioaccumulation is occurring inside the site, and d) no adverse effects are occurring to biological
resources outside the site. A summary of how these predictions are addressed in the tiered site
monitoring plan (described in detail in the sections to follow) is presented in Table 3. Dredged
material that is suitable for ocean disposal under the 1991 Green Book guidelines is expected to
cause acceptable impacts within the disposal site. These include burial of any onsite benthic
communities and potentially some chronic, sub-lethal biological effects to any onsite fauna from
associated chemicals of concern in the disposed sediments. Partial recolonization will occur
within the site, but full recovery of the benthic community the designated boundary of LA-2 or
LA-3 is not expected during active use of either site, because continued disposal operations will
tend to bury any recolonizing fauna. Full recolonization of the site with no long-term associated
environmental impact would be expected if either site is ever closed in the future and disposal is
discontinued.
Table 3
A Summary of the Tiered Disposal Site Monitoring Design
Tier
Level

^edictions Tested Within Tier
Trigger Level to Initiate Next
Tier or Management Action
a.
Only
Acceptable
Material Inside
b.
No
Material
Outside
c.
No
Bioaccumulation
Inside
d.
No Outside
Adverse
Effects
1
V

(by default)
(by default)
Sediment chemistry elevated
above disposal or historical
values, or material outside
site
2



S
Material fails bioeffects
testing, or anomalous
recolonization pattern outside
site
3



V
Management action to be
determined by regulatory
agencies
17
-------
Two types of monitoring will be carried out at the LA2/LA3 disposal sites: routine compliance
monitoring as part of ongoing disposal projects, and periodic tiered disposal site monitoring
(Figure 1). The routine project compliance monitoring that provides the necessary feedback for
on-going disposal site management are those tasks outlined in Section 2.3 above that are carried
out by the permittee. Compliance monitoring results consist of completed post-cruise scow log
sheets, inspection reports, records of transport and disposal activities, etc., as specified in each
issued permit. If any of these reports show serious discrepancies (e.g., known permit violations
for disposal scow conditions, awareness of misplaced dredged material as a result of permittee
disposal reports), the resulting management actions can include fines or additional monitoring
activities carried out by the permittee at the disposal site as specified by either USACE Los
Angeles District or EPA Region IX.
The periodic disposal site tiered disposal site monitoring consists of a hierarchical series of
sampling tasks that will provide a comprehensive assessment of current conditions at each site to
be compared against baseline conditions. Baseline conditions at both sites are documented in
EPA Region IX's DEIS for the LA-3 site designation action, and this document summarizes all
the data from the multiple previous surveys performed at these two sites. These documents will
be used, along with reference data, to evaluate future changes to each site. In addition, all
sediment testing results for dredged material characterization projects will be entered into the
regional sediment quality database being assembled by the Los Angeles Contaminated Sediment
Task Force (CSTF; see http://www.coastal.ca.gov/web/sediment/sdindex.html and
www.sccwrp.org) for comparison with results from sediment grabs at the disposal site as part of
compliance monitoring.
As part of the tiered site monitoring program described in this section, EPA Region IX and
USACE Los Angeles District will determine if there are any detectable significant impacts to the
following areas, based on monitoring physical, chemical, and biological parameters:
1.	Inside the ODMDS boundary
2.	Over an area adjacent to the ODMDS boundary if monitoring shows that significant
accumulations of dredged material (> 15 cm [5.9 inches]) are outside the site boundary or
that adverse bioeffects are occurring inside the site. [NOTE: This is an extremely
conservative trigger level that will have little or no adverse effects on the benthic infauna;
details to follow in Section 3.1.1 below].
The monitoring plan includes the on-going compliance monitoring as well as two interdependent
lines of monitoring: a Physical/Biological monitoring module and a Chemical/Bioeffects
monitoring module (Figure 1). Each type of monitoring is "tiered" to insure that information is
collected in a cost-effective manner and limited resources are not wasted. This program
facilitates monitoring of both short-term (dredged material is largely confined within site
boundaries as modeling studies predict; see Chapter 4 of DEIS) and long-term (recolonization
and bioeffects testing) conditions, enabling both EPA Region IX and the USACE Los Angeles
18
-------
Periodic Site Tiered Monitoring Plan LA2/LA3
Routine Project Compliance Monitoring
Figure ]. Tiered Site Monitoring Plan
-------
District to make management decisions in a timely manner should potential unacceptable
impacts be discovered. The physical, biological, and chemical monitoring also will help these
agencies verify whether disposal operations are being carried out in compliance with permit
requirements and environmental regulations.
A wide variety of past studies at both sites have shown that water column effects are transient
and impacts to most components of the biological environment (plankton, epifauna, fish, birds,
mammals, threatened or endangered species) and socioeconomic environment
(commercial/recreational fisheries, shipping, military usage, oil and natural gas development) are
rated as a Class HI impact (adverse but insignificant or no anticipated impacts; no mitigation
measures are necessary; see Chapter 4 of DEIS). Long-term dredged material monitoring
programs on the east-coast (Disposal Area Monitoring System, or DAMOS, run by the USACE
New England District since 1979) and west coast (Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis,
PSDDA, run by the USACE Seattle District since 1986; SF-DODS monitoring, run by the
USACE San Francisco District since 1996 and periodic monitoring conducted by EPA Region
IX) have demonstrated that monitoring resources are better allocated toward measuring impacts
that are not transient, i.e. persist on time scales that are greater than those occurring in the range
of hours to days. As such, the planned sampling efforts for both the LA-2 and LA-3 sites are
focused on the seafloor and fulfill the needs for both compliance sampling (Tier 1) and impact
assessment (Tiers 2 and 3).
Readers will note that all 3 tiers of the Physical/Biological Module will be carried out during the
same initial monitoring cruise on which the sediments for the Tier 1 on-site chemistry are
collected for the Chemical/Bioeffects Module. Sufficient sediment for potential Tier 2 activities
under the Chemical/Bioeffects Module should be collected during the initial cruise in the event
that bulk chemistry analyses reveals the need for acute or chronic bioeffects testing. Only Tier 3
activities under the Chemical/Bioeffects Module would potentially require an additional
monitoring cruise to the disposal site unless sufficient sediment for Tier 2 activities is not
collected during the initial cruise or if sediment holding times are violated by the time that the
Tier 2 bioassay/bioaccumulation tests are scheduled to begin.
3.1 Physical/Biological Module
The monitoring for physical/biological processes is focused on the potential transport of dredged
material out of the site boundaries following disposal and the recolonization of dredged material
by benthic infauna. A site-specific numerical model was run for predictions of transport and fate
of dredged material disposed at both LA-2 and LA-3 (CE, 2004; see Chapter 4, DEIS for
summary of results), and no substantial accumulations are expected outside the site boundary;
the physical portion of the module focuses on mapping and tracking the dredged material deposit
on the seafloor to verify the predictions of the numerical model. If material is found outside the
20
-------
site in accumulations thicker than expected, biological monitoring will be performed to
document that infaunal recolonization is proceeding as expected.
3.1.1 Tier 1 Physical Monitoring
Tier 1 Physical Monitoring shall primarily consist of a sediment vertical profiling system
(SVPS) survey of transects radiating out from the disposal site boundary to map any
dredged material outside the site boundary. Also, periodic high-resolution multibeam
surveys will be peiformed when the equipment is available to map the topography and
distribution of dredged material deposits within the disposal site boundaries. Such a
survey will be peiformed using a multibeam system with similar frequency and beam
width as the baseline surveys (Gardner 2000) so that data can be overlain and "depth
difference" maps produced to show the spatial extent and thickness of the disposed
dredged material within the site.
Physical monitoring activities, including field measurement and data analysis, focus on the
question: Is a substantial (> 15 cm [5.9 inches]) accumulation of dredged material occurring
outside of the disposal site boundaries?
A series of radial transects starting at the edge of the site and continuing out 500 meters beyond
the edge of the detectable dredged material layer will be sampled with SVPS technology. SVPS
stations will be placed at 200-500 m (655-1640 ft) intervals along the transects or at appropriate
spacing so that any area outside the site boundary with dredged material has at least 3-5 stations
located on the dredged material. The SVPS system must be equipped with a digital camera to
allow on-board evaluation of results (necessary for assessing the adequacy of station locations
for mapping the dredged material and for Tier 2 activities; see below).
The SMMP is designed to ensure that significant deposits of dredged material do not consistently
occur or extend beyond the site boundaries. A substantial deposit is defined as 15 cm (5.9 inches)
or more since the last monitoring event (thicker deposits are expected to occur and are acceptable
within the site boundaries). Physical mapping of the dredged material footprint on the seafloor
will be conducted at periodic intervals in order to confirm that management guidelines for
disposal operations are operating within expected criteria and the predictions from the numerical
models are correct.
The 15 cm (5.9 inches) depositional interval of dredged material outside the site boundary has
been selected as a trigger level to proceed to Tier 2 for a number of reasons:
1. The maximum depositional interval that can be detected by the SVPS equipment is 20 cm
(7.9 inches), but the camera settings are usually adjusted so that actual prism penetration
is somewhat less than that (12-19 cm; 4.7-7.5 inches) in order to capture details at the
sediment-water interface.
21
-------
2.	Impacts to infauna from deposition of dredged material can range from negligible to total
mortality, depending on the type of material and rate of deposition (a 50-cm [19.7-inch]
layer deposited at the rate of 1 cm (0.4 inch) per week over the course of a year would
have little detectable impact as compared with a 50-cm [19.7-inch] layer that occurred at
a location in one depositional event). Estimates of depositional intervals through which
native infauna can re-establish themselves range from 5 cm (2 inches) to 85 cm (33.5
inches) (Kranz, 1974; Nichols et al., 1978; Maureretal., 1980, 1986).
3.	Repeated monitoring at the LA-2 and LA-3 sites (see DEIS) as well as at other open-
water dredged material sites off all coasts of the USA (e.g., Rhoads and Germano, 1986;
Germano et al., 1994; Hall, 1994; Newell et al., 1998) have shown that even in dredged
material deposits exceeding a meter or more (where one can safely assume that all
resident infauna were smothered and killed), benthic recolonization and community
succession will occur with full ecosystem recovery over time, so any impact to the
benthic community from deposition of dredged material that has passed testing criteria as
acceptable for open-water disposal will be temporary. Using 15 cm (5.9 inches) as trigger
level is an extremely conservative value; while this will most likely have little, if any,
adverse effects on the benthic infauna, it will be a good verification check for the disposal
model's predicted footprint of dredged material on the seafloor.
During the years when the optional physical monitoring (multibeam survey) is performed, it
should be done as the first phase of Tier 1 sampling before any further Tier 1 monitoring (SVPS
and sediment grabs/box cores). This phased approach will not cause any increase in costs; while
some post-cruise time to process the multibeam data and perform the depth-difference analysis
would be needed regardless, these two types of surveys would typically be done on two different
cruises (or vessels) either to maximize efficiency in ship equipment configuration or personnel
utilization. The depth difference results from the multibeam survey would provide useful
ancillary information to show areas a) where dredged material has gone outside the boundary to
help direct the transects for SVPS sampling and b) where the dredged material accumulations are
within the site boundary in order to confirm the location of sediment sampling stations. Note that
the depth resolution of the currently-available multibeam equipment is 30 cm (11.8 inches), so
any detected depositional layers less than this thickness are most likely sampling artifacts.
3.1.2 Tier 2 Physical/Biological Monitoring
Tier 2 Physical monitoring will consist of an on-board evaluation by trained personnel in
SVPS image interpretation to determine if benthic recolonization is occurring as
predicted to verify that the sediment outside the site is not causing an adverse impact; a
subsequent detailed image analysis will be peiformed back in the laboratory, but the on-
board evaluation will determine if Tier 3 sediment sampling is required.
22
-------
Having some dredged material beyond the site boundary is not considered an adverse impact
unless the sediment quality is compromised to the point where it is impairing biological
recovery; as such, the assessment of infaunal successional status serves as a surrogate for an in-
situ bioassay of sorts. Using infaunal successional status as determined from sediment profile
image interpretation as an indication of dredged material disposal impact has been a successful
monitoring strategy for dredged material disposal under the DAMOS program for over two
decades; this streamlined approach has been cited by the National Research Council as one that
"has successfully addressed most important questions related to dredged material disposal"
(NRC, 1990). Experienced scientists can readily assess benthic recolonization from determining
the successional stage of the infaunal community based on the information in sediment profile
images (Rhoads and Germano, 1982, 1986). The images will be downloaded from the camera
after the stations have been sampled and the infaunal successional status of each location
determined.
Numerous studies have shown that organism-sediment interactions in fine-grained sediments
follow a predictable sequence after a major seafloor perturbation. This theory states that primary
succession results in "the predictable appearance of macrobenthic invertebrates belonging to
specific functional types following a benthic disturbance. These invertebrates interact with
sediment in specific ways. Because functional types are the biological units of interest..., our
definition does not demand a sequential appearance of particular invertebrate species or genera"
(Rhoads and Boyer 1982). This theory is presented in Pearson and Rosenberg (1978) and further
developed in Rhoads and Germano (1982) and Rhoads and Boyer (1982).
This continuum of change in animal communities after a disturbance (primary succession) has
been divided subjectively into three stages: Stage I is the initial community of tiny, densely
populated polychaete assemblages; Stage II is the start of the transition to head-down deposit
feeders; and Stage III is the mature, equilibrium community of deep-dwelling, head-down
deposit feeders (Figure 2).
After an area of bottom is disturbed by natural or anthropogenic events, the first invertebrate
assemblage (Stage I) appears within days after the disturbance. Stage I consists of assemblages
of tiny tube-dwelling marine polychaetes that reach population densities of 104 to 10 individuals
per m2. These animals feed at or near the sediment-water interface and physically stabilize or
bind the sediment surface by producing a mucous "glue" that they use to build their tubes.
If there are no repeated disturbances to the newly colonized area, these initial tube-dwelling
suspension or surface-deposit feeding taxa are followed by burrowing, head-down deposit-
feeders that rework the sediment deeper and deeper over time and mix oxygen from the overlying
water into the sediment. Stage II is the beginning of the transition to burrowing, head-down
deposit feeders that rework the sediment deeper with time and mix oxygen from the overlying
23
-------
Physical Disturbance Time Normal
—						~
Grossly Polluted	„. .	Normal
3	Distance
Figure 2. Soft bottom benthic community response to disturbance (A) or organic enrichment (B); from Rhoads and Germano, 1982
-------
water into the sediment. Stage II animals may include tubiculous amphipods, polychaetes, and
mollusks. These animals are larger and have lower population densities than Stage I animals.
Stage III is the mature and stable community of deep-dwelling, head-down deposit feeders. In
contrast to Stage I organisms, these animals rework the sediments to depths of 3 to 20 cm or
more, loosening the sedimentary fabric and increasing the water content of the sediment. They
also actively recycle nutrients because of the high exchange rate with the overlying water
resulting from their burrowing and feeding activities. The presence of Stage III taxa can be a
good indication that the sediment surrounding these organisms has not been severely disturbed
recently. Because Stage III species tend to have relatively low rates of recruitment and
ontogenetic growth, they may not reappear for several years once they are excluded from an
area. These inferences are based on past work, primarily in temperate latitudes, showing that
Stage HI species are relatively intolerant to physical disturbance, organic enrichment, and
chemical contamination of sediments. Population densities are low (10 to 102 individuals per
m") compared to Stage I.
We would predict that by the time monitoring takes place, the benthic community should be in at
least a transitional Stage I going to Stage II community or later. The surface oxidized layer of
sediment would be at least 1-1.5 cm thick, and the subsurface sediments would not show signs
of organic enrichment. If the sediment profile images reveal locations with low reflectance
subsurface sediments or oxidized surface layers less than 0.3 cm (0.1 inches) thick with little to
no evidence of infaunal activity, then Tier 3 sampling will be initiated.
3.1.3 Tier 3 Physical/Biological Monitoring
Tier 3 Monitoring will be a chemical evaluation of the ojfsite dredged material layer and
will consist of taking a minimum of 5 sediment samples in those areas determined from
the SVPS image analysis to have impaired benthic recolonization. Samples will be
appropriately stored and returned to an on-shore laboratory for chemical analysis and
will follow the same evaluation hierarchy as detailed for onsite sediments starting in Tier
1 of the Chemical/Bioeffects Module (see Figure I).
If the results from the Tier 2 analysis of the SVPS images show impaired recolonization and
there is knowledge that the sediments from the area of concern have not been placed at the site
very recently (within the past week), then there is a chance that these sediments may have
chemical concentrations that are preventing successful recruitment and reestablishment of the
benthic community. In order to determine whether or not the delay in benthic
recolonization/recovery is due to chemical vs. physical (disposal, trawling, etc.) or biological
(competition, predation) disturbance, at least five sediment grab samples will be taken in the area
of concern for bulk sediment chemistry analysis. The evaluation pathway will be the same as the
one followed for on-site sediments (see next section).
25
-------
3.2 Chemical/Bioeffects Module
Chemical/bioeffects monitoring focuses on the effects of dredged material deposition on the
chemical characteristics of sediments within (and potentially adjacent to) the LA-2 or LA-3
disposal sites and potential effects of biological uptake of contaminants associated with the
sediments. Routine monitoring of selected chemical constituents will be performed as part of
compliance monitoring (to insure that adequate sediment characterization has been accomplished
through the permitting process) and also as a conservative measure to evaluate the long-term
potential for acute and chronic bioeffects from sediment contaminants. Two key components of
evaluating the results from this module will be the Ocean Disposal Database maintained by the
USACE Los Angeles District as well as the CSTF Sediment Quality Database; there will be a
wealth of historical information in the latter database, not only on historical data collected from
the site, but also on the chemical concentrations of sediments approved for disposal from the
dredged material permitting process. As such, it will be important for both the USACE Los
Angeles District or EPA Region DC to maintain the database and keep the information current so
that comparisons with bulk sediment chemistry results from disposal site sampling will be
accurate and reflect the most current information.
Sediments with highly elevated or toxic concentrations of chemical contaminants should not be
disposed of at either the LA-2 or LA-3 sites; extensive pre-disposal testing and evaluation is used
to identify sediments that meet the stringent ocean disposal criteria (EPA/USACE 1991). This
sediment testing required as part of the permit processing should identify and exclude from
ocean disposal any sediments that are toxic or pose an unacceptable risk of bioaccumulation to
the marine environment. However, the SMMP recognizes that occasionally some small volumes
of unsuitable material may be missed in the pre-dredging characterization studies, or that
unintentional disposal of some excluded material could potentially occur in rare occasions.
Direct chemical monitoring of the deposited sediments within the disposal site will accurately
reflect the concentrations of material available to biological receptors as a back-up
verification/validation of the permit characterization process. This ensures that decisions about
the need for Management Action as described in Section 4 are based on more accurate
knowledge about actual site conditions.
3.2.1 Tier 1 Onsite Chemical Monitoring
Tier 1 chemical monitoring shall consist of collecting, processing, and storing grab
samples of surface sediments from at least 10 stations randomly located on the dredged
material deposit (as determined from disposal location records, multibeam, or SVPS
results) that will be analyzed for chemicals of concern and evaluated against known
historical sediment chemistry values from both past disposal site surveys and dredged
material characterization studies.
26
-------
Tier 1 chemical monitoring is designed to address the following question: Do concentrations of
chemicals of concern in dredged material actually deposited at either LA-2 or LA-3 significantly
exceed the range of concentrations in the dredged material either already at the site or pre-
approved by the EPA and USACE for disposal at the site?
Sediment samples will be collected at a minimum of 10 stations and analyzed for grain-size
properties, total organic carbon (TOC), and, at a minimum, the suite of trace metals, chlorinated
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and other
organic compounds/classes listed as part of the regional guidance for dredged material permit
characterization. Compound- and metal-specific detection limits and other quality control
requirements must be consistent with this regional guidance. Additional analytes may be added if
information from bulk chemical characterizations of the material approved for disposal at LA-2
or LA-3 indicates a potential for cumulative effects in the disposal site sediments.
The top 10 cm (3.9 inches) of surface sediments will be removed from an acceptable grab or box
core for chemical analysis. An acceptable grab or box core is one where:
•	the sampler is not overfilled, which could be indicative of sample loss;
•	overlying water is present indicating sample integrity;
•	the sediment surface appears to be relatively undisturbed; and
•	the desired sample depth has been achieved (ideally, at least 1 or 2 cm [0.4 - 0.8 inches]
should remain at the bottom of the sampler after the upper layer has been subsampled).
If sample acceptability criteria are met, overlying water will be carefully siphoned off (if the
water is turbid, it could be allowed to settle out for a short period). In order to remove sediments
from the grab or box core for chemical analyses, a sample aliquot will be collected to the
appropriate sediment depth (10 cm; 3.9 inches) and placed either in the appropriate sample jar or
in a mixing container, such as a stainless steel bowl. It is recommended that sample aliquots be
collected from the grab or box core with stainless steel utensils such as spoons, spatulas, or flat-
bottomed hand trowels, although Teflon implements may be substituted. Sufficient sediment
shall be collected for immediate post-cruise bulk chemical analyses as well as enough for
potential bioassay/bioaccumulation tests, should they need to be performed later. This would
also require collecting and archiving sediment from the site reference stations for later
bioassay/bioaccumulation tests, should they need to be run.
Trigger levels that would initiate proceeding to Tier 2 evaluations (requiring testing of the
remaining archived sediment from the initial cruise) would not be determined by comparing
disposal site sediment chemistry results to reference site results (we would expect these to be
different), but rather to existing site historical concentrations and concentrations of sediments
permitted to go to the site. This would be done by multiple comparisons of site monitoring
results to the recent (since the last monitoring event) pre-disposal testing concentration ranges
(approved for ocean disposal) as well as a tolerance interval based on historical data. The
27
-------
tolerance interval would be constructed on the historical data to contain at least 80 percent of
the population of background (historical) data with 95-percent confidence. The exact
distribution of the historical data is unknown, so the tolerance interval is a random interval; that
is, the tolerance bounds are random variables computed from the sample statistics derived from
the observed historical data. A beta-content upper tolerance bound with 80-percent coverage and
95-percent confidence indicates that we have 95-percent confidence that 80 percent of the
population will be less than the tolerance bound. If any of the disposal site samples exceed both
the pre-disposal concentration ranges and this tolerance bound, we conclude that they are
different from the historical population and warrant further investigation, as described in Tier 2
or Tier 3 monitoring. If concentrations are not elevated compared to these ranges, then no further
chemical/bioeffects monitoring or Management Action is required. Because trigger levels will be
derived from measurements taken for specific projects that have disposed material at either
ODMDS up to the time of the monitoring event, these values (trigger levels) are expected to
change on a year-to-year basis. Consequently, a table of specific trigger levels is not provided in
this SMMP; the site monitoring reports, published separately, will report the trigger levels used
for comparison during the period being covered.
3.2.2 Tier 2 Onsite Chemical/Bioeffects Monitoring
Tier 2 Chemical/Bioeffects monitoring shall consist of first evaluating the elevated
chemical concentrations to see if they represent bioaccumulative compounds of concern
(BCOCs). If BCOCs exceed pre-disposal testing concentration ranges, then sediments
from both the dredged material layer as well as the ODMDS reference station(s) will be
evaluated with bioaccumulation tests; if they do not, then sediments from both the
dredged material layer as well as the ODMDS reference station(s) will be evaluated with
acute toxicity testing.
Tier 2 chemical/bioeffects monitoring addresses the following question: Do the elevated
chemical concentrations represent bioavailable contaminants that will adversely affect the marine
environment?
Sediments collected during the Tier 1 activities should be stored at 4° C for up to 6 weeks in the
event that acute or chronic bioeffects testing needs to be performed. If sufficient sediment for
bioassay/bioaccumulation testing is not collected during the initial survey cruise or if there is a
chance that holding times will be violated because of delays in laboratory scheduling for the
Tier 1 analyses, then it will be necessary for EPA Region IX as part of their management
strategy to shift the target of any ongoing disposal operations to another location within the site
boundary so that that sediments characterized during Tier 1 are still available for Tier 2
evaluation and not covered by new material being placed at the site. Sufficient sediments would
then have to be collected at areas of concern and the reference station(s) for either bioassay or
bioaccumulation testing according to regional guidance and Green Book protocols.
28
-------
If BCOCs are not present at elevated concentrations and the sediments pass the bioassay tests,
while no Management Actions are required, a review of the management implications, e.g.,
dredged material characterization permitting procedures or tolerance intervals of the historical
database for Tier 1 evaluations, will be warranted given the desire to reduce the number of false
positive triggers in future monitoring events. If the sediments fail the bioassay tests, then EPA
Region IX and USACE Los Angeles District personnel will either require Tier 3 additional
offsite investigations or need to implement the appropriate Management Actions (Section 4).
If BCOCs are present at elevated concentrations, either the remaining archived sediment from
the initial Tier I survey or newly collected sediments will be subjected to bioaccumulation testing
according to regional guidance and Green Book protocols. If the sediments fail the
bioaccumulation tests, then EPA Region IX and USACE Los Angeles District personnel will
either require Tier 3 additional offsite investigations or need to implement the appropriate
Management Actions (Section 4).
3.2.3 Tier 3 Offsite Monitoring
Tier 3 offsite monitoring and/or management activities shall be determined by EPA
Region IX and USACE Los Angeles District personnel based on which results caused
initiation of this level of activity.
Tier 3 offsite monitoring addresses the following question: Do the adverse effects discovered
within the disposal site affect any resources of concern outside the site?
Depending on the nature and extent of the adverse effects detected within the site, additional
sampling outside the disposal site may or may not be required. For example, if sediments from
just one or a few of the 10 locations sampled during Tier 1 activities showed adverse biological
effects, regulatory personnel may determine that a management action such as directing future
disposal activities to the area of concern would alleviate the problem by covering the affected
sediment with a new layer of dredged material and effectively removing the source of exposure
for any biological receptors. However, the concern for adverse impacts to biological resources
may extend outside the site to either benthic invertebrates or higher trophic levels, and additional
sampling activities may be required, such as:
•	collection of benthic invertebrates outside the site to determine, if they have elevated
tissue concentrations of contaminants of concern compared to organisms found at
reference areas;
•	collection of demersal fish species in the vicinity of the disposal site to determine, if they
have elevated tissue concentrations of contaminants of concern;
•	grabs or box cores for detailed benthic community analyses to determine, if there are
population-level impacts from elevated chemical concentrations (Gray, 1979; Ferraro and
Cole, 1997; Oug et al., 1998; Stark, 1998; Trannuma et al., 2004); and
29
-------
• additional SVPS sampling to determine the nature and extent of gradients in sediment
oxygen demand, organic loading, sediment type, or benthic population structure.
The precise design of the sampling program, including the location of organism collection sites,
would be determined by the area of potential impact as defined in the monitoring tasks which led
to this tier as well as the distribution of the dredged material footprint as determined by the
Physical Monitoring module.
4.0 Management Actions
As shown in Figure 1, the results of any monitoring task that drop down to Tier 2 or 3 cause
either a review of management implications or a management action. The review of management
implications (triggered by either disposed material outside the site boundary in excess of 15 cm
[5.9 inches] or bulk sediment chemistry values greater than pre-disposal test concentration
ranges or the tolerance interval calculated from the historical data base) could mean one or more
of the following problems exist:
•	Control of disposal operations is not occurring as planned;
•	Numerical modeling predictions are inaccurate (site boundary may be too small);
•	Inadequate characterization of dredged material during the permitting process (material is
either more heterogeneous than anticipated or sampling density for characterizing a
specified volume is too low);
•	The tolerance envelope calculated from the historical data is too narrow and needs to be
expanded; or
•	The tolerance envelope needs to be recalculated with different weighting factors applied
to historical sampling data from the disposal site vs. permit characterization data (the two
sources of data are not equivalent with respect to characterizing the mean and variability
of contaminant concentrations on the disposal mound).
Depending on which path leads to the "Review Management Implications" box in Figure 1,
further investigations would identify which of the above problems is most likely the cause of the
false positive trigger and allow correction once EPA Region IX and USACE Los Angeles
District personnel concur on the proper remedy and adjustment to the management plan.
However, each agency is free to operate solely under its own authority as outlined in Table 1.
If, however, it is determined that the potential for risk to human health or the marine
environment exists because of bioavailable contaminants being placed at the site, the potential
management actions include any or all of the following actions:
•	Review and revise the sediment characterization process as part of permit activity;
30
-------
•	Suspend or modify any further use of the site while the cause of the problem is being
identified;
•	Cap the affected area with a sufficient volume of clean sediments to ensure the
bioavailable contaminants are permanently isolated from any biological receptors;
•	Identify additional monitoring tasks that must be performed to better identify or delineate
the source of the problem; and
•	Permanently terminate use of the site, if this is the only means for eliminating the adverse
environmental impacts
In general, any management action would be initiated only after consensus has been reached
between EPA Region IX and USACE Los Angeles District. EPA and the USACE still retain
their respective authority over the disposal site and dredging site, and may exercise their
independent authority (i.e., enforcement) if appropriate and necessary for environmental
protection in either area. Any changes to the SMMP will be published by EPA.
5.0 References
AHF (Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California).
1959 Oceanographic Survey of the Continental Shelf Area of Southern California. Submitted
to the California State Water Pollution Control Board. Publication No. 20. October
1958.
AHF
1965 An Oceanographic and Biological Survey of the Southern California Mainland Shelf.
Submitted to the California State Water Quality Control Board. Publication No. 27.
December 1963.
Allen, M.J., and A.J. Mearns
1977 Bottom Fish Populations below 200 Meters. Pages 109-115 in Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report 1977.
Allen, M.J., S.L. Moore, K.C. Schiff, S.B. Weisberg, D. Diener, J.K. Stull, A. Groce,
J. Mubarak, C.L. Tang, and R. Gartman
1998 Southern California Bight 1994 Pilot Project: V. Demersal Fishes and Megabenthic
Invertebrates. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Brenchley, G.A.
1981 Disturbance and Community Structure: An Experimental Study of Bioturbation in
Marine Soft-Bottom Environments. Journal of Marine Research 39(4):767-790.
31
-------
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game)
2002 Unpublished Catch Block Data, 1999-2001.
Chambers Group
2001 Data Analysis of the Sediment and Biological Baseline Survey at LA-3 and LA-2 for
Dredged Material Ocean Disposal Site Designation. Draft report. Prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. November.
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC)
1996 Annual Report 1995. Including a Ten-Year Synthesis: 1985-1995. Marine Monitoring
Compliance Report.
CSDOC
1998 Annual Report 1997. Marine Monitoring Report.
CE
2004 Fate of Dredged Material Disposed at LA-3 and LA-2. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles District. February.
Cross, J.
1987 Fishes of the Upper Slope off Southern California. CalCOFI Vol. 28: 155-167.
Dawson, J.K., and R.E. Pieper
1993 Zooplankton. Chapter 6 in M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds.), Ecology
of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. Berkley, CA.
University of California Press.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
1987 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Los Angeles/Long Beach (LA-2) Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site: Site Designation.
EPA/USACE
1991 Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual. EPA-
503/8-91/001. Office of Water (WH-556F). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/
oceans/gbook/.
EPA/USACE
1996 Guidance Document for Development of Site Management Plans for Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Sites. Office of Water (4504F). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/
owow/oceans/ndt/siteplan.html.
32
-------
Ferraro, S.P., Cole, F.A.
1997 Effects of DDT sediment-contamination on macrofaunal community structure and
composition in San Francisco Bay. Mar. Biol. 130: 323- 334.
Gardner, J. 2000
1999	Multibeam Survey of LA3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. December 13,
through December 18, 1999, Newport Beach, California. Administrative Report to US
Army Corps of Engineers, January. 2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA
94025.
Germano, J. D., D.C. Rhoads and J.D. Lunz
1994 An integrated, tiered approach to monitoring and management of dredged material
disposal sites in the New England regions. DAMOS Contribution #87. Report to US
Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA.
Gray, J.S.
1974 Animal-Sediment Relationships. Oceanogr. Marine Biology Annual Review. 12:
223-261.
Gray, J.S.
1979 Pollution-induced changes in populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B 286:
545-561.
Hardy, J.T.
1993 Phytoplankton. Chapter 5 in M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds.),
Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. Berkley,
CA. University of California Press.
IEC (Interstate Electronics Corporation)
1982 Appendices to Los Angeles/Long Beach, California, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site Designation. Interstate Electronics Corporation. Oceanic Engineering
Operations-Anaheim, California. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
Kranz, P.
1974 The Anastrophic Burial of Bivalves and Its Paleontological Significance. Journal of
Geology 82:237-265.
LACSD (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts)
2000	Annual Report 2000: Palos Verdes Ocean Monitoring.
33
-------
MITECH
1990 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for LA-3 Dredged Material Ocean Disposal
Site Designation. January 1990. MITECH, Santa Ana, CA. Prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Maurer, D., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, and W.A. Leathern
1980 Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material - Part I: Mollusca.
Marine Environmental Research 4: 299-319.
Maurer, D., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, W.A. Leathern, C. Wethe, C. Lord, and T.M. Church
1986 Vertical migration and mortality of marine benthos in dredged material: a synthesis.
Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, 71: 49-63.
Maurer, D., G. Robertson, and T. Gerlinger
1994 Trace Metals in the Newport Submarine Canyon, California and the Adjacent Shelf.
Water Environment Research 66(2): 110-118.
Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. Hitchcock
1998 The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to
disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the seabed.
Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 36: 127-178.
Nichols, J.A., G.T. Rowe, C.H.H. Clifford, and R.A. Young
1978 In Situ Experiments on the Burial of Marine Invertebrates. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 48(2): 419-425.
NRC
1990 Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Montiroing. National
Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Oug, E., Naes, K., Rygg, B
1998 Relationship between soft bottom macrofauna and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) from a smelter discharge in Norwegian fjords and coastal waters. Mar. Ecol.,
Progr. Ser. 173: 39-52.
OCSD (Orange County Sanitation District)
2000 Marine Monitoring Annual Report. Compact disk.
Pearson, T. H. and R. Rosenberg
1978 Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine
environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 16: 229-311.
34
-------
Rhoads, D.C., and L.F. Boyer
1982 The effects of marine benthos on physical properties of sediments. In: Animal-
Sediment Relations (P.L. McCall and M.J.S. Tevesz, eds.), Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 3-52.
Rhoads, D.C., and J.D. Germano
1982	Characterization of benthic processes using sediment profile imaging: An efficient
method of Remote Ecological Monitoring Of The Seafloor (REMOTS™ System).
Marine Ecology Progress Series 8: 115-128.
Rhoads, D.C., and J.D. Germano
1986 Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community structure: a new protocol.
Hydrobiologia 142: 291-308.
SAIC
1992 Current Meter Studies and Analysis of Physical Oceanographic Information for the LA-
2 Dredged Material Disposal Site. Final report. Submitted to Environmental Protection
Agency.
SAIC
2000	Strategic Process Study: Newport Canyon Sediments, Tier 1 Assessment. Draft Final
Report, Feb. 2000. Prepared for Orange County Sanitation District.
SAIC
2001	Strategic Process Study #1: Plume Tracking - Ocean Currents. Final report. Prepared
for Orange County Sanitation District, Fountain Valley, CA.
SCCWRP (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project)
1983	A Survey of the Slope off Orange County, California: First Year Report. A Report to
the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, January.
Schiff, K.C., and R.W. Gossett
1998 Southern California Bight 1994 Pilot Project: HI. Sediment chemistry. Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Stark, J.S.
1998 Heavy metal pollution and macrobenthic assemblages in soft sediments in two Sydney
estuaries. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 49: 533- 540.
Tetra Tech and MBC Applied Environmental Sciences
1985 Environmental Assessment for Final Designation of LA 2 Ocean Dredge Material
Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
35
-------
Thrailkill, J.R.
1956 Relative Areal Zooplankton Abundance off the Pacific Coast. USFWS, Special
Scientific Report Fisheries No. 188.
Trannuma, H.C., Olsgard, F., Skeib, J.M., Indrehusc, J., 0veras, S, and J. Eriksen
2004 Effects of copper, cadmium and contaminated harbour sediments on recolonisation of
soft-bottom communities. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 310: 87- 114.
36
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Distances
One-Way Trip	Round-Trip	One-Way Trip	Round-Trip
Distance	Distance Distance	Distance
(Nautical Miles)	(Nautical Miles) (km)	(km)
Harbor/Facility LA-2 LA-3	LA-2 LA-3	LA-2 LA-3	LA-2 LA-3
Regular Maintenance
Los Angeles River Estuary
11
22
23
43
21
40
42
80
Los Angeles Harbor
8
23
16
45
14
42
29
84
Long Beach Harbor
10
22
19
43
18
40
35
80
Marina del Rey
25
46
50
92
47
85
93
171
Sunset/Huntington Harbor
15
20
30
40
27
37
55
74
Newport Harbor
23
6
47
12
43
11
87
23
Dana Point Harbor
33
12
66
24
61
23
122
45
Upper Newport Bay
23
6
47
12
43
11
87
23
Anaheim Bay
12
18
24
36
23
34
45
68
Capital Improvement
Los Angeles Harbor
8
23
16
45
14
42
29
84
Long Beach Harbor
10
22
19
43
18
40
35
80
Upper Newport Bay***
23
6
47
12
43
11
87
23
Page 2 of 38
8/27/2004
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Marine Emissions
Pollutant	Exponent (x)	Intercept (b)	Coefficient (a)
PM	1.5	0.2551	0.0059
NOx	1.5	10.4496	0.1255
N02	1.5	15.5247	0.18865
S02	n/a	n/s	2.3735
CO	1	n/s	0.8378
HC	1.5	n/s	0.0667
C02	1	648.6	44.1
Vessel Power	2200	HP
Vessel Power	1640.54 kW
Fuel Sulfur Content	1.49% % by weight
Vessel Cruise Load Factor =
Vessel Manuvering Load Factor =
80%
20%
Number of Generators	2
Generator Power (per)	75
kW
Generator Load Factor =
100%
Pollutant
PM
NOx
N02
so2
CO
HC
co2
20%
0.3211
11.8527
17.6339
9.7720
4.1890
0.7457
869.1000
Emission Factors (g/kW-hr)
Load Factor (%)
40% S0%	S0%
0.2784 0.2678	0.2633
10.9457 10.7196	10.6250
16.2704 15.9306	15.7883
8.5236 8.1075	7.8994
2.0945 1.3963	1.0473
0.2637 0.1435	0.0932
758.8500 722.1000	703.7250
100%
0.2610
10.5751
15.7134
7.7746
0.8378
0.0667
692.7000
Fuel Consumption
(g/kW-hr)
Fuel Sulfur Flow
(g/kW-hr)
276.3
4.12
241.0
3.59
229.3
3.42
223.4
3.33
219.8
3.28
Page 5 of 38
8/27/2004
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Max Daily Summary
Worst-Case Year Maximum Daily Emissions
Assumes 10-hour Day, 313 Work-day Year
(pounds per day)
Alternative 1
(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Pollutant
PM
NOx
N02
so2
CO
HC
co2
47
1889
2807
1415
223
25
126067
79
3172
4714
2373
360
38
211340
69
2753
4091
2066
334
38
183997
63
2530
3760
1895
296
33
168798
Fuel Consumption 40020
67088
58411
53585
Page 30 of 38
8/27/2004
-------
Max Avg Daily Summary
Worst-Case Year Average Daily Emissions
Assumes 10-hour Day, 313 Work-day Year
(pounds per day)
Alternative 1
(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Pollutant
PM
NOx
N02
S02
CO
HC
co2
5
205
305
154
24
3
13677
20
817
1214
610
90
9
54333
10
402
598
302
50
6
26896
13
530
788
397
62
7
35373
Fuel Consumption 4342
17247
8539
11229
Page 31 of 38
8/27/2004
-------
Max Avg Quarterly Summary
Pollutant
Worst-Case Year Average Quarterly Emissions
(pounds per quarter)
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
PM
467
1855
918
1208
NOx
18701
74532
36689
48380
no2
27791
110758
54525
71898
so2
14011
55658
27554
36237
CO
2197
8176
4521
5650
HC
243
844
522
622
co2
1247997
4957895
2454269
3227751
Fuel Consumption
396176
1573795
779139
1024644
Worst-Case Year Average Quarterly Emissions
(tons per quarter)

Alternative 1




(No Action)
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Pollutant




PM
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.6
NOx
9.4
37
18
24
no2
14
55
27
36
so2
7.0
28
14
18
CO
1.1
4.1
2.3
2.8
HC
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
co2
624
2479
1227
1614
Fuel Consumption
198
787
390
512
Page 32 of 38	8/27/2004
-------
Max Yearly Summary
Worst-Case Year Average Yearly Emissions
(tons per year)
Alternative 1
(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Pollutant
PM
1
4
2
2
NOx
37
149
73
97
no2
56
222
109
144
so2
28
111
55
72
CO
4
16
9
11
HC
0
2
1
1
co2
2496
9916
4909
6456
Fuel Consumption	792	3148	1558	2049
Page 33 of 38
8/27/2004
-------
Avg Daily Summary
Average Daily Emissions
10-Year Project Assessment Period
(pounds per day)
Alternative 1
(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Pollutant
PM
0.6
2.3
1.2
1.4
NOx
26
93
47
58
no2
38
138
70
86
so2
19
69
35
43
CO
3
10
6
7
HC
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.7
co2
1724
6173
3145
3866
Fuel Consumption	547
Page 34 of 38
8/27/2004
-------
Avg Quarterly Summary
Alternative 1
(No Action)
Pollutant
PM
59
211
107
132
NOx
2360
8470
4294
5288
no2
3507
12587
6381
7859
S02
1766
6323
3222
3960
CO
270
924
521
617
HC
29.1
94.9
59.3
67.8
co2
157296
563284
287008
352777
Fuel Consumption 49932	178804	91113	111988
Average Quarterly Emissions
10-Year Project Assessment Period
(pounds per quarter)
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Average Quarterly Emissions
10-Year Project Assessment Period
(tons per quarter)
Alternative 1
(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Pollutant
PM
0.03
0.11
0.05
0.07
NOx
1.2
4.2
2.1
2.6
no2
1.8
6.3
3.2
3.9
so2
0.9
3.2
1.6
2.0
CO
0.13
0.46
0.26
0.31
HC
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.03
co2
79
282
144
176
Fuel Consumption	25	89	46	56
Page 35 of 38
8/27/2004
-------
Avg Yearly Summary
Average Yearly Emissions
10-Year Project Assessment Period
(tons per year)
Alternative 1
(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Pollutant
PM
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.3
NOx
5
17
9
11
no2
7
25
13
16
S02
4
13
6
8
CO
0.5
1.8
1.0
1.2
HC
0.06
0.19
0.12
0.14
co2
315
1127
574
706
Fuel Consumption	100	358	182	224
Page 36 of 38
8/27/2004
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------